Quote:I am 100% positive about my statement.I am pretty sure that this is an incorrect statement. The CIA will use "normal" people with a real history and track record IRL to do work for them. The difference is usually that their handlers don't know ther real names, and material ascribed from them doesn't use their real name, and is presented in a fashion that leaves the original source as anonymous as possible. I am pretty sure that I read documented evidence from the Cold War shows where people with "real lives" were used to collect information.<
>
<
>
I am sure that there some types of espionage that require that type of cover, like whatever your friend did. But this isn't the only method of intelligence gathering, from what I can guess/tell.<
>
<i></i>

How did you dispute what I said Berrew? You flat out say that you dont believe what I am saying is true, than present nothing that contradicts what I said. I did not say HE was a covert op, just that he could not talk about what he did. But he could tell me the procedures for covert ops, as I am sure he had to deal with those procedures. Not sure what your point in contradicting me is. <
>
Chicks dig the ears.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...v=hcmodule<
>
<
>
When demanding someone be fired for outing an operative, Mr. Kerry, you should probably be very careful that you aren't doing the same thing.<
>
<
>
It will be interesting to see how that plays out as well. <i></i>

Quote:Tuesday, April 12, 2005; Page A10<
>
<
>
Where is the outrage!<
>
<
>
<
>
LMAO<
>
<i></i>

_________________
"It so happens that everything that is stupid is not unconstitutional."
-A. Scalia

Coming from someone who tried to make everyone believe he was a female for years, information from your "friend" can hardly be construed as factual evidence in any debate.<
>
<
>
--Dar <
>
<
>
"This is the flag of the future, but it does not dishonour the past."<i></i>

Yeah because my roleplaying in a game really is an indicator of my character.... go back to canada moron. <
>
Chicks dig the ears.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

Quote:go back to canada moron. <
>
<
>
Actually you don't have to leave your country of origin in order to use the internet, just so you know.<
>
<
>
--Dar <i></i>

Your intellect and ability to absorb sarcasm is staggering. <
>
Chicks dig the ears.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

Quote:than present nothing that contradicts what I said.Your original claim was that, because the name Valerie Plame was known, that his wife was outed. <
>
<
>
Quote:<
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<
>
Annastazia: I fail to see how that outed her as a CIA operative.<
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<
>
<
>
The #1 rule of being a CIA operative is that no one is allowed to use their name. She was known as Valarie P. to even her closest co-workers This is the statement that I was contradicting. At least during the Cold War, there were operatives who went about their daily lives/businesses using their REAL NAMES. You say that your friend didn't do that, which I believe. You also said that he mentioned that using his real name was a big no-no, and this I too will believe, but you assume too much (IMO) if you think that all covert operatives work under an assumed name and cover. Many have real lives and legitimite businesses.<
>
<i></i>

Ah I see where you are going than. What did Karl Rove do wrong than? <
>
Chicks dig the ears.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

That she wasn't currently working covert, is really a non-issue. She may have been used again in the future as a covert, but...not now huh. Her previous work could have also been compromised as a result.<
>
<
>
As to what Karl Rove did wrong, why...if it were nothing, why wouldn't he have publically stated what he did two years ago? Why the lies and denials? Why have a reporter sitting in jail over this? <
>
<
>
If it was "no big deal" as the spinners are spinning, it would have been very easy for him to have 'set the record straight' in 2003.
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

