Downing Street memo

Uh oh! Now we have to argue again about whose head is in the sand. Is it really worth it?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IALTMANN\";p=\"106992)</div>

You mean just like Paula Corbin Jones and Whitewater?

 

FredaGolf...YOU guy's are the ones with the head in the sand, about these petty attacks, designed to be "he said" "she said", it ain't PC...Gotcha politicis

Even with the press of this country on your side mostly, even then, never mind the American people, these attacks are getting OLD....It is obvious what is going on.......never mind the view points and opinions, it is POLITICAL and that is all.

But you guys keep right on doing it., Who is it that has got their heads in the sand???????

 

I knew it, I just knew it!

 

Love this forum., just love getting you all worked up on useless and vicious little stuff like this. No matter what the opinions and statements, each side will stand their ground. PS Rove is already over, what is your next target, maybe we can re-name the thread again!!

 

Just keep those guns blazing. You are truly the best!

 

Don't worry, it's gonna keep coming

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IALTMANN\";p=\"106992)</div>

The White House version of the Rove story has changed about 15 times, and that is in just the last 48 hours.

And your story above sounds like a version that was operative about 16 hours ago. I suggest you go back to Faux News, or the RNC website -- oops those are the same thing -- and get the latest talking points.

 

Prius04, I encourage you to grab onto this story like a bulldog. I'm confident you'll uncover with all the facts and dazzle us with your conclusions. I look forward to the outcome.

 

Great! Sounds just like that cowboy from Texas that has made the world so proud.

 

Yea. Prius...and the reported initially asked about some welfare question. The facts are coming out, and again, the more I hear the more my case is getting better. PS what law was broken, and don't tell me about the CIA agents law, because that one has already been discredited by the VERY author of that law. Rove was trying to help the reported, unlike your counterparts who calculate and plot out every step. That is what is coming out...also please list the 15 changes that the white house has had, all Bush ever said was that (and full context will show this) that anyone who lknowingly leaked and was found to have violated laws, would be removed from his administration, you all interpret that to mean anybody who says anything about it should be gone (Republicans only), well that is not what was, so Rove will be there in 2006 and 2008. It is amazing how you all just tag stuff on Republicans, how about Hillary and the 900 FBI files and the "ghost" who was collecting them??

 

I have no desire to respond to this until the Republican spinners arrive at their final version of the story.

Right now, you've got spokemen saying that Rove never actually used the name of Plame, while Rove's lawyer admitting that this distinction has no legal meaning. And the law itself talks about making the identity known. It makes no mention of naming a name.

You've got some spokesman saying the Plame was a low level CIA worker, and then another spokesman saying she was so powerful she orchestrated her husband going to Niger.

You've go some spokesman saying back in 2004 saying that this is /was a horrible leak, and now you've got spokesmen saying it had no meaning.

You've got spokesmen saying that Valerie Plame hasn't been an operative for 9 years, and the CIA saying that this means nothing. Even retired operatives can't be leaked due to the fact that getting the names out there will threaten confidants who they worked with decades earlier.

You've got Bush saying back in 2004 that he would fire whoever leaked this identity, and the guy who leaked this identity having admitted it, and Bush now saying that he won't. (IA, as for your comment above on what Bush actually said, there is indeed a Faux News story about Bush saying what you said he said. And Faux News is giving that statement a lot of air time. But Bush did not comment on this only once, and Scott McClellan did not comment on this only once. And it is VERY clear that Bush and McClellan made it clear that the leaker would be fired.)

You've got spokesmen saying this is a trivial event, yet if it's so trivial, why did the CIA ask the Justice Department to investigate it 2 years ago. And if it's so trivial, why did a few Federal Judges decide to try to jail 2 reporters, and succeeded with one of them.

Funny thing about videotape and web sites. Much of what was said 2 years ago is still out there. So the Republicans keep having to change history when they throw out trial talking points that then conflict with history.

But don't worry, when you look at the talking points of Novak, and Rove, and Luskin, and Faux News, and Bill O"Really, and Rush, and Mehlman, the Republican version of the story is starting to come together. It should be another day or two before they come up with a final enough version that is less preposterous. But even when that happens I probably still won't respond.

You see, I really don't care about Rove and Bush. I care about America. And I'm not part of any organized anti Bush group, like there is a well oiled pro-Bush groups. Yes, there are lots of people who dislike Bush, and some of them even have money, but our organization is abysmal. Which is very unlike the organization that exists for the those that want GW's agenda to succeed.

