Is Karl Rove Getting Lonely?
Is Karl Rove Getting Lonely?
As the focus of the investigation regarding who in the White House leaked the identity of an undercover CIA agent begins to narrow in on Karl Rove, he may soon be finding that his list of friends starts to dwindle. Here are a number of close Rove associates who have spoken out harshly against the act of leaking the name of a CIA agent:
GEORGE W. BUSH: “This is a very serious matter. And our administration takes it seriously… this is a serious charge, by the way. We’re talking about a criminal action.” [10/6/03]
ED GILLESPIE: “I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative — it’s abhorrent, and it should be a crime, and it is a crime.” [MSNBC Hardball, 9/30/03]
KAREN HUGHES: “President Bush has said — and I agree — there are too many leaks in Washington. We didn’t experience that kind of situation when we were here in Texas. I think it’s very disruptive to democracy Whoever did this leak obviously was not serving President Bush very well.” [Houston Chronicle, 10/2/03]
JOHN ASHCROFT: “Let me just indicate that this is a matter of great concern to me, that I have not ruled out any options. Leaks are a serious matter. When information is classified, it’s classified for a reason, and classified because it is in the national interest of the United States of America that the information not be shared. And anyone who purposefully leaks information that has been classified is, for some reason — it’s incomprehensible to me, but for some reason — subordinating a national security — if they purposefully leak information — suborting the national security in the interests of the United States to some interests of their own.” [News conference, 10/16/03]
GEORGE H.W. BUSH: “I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.” [Speech at CIA, 4/26/99]
COLIN POWELL: “Not only do you put her at risk, or any undercover agent at risk, by letting it be known that they are an agent, but you also put the sources they have worked with over the years at considerable risk.” [9/30/03]
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
the problem is all of those comments refer to the leaker and the WH maintains Rove was not the leaker. (But if not Rove then who?)
July 7th, 2005 at 12:52 pmThe bell tolls for thee Karl. Jim, you should check out the progress report — although the WH claims it, there’s a lot of holes in their claims: http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=100480#3
July 7th, 2005 at 12:54 pm“he may soon be finding that his list of friends starts to dwindle.[10/6/03]9/30/03]10/2/03]10/16/03]4/26/99][9/30/03]”
Today is July 7, 2005. Any minute now right?
From your link:” E-mails surrendered by Time magazine to a grand jury probing the leak of a CIA agent’s identity show that top White House aide Karl Rove was one of the sources, Newsweek magazine reported, citing two lawyers involved in the case. ”
So now that you are all law and order types, shall we throw the book at the lawyers who leaked grand jury testimony? If Rove was that stupid, he can go to jail as far as I’m concerned, but I’m going to laugh at you all, again, if you turn out to be wrong, yet again.
I see you liberals have made no comment on the London bombings? Don’t hold back, tell us what you really think. Fundamentalist Christians right? Church of Later Day Saints perhaps? No, must have been Buddhists. Do you think they told your types to not ride those trains? No, as much as you would like to think this is not your war, they want you all just as dead as me, unless you convert or pay the dhimmi tax, and I’m sure you would.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:03 pmgiven that Al Queda was not in Iraq previous to the start of the Iraq war, then it follows that had Bush committed the resources needed to capture bin Laden in afghanistan, then the bombing in London could have been averted.
bush instead chose to throw military muscle at Saddam Hussien instead of those responsible for 9/11.
Every terror attack shows the weakness of the bush agenda.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:13 pmFat Karl let them tell the truth only because he has is rather large cross-dresser queen ass covered. Pure. Simple.
Trying to tie Karl’s treason to the london bombing is the typically pathetic ReichWingNut reponse to any situation that threatens their narcissistic power and control world views.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:14 pmWhen I was a kid, I thought the phrase “lip service” was crazy and unusual. I didn’t know what it really meant until I was an adult. Now comes the PERFECT example for young people to know the EXACT meaning of that phrase.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:15 pmfake,
As many of us here have said, the Bush adminstration’s illegal and ill-planned war in Iraq has done nothing to make the threat of terrorism diminish. In fact it has been a gift to terrorist recruitment and as has been well-documented the number of terrorist attacks continues to rise. This not only comes as no surprise, but it was expected. Good job Dubya…keep up the good work.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:16 pmFake – The London bombing thread will appear today. You can attack up on that then. Till then, keep your venemous lies to yourself.