First off, regarding Wilson's comments that his wife was "no longer an operative" the day Novak outted her has happened on other interviews - in the context that she was no longer an operative the day Novak published his story BECAUSE HE OUTTED HER.<
>
<
>
I'm looking for the older interview/article now.<
>
<
>
Secondly, regarding the CIA issue:<
>
Quote:I am 100% positive about my statement. One of my best friends from college joined the CIA, and then dissapeared for 5 years. When he came back he said he couldnt talk about it. I kinda knew what happened, so I asked him some questions about what the rules were for covert ops in the CIA, and he shared. So yea... I know.<
>
The entire government - especially the military and intelligence communities - operate on a "need to know" basis. Your friend only knew what he was allowed to know. You only know about the situation with your friend. My ex-boyfriend (the one I initially moved to Alaska for 21 years ago) was a cryptographer. He was courted by the CIA and initially rejected it to try and work his way up to the big money in the oil industry. (You don't get rich as a Federal employee...unless you are in politics) He finally did take a job with the CIA and, yes, they whisked him away.<
>
<
>
HOWEVER...the name change that occurred happened AT THE OVERSEAS LOCATION WHERE HE CARRIED OUT THE ASSIGNMENT. I saw my ex when he came back - he still worked for the CIA but was on leave - and he was still Tim. He didn't completely cut off contact with his family or friends - he just had to be careful.<
>
<
>
Why the revelation (or confirmation, which CAN ALSO BE ILLEGAL and even Rove admits that he did) was SO heinous in THIS situation is because it not only happened with an unauthorized individual - IT BECAME KNOWLEDGE AT THE LEVEL OF NATIONAL MEDIA. Don't you people get this? How can ANYONE who claims a "love for their country and those who defend it" not be HORRIFIED by Rove's behavior? <
>
<
>
Thirdly, while there is doubt as to his criminal culpability, there is NO DOUBT as to his ETHICAL CULPABILITY! Federal employees who are convicted of ethics violations that are not technically illegal are fired or otherwise punished by the government EVERY SINGLE DAY!!<
>
<
>
Example:<
>
<
>
A guy I work with is a Project Manager (we'll call him "John). John becomes friends with the contractor (we'll call him "Joe) on a project that he is in charge of. One day, John's truck goes belly up. He complained about his problem in front of the Joe, who mentioned that he had a beater truck at home that still ran - John could borrow it until his truck was fixed. Without thinking about it, John gratefully accepted the offer and had the beater truck for a week, then returned it when his truck was fixed.<
>
<
>
John ended up with an official reprimand and a fine of an undisclosed amount because, according to JAG, his behavior reflected a "conflict of interest" because his friendship with the contractor happened as a result of that project, not before.<
>
<
>
If John gets punished for something that minor, shouldn't Karl suffer the white-collar equivalent of being tied to a horse and dragged throught the streets?<
>
<
>
Also, the REASON that John got busted in the first place was because of some person in the building with a grudge against John who called the "fraud, waste and abuse" hotline. JAG didn't care WHY he was turned in - they just cared about whether or not it was a violation.<
>
<
>
That's why all of these accusations by the Republicans that the only reason this was made public - the only reason it's under investigation - is a result of sour grapes/partisan on the part of the Democrats is a pointless argument. <
>
<
>
Brigitmorgan<
>
Night Elf Druid<
>
<
>
My new blog: Blue Oasis (Be gentle, it's my first time)<i></i>

_________________
Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis

Quote:If John gets punished for something that minor<
>
<
>
While I agree it was minor, your example shows that John reaped financial benefit from this friendship. I do not see the parallel at all. <
>
Chicks dig the ears.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

Quote:Ah I see where you are going than. What did Karl Rove do wrong than?Legally? Nothing at all. He merely passed on rumors that Mrs. Wilson was a CIA operative. Just the sort of thing that you want the closest advisor to the President to do, pass rumors about potential covert CIA ops from one journalist to another, as sort of a message boy. I am sure that the source of the intermediary didn't add any weight to the rumor, no, not at all. <
>
<
>
The saddest part of it all is that Rove deliberately spread rumors about a possible CIA employee to bolster criticism of a point that was never made by Joe Wilson, only by Karl Rove's own spin.<
>
<i></i>

Quote:While I agree it was minor, your example shows that John reaped financial benefit from this friendship. I do not see the parallel at all. <
>
<
>
Rove would have gained political gain by the discrediting of Wilson
<i></i>

