Better toke a new one, Mr. Soul...

Cuz this must hurt you in all kinds of ways…

http://www.startribune.com/587/story/489575.html

and TomS has been waiting for a Rove indictment…guess he’ll have to put Rove’s orange jumpsuit back in the closet and prejudge someone else…oh! wait a minute! It doesn’t matter what Fitzgerald said, Rove is still guilty dagnabbit!! He’s friends with Bush! He HAS to be guilty! I just know he is! Those wascally wepublicans will get thiers!! :p

Hrmph. I have been waiting for it - based on a reasonably good journalist’s sources it was coming - but I haven’t prejudged - the guy is poison, Bob, part of a pack of jackels who are trying to make our democracy much less democratic, and has been involved in so many “ethically challenged” actions I’m surprised you defend him. But “prejudge” is not the correct term here - since my judgment is based on what Rove has done, it can’t be “prejudgment” - and there is always a distinction to be made between what the law will support in a given case, and the normative status of the totality of one’s actions.

Why do you want to defend him?

No joy in Mudville.

It seems that Karl Rove the great and powerful puppet massster will not be charged with any crime in Plame kerfuffle. Sorry lefties, no perp march for Karl! As long as no one lies to the special prosecutor or the grand jury they will not be charged because there in fact seems to be no underlying crime. Plame did not fit the statue intention of being a “secret” agent, but simply at that point in her career was just a CIA employee. Libby on the other hand seems to be a dumbass that couldn’t help but lie to Fitzgerald.

Hey Tom,

Please don’t read into my posts as “defending” Rove…I am just having a go at the group of people out there suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Cheers,
C

Oh, I was answering Bob. :)

Funny thing is, the source for the NYT is Luskin, Rove’s attorney, and Fitzgerald isn’t talking. It’d be really funny if it turned out to be false. And Leopold, the original reporter, along with mark Ash of trouthout.com, are standing by their original reporting, although they won’t reveal their sources.

But it probably won’t. :)

Yes - I’m very disappointed in Rove not being indicted but you should be also. Rove lied to the American people, he lied to Fitzgerald and got away with it. And if you don’t think he lied, then you are a blind fool.

A CIA agents position was leaked to the press & we as Americans should not permit that kind of crap. But this nation has gotten to the point where partisan politics is the norm of the day.

I listened to Bush this morning & it was pathetic. We get the President that we deserve.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 14 2006,17:21)
Yes - I'm very disappointed in Rove not being indicted but you should also. Rove lied to the American people, he lied to Fitzgerald and got away with it. And if you don't think he lied, then you are a blind fool.

A CIA agents position was leaked to the press & we as Americans should not permit that kind of crap. But this nation has gotten to the point where partisan politics is the norm of the day.

I listened to Bush this morning & it was pathetic. We get the President that we deserve.

Rove testified five times and YOU think he LIED??? Libby is the one who was indicted, not Rove, and for lying. Why would Fitzy indict Libby and not Rove if Rove lied. Talk about living in denial.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Rove testified five times and YOU think he LIED???

Have you followed the case at all - obviously not? Rove definitely lied about meeting with the Newsweek reporter. He later testified that he had forgotten. I (and Fitzgerald) think that he lied but if you can’t prove it, then you’ve got no case.

Rove also lied to McCellan who tried to pitifully defend him.

It’s a shame & disgrace. Bush still won’t even talk about it. You all should be ashamed!
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 14 2006,17:32)
Have you followed the case at all - obviously not? Rove definitely lied about meeting with the Newsweek reporter. He later testified that he had forgotten. I (and Fitzgerald) think that he lied but if you can't prove it, then you've got no case.

He may not be able to prove that Libby lied, but that's not stopping him. Why would he not be able to prove Rove lied, especially when you're so convinced that he did??

It’s my belief that he lied. Fitzerald just didn’t have a case or Rove would have been indicted.

He told something that wasn’t true. You decide if it was a lie or not.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13301765/from/RS.2/

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
WASHINGTON - The decision not to charge Karl Rove shows there often are no consequences for misleading the public.

In 2003, while Rove allowed the White House to tell the news media that he had no role in leaking Valerie Plame’s CIA identity, the presidential aide was secretly telling the FBI the truth.

It’s now known that Rove had discussed Plame’s CIA employment with conservative columnist Robert Novak, who exposed her identity less than a week later, citing two unidentified senior administration officials.

Rove’s truth-telling to the FBI saved him from indictment.

And by misleading reporters, the White House saved itself from a political liability during the 2004 presidential campaign.

While the president and the vice president underwent questioning by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald in 2004, Rove’s role never surfaced. The lone blip on the radar screen was a one-day flurry of news stories the month before Election Day when Rove was brought before a federal grand jury - one of his five grand jury appearances in the probe.