I have a prediction. If Karl is indeed indicted and convicted, dumbya will pardon him the very next day. To him it’s a family affair & Karl is family. Who wants bets?
July 7th, 2005 at 1:20 pmKindness,
July 7th, 2005 at 1:25 pmI’m willing to take you up on your bet! I say, Bush won’t pardon Karl the day after he’s convicted! He may Delay until other members from his family get convicted too, and then have somekind of reunion-pardoning-slumber party of sorts!
What’s the wager?
Unfortunately, I don’t think Rove gets convicted. Since the speculation is that he was the person that contacted Cooper prior to his testimony to give him the nod to use his name, Rove surely has got all of his bases covered. Looks as though he’ll slink back under his rock, shaken but surely not discouraged. This may in fact make him stronger. Aaaaarggghhh!!!
July 7th, 2005 at 1:40 pmI have been wondering why there has been no post on the London bombing. Al Franken did not devote much time to it at all either on today’s show. That is because liberals have forgotten 9/11. LET ME REMIND YOU, WE ARE AT WAR. When are you going wake up?
Lets take a history lesson- Sadam attacks Kuwait in 1990. Bush Sr. sends in the troops to defeat him. As part of his surrender treaty, he agrees to disarm and destroy all weapons of mass destruction. He ignores all U.N. resolutions. 9/11 happens, which by the way, Iraq has no connection to. The Bush administration decides to go the offensive to avoid another 9/11 and since Iraq is one of three rogue nations and has intelligence that they still possess WMDs, attacks Iraq. In fact, in 1998, Clinton ponders the same action, but doesn’t have the guts to go through with it.
We are attacking Al Queda on their own turf and not on ours. If you think that London occurred because of our invasion of Iraq, then you need to ask yourself why the WTC was attacked back in 1993 or again eight years later.
No liberals are wimps and cannot be trusted with our national security plain and simple. We are losing the propaganda war in Iraq for a reason. If the MSM and democratic congressmen were more unified and standing behind our troops instead of against them, we might be making more progress faster than we already are.
Make no mistake, if our country is united, there is nothing that we can’t overcome and no enemy that we can’t defeat. But if one side is only interested in making political gains out of the war on terror, we may lose.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:47 pmFirst of all, Karl Rove should be fired whether he was involved in PlameGate or not, just for telling Chris Mathews that she was “fair game”. That shows the kind of lack of respect he has for career professionals who work hard to protect our country.
Rove or not, somebody in the White House, possibly two, have conspired to out a CIA agent out of spite for Joe Wilson speaking truth about the Yellowcake from Niger, and whoever did it should be punished. I’m sure you’ll hear the “Oh but I didn’t know she was undercover” defense, but if not indicted, the conspirers should be fired anyway.
Oh, who am I kidding, as if our prez cares about accountability.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:58 pmTruth for America,
I haven’t read garbage like that since last night when I was reading Oscar the Grouch stories to my 3 year old.
This is your brain: 0 …this is your brain on FoxNews &
“Make no mistake, if our country is united, there is nothing that we can’t overcome and no enemy that we can’t defeat. But if one side is only interested in making political gains out of the war on terror, we may lose”
…now be a Good German and go back to your wingnut induced stupor.
July 7th, 2005 at 2:00 pmI agree. We should be united in DEFEATING George W. Bush!!!!
Unfortunately, we weren’t united. 59,000,000 americans thought they were ordering cheeseburgers, not selecting a president. These are the same folks who want to cut education spending. I guess I can see their point. Education failed them so why give the next generation any chance at all…
July 7th, 2005 at 2:01 pmUh oh. People are starting to ask questions about Our Leader and his Dream Team of Righteousness. Guess we better raise the Official Panic Level again. When are the rubes going to learn that the Stupidity Alerts have more to do with political distraction than any sort of genuine tear-ist activity?