Let me just interject something more here.<
>
<
>
I was wrong about the whole "
okered a deal" coment and I knew it and was not thinking when I posted that. The real reason was because of course the Democrats did not want to prosecute and the Republicans were afraid that if they convicted President Clinton when he was so popular, then they would suffer. I was not letting the Repubs off the hook here when I pointed this out.<
>
<
>
Now, on to the Karl Rove story. Thanks Rugen for posting that. Yes, Kerry named a covert operative in Bolton's hearing and if you pay close attention, Bolton replied and when he spoke about the guy he said "Mr. Smith". There was a small outcry at the time, but not much.<
>
<
>
Also, during an appellate Senate confirmation, Harry Reid spoke about a confidential file on the candidate at the time (Sauder?). The file he referred he 1. should not have had access to, and 2. He is required by law not to mention the details of that file.<
>
<
>
Now, just wait a second here. As I will repeatedly say, if Rove is guilty, he should be prosecuted, but it is beginning to appear more and more that he had no idea who Valerie Plame was (why would he?) and that he learned it from reporters calling and asking him about it. He did not go looking to tell anyone they called him.<
>
<
>
If you remember, the last time I really got deep in a conversation was the Dan Rather forged documents thing and it turned out that my initial suspicions were right. I have pretty much held off in this one too until now, and it seems that it is turning out that I was right again. I am not saying I am some kind of psychic, but I do wait until some of the facts soldify and some of the rumors start to fall apart.<
>
<
>
My bet is that Joe Wilson outed her accidentally and got mad when he found out that people were using her name. <
>
<
>
The height of ridiculous was when BOTH parties introduced these stupid bills: The Democrats to remove Rove's clearance and the Republican's to remove I think Kerry and Kennedy's clearance. Both were thankfully defeated. <i></i>

Quote:He did not go looking to tell anyone they called him.Cooper called him about another subject entirely; Rove changed the subject to Wilson and dropped the information about his wife in a clearly deliberate fashion. <i></i>

A correction by AP of the previous AP story:<
>
Quote:Wilson also said "my wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."<
>
<
>
In an interview Friday, Wilson said his comment was meant to reflect that his wife lost her ability to be a covert agent because of the leak, not that she had stopped working for the CIA beforehand.<
>
<
>
His wife's "ability to do the job she's been doing for close to 20 years ceased from the minute Novak's article appeared; she ceased being a clandestine officer," he said.<
>
She was still covert when her identity was revealed.<
>
Brigitmorgan<
>
Night Elf Druid<
>
<
>
My new blog: Blue Oasis (Be gentle, it's my first time)<i></i>

_________________
Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis

Methinks the White House is screwed.<
>
<
>
According to the July 16th edition of the NYT:<
>
Quote:Prosecutors in the C.I.A. leak case have shown intense interest in a 2003 State Department memorandum that explained how a former diplomat came to be dispatched on an intelligence-gathering mission and the role of his wife, a C.I.A. officer, in the trip, people who have been officially
iefed on the case said.<
>
<
>
Investigators in the case have been trying to learn whether officials at the White House and elsewhere in the administration learned of the C.I.A. officer's identity from the memorandum. They are seeking to determine if any officials then passed the name along to journalists and if officials were truthful in testifying about whether they had read the memo, the people who have been
iefed said, asking not to be named because the special prosecutor heading the investigation had requested that no one discuss the case.<
>
<
>
The memorandum was sent to Colin L. Powell, then the secretary of state, just before or as he traveled with President Bush and other senior officials to Africa starting on July 7, 2003, when the White House was scrambling to defend itself from a blast of criticism a few days earlier from the former diplomat, Joseph C. Wilson IV, current and former government officials said.<
>
<
>
Mr. Powell was seen walking around Air Force One during the trip with the memorandum in hand, said a person involved in the case who also requested anonymity because of the prosecutor's admonitions about talking about the investigation.<
>
Note the date - July 7th. If this memo turns out to be true, that is extremely important!<
>
Quote:On Thursday, a person who has been officially
iefed on the matter said that Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser, had spoken about Ms. Wilson with Mr. Novak before Mr. Novak published a column on July 14, 2003, identifying the C.I.A. officer by her maiden name, Valerie Plame. Mr. Rove, the person said, told Mr. Novak he had heard much the same information, making him one of two sources Mr. Novak cited for his information.<
>
Several interesting bits of info in there that differed slightly from Rove's telling, but still the basic story corroborated by Rove. Also:<
>
Quote:Mr. Rove also held a conversation about Mr. Wilson's mission to Africa with Matthew Cooper, a reporter for Time magazine, on July 11, 2003, two days after he discussed the case with Mr. Novak. <
>
So, Rove would have discussed this with Mr. Novak on July 9th - 3 days AFTER the alleged memo was supposed to have been delivered to the White House.<
>
Quote:The existence of the State Department memorandum has been previously reported by news organizations including The Wall Street Journal, Newsweek and The Daily News. But new details of how it came about and how it circulated within the administration could offer clues into who knew what and when.<
>
Suddenly, it's legitimacy has grown by leaps and bounds.<
>
Quote:The memorandum was dated June 10, 2003, nearly four weeks before Mr. Wilson wrote an Op-Ed article for The New York Times in which he recounted his mission and accused the administration of twisting intelligence to exaggerate the threat from Iraq. The memorandum was written for Marc Grossman, then the under secretary of state for political affairs, and it referred explicitly to Valerie Wilson as Mr. Wilson's wife, according to a government official who reread the document on Friday.<
>
<
>
When Mr. Wilson's Op-Ed article appeared on July 6, 2003, a Sunday, Richard L. Armitage, then deputy secretary of state, called Carl W. Ford Jr., the assistant secretary for intelligence and research, at home, a former State Department official said. Mr. Armitage asked Mr. Ford to send a copy of the memorandum to Mr. Powell, who was preparing to leave for Africa with Mr. Bush, the former official said. Mr. Ford sent it to the White House for transmission to Mr. Powell.<
>
Ummmmmm...yeah, I'm sure Karl NEVER saw it... Brigitmorgan<
>
Night Elf Druid<
>
<
>
My new blog: Blue Oasis (Be gentle, it's my first time)<i></i>

