I'd have to agree with Rugen here. My post that you quoted was directly because of his post. I doubted this topic would last until the hearing/trial/whatever was over so I figured I'd cut through the bullshit (him actually being convicted of it) and reveal my feelings towards Rove as if he was already guilty. It was a post meant to counter what he said, but you went and fucked that all up... <i></i>

So much hate and blindness in you, sir; try to keep it under control.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Magic in Fribur's World

A lot of excitement over a possibility, and a lot of excitement over an if. The thing that always gets me is that if it turns out to be someone else, this will die down and someone will
ing the allegation up as fact by the time the post reaches archive page ten. <
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

Look at it this way. It's just Michael Jackson in the Political arena. Everyone "knows" he did it. The question is if they can pin it on him. <i></i>

I wonder who would play Rove on E!´s reproduction of the trial. <i></i>

Wow, finally got around to doing the Google thing on Lawrence O'Donnell... he's got an interesting media history. <i></i>

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

Quote:Look at it this way. It's just Michael Jackson in the Political arena. Everyone "knows" he did it. The question is if they can pin it on him. <
>
Who is everyone? An MSNBC analyst and now you? Listen, I am not saying he did or didn't do it. Unlike you, I'm not going to treat it as if he already has been proven guilty. To compare him being put in this potentially compromising situation to Michael Jackson and his multiple allegations of being a serial child rapist are ridiculous. I think the majority of people think Jackson is guilty because he is a wackjob, has been accused before, and blatantly takes pride in sleeping in bed with little boys. <
>
<
>
Last I checked, Karl Rove has never been accused of leaking Classified CIA information in the past and has never admitted to enjoy the company of CIA informants in his bed. <
>
<
>
And as far as "waving my pom poms" and "not having anyone here supporting me" I could honestly give 2 shits about it. If this was a Democrat and I supported not castrating him before we knew everything you wouldn't say a fucking thing. You see Republican as the topic at hand, and me posting, and all of a sudden the topic changes to "WTF ARKAYN! STOP FOLLOWING YOUR PARTY BLINDLY. SHEEP!!!!" Seriously, get a fucking grip. I happen to support to some extent the rights we are afforded in this country as far as our legal process goes. ESPECIALLY on someone who is getting shit from you red diaper doper babies for the simple reason that he singlehandedly ass-fucked your party in another election. Don't be bitter. Get over it and move on. <
>
<i></i>

Quote:red diaper doper babiesPlease tell me you ripped that supposed bon mot from someone else and that it isn't your own idea of clever. <i></i>

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/...11/2/50344 <i></i>

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

Quote:Please tell me you ripped that supposed bon mot from someone else and that it isn't your own idea of clever.<
>
I think Jateki can answer that one for you. Or Dr Savage can.<
>
<
>
<
>
<i></i>

Quote:Last I checked, Karl Rove has never been accused of leaking Classified CIA information in the past and has never admitted to enjoy the company of CIA informants in his bed.<
>
<
>
He was accused back in 2003, they just didn't have proof. They may have proof now, we'll see.<
>
<
>
Don't downplay the degree of the crime either. Bush sure didn't. ---------------------------------<
>
Burog Warrior of Oryx<i></i>

Ah. So basically he's an outspoken moron with no accountability to back up his arguments and poor sentence structure. And he's created a career out of it. Brilliant. <i></i>

Karl Rove was fired from the 1992 re-election campaign of Bush Sr. for allegedly leaking a negative story about Bush loyalist/fundraiser Robert Mosbacher to Novak. So he has a prior history, just like Michael Jackson
<i></i>

Breaking news!<
>
<
>
Quote:"I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions" for not testifying, Cooper said. But he told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance, he had received "in somewhat dramatic fashion" a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret.www.nytimes.com/2005/07/0...-leak.html - joxur<i></i>

Quote:Where is CD when you need her? I know how much she adores Karl Rove.<
>
<
>
Honeymoon, unless she's back now<
>
I'm baaaaaaaaaaaaaaack...<
>
Quote:I think Jateki can answer that one for you. Or Dr Savage can.<
>
While I despise Karl Rove and believe that he would sell his mother down the river for personal gain or revenge, I at least have a grudging respect for his cunning.<
>
<
>
I have no respect for Savage.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis

I hope it is Rove, because if so, I find it hugely ironic that Miller is now going to jail for protecting someone who is probably a conservative, while everyone shouts liberal media, liberal media.<
>
<
>
Explain that one.. - joxur<i></i>

Quit dragging me into threads that I haven’t posted on you bunch of jerks. <
>
<
>
But since I’m here now I’ll throw in my opinion. I think many of you are jumping the gun on this one. Also, I’m surprised many of you are ignoring the bigger picture of the government forcing these reporters to reveal their confidential sources and that is what is worrying me.<
>
<i></i>

Quote:Also, I’m surprised many of you are ignoring the bigger picture of the government forcing these reporters to reveal their confidential sources and that is what is worrying me.<
>
<
>
Ahhh but they are hoping that the government doing this will somehow hurt Bush and Friends... then it's OK. If the shoe were on the other foot you can count on the fact that some of them would be screaming their fool heads off. <i></i>

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

Quote:But since I’m here now I’ll throw in my opinion. I think many of you are jumping the gun on this one. Also, I’m surprised many of you are ignoring the bigger picture of the government forcing these reporters to reveal their confidential sources and that is what is worrying me.Confidentiality will only protect so much. Do you believe identifying an undercover CIA operative should be protected by free speech laws? Lord Ssoth<
>
<
>
Their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified the mythology of rights...<
>
and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can survive.<i></i>

_________________

Quote:Ahhh but they are hoping that the government doing this will somehow hurt Bush and Friends... then it's OK. If the shoe were on the other foot you can count on the fact that some of them would be screaming their fool heads off. <
>
Some of the things I see taking place have be worried. I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with the general direction the country is headed in. Here's a few examples:<
>
<
>
1. Government can seize your land for private use.<
>
2. Jailing reporters for refusing to reveal their sources.<
>
3. Private citizens lose bankruptcy options while corporations retain their rights to file.<
>
4. Our current fight over gay marriage, this seems to be a rallying cry and excuse to justify a major shift to the right.<
>
5. Upcoming vacancies in the courts and the resulting potential for a major shit to the right. <
>
6. The Patriot Act.<
>
<
>
I can argue for any of these things when they stand alone, but they have me worried when I list them together. It seems the scales are tipping and government is getting vastly more powerful.<
>
<i></i>

Jateki: agreed, though jailing reporters for not testifying is nothing new. One of the reporters mentioned in the case Farber was jailed in the 1970's? The erosion of freedoms and growth of government power has been a continual and worriesome trend. I would perhaps add Gitmo to your list.<
>
<
>
however, that doesn't mean we can't snicker over it being Rove of all people(if true, just for Ark)
<i></i>

Protecting a source has nothing to do with a reporter's political leanings. The network must maintain trust in order to receive tidbits to report; that is the intent behind confidentiality and why it does not hold up in court. It is a business arrangement.<
>
<
>
A source has never, to my knowledge, had legal protection for his/her identity. In not revealing that source, who directly committed a crime in providing the information, the reporter is obstructing the court. So they are charged with contempt, and could probably face other charges if the court wants to go hard.<
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

Sure, add in Gitmo. <
>
<
>
What really stands out to me is that all these things are taking place these last few years during this administration, by a republican controlled house and senate, and by the party that supposedly stands for smaller government. Tip the scales to the right in the courts by the senate going into a confirmation frenzy, and then factor in the GOP gaining seats in the ’06 and ‘08 elections and it’s even more worrisome.<
>
<i></i>

Didn't I read somewhere (a while back) that Rove signed some sort of paper authorizing reporters to testify about any conversations with Rove? <i></i>

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

Quote:Upcoming vacancies in the courts and the resulting potential for a major shit to the right.<
>
Pure Freudian gold! <i></i>