July 7th, 2005 at 2:16 pmIn fact, in 1998, Clinton ponders the same action, but doesn’t have the guts to go through with it.
Right. Its a gut thing, not CIA intelligence which was inconclusive to Saddam’s military build-up or WMDs. Nice try.
Political gain? Look in the mirror. Who rode on the backs of all who died on 9/11 all the way to the White House? Yeah, thats who. Want proof? Listen to yourself spew ignorant lies about liberals and how we are winning the war on terror because of invading Iraq. Recent bombimg in London proves that right?
July 7th, 2005 at 2:22 pmTruth for America,
First, let me congratulate you on a stunningly incorrect name. I guess I should post as “The REAL truth for Patriots” so that you can’t attack my comments.
I am a liberal and I can remember September 11th 2001 very clearly. I woke up at 5:30 am PST this morning, like most mornings, thanks for asking. I’m not sure how relevant that is, but you did ask.
Your History Lesson is mostly irrelevant. The Bush administration decided to attack IRaq and then “fixed the intelligence around the policy” and No, there is NO special British meaning to that phrase that lets the Bush administraion off the hook. There was no credible evidence that Iraq had WMDs… Although I do remember Rumsfeld telling us all that he knew where they were. Where are they now?
Al Qaeda were in Afghanistan, but not (significantly at least) in Iraq. So why did we invade Iraq again? Al Qaeda have STRONG ties to Saudi Arabia, should we go and invade them next? Like Iran they have Oil, I think this could be a winner… London was probably chosen as being a large city close to the G8 Summit. Britain is one of the few American Allies in the Iraq, so I suspect that that may have been part of the reason for Britain being a target. The WTC being attacked in 1993 was nothing to do with America invading Iraq… but Terrorism is about making large, destructive gestures. Destroying such an obvious symbol of American Capitalism would be a goal of any terrorist organisation pitting itself against American Capitalism. If this is NOTHING to do with the British/American presence in Iraq, can I ask how it fits with the similar attack in Spain?
Thank you for the compliment. It’s good to know that you don’t think I’m a wimp… or did you mean “No, liberals are wimps”? I don’t think that conservatives can be trusted with national security. Bruce Schneier, a well respected cryptographer and security expert, has commented that the current plan of securing a single threat is a waste of money. The Terrorists will simply change tactics (no planes were used in London or Madrid). A better use of the funding is counter-intelligence, trying to hunt down and remove the terrorists, and training and equipping the first responders (Fire, Police and Ambulance). The MSM and the Congressmen seem to be firmly behind the troops as far as I can tell. Personally I think that we should all support the troops and bring them home. The people against the troops are the ones who aren’t funding them properly… the ones who are cutting their pay… The ones who are using them as the backdrop for meaningless speeches… I guess that’s the republicans then.
What does the Uniting of America have to do with the bombing in London or have I missed the news that there are now 51 stars on the US Flag? I do agree that we need to stop all Politicians from making Political gains out of War… Of course that mostly applies to Republicans, but… You said it.
Z.
July 7th, 2005 at 2:26 pmAll you have is innuendo, rumours, and circumstantial evidence. Why not wait until the investigation has concluded? These so called “progressives” are really paranoid irrational thinkers that will sieze onto anything not matter how thin or uncertain. Let’s review…
The rational thinker:
July 7th, 2005 at 2:34 pmChecks the evidence carefully and doesn’t rely on uncertain evidence.
The irrational thinker:
Grabs onto a few pieces of evidence and defends them inflexibly.
The rational thinker:
Accepts only what he can critically assess (falsifiable ideas).
The irrational thinker:
Invokes complex, unrealistic scenarios controlled by powerful forces behind the scenes.
The rational thinker:
Is willing to live with unresolved explanations for long periods.
The irrational thinker:
Demands quick, even immediate explanations.
The rational thinker:
Accepts all demonstrated evidence.
The irrational thinker:
Will not face evidence that destroys his theory.
The rational thinker:
Tries to keep everything in proportion.