_________________
Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis

Becuase the NYT is SUCH a reliable source... <
>
Chicks dig the ears.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

Quote:Because the NYT is SUCH a reliable source...<
>
Yeah...and no conservative on this board has ever quoted it when there's something on it they like...no sirreee...<
>
<
>
That argument is just tired. Every news organization makes a mistake if they are around long enough. (except Fox News...which IS a mistake) It's just convenient to point that out when there is a story that you don't like...no matter how well supported. Brigitmorgan<
>
Night Elf Druid<
>
<
>
My new blog: Blue Oasis (Be gentle, it's my first time)<i></i>

_________________
Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis

I never quote it... why the over-generalization? <
>
Chicks dig the ears.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

You are being goofy, Annastazia. The NYT <> the National Enquirer. I know it's hard to admit, but papers with liberal slants like the NYT or the Washington Post are usually correct in their factual reporting (articles, not editorials), just like the WSJ or Boston Globe is usually correct in its factual reporting. You might not like what stories they choose to cover, or the slant used to cover them, but usually the facts are correct.<
>
<i></i>

Politics today really saddens me. I mean, why can't most Americans see past what team they're rooting for?<
>
<
>
I recall a post not too long back by Tyral about how it's like a sport for us. And he is so right (rare as it may be ) And I find myself falling into the same sort of thing. I'm a liberal, and I find myself rooting for the Democrats(even though I think they're pussies and couldn't see myself as signing up as one), but I like to think that I see facts as facts. For example, while I don't think the Lewinsky deal by itself was that big of deal politically, I do think the fact that Clinton committed perjury was a big deal, and honestly he should have been impeached for it. I mean, I hate to say it but it's true. No one should be above the law. <
>
<
>
And now we have conservatives agreeing with the idea that the filibuster should be done away with. Agreeing that Rove should get a fucking medal for this current scandal. Agreeing with the ever changing reasons for war with Iraq. It's absolutely ridiculous. I listen to these spinsters on television and it makes me sick. Both sides.<
>
I can't speak on whether or not it's always been this way, because I only began paying attention during the whole Clinton impeachment. <
>
<
>
It seems to me that we have serious issues that we need to be discussing candidly and with rationality. But we can't, because we're too busy rooting for our team. Social security, the war on terrorism, our huge deficits, the rise of China, North Korea etc etc are all serious matters that need to be dealt in intelligent and rational ways. But what sways our vote? Gay marriage, prayers in school, blah fucking blah. Fuck that, my pockets sway my vote. The safety of me and mine sways my vote. And safety isn't all about what we attack, it's also about what we do that causes others to attack us and our success in diplomacy. Can we say with a rational mind that we're always right? Always just? Fair? Can we say that, while it doesn't at all justify terrorism, Islamic terrorists don't have a legiitimate grievance with us?<
>
<
>
I miss the days when I felt like America had the moral high ground. When I felt like America was about the free and the
ave, the right and the just. And those days may have never been true, because I felt that way before I paid attention. <
>
<
>
And now we're faced with this Islamic terrorist threat, and are we really asking ourselves why they hate us? Is it really because they hate our democracy? The way we live? Because that's what my President tells me. But I don't believe that. I don't believe that young people are blowing themselves up because I can vote, because I can live where I want, how I want. We Americans need to take the moral high ground back, and stop disregarding it so we can root for our team.<
>
<
>
Rove is a fucking hack. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. He has a history out there: Fired by Bush Sr., dirty tricks galore, those awful tactis used against McCain. Why is this hack playing such a huge role in this administration? The Puppetmaster Myth <
>
<
>
Why are you people so ready to defend him when it is clear he had a role in outing this CIA agent. Is it a huge threat to our national security? No, probably not in the grand scheme of things. But that doesn't change the fact that he was outing Mrs. Wilson for political gain. Regardless of whether or not he can claim he didn't know to avoid prosecution. Which is bullshit in my personal opinion. <i></i>