The extent of Rove’s involvement didn’t become official until Oct. 28 of last year, when Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, was indicted on charges of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI about how he learned of Plame’s CIA identity and what he told reporters about it.

The indictment recounted Rove’s conversation with Novak about the CIA officer, as Rove later related it to Libby.
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 14 2006,17:21)
Rove lied to the American people, he lied to Fitzgerald and got away with it. And if you don't think he lied, then you are a blind fool.



It's my belief that he lied. Fitzerald just didn't have a case or Rove would have been indicted.

He told something that wasn't true. You decide if it was a lie or not.

Ok.

First post, he DID lie, correct? you have irrefutable proof there, obviously, by the strength of your statement.

Second post, you BELIEVE he lied? Did your proof vanish or...?

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 14 2006,17:21)
And if you don’t think he lied, then you are a blind fool.

Now now Mike,

Is it really nec. to resort to name calling?

We can all be civil in these debates. :laugh:

Mis-informed, integrity deceived, benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty…

But a fool?

That’s a harsh word to throw around among friends. :p



<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
You all should be ashamed!


Shame indeed.

Knowing your right and successfully convincing others of it are two different things.
And when you cross the line while educating all, you run the risk of being heard by none.

I myself am not innocent of this, only would share my shortcoming in the hopes it would benifit you.

keep shinin’

jerm

:cool:

Jeremysdemo I’ve broke mustangs that were smarter than you, and all of them could spell better.

But I suppose every rodeo needs a clown.

Let’s make it very simple - he told something that was untrue and the later said his memory was bad. If Clinton had done that you would have called him a liar, so I’m using the Clinton standard. He definitely McCellan that he wasn’t involved but we know he was.

Even simplier - Rove told several reporters about Valerie Plame’s identity and several days later Robert Novak printed that, thereby exposing her. All the people that were invovled in the cover company she was working for were all exposed. Anyone she knew when she worked overseas were exposed. Outing a CIA agent is serious business, even if she was married to a partisan.

Quote (Guest @ June 14 2006,23:53)
Jeremysdemo I’ve broke mustangs that were smarter than you, and all of them could spell better.

But I suppose every rodeo needs a clown.

That’s funny because I ran the words through a spell check. ???
I guess it helps if you start out with the right word though! :;):

Anyway, speaking of clowns…

Most clowns know how to sign up for a forum. And understand that they aren’t listened too or taken seriously when they remain trolls.

I guess they eventually have to leave the cess pool again though! eh there bru! :p

My freinds call me, jerm, my aquaintances jeremy, but you sir are neither, so jeremysdemo is just fine thank you.


keep shinin’

jerm :cool:

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,00:01)
Let's make it very simple - he told something that was untrue and the later said his memory was bad. If Clinton had done that you would have called him a liar, so I'm using the Clinton standard. He definitely McCellan that he wasn't involved but we know he was.

Even simplier - Rove told several reporters about Valerie Plame's identity and several days later Robert Novak printed that, thereby exposing her. All the people that were invovled in the cover company she was working for were all exposed. Anyone she knew when she worked overseas were exposed. Outing a CIA agent is serious business, even if she was married to a partisan.

Thanks again for simplyfing something for me Mike. I never grow tired.

You are a giver...

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,00:01)
Let’s make it very simple - he told something that was untrue and the later said his memory was bad. If Clinton had done that you would have called him a liar, so I’m using the Clinton standard. He definitely McCellan that he wasn’t involved but we know he was.

Let’s make it simpler. Rove wasn’t indicted after being called in FIVE times. If he mentioned to a couple of reporters that Wilson’s wife got him the job, it was only to clear up the confusion that Wilson created by suggesting he was working for Cheney. The memo that Rove had access to mentioned nothing about Plame’s job being sensitive or classified, so it’s not like Rove would have known that Plame would be at risk.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,00:01)
Even simplier - Rove told several reporters about Valerie Plame’s identity and several days later Robert Novak printed that, thereby exposing her. All the people that were invovled in the cover company she was working for were all exposed. Anyone she knew when she worked overseas were exposed. Outing a CIA agent is serious business, even if she was married to a partisan.

Let’s make this more “simplier.” If you’re a CIA agent whose cover needs to be protected, don’t tell your boss that your husband can do a job for the company and then let your husband write an editorial about the job in a major newspaper. Friends, family and neighbors get suspicious when they’ve never seen where you worked and all of a sudden your husband gets a temporary job helping the CIA with no background in that type of work and no known assocation to the CIA. Wouldn’t take too much to figure out there might be a connection with the wife.

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant: It’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

- Ronald Reagan