The irrational thinker:
Often seizes single pieces of evidence and blows them out of proportion.
The rational thinker:
Open, flexible, empowered, strong.
The irrational thinker:
Sticks to preconceived notion regardless of new evidence.
TP must have come up on some redstate type blog. I know we have our share of conservatives but we seem to be getting alot more of the lunatics. Moths to a flame.
July 7th, 2005 at 2:38 pmAs far as Rove is concerned in the Plume-related investigations, I’ll wait to see what unfolds. Fitz. nailed Ill X-Gov. Ryan effectively, we shall see his effectiveness in this case as well. Spin and speculation runs rampant, so don’t lose sight of the truth: V. Plume was illegally identified as an undercover agent. Someone will fall for this, though not gracefully, if that’s a surprise at this point in time.
July 7th, 2005 at 2:39 pmIf liberals just want to stick their heads in the sand, that is fine with me. I just want to remind you that Al Queda didn’t discriminate on 9/11 between conservative and liberals. They hate every one of us and want to kill as many Americans as they can. Time will tell as next’s year’s elections loom closer who is right and who is wrong. My money is on the party that is actually doing something about terriorism and making us safer.
July 7th, 2005 at 2:40 pmZwack,
July 7th, 2005 at 2:41 pmHere is the real meaning of “fixed”. Read another memo authored by Rycroft that was evidence considered in the Hutton Inquiry. Now tell us what the meaning of “fixed” is.
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/isc/isc_3_0004.pdf
Steed,
Thanks for to rational/irrational cpmparison, I just wonder why you posted it since it debunks most of the right-wing sympathizers’ claims. Nice try though. Didn’t you read it first?
And fake truth, what sand are you talking about, Iraqi or Afghanistan? Something tells me that if we had kept our heads in Afghani sand, we may have found Osama. Try again.
July 7th, 2005 at 2:53 pmDo liberals believe that if Bin Laden were captured or killed that all terrorist’s activities would immediately stop? If you believe that, then you really are misled. The best way to stop terrorism is to transform those nations that harbor terrorism into democracies. Now, this does not mean immediately bombing all countries with dictators. Some of the reforms will come gradually through diplomacy. But you cannot have diplomacy without the threat of force. All I know is that I am right and last November, most Americans felt the same way voted for four more years!
July 7th, 2005 at 2:59 pmtoo bad most americans didn’t vote that way for four years the first time around
July 7th, 2005 at 3:04 pmYes T and A, you are right….absolutely right on every fact and every detail. All of us paintywaist liberals have exactly the same beliefs, no dissent, no diversty of opinion. Of course if Bin Laden were caught it would end terrorism, just as when Hussein was caught it ended the war in Iraq and broke the will of the counterinsurgency.
If you can’t have diplomacy without the threat of force (must have missed that one in civics class)you surely cannot break international law and invade a sovereign nation based on falsehoods and fabrication.
Why are these people unable to connect the dots? Is it cognitive dissonance, stubbornness, stupidity? Are they that caught up in the spin machine? Makes you wonder what they’re doing arguing with liberals when they are so certain of their truths. If your majority is right and your beliefs sincere….why do you need to argue with liberals?
July 7th, 2005 at 3:11 pmSteed,
Fixed in this context clearly means that the meeting was fixed for a certain time. If you prefer we can use the word Arranged…
Now, let us put that into the other memo…
The intelligence is being arranged around the policy. That makes perfect sense to me and still sounds like “they’re taking what they want it to look like.
Shall we try again?
Z.
July 7th, 2005 at 3:14 pmGood diversion here, but where’s the hard evidence on Rove? All we have so far is irrational paranoia.
July 7th, 2005 at 3:14 pmbut its not irrational paranoia to say liberals are supporting Al-Qaeda?
July 7th, 2005 at 3:16 pmBin Laden WAS behind 9/11 right? It would take Al’Queda down a notch or two, no? Is Saudi Arabia a democracy? Are we backing diplomacy with military force there? What about Pakistan possibly harboring Osama/Taliban members and they can’t find them? Invade Pakistan? Why not, they are not a democracy?