Just a note: Alexis de Tocqueville, a Frenchman visiting the US in the early 1800s, referred to politics as America's favorite pastime. I am not sure that's true any more; the National Enquirer, Star magazine and E! have probably replaced it for the average American. Still, we always seem to want to insert deep, groaning human drama wherever we look, and politicians are willing to give us drama so that we root for their team. My only hope is that they are doing so in order to
ing about real changes involving real events - but I admit this seems unlikely. <i></i>

That was a really great post, Surcam. <i></i>

Quote:Why is this hack playing such a huge role in this administration?<
>
I agree with most of your post. I think the answer to this question is, he is a genious at making things work his guy's way, No more, no less. Hate him or love him, he is a campaign genious. <
>
Magelo<
>
<
>
<i></i>

Quote:Politics today really saddens me. I mean, why can't most Americans see past what team they're rooting for? With the two party system we have today most debates devolve into an us vs. them mentality. People will throw out terms like "liberal" or "neocon" as if that one word alone invalidates an opposing viewpoint, and with this us vs. them mentality it probably does in their minds. It makes it so much easier to know what is right when "we" have a viewpoint and "they" have another, it is almost like a political tribalism.<
>
<
>
IMO until a 3rd party is able to win sufficient support things wont change.<
>
<
>
I realize this was probably a rehtorical question, but I had to get my 2 cents in. <
>
Quote:That was a really great post, Surcam. <
>
What Jay said. <i></i>

Quote:I agree with most of your post. I think the answer to this question is, he is a genious at making things work his guy's way, No more, no less. Hate him or love him, he is a campaign genious.<
>
I completely agree. He's a genius without a conscience, IMHO. That's why he's so dangerous, and so successful. Brigitmorgan<
>
Night Elf Druid<
>
<
>
My new blog: Blue Oasis (Be gentle, it's my first time)<i></i>

_________________
Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis

Quote:I miss the days when I felt like America had the moral high ground. When I felt like America was about the free and the
ave, the right and the just. And those days may have never been true, because I felt that way before I paid attention<
>
<
>
I could not agree more with this part. The more you pay attention to what goes on around the world, the harder it gets to believe. Politics has been worse than it is now, and better. This isn't a worst case scenario that many like to paint it as. I personally believe that (and you seem to agree) that in our recent history we had the leader of our country walk above the law for all to see. I don't know about you but that reminds me of medieval days when lords were above the law.<
>
<
>
If indeed Rove was guilty of a crime, I will be the first one to back off, admit I was wrong and join the lynch mob in hanging him out to dry poltically.<
>
<
>
I just think that both sides have become punchy of late. This is causing us to focus on shit like this while medicare goes bankrupt and argue about how lowering the annual increase in social security from 8.3% to 8.1% would destroy the program.<
>
<
>
I wish there was a way to take politics out of policy, but I do not think that there is in the current system of governement we have. <
>
Chicks dig the ears.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

Transcript for July 17 - Meet the Press<
>
<
>
Quote:MR. RUSSERT: This is the cover of your magazine: "Rove on the Spot," subtitled "What I Told the Grand Jury," by Matthew Cooper. And here is an excerpt from your article, which will be available tomorrow in Time magazine.<
>
<
>
"So did [Karl] Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that [Joe] Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him?"--to Niger. "Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the `agency' on `WMD'?"--weapons of mass destruction. "Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know."<
>
<
>
For the record, the first time you learned that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA was from Karl Rove?<
>
<
>
MR. COOPER: That's correct.<
>
<
>
Quote:MR. RUSSERT: And when Karl concluded his conversation with you, you write he said, "I've already said too much." What did that mean?<
>
<
>
MR. COOPER: Well, I'm not sure what it meant, Tim. At first, you know, I thought maybe he meant "I've been indiscreet." But then, as I thought about it, I thought it might be just more benign, like "I've said too much; I've got to get to a meeting." I don't know exactly what he meant, but I do know that memory of that line has stayed in my head for two years. <
>
<
>
Oh yeah, clearly innocent, no doubt about it. <i></i>