_________________
Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis

There are clear laws on the books that cover doctor-patient and lawyer-client confidentiality. Both are affected when they result in specific illegal acts. Journalistic confidentiality, in fact, is merely an extension of the same First Amendment rights available to any citizen. Traditionally, prosecuting attorneys approach journalistic confidentiality carefully. This is a good thing, for a number of reasons. Still, I have huge issues in stretching the First Amendment to cover cases where the informant is
eaking legal, legitimate, viable security clauses (really, just another form of confidentiality contract). Certainly there is a big grey area here, where the informant might feel (even inaccurately) that security is being applied incorrectly or to cover illegal acts - but this is not the case here at all. <
>
Lupic Wulfsib<
>
Khardin, clueless n00b hunter; {Crimson Brigade}, Llane Realm<i></i>

Quote:<
>
Last I checked, Karl Rove has never been accused...[snip for
evity] <
>
<
>
<
>
You obviously haven't read up on the illustrious career of one Mr. Rove to understand why even conservatives think it's more than possible he did this. Considering you can't even read half the posts directed at you coherently, this doesn't really come as a shock.<
>
<
>
Quote:<
>
I happen to support to some extent the rights we are afforded in this country as far as our legal process goes.<
>
<
>
<
>
Riiiiiight. Because I never saw you screaming about Moore being a traitor and what you thought should happen to him because....he made a movie...an act, by the way, that isn't even remotely illegal. But heaven forbid that someone with a history who is suddenly up in question as the possible source of a CIA agent being outed and those who dislike him are saying "Oh, I'm going to love seeing him fry if this is true", and NOW suddenly you're all hugs, puppy dogs and kumbaya about not using the word traitor or treason lightly. Funny how that works.<
>
<
>
You just keep right on slipping down that slope, Arky boy. Just keep telling yourself that falling is sort of like flying. At least until you hit the ground. <i></i>

Quote:You just keep right on slipping down that slope, Arky boy. Just keep telling yourself that falling is sort of like flying. At least until you hit the ground.<
>
<
>
Rugen, did you get that analogy from the book, "Ishmael" by any chance?<
>
<
>
I'm reading it right now-- it's fascinating. <
>
<i></i>

_________________
Magic in Fribur's World

I agree with Jateki but I'd take the argument one step further. <
>
Regardless of who is in power, Democrats or Republicans, one party controlling all
anches of government has never been a good thing for this country. It's worrisome but, as some friends keep telling me, we have been down this road before and eventually, barring external interference that reinforces the current trend, the pendulum will swing back the other way. At least I hope so. <
>
<
>
Kula <i></i>

_________________
“The budget should be balanced. Public debt should be reduced. The arrogance of officialdom should be tempered, and assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt.”
- Marcus Tullius Cicero
(106 B.C.-A.D. 43)
Roman statesman

I agree with your analysis 100% Jateki. It is hard for me to understand how people can look around and not see the same thing, and get pissed off about it. <i></i>

Quote:What really stands out to me is that all these things are taking place these last few years during this administration, by a republican controlled house and senate, and by the party that supposedly stands for smaller government.<
>
<
>
Even more specifically...the right of states > federal government. It's one of the key components of the GOP platform (and one of the key reasons I'm a republican).<
>
<
>
The changes in the party are extremely troubling, not just to me personally, but to many republicans. I don't want to sound like an asshole or take it too far off track, but it really feels more and more like the Jesus Party than the GOP. In one
eath they say they support the rights of the states, and in the next they want to push for a marriage amendment (regardless of where you stand on this issue, it's federal >state when you push for an amendment), California has a medicinal marijuana act (state right) which has been shit on by the federal government (specifically the GOP, and more specifically Bush).<
>
<
>
It seems as though the ideals of less 'big government' gets set aside, easily set aside when another issue is at hand. It's really fucking disturbing. And now that the GOP has quite a bit of power, they're attempting to dismantle things that have served the GOP. (The filibuster has been an extremely useful tool, and regardless of what you think about it, it can be stopped with a 60/100 vote. It's only a key tool in specific partisan issues!)<
>
<
>
Quote:Tip the scales to the right in the courts by the senate going into a confirmation frenzy, and then factor in the GOP gaining seats in the ’06 and ‘08 elections and it’s even more worrisome.<
>
<
>
That and the attacks on the courts and "liberal activist judges", and the entire thing is more and more disturbing.<
>
<
>
My husband has been a lifelong Republican. He was asked 2 years ago to become active in local politics by the party, and to run for a local political seat. We discussed it, and he declined (for numerous reasons). So we're not just 'casual' Republicans where we pop the chad. I've done work on more than one political campaign and worked to get voters registered blah blah blah.<
>
<
>
My husband is leaving the republican party. It's just something he no longer wishes to be associated with. I'm still debating leaving. I consider myself a "McCain Republican" (since I have to constantly trot him out as a decent example). If things continue as they are, I may change party affliations myself. (No, I wouldn't go Democrat )
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