Rather than trip yourself up with pesky facts, perhaps you should just shut up and follow blindly. Thats your solution, right?
July 7th, 2005 at 3:16 pmZwack,
July 7th, 2005 at 3:17 pmThat was really lame. But you’re providing a great example of an irrational thinker. Does anyone else want to give it a try?
How’s this for irrational paranoia. Let me know if you see any common threads here. Hardly irrational, nevermind paranoid:
Rove Was Fired For Leaking A Damaging Story About GOP Fundraiser. Esquire’s Ron Suskind reported that, “Sources close to the former president [George H.W. Bush] say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with campaign fundraising chief and Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr. It was smoked out, and he was summarily ousted.”
For more…..
[White House Briefing, 9/29/03; Esquire, 1/2003 Issue]
July 7th, 2005 at 3:18 pmYour diversion Steed, remember?
July 7th, 2005 at 3:18 pmfunny part is the irrational thinker thing describes the neo cons to a tee.
and yet….
July 7th, 2005 at 3:19 pmSo Steed, not only did Bush 41 detest any American that would endanger an undercover agent by blowing their cover (he passed a law against it I believe) but he had Rove fired from his campaign back in 1992. Sheesh, you’d think daddy would have had a bit more respect for the little turd blossom.
July 7th, 2005 at 3:22 pmIf your majority is right and your beliefs sincere….why do you need to argue with liberals?
Comment by Jay  July 7, 2005 @ 3:11 pm
I come here because in you liberal losers I see myself pre 9/11. Those of you drowning in koolaid are not who I aim to reach, it’s the readers who come in here and juxtapose our comments. I knew I was going hard right after the left started the BS about the pipeline being the reason Bush used the Israelis to attack us on 9/11, then once you step away you realize how whacked the left really is. I think most younger people feel peer pressure to lean left. Just grow up.
July 7th, 2005 at 3:44 pmfake but accurate,
And for me it’s people like you that I most despise. You the people that have access to the truth, read and understand and have enough common sense to know better than to believe the phony storyline that the Bush admin and the Republicans have concocted not just on Iraq but on EVERYTHING. You honestly believe that the invasion of Iraq was a reaction to 9/11? If you do, I can only question your intelligence. fake, you are a danger to this country because your line of reasoning doesn’t jive with reality. There is nothing that this adminstration has done to improve our lives. NOTHING.
July 7th, 2005 at 3:53 pmI see so you took few comments by some conspiracy nuts and decided that is how anyone who does not agree with the right believed?
I don’t believe that either and I am sure most of the progressives here don’t. We know who attacked us. We question why we attacked Iraq. Why go after a contained country that was not threat to the U.S. when the perpatrators of 9/11 are still running free?
July 7th, 2005 at 3:54 pmNo, the pipeline deal with the Taliban pre-9/11 couldn’t have been a risky deal that could backlash into a situation such as 9/11, could it? Don’t be so naive just because they were in trusting the Taliban. Or were they? Money talks.
July 7th, 2005 at 3:54 pmI don’t think the “pipeline deal” had anything to do with 9/11. I do suspect however that the PNAC statement that in order for the US to implement their stated goals of transforming our defense policy it would require:
A “catalyzing event  like a new Pearl Harborâ€?â€â€was seen as necessary to bring this about.
…had a lot to do with it.
July 7th, 2005 at 4:00 pmSteed,
Please provide something to show that my argument that the meaning of “arranged” for “fixed” does not work in BOTH of those memos.
Please also provide some proof from British English speakers that “Fixed” means something else in this context.
At the moment I am seeing only Rational arguments that this means what I thought it did and NO rational arguments that it doesn’t.
Your complete lack of an argument (along with an ad hominem attack) is irrational.
Z.
July 7th, 2005 at 4:04 pm“Do liberals believe that if Bin Laden were captured or killed that all terrorist’s activities would immediately stop?”
No, and who did say that? Is this a strawman argument? It sure sounds like one to me…
“The best way to stop terrorism is to transform those nations that harbor terrorism into democracies.”