Quote:I wish there was a way to take politics out of policy, but I do not think that there is in the current system of governement we have.Viva la revolution! <i></i>

Timing is an interesting thing... I just got this as a forward, did not believe it, checked on Snope's Urban Legends and found it was true. I leave you with this :<
>
<
>
Quote:Thought you might enjoy this interesting prayer given<
>
in Kansas at the opening session of their Senate. It<
>
seems prayer still upsets some people. When Minister<
>
Joe Wright was asked to open the new session of the<
>
Kansas Senate, everyone was expecting the usual<
>
generalities, but this is what they heard:<
>
<
>
"Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your<
>
forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance.<
>
We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those who call evil<
>
good,' but that is exactly what we have done. We have<
>
lost our spiritual equili
ium and reversed our<
>
values.<
>
<
>
We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.<
>
We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.<
>
We have killed our unborn and! called it choice.<
>
We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.<
>
We have neglected to discipline our children and<
>
called it building self-esteem.<
>
<
>
We have abused power and called it politics.<
>
We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called<
>
it ambition.<
>
<
>
We have polluted the air with profanity and<
>
pornography and called it freedom of ____expression.<
>
We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our<
>
forefathers and called it enlightenment.<
>
<
>
Search us, Oh, God, and know our hearts today; cleanse<
>
us from every sin and set us free. Amen!"<
>
<
>
The response was immediate. A number of legislators<
>
walked out during the prayer in protest. In 6 short<
>
weeks, Central Christian Church, where Rev. Wright is<
>
pastor, logged more than 5,000 phone calls with only<
>
47 of those calls responding negatively. The church<
>
is now receiving international requests for copies of<
>
this prayer from India, Africa and Korea.<
>
<
>
Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio<
>
program, "The Rest of the Story," and received a<
>
larger response to this program than any other he has<
>
ever aired. <
>
Chicks dig the ears.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

So on a thread about Karl Rove leaking the name of a CIA operative to the press, you decided to quote a reverend giving a prayer to the Kansas House of Representatives that calls gay people, abortionists and anyone non-Christian a sinner..... Why?<
>
<
>
Let me guess, you found the speech awe-inspiring and reaffirms your support of Karl Rove for "doing the right thing" right?<
>
<
>
--Dar <i></i>

That is a "prayer" asking, "Please, God, make society live by MY standards." It is arrogantly presuming that God's will is the same as his. It's not a prayer by any standards I learned...it's a political statement.<
>
<
>
How I was taught to pray: "God, please guide me to do your will, whatever that may be. Please grant your blessings to my fellow humans, especially those who need them the most." I was taught that it was wrong for me to assume that I knew what was best. I was supposed to leave that up to God...to pray for God's will whether I agreed with it or not.<
>
<
>
But we all have our own ideas about spirituality.<
>
Brigitmorgan<
>
Night Elf Druid<
>
<
>
My new blog: Blue Oasis (Be gentle, it's my first time)<i></i>

_________________
Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis

I really have no idea why you felt that prayer belonged in this thread. <
>
<
>
/boggle <i></i>

