July 3, 2005: Rove’s Lawyer Lies To Bloomberg
By on Jul 10th, 2005 at 10:12 am
July 3, 2005: Rove’s Lawyer Lies To Bloomberg
Here’s what Karl Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin told Bloomberg News on July 3, 2005:
[Karl Rove] did nothing wrong, did not disclose Plame’s identity, and did not reveal any confidential information.
According to TIME reporter Matt Cooper’s e-mail, here is what Karl Rove told him sometime before July 11, 2003:
[I]t was, KR [Karl Rove] said, wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip.
This was before the Novak column appeared on July 14. At that time, the fact that Joe Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA was confidential information.
(On other occasions, Luskin has said Rove never “knowingly” disclosed classified information. But he did not use that qualifier with Bloomberg News.)
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Maybe now the WH press corps will ask a question. But I won’t hold my breath.
July 10th, 2005 at 10:38 amI guess this story isn’t a big deal for journalists who make their bank on Sunday Morning either, barely a blip. Maybe they get their scripts from the WHPC.
July 10th, 2005 at 10:48 amEditors assign reporters and direct attention, so the members of (ta-da) White House Press Corps (Semper Vacuous) dare not peek at an exposed Bush or their editors will nail them for political pornography. Does anyone know what happened to Helen Thomas? Edward R. Murrow? Ring Lardner?
July 10th, 2005 at 11:15 amWhat was Karl Rove ( A political strategist) doing messing around on the WMDS issue at the CIA in the first place?
Does KR have a Top Secret Clearence or just the consent of George W. Bush? Bush does have a history of sending his opertaives to Governmen Agencies to cover up or outright remove any documents which may implicate him in any wrong doing.
July 10th, 2005 at 12:13 pmLiving out here in California, and being a late sleeper, I haven’t had the pleasure of watching Meet the Press yet. So, tell me, was it fun watching Timmie grilling Republican apologists today about their treasonous leader? I know Timmie didn’t let us down, so he must have been spectacular today.
July 10th, 2005 at 12:20 pmDoes KR have a Top Secret Clearence or just the consent of George W. Bush?
This White House takes secret info so unseriously, there is no telling what they’ve passed around. According to Eric Alterman:
In his most recent book, Bush at War, Bob Woodward brags that he was given access to the deeply classified minutes of National Security Council meetings. He also noted, not long ago, that the President sat for lengthy interviews, often speaking candidly about classified information. This surprised even Woodward, who observed, “Certainly Richard Nixon would not have allowed reporters to question him like that. Bush’s father wouldn’t allow it. Clinton wouldn’t allow it.” But George W. Bush does it–breaking the law in the process–and nobody seems to care.
July 10th, 2005 at 12:20 pmIf Michael “pottyboy” Isikoff has the email why not release the whole thing? It is now part of the evidence and testimony to the grand jury, protected as such, but why not print the entire contents? I think pottyboy is still pissed over being proven a liar.
July 10th, 2005 at 12:22 pmWhy should we think there will be an honest investigation into the Karl Rove leak? Not much about this potentially explosive story was mentioned on the Sunday morning talk shows that I watched. The media is controlled through corporate sponsors and so by the Bush administration. Prediction: Not only will KR get a free pass, but he will be hailed as a true patriot by some twisted evaluation. And maybe he’ll run for president; and the usual whackos who elected G.B. and who think it’s macho to send our men and women to die in this illegal war, will elect him.
July 10th, 2005 at 12:29 pmUh oh: “Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame’s name or knew she was a covert operative.”
July 10th, 2005 at 12:40 pmHAHA fake! Good one!
July 10th, 2005 at 12:41 pmWay to go ED!
July 10th, 2005 at 12:42 pm“The media is controlled through corporate sponsors and so by the Bush administration.”
You need to loosen the tinfoil hat a bit.
July 10th, 2005 at 12:42 pmOr is it thinking cap?
July 10th, 2005 at 12:43 pmRight. All the Democrats in the mainstream media, people like Dan Rather(gate) and former Clinton aid George Stephanopoulos, are controlled by the Bush Administration. And the Earth really is flat. *L*
July 10th, 2005 at 12:47 pmRestricted rather than controlled?
July 10th, 2005 at 12:49 pm“Restricted rather than controlled?”
Nope, that’s equally nutty.
July 10th, 2005 at 12:50 pmGee, if you say so…
July 10th, 2005 at 12:52 pmThese latest revelations only highlight why you need to play Karl Rove Whack-a-Mole, the contest that lets you be Karl Rove’s judge and jury.
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 10th, 2005 at 12:57 pmBy the way, if Rove ever uses the expression “no controlling legal authority”, his punishment should be severe – and frequent.
July 10th, 2005 at 12:58 pmThe point is not exactly what Karl Rove said. It’s clear he was part of the outing. The point is who is Karl Rove’s source. Does Judy Miller’s source = Karl Rove’s source. Miller would not out her source, likely because she is CIA and her source is CIA/pentagon, and she’s sworn to secrecy not as a journalist but as an operative.
Karl Rove was the conduit to the msm propagandists.
The real story is the battle between intelligence communities. One faction pro Iraq invasion, the other faction anti Iraq invasion.
This is national security agency in-fighting, with 100,000+ dead as a result.
July 10th, 2005 at 1:21 pmObviously lying about sex is of national importance but lying about national security issues isn’t, why, because the media and press aren’t capable of being journalists anymore, theres just too much money and influence in following the right wing line.
July 10th, 2005 at 1:24 pmIt is a fact Clinton lied to a grand jusry and to a federal judge. The content of the lie is a separate issue. There’s no “sexual content” exception for perjury.
There’s no evidence that anyone in the Bush Administration has lied to anyone, especially to a grand jury or to a judge.
July 10th, 2005 at 1:35 pmEd
There is ample evidence that the PResident lied to the American people repeatedly regarding WMD, yellow cake, his intentions to go to war. The Downing street memo is just one piece of evidence, the US and UK bombing of Iraq outside the no-fly zone a year before the official invasion is another piece of evidence.
There’s plenty of evidence. What we need are impeachment proceedings run by impartial group to examine the evidence.
July 10th, 2005 at 1:39 pmEd
July 10th, 2005 at 1:41 pmAn impeachment proceeding would prove that the President lied to COngress, which would be the major crime.
Ed
July 10th, 2005 at 1:42 pmLying to a grand jury is small potatoes compared to lying to Congress regarding authority to conduct war
Will the WH press corps ask a question? If they do, it will start with “Mother may I…?”
July 10th, 2005 at 1:44 pmEd
July 10th, 2005 at 1:44 pmLying to Congress to get authority to conduct war is a war crime among other things. Lying to a grand jury about having sex is a minor pimple. Lying that leads us to war in which 100,000+ are killed, would make him guilty of war crime.
Let’s say that report is accurate and Rove did say something like “Wilson’s wife works for the CIA and the trip was a nepotistic junket.” That would not constitute a breaking of the law, of course. There are a number of reasons 1.) If he did not give Plame’s name (which he apparently did not), then he did not disclose her identity, particularly as the professional status of Wilson’s wife was disclosed in a number of public registries and documents. 2.) I believe the law specifies that you must knowingly be exposing an undercover agent and it’s not clear that Plame was undercover or Rove knew that.
In any case, if you boil it down to the statement itself, its rather innocuous as these things go… It will be interesting to see who if anyone actually gets charged.
July 10th, 2005 at 2:02 pmIt’s worse. Goes deeper, farther back into 2002, and includes more members of the admin.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/10/95928/2698
I should think ED and FBA would be packing by now. I wonder where they are going? Someplace that has no extradition treaties with the U.S. I expect.
July 10th, 2005 at 2:11 pmThey’re stocking up @ Sam’s Club on bulk aluminum foil.