Libertarian. I'd start really considering them if they could get their shit together. The problem is, they're highly disorganized. I don't know who the top people in the party are, I doubt there are very many who could name a major Libertarian politician.<
>
<
>
I like the fiscal policies they propose, and I like most of their social ideas. Lord Ssoth<
>
<
>
Their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified the mythology of rights...<
>
and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can survive.<i></i>

_________________

Quote:factor in the GOP gaining seats in the ’06 and ‘08 elections and it’s even more worrisome.<
>
<
>
I agree one party in control of all
anches is not the best idea at the very least.<
>
<
>
If this proves true in the future election one would have to ask what is wrong with the Democratic Party?<
>
<
>
They have been losing ground for years now. Is it their direction or perhaps lack of direction that has plagued them?<
>
<
>
Why do they have problems connecting with voters in the so called red states? <
>
<
>
Even though I am a Republican I find this type of situation scary. <i></i>

Quote: Libertarian. I'd start really considering them if they could get their shit together. The problem is, they're highly disorganized. I don't know who the top people in the party are, I doubt there are very many who could name a major Libertarian politician.<
>
<
>
yeah that's actually what I'd probably switch to, if I ever did.<
>
<
>
There are many Libertarians in the Republican party though. They basically hold Libertarian ideals, but recognize that the Libertarian party is pretty powerless outside of local politics. <
>
<
>
I wonder what things would be like though if everyone had to sit down, seriously examine all political parties, and register with the one that most held true to their ideals.<
>
<
>
Then when it came time to vote, they had to vote for the candidate they believed was best, regardless of who they thought 'could win'. <
>
<
>
It would change the face of politics, that's for damn sure. It will never happen (and could never happen, people are too swayed by what others are doing and that effects voting blocs) but it's an interesting 'what if'.
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

Quote:Pure Freudian gold!<
>
There was no slip there at all, I knew exactly what I was saying. <i></i>

Haha, nm....I see your point. <i></i>

Quote:Regardless of who is in power, Democrats or Republicans, one party controlling all
anches of government has never been a good thing for this country. It's worrisome but, as some friends keep telling me, we have been down this road before and eventually, barring external interference that reinforces the current trend, the pendulum will swing back the other way. At least I hope so. <
>
I find myself agreeing with this, based purely on personal experience. I remember the mess the country was in when Jimmy Carter was president and the democrats were in total control. Then Reagan with a Democratic congress, and during Bush Sr. congress was fairly balanced and then Clinton with a republican congress. Those were all good years for the most part. Now the GOP is in control, and it looks like we might be better off keeping one party from controlling all
anches. The courts won't be the equalizer they should be if one party is allowed to stack the deck. <
>
<
>
Well, at least I'm not as paranoid as I first thought I was being about this. Btw, balance is Hillary in '08 and I still don't know of anyone the can win against her.<
>
<i></i>

Quote:I remember the mess the country was in when Jimmy Carter was president and the democrats were in total control. Eh. I still drop the blame for this mostly on Mr. Carter's shoulders. I think that he is a great human, but was a lousy president; he was unable to compromise, and didn't delegate nearly enough.<
>
<i></i>

Quote:Well, at least I'm not as paranoid as I first thought I was being about this. Btw, balance is Hillary in '08 and I still don't know of anyone the can win against her.<
>
<
>
McCain. God if it is Hillary vs McCain in 2008 I think I will work for both sides. Karthun<
>
<
>
Hockey didnt die in 2004 it died in 1993, and Norm Green still sucks.<i></i>