Back to Rove:<
>
<
>
Lots of stuff happening...<
>
<
>
From this week’s Time Magazine – Matthew Cooper, “What I told the Grand Jury�<
>
Quote:As for Wilson's wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak's column or Googled her, I can't recall which. Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the "agency"--by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred that he obviously meant the CIA and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that she worked on "WMD" (the ab
eviation for weapons of mass destruction) issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife. <
>
I believe the nickname for the CIA is "The Agency." Unlike the spin that the White House was trying to put on Cooper's email, it seems that Rove WAS the first to blow Wilson's wife's CIA connections to Mr. Cooper.<
>
Quote:Rove never once indicated to me that she had any kind of covert status. I told the grand jury something else about my conversation with Rove. Although it's not reflected in my notes or subsequent e-mails, I have a distinct memory of Rove ending the call by saying, "I've already said too much." This could have meant he was worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting or something else. I don't know, but that sign-off has been in my memory for two years.<
>
Nope, I'm sure that Rove had NO IDEA that he was doing anything wrong.<
>
<
>
From today's New York Times:<
>
Quote:WASHINGTON, July 18 - President Bush changed his stance today on his close adviser Karl Rove, stopping well short of promising that anyone in his administration who helped to unmask a C.I.A. officer would be fired.<
>
<
>
"If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration," Mr. Bush said in response to a question, after declaring, "I don't know all the facts; I want to know all the facts."<
>
<
>
For months, Mr. Bush and his spokesmen have said that anyone involved in the disclosure of the C.I.A. officer's identity would be dismissed. The president's apparent raising of the bar for dismissal today, to specific criminal conduct, comes amid mounting evidence that, at the very least, Mr. Rove provided backhanded confirmation of the C.I.A. officer's identity<
>
The President lied. <
>
<
>
From today's Washington Post:<
>
Quote: Bush has previously indicated that he would fire anyone who leaked Plame's identity.<
>
<
>
In 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the suggestion that Rove was involved in the leak was "ridiculous."<
>
McClellan said in a Sept. 29, 2003,
iefing: "The president has set high standards, the highest of standards, for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."<
>
<
>
In June 2004, Bush replied "yes" when asked if he would fire anyone who leaked the agent's name.<
>
There is no doubt that Rove leaked Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent.<
>
<
>
There is no doubt that he, in the very least, is involved in it (as are others in the Administration).<
>
<
>
Not only did President Bush lie, he forced his Press Secretary to lie as well.<
>
Brigitmorgan<
>
Night Elf Druid<
>
<
>
My new blog: Blue Oasis (Be gentle, it's my first time)<i></i>

_________________
Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis

Quote:I really have no idea why you felt that prayer belonged in this thread.<
>
<
>
Classic political tangent. When you can't fight the charges, change the subject!<
>
<
>
Quote:The President lied.<
>
<
>
omg impeach!!!1!!!1!!!!<
>
<
>
Quote:There is no doubt that Rove leaked Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent.<
>
<
>
There is no doubt that he, in the very least, is involved in it (as are others in the Administration).<
>
<
>
Not only did President Bush lie, he forced his Press Secretary to lie as well.<
>
<
>
There is doubt. We have one person's story implicating Rove at this point. Granted, he has priors for doing shady stuff, even moreso than most politicians. But there is doubt still. Cooper and Novak could be lying. Unlikely as hell, but true.<
>
<
>
Even if this is true, he didn't force the Press Secretary to lie, he just lied to the Press Secretary.<
>
<
>
Calm the fuck down and let the case strengthen on its own merits before jumping to conclusions. If Rove was involved, we'll know. It's too big now to go away. Only when the investigation is done should we start crying for resignations. ---------------------------------<
>
Burog Warrior of Oryx<i></i>

Quote:Calm the fuck down and let the case strengthen on its own merits before jumping to conclusions.<
>
How am I not calm, exactly? What conclusions am I jumping to, exactly?<
>
<
>
- Karl Rove was involved - even his friggin' lawyer admits that.<
>
<
>
- The President is contradicting what he has said all along. It's in print and on tape.<
>
<
>
Where is that jumping to conclusions? Brigitmorgan<
>
Night Elf Druid<
>
<
>
My new blog: Blue Oasis (Be gentle, it's my first time)<i></i>

_________________
Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis

Well, it looks as though my earlier assumption was correct. Bush seems unable to accept that a friend can do something wrong, and like most of us would do, is going to cover for him. Too bad, but not really unexpected. Waiting until the "investigation is complete" and charges are raised and sucessfully pressed will take until after his administration is over, and is very unlikely to happen. So Bush gets to continue to use his friend for what he does so well, and side-steps his Christian morality. I am sadddened.<
>
<
>
Lupic Wulfsib<
>
Khardin, clueless n00b hunter; {Crimson Brigade}, Llane Realm<i></i>

"The Agency" was used to refer to the NRO, not the CIA. The CIA has sometimes been referred to as "The Shop" but that originated with the NSA and afaik only movies/novels refer to it that way.<
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