July 10th, 2005 at 2:15 pmYou should ban the right wing troll from commenting…..
July 10th, 2005 at 2:19 pmRight. All the Democrats in the mainstream media, people like Dan Rather(gate) and former Clinton aid George Stephanopoulos, are controlled by the Bush Administration. And the Earth really is flat. *L*
Check out who sponsors the talking head shows which influence American public opinion; Monsanto, the Wall Street Journal, Boeing, Dow Corning, the Olin Foundation, the Bradley foundation, Charles Schwab investments, General Electric, British Petroleum, Coors beer, etc. To refute this, simply name a demonstratably LIBERAL company which sponsors a talking head show. Just one. C’mon, it should be simple! And if there is anyone who thinks George Stephanopolis is ANYTHING but a toadying little cretin, I haven’t met them yet. Trying to deflect attention to worms like George S. only shows the vacuousnes of your argument; who pays their salaries, fool?
And the Earth really is flat. *L*
Perhaps if you got up off of the floor … *L*
July 10th, 2005 at 2:22 pmnaw we need to keep the trolls posting here. Otherwise who would we bludgeon with facts and reason?
July 10th, 2005 at 2:24 pm*bludgeon*
He said bludgeon! That’s a threat! Call the FBI!
Comment by The Editors, American Federalist Journal  July 10, 2005 @ 1:35 pm
July 10th, 2005 at 2:27 pm*bludgeon*
He said bludgeon! That’s a threat! Call the FBI!
Comment by The Editors, American Federalist Journal  July 10, 2005 @ 1:35 pm
Comment by GoD  July 10, 2005 @ 2:27 pm
Comment by God? Oxycontin hangover again?
July 10th, 2005 at 2:30 pmPlease Wash Hands After Use
July 10th, 2005 at 2:31 pmRove’s tightope walk started months ago. Last year, Rove told CNN that, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, it was all about what “naming names” means:
“Well, I’ll repeat what I said to ABC News when this whole thing broke some number of months ago. I didn’t know her name. I didn’t leak her name.”
For more details, see:
“The Rove Defense: No Controlling Legal Authority”
July 10th, 2005 at 2:32 pmThe most amusing aspect of this whole thing is watching the same people who were all over Clinton about playing word games, are now doing their best to spin Karls statements.
July 10th, 2005 at 2:35 pmComment by God? Oxycontin hangover again?
Comment by dano347  July 10, 2005 @ 2:30 pm
Book’em Dano! Not just Rove. The whole damn White House!
July 10th, 2005 at 2:36 pm“There is ample evidence that the PResident lied to the American people repeatedly regarding WMD, yellow cake, his intentions to go to war.”
There’s is no evidence that Bush lied about any of that.
July 10th, 2005 at 2:40 pmImpersonating another commenter really demonstrates the honesty and integrity of liberals well, doesn’t it? *L*
July 10th, 2005 at 2:41 pmLeak? Yeah, I leaked alright. I ran out of paper, too.
July 10th, 2005 at 2:42 pmHow do you like the elephant now?
July 10th, 2005 at 2:45 pmHey! Have you googled: *Worst President Ever* lately? Guess what comes up first? The official GWB Bio.
July 10th, 2005 at 2:48 pmWhat is Ed doing here?
Shouldn’t he and his kind be volunteering for the Army now that recruitment numbers are very DOWN and he was very UP for this war of choice?
July 10th, 2005 at 2:59 pmSomeone has to clean the latrine.
July 10th, 2005 at 2:59 pmme — Was Karl Rovbe right when he said liberals don’t support the war on terror? Do you support the war on terror? If so, shouldn’t you be volunteering to help fight it, by your own standard?
July 10th, 2005 at 3:00 pmThere’s is no evidence that Bush lied about any of that.
Ground Control to Major ED- Your circuit’s dead, is there something wrong?
Can you hear me (reality) Major ED?
Can you hear me (reality) Major ED?
July 10th, 2005 at 3:01 pmAll seven Chicago police officers charged with violating the civil rights of demonstrators were acquitted. Charges against an eighth officer were dismissed. Richard Shultz explained the verdicts by observing, “The people who sit on juries in this city are just not ready to convict a Chicago policeman.”
There is no simple “yes” or “no” answer to the question of whether the Chicago defendants intended to incite a riot in Chicago in 1968. Abbie Hoffman said, “I don’t know whether I’m innocent or I’m guilty.” The reason for the confusion–as Norman Mailer pointed out–was that the alleged conspirators “understood that you didn’t have to attack the fortress anymore.” All they had to do was “surround it, make faces at the people inside and let them have nervous breakdowns and destroy themselves.”
I think it’s working.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:02 pmI’m doing an online poll. Do you prefer the picture of Karl at the link?
July 10th, 2005 at 3:04 pmOr does the elephant taking a dump rock your world?
July 10th, 2005 at 3:05 pmForgot about that one Janitor. Be a good sig.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:06 pmCan you believe the crap from the Weakly Stankhard we are running at our site? The crap about the non-existent al-Qaeda/ Saddam/Iraq link? what do you suppose I do with all that elephant crap I clean up? No point in letting it go to waste. I have to put it someplace. Damn environmentalists! We recycle!
July 10th, 2005 at 3:09 pmHere is the problem with discussing truth and empirical reality with myopic intellects such as this specious fan, acolyte or representative of the AFJ –> Admitting that Bush lied to the American people in any way prods them to abandon their lockstep acquiescence and begin to think for themselves or better yet, to put themselves in someone else’s shoes, traditionally the milieu of liberalism. That is too much to expect from people whose entire psyche is driven by paranoia, a dread of diversity and a self-hate dealt with by turning it on everyone else. They are the paragons of the ends justifies the means.
How about a simple reflection of George Bush as a leader? As a CEO, a business leader, he was a toal, unmitigated disaster. Now why should he be any different as a political leader? Has he somehow grown wiser from his days at Harken? And how about this for one blatant lie from the mouth of George Bush –> Bush promised to be a uniter and not a divider. Yet his policies and statements willfully encourage massive division.
AJF Editor, please answer this: Will you admit or will you deny that George Bush has even once LIED to the American people?
July 10th, 2005 at 3:11 pmI’ll get back to you. Give me some time. The elephant just too a crap again. Work! Work! Work! Busy! Busy! Busy!
July 10th, 2005 at 3:19 pmNote that in #48 Skid had an opportunity to provide evidence yet provided nothing.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:24 pmAnd in a further note to Ed at AJF, shove you diatribes about our patriotism back where they belong. We support action against terrorism in far more enlightened and productive ways than your ilk ever will. What liberals are not interested in is mindless quantity of action. We are interested in quality.
Why should we fight in Iraq? It had NOTHING to do with the attacks of 9/11. This is a war of choice and it should be fought by folks like you who believe in it, not by those of us who are dismayed by Bush’s heinous and malodorous detour from the real fight. Recall Afghanistan? What is the country now? Essentially abandoned by the Bush administration. The Taliban grows in strength every day and operates with impunity. Opium production is booming. And Osama Bin Laden? Yeah, I thought so…
You know what liberals wanted after 9/11? We wanted to get the actual bad guys. We wanted their heads on sticks. What we did not want is to take away one of their playgrounds only to hand them another and far deadlier one.
We demand a two-pronged battle, one that is not solely shock and awe. We demand genuine insight into the diplomatic, social and political imperatives that will provide Middle-easterners with a positive alternative to becoming a terrorist. get this, Señor Jingospeak, you don’t kill a weed by cutting off its top. You have to kill its roots. That, in simple words you might grasp, is Common Sense 101.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:24 pm“AJF Editor, please answer this: Will you admit or will you deny that George Bush has even once LIED to the American people?”