IA and EJ and RT, you all have web sites that you can go to, and an entire news network, to help you come up with your talking points. Those that care about all of Amerca, and not just segments of America don't.

 

Wow! And I thought I got him.

 

From the July 13 issue of the Los Angeles Times:

During George H.W. Bush's second presidential campaign, Rove was fired from the campaign team because of suspicions that he had leaked information to columnist Robert Novak — the same columnist who first reported Plame's CIA role in 2003, citing anonymous administration sources.

 

I can't believe Novak has come through this unscathed. Maybe it is because Jon Stewart hates him so much.

 

Hey guys off to FT HOOD, anyway..the Rove Affair is over. Turns out Novak called Rove and was only getting a second verification, from his primary source still un-revealed. It's over guys, ROVE STAYS..BYE have a nice weekend. The news is more and more exonerating Rove, with FACTS, not polls and assumptions and suspicions and conclusions.

 

Well probably it is over. But I hope not. I hope they didn't put one reporter in jail and almost another one over a case they didn't have. They probably did and to me that is the sadest part of this whole affair.

 

2 years ago we were told by Rove, and the White House spokesman, on behalf of GW, that Rove had nothing to do with this. Now we hear that Rove verified this story and therefore was the second source for a reporter that wanted two sources before he ran the story.

How is this not a lie? And how does this not qualify as "outing" a secret service agent?

And now we know that there is still an unknown primary source. This primary source is clearly a high government source. You are right that this primary source has not be revealed. But only to us has it not been revealed. We have no idea what Fitzgerald knows.

And from the sounds of things, Fitzgerald knew about what we are just finding out about over a year ago. Yet he still pursued Cooper and Miller.

Suggesting that this is "over" sounds suspiciously like "Watergate was just a 3rd rate burglary". (or was it a 2nd rate.... it's been a long time.)

 

Prius 04:

I can't believe your naitievity....The whole thing started when an "unknown" person who was after embarrasing a conservative reporter (Novak)., telling him that a trip to Niger for this diplomat want to be, was arranged by the Vice President. Novak was suspicious, because this same NY times person, had published a NY Times article contradicting the story. So Novak called Rove because he did not trust this reporter, and called Rove under other pretenses, and ran a "by the way" question about all this. Note that this same reporter, who also had called Rove had gotten the scoop from the same "unknown" person. Yet the story was differrent between Rove, and differrent between Novak. It was a set up to embarass Novak, it back fired, and so Rove was blamed as to the game playing, because of the Niger and State of the Union "mis-statements" (which by the way British Intelligence still stands by them).

I would not speak too soon, bub, this may be a Democratic tick gone wrong, I look at both sides and readily admit, that BOTH may have been playing the GOTCHA game. Please note none of the above statements are opinions, these are FACTS, that have come out, from an independent investigation as requested by Democrats, because they did not trust the Justice Dept. at that time to adequately investigate this matter. Please be sure to read the BACK pages of the N.Y. Times, for the truth, because that is where the real end of this story will wind up, if it makes it to that paper at all. Indications are that this whole mess may have originated there.

As for the Outing...first she was not an active CIA foreign operative at the time., she had left the field 7 yrs prior, and was a full time Langley employee. Also it was VERY common knowledge exactly what she did and where she was employed, to the point all the neighbors even knew. You are right it ain't over, (if a Republican had anything to do with it) BUT will it be over if it was a Democrat that started the little caper ????

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IALTMANN\";p=\"108110)</div>

Welcome back from Ft Hood. But I think you need to go back to Faux News and the RNC web site. Most of your points above are so 24 hours ago. They have been for the most part totally discredited.

And if it was so "over" why is Fitzgerald still going strong? Over the weekend, Mehlman (he's the head of the RNC for those not keeping score. and Fitzgerald is the special prosecutor. However, unlike Ken Starr who was a special prosecutor under the special prosecutor law, Fitzgerald works for the Attorney General and thus can be fired, just like Archibald Cox was.), Well, Mehlman went on and on about Fitzgerald's integrity and honesty. But when the pundits asked him would he, Mehlman still be singing praises of Fitzgerald if there is an indictment, he refused to answer. The point Mehlman made was that he was the head of the RNC, and when and if Fitz indicted someone, he, Mehlman, had to respond as the head of the RNC.

So whats the moral of that part of the story? Mehlman is more concerned about the Republican party "winning" this one, then he is concerned about the facts, wherever they may lead.

Now if you want to be associated with that kind of perspective, be my guest. If Howard Dean ever said something like this, it would be all over the press 24/7.