Oh, so what about nations that fund terrorist organisations? Given that the US has had links in the past to various terrorist organisations are you going to bring Democracy to America? (If you don’t think the US has had links to terrorists then please explain the Iran-Contra affair and NORAID)
“But you cannot have diplomacy without the threat of force.”
di·plo·ma·cy
n.
1. The art or practice of conducting international relations, as in negotiating alliances, treaties, and agreements.
2. Tact and skill in dealing with people. See Synonyms at tact.
Nope, nothing about the Threat of Force in there. In fact almost the opposite. Negotiating, Agreements, Tact, none of these sound like “threatening to pummel them”. That definition came from the American Heritage Dictionary by the way.
” All I know is that I am right and last November, most Americans felt the same way voted for four more years!”
I hardly feel that a 2.5% lead in the popular vote counts as “most Americans” particularly when only 43% of the population actually voted. Your dogma though definitely fits with Steeds claims about Rational and Irrational thinkers… “I KNOW THAT I AM RIGHT” That sounds perfectly rational to me.
Z. (Although with my new name I know you won’t argue…)
July 7th, 2005 at 4:34 pmRemarkable, really. The NeoKons tell us to simply follow and to “believe” their supreme almightly second coming at the Right Hand of God frat-boy. All it takes is faith. That Bush is viewed as saving We The People of the US from more Bad Things proves that people will believe anything they’re told. Right. Wrong. Or propaganda.
But the truths about this sick and twisted administration include (but are by no means limited to):
- Rove was fired from 41’s administration, and looks to be on the verge of seeing jailtime
- Rumsfeld told Saddam in person to not worry about using chemical weapons (Ray-gun asked him to go on that administration’s behalf)
- 43 was warned by the Russians, Egyptians, and Jordanians that we were going to be hit on our own ground using airplanes.
- 43 told the 10th Mountain Division to leave the cornered in Tora Bora bin Laden to the Pakastanis and Afghanis to “arrest” or otherwise deal with.
- 43 knew the evidence on Saddam was thin before he started bombing Saddam in May 2001 (months before the ground forces were committed).
- 43 made a big show of going to the UN, when he and Blair had setup the gig as a way to corner Saddam.
- 43 knew that the 9/11 attackers came from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, yet chose to attack other largely defensless nations.
- 43 installed a former oil executive as the head man in Afghanistan.
- 43 declared the Taliban “gone”, yet the Taliban have arisen and are turning Afghanistan into another Iraq one attack at a time.
- 43 declared the “war” in Iraq “Mission Accomplished”, yet that country has become, according to the CIA, the new training ground for “terrorists” as they continue to send our children home in caskets.
- 43 is so fair and balanced that he can’t even ride a bicycle.
Makes a little stain on a blue dress seem rather insignificant.
If Rove looks like he’s headed to jail (that he so richly deserves), the Supreme most impeachable Commander Ever will pardon him.
July 7th, 2005 at 4:42 pmThe correct way of saying it is, “Bush cannot practice diplomacy without the threat of force.”
July 7th, 2005 at 4:44 pmAnd for me it’s people like you that I most despise.
Comment by Jay
I expect you would, leftists hate turncoats most of all. GLOBAL war on terror. Did Wake bomb Pearl Harbor? North Africa? France? Not that you would know what the hell I’m referring to, next.
I see so you took few comments by some conspiracy nuts and decided that is how anyone who does not agree with the right believed?I don’t believe that either and I am sure most of the progressives here don’t
Comment by Krazny
You guys were still pushing that BS at your make believe impeachment hearing. You may want to have a talk with jay : )
A “catalyzing event  like a new Pearl Harborâ€?â€â€was seen as necessary to bring this about.…had a lot to do with it.
Comment by Jay
so Bush attacked us? Or was it Israel? I think Wolfowitz might be a Jew and in PNAC, musta been him.
Like I said, whacked.
July 7th, 2005 at 4:45 pmFBA,
Where did the attackers of 9/11 come from? Which countries. Please. Where are our children dying? Which countries. Please. Disconnect? Now who’s “whacked”?