I wish to god the libertarian party could get its shit together. I honestly think with enough press and some good cadidates they could make a major push into the political arena, since so many people agree with their ideals, including me. <i></i>

Quote:<
>
Rugen, did you get that analogy from the book, "Ishmael" by any chance?<
>
<
>
<
>
That particular bit of wording has appeared in so many different pieces of literature I've read, I'd be hard pressed to name where I read it first. The most interesting usage of it that comes immediately to mind is Neil Gaiman's SANDMAN comics involving the nightmares of a young director. There's always the HITCHIKERS books as well. Both being just two examples of the permutations of that particular thought in more modern writings. <i></i>

Quote:I wish to god the libertarian party could get its shit together. I honestly think with enough press and some good cadidates they could make a major push into the political arena, since so many people agree with their ideals, including me.Agreed. The only issue I have is their stance that recreational drugs should be legalized. I think the ramifications of that go well beyond the individual. Lord Ssoth<
>
<
>
Their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified the mythology of rights...<
>
and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can survive.<i></i>

_________________

Judith Miller and Cooper never actually wrote anything published about Plame, as far as I know. I know for a fact that Miller didn't, and she's the one in jail at the moment (as far as I can tell a general detention facility, not a "country club" jail). Novak is the one who wrote about it, and he's the one who apparently made a deal with Fitzgerald. Fucking snake.<
>
<
>
The Times wrote a good editorial about Miller's actions that you should read if you're following the thread:<
>
<
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/0...u1.html?hp<
>
<
>
My favorite quote:<
>
Quote:In the larger sense, revealing government wrongdoing advances the rule of law, especially at a time of increased government secrecy. - joxur<i></i>

Quote:Btw, balance is Hillary in '08 and I still don't know of anyone the can win against her.<
>
<
>
Hopefully McCain. Hillary scares me. ---------------------------------<
>
Burog Warrior of Oryx<i></i>

I like the idea of a woman winning the presidency, and I think that Mrs. Clinton would be a good president from what i know.<
>
<
>
However, I don't like the idea of having two families control the white house for so long. Maybe they can combine families and rule us from the throne? <i></i>

Quote:Maybe they can combine families and rule us from the throne? Can't happen, unless homosexual unions are allowed <
>
<
>
Lupic Wulfsib<
>
Khardin, clueless n00b hunter; {Crimson Brigade}, Llane Realm<i></i>

If McCain runs, I'll have to campaign for him. I think Hillary vs McCain would be the first win/win election in a long time. <i></i>

Quote:Can't happen, unless homosexual unions are allowed <
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
Ol' slick Willie could knock up the Bush daughters... ---------------------------------<
>
Burog Warrior of Oryx<i></i>

I'm still holding out hope for Rudy running in '08. I think Rudy vs. Hillary in NY alone would make for a good competitive race. However I don't see Rudy being able to compete with her Nationally, she's too common of a household name.<
>
<
>
I will throw many dollars towards Rudy if he runs, but I think I'd have to vote for Hillary over McCain if it came down to those two. I'm not sure which of them I hate more anymore, both seem like crybabies to me, but Hillary's horns are far bigger & I actually consider that a plus. <i></i>

That would be like the Mets v. Yankees. Nobody west of the Hudson would give a fuck. <i></i>

I googled Lawrence O'donnell and learned something very interesting.Quote:O’Donnell is an Emmy-winning producer and writer of NBC’s “The West Wing.�I don't catch the show as often as I'd like but just last week I was talking with my cousin on how good it is. Unfortunately that bit of information will negate any dirt I read on him tonight.<
>
<
>
On the flipside, I read about Novak at Wikinews. Either what I read is bias or this guy is really slimy. Writing an article
eaking news on the identity of a CIA agent lends to him being really slimy.<
>
<
>
Judith Miller giving up liberties for standards is commendable.<
>
<
>
Whoever the source that revealed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent is should face justice. And that justice should not be kind. Raethorn<i></i>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525.../newsweek/
<i></i>

Thanks Mono.<
>
<
>
Quote:Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip."<
>
<
>
Looking bad for Rove. ---------------------------------<
>
Burog Warrior of Oryx<i></i>