I follow the news very closely. I peruse several newspapers almost every day. I can’t think of any time President Bush has lied, no.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:27 pmWith regard to Ed’s snipe at Skid, can you PROVE that Bush did not lie?
Of course, you might try reviving the neurons responsible for sensical thought. Isn’t there enough doubt about Bush’s veracity over a tremendously important issue, the lives and deaths of fellow Americans. to merit an inquiry. Certainly Republicans had a far lower standard for inquiry in the Clinton years. Going by that standard, which your sect embraced with gusto, would you not be a total hypocrite to rebuff any meaningful investigation at all into possible untruths used by George Bush to take this nation to war?
July 10th, 2005 at 3:30 pmWell, maybe one time. He told me I’d get $10.00 an hour for this lousy job. I’m still just making minimum wage.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:31 pmHey Ed, I’ve just given you an example of a Bush lie. Trying to be nice, I even made it an innocuous one. He PROMISED to be a uniter. In what way, shape or form has George Bush united this nation? He broke that promise, ergo, he lied.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:31 pm#57 was nonsense from beginning to end.
“Why should we fight in Iraq? It had NOTHING to do with the attacks of 9/11.”
The war on terror is not about 9/11. It’s about trying to stop the next attack, not the last one. The Iraq-alQaeda connection is clear – http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp
The US still has troops in Afghanistan. No serious person would say we’ve abandoned it.
It is the liberals’ standard, not mine, that one must enlist if one supports a war. So do you support the war on terror? If so, when are you going to enlist?
July 10th, 2005 at 3:31 pm“He PROMISED to be a uniter. In what way, shape or form has George Bush united this nation? He broke that promise, ergo, he lied.”
No he didn’t. He can’t control you hate-filled liberals, and he never implied he could. He has acted to unite the country.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:33 pmI think this might be a lie. All the while he has been dishing out his tough guy talk, he has been secretly planning a big troop drawdown from Iraq. He wants out of that mess, and they have milked that puppy dry. He just has to figure out a way to blame somebody for the mess. He needs a fall guy. They are trying to pin it on liberals, but that’s got to be a hard sell.
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=355291&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=
July 10th, 2005 at 3:35 pmLook, Ed, the bottom line is that you have purposefully betrayed your own probable desire for honor and justice, because you can have neither if you are select in their application. Of course George Bush has lied. I will admit that Clinton lied. Yet you say that you cannot think of even a single lie from Bush. The blinders you folks wear really do shield all of your senses, don’t they? It positively boggles the mind.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:35 pmYou will never get this clown to admit to anything. He’s some shyster lawyer who got disbarred I’d bet. This is his only means of support.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:37 pmthe bottom line is that you have purposefully betrayed your own probable desire for honor and justice
Clandy, you put too much perfume on that turd. ED has neither.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:38 pmI can’t think of a Bush lie, and apparently neither can you, or you’d have posted one by now and backed up your assertion. So we’re even. Admitting Clinton lied is like admitting the Sun came up this morning.
When all you can come up with is “Bush promised to unite the country, and America-loathing liberals still hate him” you’re on very thin ice, to say the least.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:38 pmThe best part of ED ran down the perineum of Mommy’s posterior.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:40 pmIf ED represents America, I’d hate it, too!
July 10th, 2005 at 3:41 pmGet this through your petrified noggin, Ed –> Bush is FAILING in Afghanistan. He pays only the most meager attention to that nation, which promises to turn it into another terrorist breeding ground. And Iraq? That is YOUR war. It had no viable terrorism that could affect us until AFTER Bush sent in our troops. Basically what you are saying is this—> You drink too much, you vomit on the floor and you expect me to clean it up because I can also smell the stink. No thanks, brother, the bile of Iraq is your mess and until you personally grab your mop you don’t have one ounce of credibility. You blow the trumpet, you lead the charge. Post your enlistment form and we might, MIGHT, dredge up an iota of admiration. Until then, we all know we’re talking to a genuine Chickenhawk.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:42 pmOf course Bush lied. He lied to Congress to get his little war. And if Bush wasn’t so damned worried about it smacking him in the face, ED would be pumping gas or working in a 7/11 instead of here spinning like a spider on acid.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:43 pm#71, repeating the same nonsense doesn’t help a bit.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:44 pmPeruse: This word, which means “examine thoroughly� is often misused to mean “glance over hastily.� Although some dictionaries accept the latter meaning, it is not traditional.
I suspect That ED is not using the word traditionally.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:45 pmThe Bush administration lies about everything. Do they ever tell the truth? These creeps know it’s not about the truth anymore. It’s about what the majority of Americans are willing to believe.
Ill-informed Republicans who think they are supporting the ‘Party of Lincoln’ are being betrayed by the current administration. The Republican Party today have very little to do with the Republican Party of old.
Bush and Rove are turning the US into a fascist, theocratic dictatorship right before our eyes. They’re lucky most Americans prefer to keep their eyes shut.
These ‘journalists’ from the American Federalist Journal support lies with more lies. Truth and democracy are both on the endangered species list in the US. It’s pretty sad.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:45 pmEd, Ed, Ed… How sad for you. Of course Bush lies every single day. Clean Skies? It increases pollution. Healthy Forests? Every single study has shown it will damage watersheds and do zip to actually improve forest health. Naturally you will toss back some biased study that came from the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute or Fox News, but really, you must know somewhere in your soul that they’re all corporate shills. Or maybe you don’t. That makes you even more sad, a drone and intellectually impotent.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:46 pmClandy – By your own standard, not mine, if you support the war on terror, then you’re a chickenhawk. If you don’t support it, then Rove was correct. So which is it? Put up or shut up.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:46 pmED is a sociopath, like his idol, the chimp. In his mind, there is no *lie*. These two create their own reality. A butterfly net and a straitjacket are in their future. Rubber rooms so they won’t hurt themselves. And lemon chicken entrees. Keep Gitmo open. We are going to have boatloads of new guests.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:47 pmJohnny has his tinfoil hat on way too tight.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:47 pmbut really, you must know somewhere in your soul
What soul?! Someone else holds the paper on that.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:48 pm#76 – maybe you misunderstood. I asked you to post evidence Bush lied, not to lie about Bush. *L*
July 10th, 2005 at 3:48 pmThe war on terror is not about 9/11. It’s about trying to stop the next attack, not the last one. The Iraq-alQaeda connection is clear – http://www.weeklystandard.com/ Content/ Public/ Articles/ 000/ 000/ 005/ 804yqqnr.asp
The weekly standard? If you are unaware (as you must be to use them as a reference) perhaps you will allow me to inform you; William Kristol, of the weekly standard’s editorial board is one of the original members of “The Project for A New American Century” and signed the statement they presented to THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION in order to convince him to invade Iraq. The weekly standard is no, repeat, no credible source for information. Anyone who thinks differently is either sadly uninformed, or thinks we are. Strike one. Try again.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:49 pmJohnny has his tinfoil hat on way too tight.
Such hubris! I want to see you frog marched, sonny jim. And something tells me we all we share in that spectacle soon.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:50 pm“Johnny has his tinfoil hat on way too tight.”
You already used the ‘tinfoil’ line in an early post. I see you’re as orginal as you are truthful.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:50 pmMr. Ed, your lips are moving, but I think the noises are from the orifice located at the back end of the horse, the toothless wonder.
Are you paying rent here?
July 10th, 2005 at 3:50 pmdano, simply saying “you’re source is not credible” does nothing to refute the source. Try again. *L*
July 10th, 2005 at 3:52 pmIt’s not my fault, Johnny, there’s more than one nut here. *L*
July 10th, 2005 at 3:52 pmDo you like this picture, ED? Or do you prefer the other one. I’m trying to get a photo of you. I know if I keep searching the internets, I will turn one up, at some sex offenders database. Illinois, perhaps? Is that what led to your disbarrment?