July 7th, 2005 at 4:49 pmStill waiting for the hard evidence on Rove. The liberals are so convinced he’s guilty yet they can’t provide any evidence. Why not? Because there is none. See the irrational thinker.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:01 pmGLOBAL. World War. What passports they carried matters not when you admit their aim is a pan-arab islamofascist state. We just caught American muslims in iraq, we have had British muslims attack Israel, chechnyans in Afghanistan, North Africans in Spain.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:06 pmG-L-O-B-A-L!
With our forces in Iraq we have the iranians caught in the middle of our forces and we are trying to change our past failed policies of proping up dictators to bringing democracy to the middle east. but that’s not better?
Yes whacked.
Hard evidence on Rove? Gads. Don’t Konservatives read or watch the news? Or didn’t Fox News report on this yet? Will you believe it when the investigators detail their case against Rove? Or will it only be some “whacked” Liberal subversive action against the sainted queen?
Yep. Global. I see the US went after all those christofascist ReichWingWackos who blew up that big building in OK. Oh, they didn’t, did they? Well they should have. They can jail an Imam for uttering words of damnation against the US (first WTC bombing). But they can’t and won’t jail Christian ministers for uttering words of damnation against the US that led directly to the OKC bombing. Nope. That just won’t do, now would it?
Fools. Both of you.
Not that either of you would believe it, but my son served 1.75 years in Iraq before the Army would let him out. And guess what the commanders and soldiers in his company believe is the reason they were in Iraq. Just guess. One word. Oil. So prove my son wrong.
Fools. Again. Both of you.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:26 pmit is completely unsatisfying talking to bushies who prefer to blame progressives first. Why don’t you go to redstate.org and leave us alone? You aren’t interested in conversation, you just want to bludgeon someone & we’re the closest thing at hand.
I’m not a trained psycologist but I’d say you all have tiny pecker syndrome.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:47 pmchristofascist ReichWingWackos who blew up that big building in OK.
I forgot, the party line on that one was: nazis attacked the federal building to avenge the deaths of what nazis would call race traitors? Have I got that right? Mcvey did it I think, and over Waco, but to say he was a nazi defies all logic, have you seen who Wus Clark burned alive in Waco? Not the kinda people nazis worry about, or you it would seem.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:58 pmAbigail Martinez 11
July 7th, 2005 at 6:02 pmAisha Gyarfas 17
Allison Monbelly 31
Alugard Martinez 15
Audrey Martinez 13
Beverly Elliott 30
Bobbie Koresh 2
Chica Jones 1 – Twins
Conway LeBleu 31
Crystal Martinez 3
Cyrus Howell 8
David Jones 38
David Koresh 33
Dayland Gent 3
Diana Henry 28
Doris Fagan 51
Floricita Sonobe 35
Floyd Houtman 61
George Bennett 35
Gregory Summers 28
Hollywood Sylvia 2
Isaiah Martinez 4
James Riddle 32
Jaydean Wendell 34
Jeffrey Little 31
Jennifer Andrade 19
John McBean 27
Joseph Martinez 8
Judy Schneider 41
Julianne Matthews ?
Julitte Martinez 30
Katherine Andrade ?
Lisa Fagan 24
Lisa Farris 24
Lisa Martin 13
Little One Jones 1 – Twins
Livingstone Malcolm 26
Lorraine Sylvia 40
Margarida Vaega 47
Mark Wendell 37
Mary Jean Borst 49
Mayannah Schneider 3
Melissa Morrison 6
Michael Schroeder 29
Michelle Jones 18
Neal Vaega 38
Newborn Baby Gyarfas
Nicole Gent 23
Nicole Little 24
Novellette Hipsman 36
Pablo Cohen 28
Page Gent 1
Paulina Henry 24
Perry Jones 64
Peter Gent 24
Peter Hipsman 28
Philip Henry 22
Rachel Jones 24
Rachel Koresh 26
Rachel Sylvia 13
Raymond Freisen 77
Rebecca Saipala 24
Robert Williams 27
Rosemary Morrison 29
Sandra Hardial 27
Scott Sonobe 35
Serenity Jones 4
Shari Doyle 18
Sheila Martin 15
Sherri Jewell 42
Sonja Murray ?