What I don't understand is why Judith Miller decided to go to jail when she was given permission to testify from Rove. Purely out of principle? If she hadn't been given permission I would understand, but she was. Cooper took it, why didn't she?<
>
<
>
Makes me wonder what would come out if she were to be questioned under oath. <i></i>

FULL TEST: Jully 11 White House Press Briefing<
>
<
>
<
>
A lil snippet<
>
<
>
Quote:<
>
MCCLELLAN: If you’ll let me finish.<
>
<
>
QUESTION: No, you’re not finishing. You’re not saying anything.<
>
You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson’s wife. So don’t you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn’t he?<
>
<
>
MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.<
>
<
>
QUESTION: Do you think people will accept that, what you’re saying today?<
>
<
>
MCCLELLAN: Again, I’ve responded to the question.<
>
<
>
QUESTION: You’re in a bad spot here, Scott…<
>
(LAUGHTER)<
>
… because after the investigation began — after the criminal investigation was under way — you said, October 10th, 2003, I spoke with those individuals, Rove, A
ams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this, from that podium. That’s after the criminal investigation began.<
>
<
>
Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation.<
>
<
>
MCCLELLAN: No, that’s not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that.<
>
We know each other very well. And it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation.<
>
<
>
And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.<
>
<
>
I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I’m just not going to do that.<
>
<
>
QUESTION: So you’re now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven’t.<
>
<
>
MCCLELLAN: Again, you’re continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I’m just not going to respond to them.<
>
<
>
QUESTION: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?<
>
<
>
MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.<
>
<
>
QUESTION: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?<
>
<
>
MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.<
>
<
>
QUESTION: Well, we are going to keep asking them.<
>
When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson’s wife in the decision to send him to Africa?<
>
<
>
MCCLELLAN: I’ve responded to the questions.<
>
<
>
QUESTION: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been…<
>
<
>
MCCLELLAN: I’ve responded to your questions.<
>
<
>
QUESTION: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the president’s word that anybody who was involved will be let go?<
>
<
>
MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.<
>
<
>
QUESTION: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove’s lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here?<
>
<
>
MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it’s ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.<
>
<
>
QUESTION: Scott, there’s a difference between commenting on an investigation and taking an action…<
>
<
>
Man Mr. Mcclellan's job sucks right now <i></i>

I love how the white house is refusing to comment on Rove at *all*.<
>
<
>
Quote:QUESTION: Does the president stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in a leak of the name of a CIA operative?<
>
<
>
MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked related to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point.<
>
<
>
And as I’ve previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it.<
>
<
>
The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren’t going to comment on it while it is ongoing.<
>
<
>
Quote:QUESTION: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?<
>
<
>
MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you’ve heard my response on this.<
>
<
>
QUESTION: So you’re not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff?<
>
<
>
MCCLELLAN: You’re asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I’m simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation. ---------------------------------<
>
Burog Warrior of Oryx<i></i>

even better, video here <i></i>

Quote:Agreed. The only issue I have is their stance that recreational drugs should be legalized. I think the ramifications of that go well beyond the individual. To me that's one of the most important issues the libertarians stand for. The entire point of having a small and limited government is to make it so they only have to step in when one citizen is impinging on the rights of another citizen. If someone wants to drink a caffeinated bevarage, smoke a cigarette, or shoot up heroin in their own home and don't commit any crimes while they're doing it, let em. Am I ever going to do the latter two? Nope, but it's really none of my (or the governments) business if someone else wants to. The bottom line is it's not the governments place to make sure it's citizens treat their own bodies well. We apparently recognize to some extent, since there's no law against stuffing your face at every meal or never exercisizng. Freedom of choice is one of the values paramount to this countries ideals, and unless a drug user directly harms someone else we really have no right, in my opinion, to go after them for it.<
>
<
>
P.S. I'm aware their are other laws targeting the type of "crime" that only hurts the person doing it (there's a term for these, but I can't remember it) and I think they're completely wrong too. <i></i>

<
>
"victimless crimes" and yes I agree.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Magic in Fribur's World

Wow. That was a really bad showing for a professional spinner. <i></i>