July 10th, 2005 at 3:53 pmEd, there is no “war” on terrorism. There are skirmishes and battles. There are feints and outflankings. But there is no war on terrorism, much as there is no true war on drugs. You keep throwing it back at the people who do not support action in Iraq. You are the Chickenhawk because you will not get into fatigues and head over there. I will not go to Iraq because it is a conflict based on total lies from the Bush administration. And while we divert resources to Iraq, Iran and North Korea grow into larger and far more serious threats. Osama Bin Laden is still at large. And see how you toss out schoolyard, juvenile insults like, Johnny has his tinfoil hat on way too tight,” when you can offer no valid point? Well here’s one for you: Your intellect is so narrow it could fit through the eye of a needle.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:53 pmMonths or years from now, when this finally shakes out, I want it documented that my money is on stinkeye rice and bolton giving the heads up to rove about who and what wilsons wife is and does.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:53 pmClandy — I didn’t ask you about Iraq. Rove’s comments were not about Iraq. Was Rove right, or are you a chickenhawk? Which is it? Put up or shut up.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:55 pmYou could be right. It might even have been Cheney.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/10/95928/2698
July 10th, 2005 at 3:56 pm“And see how you toss out schoolyard, juvenile insults like, Johnny has his tinfoil hat on way too tight,â€?”
I believe Johnny’s comments were nuts, and deserved nothing but derision. If you disagree, that’s your right.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:56 pmdano, simply saying “you’re source is not credible� does nothing to refute the source. Try again. *L*
Comment by The Editors, American Federalist Journal  July 10, 2005 @
I’ll be as simple as possible for you; if a source has demonstrated (as they did by endorsing THE PROJECT)that they are no longer impartially reporting, but actually advocating policy. As such, they forfeit any claim to impartiality. Simple enough?
July 10th, 2005 at 3:57 pmVanity Fair outed Plame, with her complete consent. People trying to sheild their identity do not do a photo spread in Vanity Fair.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:58 pmDon’t be too hard on ED, the last excitement he had was hearing, “Take it out, Daddy! It hurts!” on that last unsupervised visitation.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:59 pmdano. Absolutely fair enough. They are not impartial. They do not claim to be impartial. CBS news is not impartial, but claims to be.
None of that says anything about whether the facts in their article are true or false. You have said nothing to refute one word in the Weekly Standard article.
July 10th, 2005 at 4:00 pmYou have said nothing to refute one word in the Weekly Standard article.
I didn’t read it. Consider the source. I think Fidel Castro might be a more credible source.
July 10th, 2005 at 4:02 pmWhat do you think of Fidel, ED? Do you like his beard? Do you like those cigars?
July 10th, 2005 at 4:04 pm“I didn’t read it.”
We are all shocked! *L*
July 10th, 2005 at 4:04 pmWhat next, more “tinfoil hat” reparte’? I’ m still waiting for you to provide me with one “liberal” corporate sponsor for a political commentary show. If you can, that is.
July 10th, 2005 at 4:05 pmA few Bush lies:
“Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
“We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in.”
Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003
“Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites.”
Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002
Did George W. Bush Invade Iraq by Lying?
Why did Bush start a war that:
Has killed more than 200 American servicemen and women, and seriously injured hundreds more
Has killed thousands of Iraq civilians, many of them women and children
Will cost American Tax payers more than $100 Billion, of money desperately needed here at home
Has destroyed America’s credibility around the world
Has already significantly damaged morale, confidence, and the readiness of the US armed forces
Here’s what Bush said:
Bush’s Claim
Reality
“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.â€?
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has 500 tons of chemical weapons:
- Sarin gas
- Mustard gas
- VX Nerve agent
Not True
Zero Chemical Weapons Found
Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq
“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein
had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable
of delivering chemical agents.�
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has 30,000 weapons capable of dumping chemical weapons on people
Not True
Zero Munitions Found
Not a single chemical weapon’s munition has been found anywhere in Iraq
“We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.”
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has a growing fleet of planes capable of dispersing chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world
Not True
Zero Aerial Vehicles Found
Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq
“Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida.”
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.â€?
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
courtesy of http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html
July 10th, 2005 at 4:06 pmI don’t read crap from hacks.
July 10th, 2005 at 4:07 pmSorry I copied too much of it by mistake.
July 10th, 2005 at 4:08 pmYour going down ED, and where you are going, you get to say, “Take it out Daddy! It Hurts!” But Daddy’s name will be Bubba, just like Bill Clinton, but not.
July 10th, 2005 at 4:09 pmNone of that says anything about whether the facts in their article are true or false. You have said nothing to refute one word in the Weekly Standard article.
Comment by The Editors, American Federalist Journal  July 10, 2005 @
Just as I wouldn’t waste time trying to refute articles published in The Peoples’ Communist Daily – when it can be shown that they are propagandists generally, ANYTHING they print is discredited by connection, see?
July 10th, 2005 at 4:11 pmBeen fun, ED. Don’t get lost. I might miss ya and we wouldn’t want that.
July 10th, 2005 at 4:11 pmWhat happened to fake?
Mind-melding with the collective I’m sure.
ED,
#102 just gave you a whole slew of Bu$hCo’s lies, not that you’r cognitive dissonance will allow you to process them as such. Now it is time to debunk them if you have the sources with the credibility to do so.
Gonna be our Huckleberry, ED?
July 10th, 2005 at 4:17 pmGo for it.
His mom’s been flashing the lights on the stairs, and when he didn’t respond, she came down and shut off the computer.
July 10th, 2005 at 4:22 pmIt occurs to me that The Weakly Stankhard article does make a good case… for and American/ al-Qaeda link. But we know the name of the detainee, John Walker Lindh. AFP is so much elephant crap, like The Weakly Stankhard and Stephen F. Hayes, who has been flogging this dead horse for years, and everything about ED’s miserable pedophiliac dystopia. Say Good Night, Ed.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200406300014
July 10th, 2005 at 4:37 pmHey American Federalist, stop flogging your monkey long enough to let your brain get some air.
Condi Rice lied to the Senate under oath; George Bush refused to take an oath when he met with people to answer questions (he learned from daddy that it isn’t prudent for Bush men to answer questions under oath); Colin Powell lied to the international community when he told the UN that Iraq was armed to the teeth with ricin, nerve gas, mustard gas, and other noxious nasty thingies.
It’s time you robots began to see that many, many people are upset about being lied to and if I were you and your group, I’d be a little frightened aboout what the pickup truck rifle rack crew is going to do when it realizes you’ve all been playing them along for the past couple of decades. That should happen just aboout the time everyone’s pension plan has been looted and you all are heading to the docks to take up residence in the Caymans with our money.
I hope that if it does come to civil war here I’m able to find and identify you. The Marine Corps taught me wonderful things to do with a knife that they allowed me to practice in Southeast Asia while Georgie Boy, Cheney, Rush, and your panoply of heroes were stroking each other.
July 10th, 2005 at 4:39 pmThis is perilous business. Making a judgment about Iraq-al-Qaida ties on the basis of the sections presented by Hayes would be like accepting a high-school biology student’s reading of a CAT scan.
Daniel Benjamin, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council staff. He is the co-author of The Age of Sacred Terror.
July 10th, 2005 at 4:45 pmme  Was Karl Rovbe right when he said liberals don’t support the war on terror? Do you support the war on terror? If so, shouldn’t you be volunteering to help fight it, by your own standard?
Comment by The Editors, American Federalist Journal  July 10, 2005 @ 3:00 pm
Since “the war on terror” is currently a q(w)agmire, and it can be shown that NOTHING they predicted has come true, please explain to me why I should ennable these screw-ups by enlisting? Enlisting makes sense when you have competent leadership, but not when you have a bunch of foul-ups running the show. [cough,Rumsfeld,cough,cough...].