Quote:So on a thread about Karl Rove leaking the name of a CIA operative to the press, you decided to quote a reverend giving a prayer to the Kansas House of Representatives that calls gay people, abortionists and anyone non-Christian a sinner..... Why?<
>
<
>
I also have no clue why that prayer was put in this thread.<
>
<
>
That said, Darwinian, could you show us where this prayer mentioned gay people at all? What, it's not there and you just assumed you knew what it said without reading it? Nice.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Magic in Fribur's World

Click on the "snopes urban legends" link Anna put in his post, Frib. <i></i>

What J said, Frib. Instead of using the piss-poor forwarded e-mail Anna decided it'd be fun to link in here, I used the actual prayer from the Snopes link, where it says "Alternative lifestyles" which I would read as meaning gay, but to each his own for interpretation.<
>
<
>
And yes, I read both what he posted as well as what he linked. <
>
<
>
--Dar <
>
<
>
"This is the flag of the future, but it does not dishonour the past."<i></i>

<
>
ok <
>
<
>
I had not read the Snopes.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Magic in Fribur's World

Quote:WASHINGTON - President Bush said Monday that if anyone on his staff committed a crime in the CIA-leak case, that person will "no longer work in my administration." His statement represented a shift from a previous comment, when he said that he would fire anyone shown to have leaked information that exposed the identity of a CIA officer.Nice qualification, George.<
>
<
>
Next week, GW announces that he will anyone on his staff committed a crime in the CIA-leak case whose name doesn't rhyme with Tarl Nove will "no longer work in my administration". - joxur<i></i>

Quote:President Bush said Monday that if anyone on his staff committed a crime in the CIA-leak case<
>
<
>
Other crimes, such as those against humanity, are just fine though! <i></i>

Hahah Zing!<
>
<
>
Collier <i></i>

Except leaking the information is a crime, so really they are the same statement.<
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

Quote: Except leaking the information is a crime, so really they are the same statement.<
>
<
>
Wrong <i></i>

<
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

It's awfully hard to convict somebody of leaking a covert operative's identity. I have just as much doubt that Rove will be convicted as I have doubt that he didn't do it.<
>
<
>
This is a much bigger deal than a blow job in the oval office, but for some strange reason it isn't consuming nearly as much media attention. Does this mean we can put the 'liberal media' myth to bed finally? ---------------------------------<
>
Burog Warrior of Oryx<i></i>

Quote:This is a much bigger deal than a blow job in the oval office, but for some strange reason it isn't consuming nearly as much media attention. Does this mean we can put the 'liberal media' myth to bed finally? <
>
<
>
Couldn't be that there is just less to report could it? <
>
Chicks dig the ears.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

I would have to disagree actually. It's getting alot of media attention from what I see. <i></i>

Quote:I would have to disagree actually. It's getting alot of media attention from what I see. <
>
I agree. It's been all over the news and the reporters have been relentless. Bush should fire him if he leaked her name, but that doesn’t look like it’s going to happen.<
>
<i></i>

I predict that no one will get fired until they are convicted in a court. <i></i>

_________________

Seeing as most of the Iran-Contra guys didn't even go to trial until after Reagan left office, that wouldn't be surprising. <i></i>

Quote:Couldn't be that there is just less to report could it?<
>
<
>
Really? You don't think they could be interviewing lawyers, law professors, friends of the family, etc? You know, like they did with the Clinton/Lewinski thing for *months* straight?<
>
<
>
It isn't even on the front page of nytimes anymore, isn't that supposed to be one of the worst offenders for liberal bias?<
>
<
>
I honestly don't remember a single day that went by where I didn't see or hear shit about what Lewinksi's old high school boyfriend or some former white intern had to say about the whole thing. Or some right wing senator speaks out about what a tragedy it is.<
>
<
>
Maybe it's the democrat's fault for letting up on Bush, I dunno, but it's faded to the back burner an awful lot faster than more trivial matters did in the past. ---------------------------------<
>
Burog Warrior of Oryx<i></i>

See the thing is.... I thought the Clinton fiasco was ridiculous. But, it was a personal news item. This is not. There is nothing to ask Rove's previous girlfriends and this is difficult to sensationalize without actual news.<
>
<
>
My point was, the amount that is being reported on this says nothing to the level of media bias that has been relatively obvious for decades to anyone paying attention. <
>
Chicks dig the ears.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

That's because of the SCOTUS nomination. I don't think the Rove story is going anywhere.<
>
<
>
I don't know though, what happened to all the talk about DeLay? <i></i>