Star Howell 5
Startle Summers 1
Stephen Henry 26
Steve Schneider 43
Steven Willis 33
Susan Benta 30
Teresa Noriega 48
Todd McKeehan 29
Vanessa Henry 19
Wayne Martin 42
Winston Blake 28
Yvette Fagan 32
Zilla Henry 55
Many of them were Black, Asian, and Hispanic, but they were all Christians, so you got no problem with that, right?
Now what the f*ck are you spouting about? Nice side-swipe, but it doesn’t address what the topic is.
July 7th, 2005 at 6:15 pmFBC, WTF are you wanking on about?
Rove may end up in jail. It will NOT be a “whacked out” liberal action he makes it that far. It will be something called justice. Remember that word. Justice.
We did not and should not suspend our system of justice just because you have a tickle in your pants about “liberals”.
July 7th, 2005 at 6:16 pmJC
July 7th, 2005 at 6:20 pmYes, I will only believe it when investigators detail their case against Rove. I can wait. Why can’t you? Innocent until proven guilty? Not here. No one has shown hard evidence yet. The name calling isn’t very persuasive, either.
Ever feel like there’s no justice?
While the New York Times’ Judith Miller sits in jail for protecting the identity of the Valerie Plame turncoat, Bush White House grand inquisitor and likely leaker Karl Rove remains at large.
That’s why you need to play Karl Rove Whack-a-Mole, the contest that lets you be Karl Rove’s judge and jury (though not executioner).
The contest is simple. You get to sentence Karl Rove for his crimes; the best and most fitting punishment wins the contest and a 1 GB iPod Shuffle.
For more details and to enter, see:
“The Karl Rove Whack-a-Mole Contest.”
July 7th, 2005 at 6:51 pmGod of Whacked,
July 7th, 2005 at 7:19 pmYou bring up Waco, then want to drop it after I point out it was a democratic presidential candidate who sent the tanks to kill your fellow Americans in defiance of the constitution? I guess that does make your side look kinda bad. Now that Wus Clarke guy could be a nazi. The latest in this “Plume” farce is Joe Wilson now calls Miller “collateral damage.” This gets better by the day. Go get your ipod girls.
FBA, WTF are you wanking on about? Get over yourself. You miss the point entirely. Sorry. You suck.
July 7th, 2005 at 7:21 pmfake,
I didn’t like how Waco was handled and I don’t like how BushCo. has handled the war on “terrah” by going into Iraq. Rather than trying to build a time machine to stop Clinton and Reno (who could still kick your sorry ass), I choose to fight this administration and it corruption.
When you develop the time machine so we can go back in history to correct the wrong-doings of the past, let me know. I’ll bring the snacks.
July 7th, 2005 at 8:10 pmWhen you develop the time machine so we can go back in history to correct the wrong-doings of the past, let me know. I’ll bring the snacks.
Comment by Skid  July 7, 2005
I’m sorry, I didn’t know there was a statute of limitations of violations of the constitution and murder? I’m not now and I have not been a Christian since I was about 12, but that stank then and seeing Clarke walking free and clintoon and Reno walk on that one still sucks ass. Hell that’s how Clark got his freaking promotion, vets who served under him have zero respect for that guy, he is a war criminal without the war, here, in your backyard. But their plan worked, if a nazi did OK then they knew most people wouldn’t care about Waco anymore. That was not a left or right issue, as a matter of fact I was farther left than most of you here back then, it didn’t make it ok then and it’s still not ok now. I didn’t bring it up and gloat about it like it was some great victory gassing and bombing those kids in the arms of their mothers, darth did, that is your side talking.
July 9th, 2005 at 1:30 ambdsm atlanta
Think Progress »…
October 8th, 2005 at 2:22 amI enjoyed your site so much so i have to say it to you. Faithful TV is always Green Player: http://www.sciencedaily.com/ , when Round Kill Tournament Anticipate Stake can Hope Player , Roll Player is very good Girl Profound Game Create or not
December 1st, 2005 at 10:15 am