And THAT is the real reason reublicans won’t sign up. They know the people running the war are incompetents, and they aren’t willing to enlist and risk their lives because of it (they just won’t admit it because it would be admitting error, and by implication, weakness).
July 10th, 2005 at 4:45 pm“Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.�
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.�
Our intelligence sources did tell us that, so that is a true statment.
The British stand by their assessment that Iraq sought nuclear material, that is also a true statement.
Other statements that may have been later proven false were not lies because they were believed to be true when they were uttered.
A statment that is believed to be true but later turns out to be false is not a lie.
So you haven’t shown any instances where Bush lied.
July 10th, 2005 at 4:47 pm“I hope that if it does come to civil war here I’m able to find and identif…”
Making terrorist threats on the Internet is a federal crime.
July 10th, 2005 at 4:48 pmSo in #113, dano admits Rove was correct about liberal support for the war. Thank you.
July 10th, 2005 at 4:49 pmWell, ED, you better hope some people don’t find a way to drag old chimpy into court. In a civil suit, because we all know that private citizens can sue the Preznit, right? Hoist? Petard? Then we can swear the little prick and depose him. Great sound to that, eh? Then we can parse the meaning of the word *lie*. Sound familiar, ED? Hoist? Petard?
July 10th, 2005 at 4:51 pmMaking terrorist threats on the Internet is a federal crime.
Terrorist? Pretty broad brush there, Benito; go spend an hour in freeperville – the comments you’ll read there will make that one seem as threatening as “my dad can lick your dad”.
July 10th, 2005 at 4:55 pm“I hope that if it does come to civil war here I’m able to find and identif…�
Making terrorist threats on the Internet is a federal crime.
Comment by The Editors, American Federalist Journal  July 10, 2005
I see no threat there. He didn’t say he was out to get you. He said IF it all goes to hell, he’d love to find you. I’d like to see that, IF it happens. It was conditional. And he only wanted to teach you what they taught him in the service, since you never served, IF it all goes to hell, and IF he can find you. It sounds like an offer of help, if you ask me. How am I parsing, ED?
July 10th, 2005 at 4:57 pmStephen F. Hayes is a hack.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200406300014
AFP carries crap from hacks.
July 10th, 2005 at 4:59 pmI’d say that WSJ review soft-pedaled the book and it’s a good idea to soft-pedal rumor, innuendo, unsubstantiated claims and nonsense. Even this dumbass administration knows that!
Far from exaggerating the evidence linking Iraq and al Qaeda, the Bush administration has soft-pedaled two of the most suggestive connections between Saddam’s regime and the 9/11 plot itself.
See how much more trouble they would be in if they hadn’t stopped Dick from wearing his tin foil hat out in public, jonny?
July 10th, 2005 at 5:07 pmThe Soros funded Media Mutters Against America is not a credible source, it’s a propaganda mill. *L*
July 10th, 2005 at 5:10 pm“I see no threat there.”
We’ll let the feds sort that out.
July 10th, 2005 at 5:11 pmYou should know, Brock used to wear a bow tie.
July 10th, 2005 at 5:11 pm“Well, ED, you better hope some people don’t find a way to drag old chimpy into court. In a civil suit, because we all know that private citizens can sue the Preznit, right? Hoist? Petard? Then we can swear the little prick and depose him. Great sound to that, eh? Then we can parse the meaning of the word *lie*. Sound familiar, ED? Hoist? Petard?”
Best of luck with that. *L*
July 10th, 2005 at 5:12 pm“I see no threat there.�
We’ll let the feds sort that out.
If you think it’s wise, you do that.
July 10th, 2005 at 5:13 pmTerrorist? Pretty broad brush there, Benito; go spend an hour in freeperville – the comments you’ll read there will make that one seem as threatening as “my dad can lick your dadâ€?.
Ain’t that the truth. I have a nice archive of Hitlery Klintoon threats I snagged before they were purged. ED would have to be somebody mighty important. If he is, we should all feel special.
July 10th, 2005 at 5:17 pmSo in #113, dano admits Rove was correct about liberal support for the war. Thank you.
How quaint; and sophomoric. We support going after the folks who did 9/11. O.K., you want to play semantic games, lets change it to “why would ANYONE nnable these screw-ups by enlisting? Enlisting makes sense when you have competent leadership, but not when you have a bunch of foul-ups running the show. [cough,Rumsfeld,cough,cough)
“The War” as you call it, is causing a recruitment crisis in the armed services because people aren’t enlisting, and that includes republicans. Why aren’t they enlisting as well? If they makeup 46% of the country, surely out of that large of a “patriotic” demographic there would be ample citizens eager to support their president and we would have no crisis – except it isn’t happening. So using your reasoning, this proves the same thing about republicans (that they don’t really support “the war on terrorism”, right?
July 10th, 2005 at 5:18 pmSomehow I think ED’s sense of great self-importance is more of a personality disorder. He thinks people are out to get him. maybe he forgot to take his meds today. ED’s on MEDS!
July 10th, 2005 at 5:20 pmOXYCONTIN BREAK! POP’EM IF YA’ GOT’EM!
July 10th, 2005 at 5:24 pmdano says, “We support going after the folks who did 9/11.”
So you have no interest in stopping future acts of terrorism? You’re only interested in avenging the last attack?
Liberals came up with the “chickenhawk” standard – if you support a war you must enlist – not me. Karl Rove said liberals don’t support the war on terror, and liberals went nuts. But by the liberals’ standard, not enlisting is evidence you don’t support the war on terror. So which is it dano? Do you support the WOT, and you’re a chickenhawk? Or was Rove correct, you don’t support it?
July 10th, 2005 at 5:26 pmWell, dano, the answer to your question is simple.
“I see no threat there.�
We’ll let the feds sort that out
ED thinks everybody is out to get him. The person he thinks threatened him…
“I hope that if it does come to civil war here I’m able to find and identif…�
Making terrorist threats on the Internet is a federal crime.
…actually sounded like a fed up and disillusioned Republican, there are thousands more every day. They are all angry at ED, (not really, but he hasn’t been the same since the divorce). Anyway, these are trying times for ED.
July 10th, 2005 at 5:26 pmSo you have no interest in stopping future acts of terrorism? You’re only interested in avenging the last attack?
But ED, according to you, we need to allocate all our resources to protect and defend YOU from online terror. Have you thought about taking up another hobby? Soap Operas maybe?
July 10th, 2005 at 5:28 pmED is so good tracking down terrorists on the internets, maybe he should be surfing the Arab sites. I bet he could get lots of threats there.
July 10th, 2005 at 5:30 pmWhy not verify the intelligence before spouting it to the American citizens, let alone the world, in justification of the “righteous” war against Saddam?
Oh yeah, because he could strike the UK or US within 45 minutes, right?
Right.
July 10th, 2005 at 5:34 pmRe: #27 by LeCar…you’re right regarding all your bullet points. The PROBLEM is, there hasn’t been a conclusive Admininistrative investigation regarding ANYTHING. They’ve retarded or, (more likely) IMPEDED, all the investigations surrounding the White House. Sure, we have laws on the books regarding what is or isn’t against the law, but what we don’t have in the Bush White House is CULPABILITY. People who perform below acceptable standards are REWARDED in Bushworld. 9-11 should NEVER have happened, and while the fault lies with the al-Qaeda terrorists, there should have been fail-safes in place to provide America’s protection. Those fail-safes were breached. There should have been people held responsible for allowing our defenses to be breached in the way that they were, and not only were those people not held accountable, they were rewarded. Rumsfeld, realizing how poorly he’d performed, “attempted” to resign (in his own words, though this IS suspect, seeing as how it’s Rumsfeld), and Bush “wouldn’t accept his resignation.” Jeff Gannon got exposed, but the investigation behind how he got so close to the President got retarded. Halliburton has become a joke, and the punchline is on the American people. The Downing Street Memos came to light and Republicans have MOCKED those who have called for a investigation regarding these startling revelations, and now even the investigations for Abu Ghraib and Guatanamo are being poo-pooed as merely poor-judgement antics of relatively low-level military personnel. Why? Because of the invisible “shield” which surrounds this Administration and its hench-people who believe they can walk away from most anything smelling like a rose while others (i.e., U.S. military members, innocent Iraqis, the American taxpayer and Americans with family or friends in the military) pay for their mistakes, blunders, and/or cover-ups. It’s high time that they are held responsible for what they’ve done. In any other world, culpability would be swift and forthcoming to the average American. We should expect no less, indeed, we should expect far more, from our country’s leaders, and as Americans, who the President serves at the pleasure of, we should have an accounting for exactly what is going on, who did what, and what will be done to rectify any and all situations by our government and its leaders.
July 10th, 2005 at 5:37 pmYou know, ED, it occurs to me that you should spend more time commenting pseudonymously on your own Blog, like the piano player who puts a few bucks of his own into the tip jar? I’m pretty certain all 5 of the comments you’ve had in the last few months have been your own, but keep it up, for cosmetic reasons. Or you could pay some of the guys here who take you seriously enough to engage you to shill for you. You couldn’t pay me enough.
July 10th, 2005 at 5:39 pmPeople are getting very angry. No wonder ED is on meds hiding under his bed.
Regardless of whether Rove broke that one law regarding “knowingly” outing undercover CIA operatives, there’s a damn good argument to be made that he be investigated for possibly committing treason by intentionally undermining a CIA agent working on WMD counterespionage in the midst of a war hinging on that very issue, WMD. And to make matters worse, he did it for personal/professional gain, not for altruistic “God and country” reasons.
Second issue, why does he still have a security clearance? I’ve worked with CIA agents in several of my past jobs, and lesson one is that you don’t tell anyone they work for CIA. I’d like to know if the Secret Service and/or FBI and/or CIA has investigated whether his clearance needs to be yanked. A related issue, is a covert CIA agent’s identity classified information? Once upon a time, even the name of certain top-level security clearances were classified. I wonder if the identity of undercover agents is classified. If it is, then that entails other law-breaking, and again, jeopardizes his clearance. You’d also consider yanking his clearance if there were some executive order, government regulation, etc. against outing CIA agents, whether or not there were a legal penalty involved.
Third issue, did Rove’s leak, and the ensuing risk that leak may have posed to CIA assets worldwide, in any way help those who perpetrated the London bombings last week?
Fourth issue, related to the third, has anyone investigated just what damage Rove’s leak has caused US national security, what asset it in fact has jeopardized abroad, etc? I would think this would be the first order of business from CIA and FBI. Perhaps someone needs to put an appropriations line item requiring such a study.
Rove himself put all of this at issue when he accused Democrats of undermining our troops and the war on terror just a few weeks ago (in fact, Rove said that Democrats WANTED to get our troops killed). Rove put that issue into play, and the White House, Ken Mehlman and the entire Republican party stood behind him. They want to talk about who is and isn’t committing treason, then let’s talk about it.
Did Karl Rove commit treason? A nation at war deserves to know.
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/07/its-irrelevant-if-karl-rove-broke-that.html
July 10th, 2005 at 5:55 pmLet’s get down to brass tacks — Karl Rove is guilty of Treason (there was a war going on when he did this).
Had any Democrat (or ANY non-Republican) done anything remotely like this, they would have been publicly executed.
It is time that this “American Idiot” country stop buying into the “Superior Morality” clause of the Republican party and bury this pernicious movement once and for all.
I am not holding my breath either (I have advanced lung disease and hold my breath for no one).
July 10th, 2005 at 5:58 pmStephen Burnett has committed treason.
July 10th, 2005 at 6:09 pmStephen, I’m sure the editors wouldn’t be going after the senior political adviser to a Democratic president if he/she were found to have leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent. I’m sure they’d apply the same standard and wouldn’t push the issue.
July 10th, 2005 at 6:11 pmHow exactly does one “verify” intelligence, Skid? Saddam Hussein spent millions of dollars and man hours to hide what he was doing. Better to er on teh side of caution, especially after 9/11. President Bush made the right decision.
July 10th, 2005 at 6:11 pmTed leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent. All these accusations are easy, eh?
July 10th, 2005 at 6:12 pmSo you have no interest in stopping future acts of terrorism? You’re only interested in avenging the last attack?
Strawman 1. Show me where I even intimated that (showing the full context, of course).
Another sophomoric method of framing debate. If we had competent investigations into the causes of 9/11 (where Bush actually has to be under oath like Clinton was, and without Dick Cheney at his side)we would then rightfully begin impeachment proceedings (against all those proven to be complicit)and perhaps in this way get competent leadership – and then perhaps the recruiting crisis might end, and who knows, with someone else in charge we might actually find Osama.
Liberals came up with the “chickenhawkâ€? standard – if you support a war you must enlist – not me.
Your “war on terror” is being badly run, there is no accountability, not even enough troops to do the job, and you comfort yourself with sematics? I wish I could, really.
But the fact remains; NOT ENOUGH AMERICANS are enlisting. Spin it right, left, or end-over-end, the results remain the same. Or “to tickee no washee”; no citizens enlisting, no new American Century.
But by the liberals’ standard, not enlisting is evidence you don’t support the war on terror.
And you’re posting from…? You can’t have it both ways – or don’t YOU support the war (as evidenced by YOUR not enlisting. And around, and around,… except for the soldiers stuck in Iraq,this might be funny. Republicans aren’t jumping up to enlist, why should anyone else?
July 10th, 2005 at 6:14 pmOXYCONTIN BREAK’S OVER! Now where was I? Oh, yes, now I remember –
Stephen Burnett has committed treason.
Comment by The Editors, American Federalist Journal  July 10, 2005 @ 6:09 pm
July 10th, 2005 at 6:19 pmYou don’t make sense. there is no response to dribble. You make silly, silly remarks. So, Goodbye scatter brain. just a plain janitor
July 10th, 2005 at 6:26 pmI am talking to these federalist weed blowers
July 10th, 2005 at 6:28 pmI don’t dribble. I leak!
July 10th, 2005 at 6:30 pmAre you threatening me?
July 10th, 2005 at 6:31 pmAmerican federalist, Your statements are so weak. Can’t you do better. you’re not making sense. Just be quiet, stop writing, ok. sheeeeeeh!
July 10th, 2005 at 6:35 pmI don’t dribble. I leak!
But your leaks, while embarrassing, are not as dangerous to National Security as Karl’s incontinence.
July 10th, 2005 at 6:37 pmDo you make money as a editor? i guest anybody can get a job as an editor these days. Shheeeeeh!
July 10th, 2005 at 6:37 pmdano – “Show me where I even intimated that…”
Before you said “Why should we fight in Iraq? It had NOTHING to do with the attacks of 9/11.� If you now agree that the war on terror is about more than just 9/11, then your previous statement is meaningless.
“You can’t have it both ways – or don’t YOU support the war ”
I can apply your standard to you without adopting it, of course. I think the idea that only people who enlist can support a war is idiotic.
July 10th, 2005 at 6:40 pmAnd here comes richard – another intellectual giant enters the fray. Sheeeesh! *L*
July 10th, 2005 at 6:42 pmI seem to remember that in Ronald Reagan films, John Wayne films, too, that the young and old would at least try to enlist. Can’t you even try? Just once? For the Gipper?
July 10th, 2005 at 6:45 pmfederalist, you really need to stop writing. i told you, you don’t make sense. Be quiet. Stop trying to twist fact. Everything you say is just the opposite. Stop ok. “ARE YOU THREATENING ME” IS THE QUOTE OF COWARDS
July 10th, 2005 at 6:46 pmAre you threatening him or me?
July 10th, 2005 at 6:47 pmHey Jan, I feel, for ya’ man. All those closeted young interns must leave the stalls so sticky from “lunch” that I couldn’t imagine doing your job without a haz-mat suit.
July 10th, 2005 at 6:47 pmI’m kind of cramping your style, huh? That’s rough ED.
July 10th, 2005 at 6:48 pmPoor ED, we are threatening him.
July 10th, 2005 at 6:49 pmFederalist, you’re so highly intellectual.
July 10th, 2005 at 6:49 pmEditors:
Please refrain from violating the Terms of Use of this message board. You are in clear violation of Section 4 Paragraph 2 with post #155.
And here comes richard – another intellectual giant enters the fray.
The Terms of Use clearly sates:
Respect other Bloggers  please do not threaten, insult, abuse, intimidate or harass other Blog users.
By clicking “Post – I Agree” below, you acknowledge that you have read our Terms of Use agreement and agree to its terms.
July 10th, 2005 at 6:50 pmThere are two of us here, Richard. But although we are both federalists, one of us is a janitor, the other is unemployed.
July 10th, 2005 at 6:51 pmI guess they are FED up with you ED.
July 10th, 2005 at 6:54 pmI can apply your standard to you without adopting it, of course. I think the idea that only people who enlist can support a war is idiotic.
And I think your position is ill-considered, as well. No you cannot”apply your standard without adopting it” what’s good for the goose… . And I think anyone WHO MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS for enlistment especially is in no position to play semantic games while others (who might not support the war, but would rather face deployment than desert) are stuck fulfilling their duty, if said person truly supports the effort, or is simply flapping his (or her) lips.
July 10th, 2005 at 6:56 pmdano – “No you cannotâ€?apply your standard without adopting itâ€? what’s good for the goose”
How absurd. It’s entirely legitimate to apply your standard to you without applying it to those who don’t agree to it. If I caught a radical vegan PETA spokesman at McDonalds, it would be quite legitimate to call them on it while eating a burger myself.
For me to point out the hypocrisy of those making the “chickenhawk” charge doesn’t require me to accept their standard, that’s ridiculous.
July 10th, 2005 at 7:02 pmHow to verify the intelligence? I (almost) can’t believe you asked that question ED. DO THE JOB THEY WERE PAID BY AMERICAN TAXPAYERS TO DO, CORRECTLY AND TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY! If there are questions or concerns regarding said “intelligence”, one must go over it again and again until you can discern whether it is legitimate or not. Obviously, from the link I provided if you read it, nearly ALL of it was questionable, thus needed further investigation into its validity. We know this all to well now.
Who was a better judge of its validity? Not BushCo obviously, for he and company ran with the accusations even when they were questionable or FLAT OUT WRONG! Tenet’s hand in the matter blew whatever credibility he MAY have had, Clinton or Bush terms.
Now quit cryin’ about being called a chickenhawk. What was that phrase used during the 2000 recount? Oh yeah, I remember:
Deal with it.
July 10th, 2005 at 7:52 pmHell, BushCo were TOLD that the accusations were questionable at BEST, and still ran with it anyway, but you already know this. quit fooling yourself ED, for you’re surely not fooling anyone here.
July 10th, 2005 at 7:56 pmHow absurd. It’s entirely legitimate to apply your standard to you without applying it to those who don’t agree to it. If I caught a radical vegan PETA spokesman at McDonalds, it would be quite legitimate to call them on it while eating a burger myself.
You mean applying it to yourself, don’t you? Let’s consider your “example” in context; The vegan (and the rest of us)was forced into Mcdonalds(invading Iraq) because he was told again and again by his leaders that it was the right thing to do. They (his leaders) said the staff were evil, the other customers would greet his actions with bouquets of flowers, that he’d only have to be there a short while,and when he left they’d be so happy they’d probably put a soy burger on the menu in his honor. Being a generally peaceable fellow, he didn’t want to invade McDonalds, but his leaders kept using the images of exploding health food stores and Ronalds’”mobile Big Mac Attack Drones” to frighten him, and after a long unremitting attack of being called un-vegan, he went along with the invasion. When he got there, McDonald’s wasn’t anything like what his leaders said it was. The occupation was very dangerous, many casualties; and when he had to use the Halliburton facilities, there was never any paper in the stalls. So he bravely soldiered on, even as it was apparent that his leaders hadn’t really planned for the occupation; the condiments were running out. His leaders also promised to allow him to leave out the backdoor after he had completed his service, but it was too drafty, so his leaders ordered it closed. So he’s stuck, guarding carnivores who wouldn’t think twice about turning him into a McRib if they got a chance. And big thinkers like you ponder and parse such weighty issues as:
It’s entirely legitimate to apply your standard to you without applying it to those who don’t agree to it. If I caught a radical vegan PETA spokesman at McDonalds, it would be quite legitimate to call them on it while eating a burger myself.
If stuff like this gives you comfort while soldiers die, you are morally and intellectually backrupt. Finis.
if you and the Vegan both believe that the burger shouldn’t be eaten, but for different reasons (one believes it is wrong morally, the other believes it is dangerous because of E-coli, mad cow, etc.)
July 10th, 2005 at 7:59 pmEditors,
I’m sorry, I’m not entirely sure what your positon is on this matter, but do you disagree with the assessment made by Think Progress?
It seems to me they are asserting Rove’s lawyer made a false statemet by saying Rove “did not reveal any confidential information” despite the fact that Matthew Cooper’s email clearly implies that the information Rove passed to him was of a confidential nature when he wrote to his editor:
“Subject: Rove/P&C,” (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. “Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation …” Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, “please don’t source this to Rove or even WH [White House]”
The language he used seems to clearly indicate that it was in fact confidential information.
Do you disagree?
July 10th, 2005 at 8:03 pmEd, Bush isn’t just a regular liar, he’s a bald-faced liar. On May 30, 2003, he indicated in an interview with Polish TV that we had “found” the “WMD” in Iraq. So, even though you love, worship, and idolize him, and have accepted Bush as your personal savior, usurping Jesus our lord, sadly, your messiah spewed out one big whopper. Here’s the link. Try spinning out of this one, son.
July 10th, 2005 at 8:24 pmhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A60140-2003May30¬Found=true
The Editors, American Federalist Journal,
You were trounced in post 102. Any plausible deniability you see in “Our intelligence sources did tell us that, so that is a true statment” is just plain silly in the context of the serious consequences that have followed from Bush’s war in Iraq. And asking someone to commit to the “war on terror” or to shut up when in fact it is the legitimacy of the war in Iraq that is being debated here is to assume what few people on this site, anyway, believe is true: that the invasion of Iraq is in any way a prosecution of the “war on terror.” Now go back to dressing up your little GI Joe doll and dreaming about Ann Coulter.
July 10th, 2005 at 8:38 pmEd is an over obvious troll with the debate skills of a flea. Simple automatic game playing “no it isn’t” and “yes it is” style (or lack of). Oh, and I forgot the time honored fallback of the trolls, “oh yea but what about that liberal in the year 1258″. He asks for proof and examples yet ignores them when presented and cites self admitted partisan sources just like a good little drone. He won’t enlist proving his lack of any real conviction and thus his hard on for game playing. Sophmoronic. Don’t bother replying Ed, I only feed the trolls once.
July 10th, 2005 at 8:49 pmt
dano347,
That was classic! Straight up WORD. I
July 10th, 2005 at 8:53 pmFrom #168 – “If there are questions or concerns regarding said “intelligenceâ€?, one must go over it again and again until you can discern whether it is legitimate or not.”
President Bush asked his Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, to assess the intel, and Tenet told him “it’s a slam dunk.”(This is in Bob Woodward’s book)
When a president’s DCI says it’s a slam dunk, a known state sponsor of terrorism has WMD, the president must act. All your petty partisan sniping and armchair generaling and Monday morning quarterbacking don’t change that.
July 10th, 2005 at 9:11 pmJohn Smyth, #172 – If Bush believed we had found WMD at the time he made that statement, basedon information he had at that time, then it was not a lie. Provide evidence that Bush knew his statement was false, or it is you who is lying.
July 10th, 2005 at 9:14 pm“Now go back to dressing up your little GI Joe doll and dreaming about Ann Coulter.”
“Ed is an over obvious troll with the debate skills of a flea”
Two more mental giants enter the fray. *L*
July 10th, 2005 at 9:15 pmJohn S. – In #171, you asked a civil, relevant question. I am surprised.
I don’t think we have enough information at this point to make any judgments about what happened. Certainly there’s no basis at this point to conclude anyone lied, or to justify all these hysterical charges of “Rove is a traitor” and all that nonsense.
It appears unlikely that any crime has occurred. The statute about divulging the identity of a covert operative is drawn pretty tightly, from what I’ve read. I’d expect the president to fire Rove if it turns out he engaged in any substantial wrongdoing.
July 10th, 2005 at 9:20 pmYour tinfoil hat need a few more layers ED. Your ignorance is exposed for all to see. *PHQ*
July 10th, 2005 at 9:57 pmThanks for the cogent argument, Skid.
July 10th, 2005 at 10:02 pmIn #171, you asked a civil, relevant question. I am surprised.
Please try and extend the same courtesy to me that I have to you. Contrary to your admission of my civility, there is nothing civil about your response.
Certainly there’s no basis at this point to conclude anyone lied
There certainly does seem to be. I outlined in Post #171 the incongruity between the statements made by Rove’s lawyer and the way Mr. Coopers email described the situation. What portion of this comparison do you find faut with?
…all these hysterical charges of “Rove is a traitorâ€? and all that nonsense.
I don’t believe TP called Rove a traitor. I don’t even recall that being an issue brought up in the subject of this forum. Do you feel this is what the topic of this TP forum is about? If so, why?
It appears unlikely that any crime has occurred.
On what are you basing this argument? Earlier in this same post you clearly stated:
I don’t think we have enough information at this point to make any judgments about what happened.
If you think this is the case, then clearly you cannot make the judgment that no crime has occurred. So which of your two statements is true? Can we make any judgments at this point, or can we?
do you disagree with the assessment made by Think Progress
July 10th, 2005 at 10:15 pmEditors:
I apologize for my misstype. What I meant to ask in the closing portion of the previous post was can we not make any judgments at this point, or can we?
July 10th, 2005 at 10:23 pmUsing Ed’s tortured logic, Clinton didn’t lie when he said he did “not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky….”, because…well…uh…Clinton “believed” at the “time” that fellatio didn’t fall into the standard legal definition of “sexual relations”.
But no. Ed has a double standard. You see, Clinton lied about a consensual hummer, and he’s the anti-Christ in Ed’s view, the Prince of Darkness if you will, and Bush is his hero and personal savior, because he didn’t “know” that we really hadn’t found WMD in Iraq when he decided to proclaim that we had. This is an assertion I notice that he didn’t refute in his earlier sophomoric attempt at a defense of his idol.
Remember: It isn’t a lie, if you just believe it’s the truth. A credo to send thousands of Americans to die and get maimed by.
July 10th, 2005 at 10:36 pmwhy bother to argue with people who deny reality?
it’s been established conclusively in the public record that we went to war based on a pack of lies. those who choose to absolve the chickenhawks that started the war for whatever reason, deny reality. it’ll bite them soon enough.
“Sunday, July 10, 2005
Immediate Retaliation!
Well you can sleep tight now Londoners, because Giblets has delivered your immediate retaliation by runnin’ out an’ kickin’ a real big dog!1 A real big dog which you can bet will I am sure turn out to have reasonably plausible al Qaeda connections.
1. Okay, it was less of a real big dog than it was a toy chihuahua.2
2. Okay, it was less of a toy chihuahua than it was a large gerbil. But it was a super fat gerbil.3
3. Okay, it was less of a gerbil than a species of water beetle. What’re you bitchin’ about, you want your retaliation or not!”
July 10th, 2005 at 10:37 pmThey are the one’s you refuse to answer ED.
July 10th, 2005 at 10:50 pmThe most dangerous liar in the world is not the “BALD FACED” liar. His statements are too easily and conclusively proven to be false. The most dangerous dissembler is the one who distorts,creates plausible deniability, misleads and leaves the defense of “I never actually said that.” The military academies have an ethical offense of quibbling. You say something that is not technically a lie but that was clearly intended to mislead the listener in the same manner as a lie.
The Bush administration has been an expert at these methods. Look at the run up to the war. I do not care if the head of the CIA said that the case against Saddam was a slam dunk. Bush had seen the evidence and noted that it was far from what would be necessary to convince the public. Yet he accepts Tenet’s assessment without the requirement of more analysis. It set up the perfect defense that we now hear.
Bush constantly “inferred” a direct correlation between Saddam and 9/11 until the majority of the public believed that Saddam supported Al Quaeda in formation and planning of the attack. When he and other administration officials were critized for misleading, the response was “Point out any satement in which I actually said that.” (Do we all remember the famous Kerry v. Bush debate moment when Bush got caught at it and looked like a total fool.) The typical quibbler’s response. The same with whether or not there had been a prediction the war in Iraq would be easy. The VP, Rummy and other top administration officials ridiculing experienced military and State Dept officials for predicting the necessity for more troops and the likelihood of the violence we now see. Bush now defends with saying he had always said that it would be hard or tough. Vague statements to provide an escape later.
There was also the selective use of intelligence. Find one person to support your view while others with more espertise disagree within your administration. Those tubes for centrifuges.
Look, this is one of the most dishonnest administrations that we have ever had. It has raised the art of lying to a new level. I wish that they were “BALD FACED” liars. It would be easier. However, they are clever propagandists and good dissemblers. The American public is beginning to catch on even though it is late and much damage has been done.
Rove is the “brain” behind the political message. Did he lie about his role in the Plamme affair? I do not know. However, there is more than enough evidence to suggest a complete and impartial investigation. Look, you can identify someone without actually using her name. This is what he did. He should have known better. He also could have dispersed the information through several sources so that it became a conspiracy with one or more officials leaking a parts of the story so that she was outed.
July 10th, 2005 at 11:32 pmSeveral administration officials lied about WMD in Iraq, including Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush himself on at least one occasion:
THE KNOCKOUT PUNCH from May 29, 2003 – Poland interview:
Q But, still, those countries who didn’t support the Iraqi Freedom operation use the same argument, weapons of mass destruction haven’t been found. So what argument will you use now to justify this war?
THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.
Rumsfeld in 2003 on “Stephanopolous”:
“Not at all. If you think — let me take that, both pieces — the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
George Bush in 2000: “But by far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum.” There’s no possible way for that to be true. Al Franken gives a famous break down of this and shows that in no senario is this statement true.
From bushwatch.com:
“When Bush was asked about [the Environmental Protection Agency's report] last week, he dismissively remarked: ‘I read the report put out by the bureaucracy.’ …White House press secretary Ari Fleischer fessed up: President Bush didn’t actually read that 268-page Environmental Protection Agency report on climate change, even if he said he did. Fleischer was asked Monday at his daily White House briefing about Bush’s comments that he’d read the report. “Whenever presidents say they read it, you can read that to be he was briefed,” Fleischer said, producing laughter. –AP, June 10, 2002
And let me point out another thing. You cannot use the “Bush was unaware or really believed so” line to say that Bush wasn’t lying. If he really believed so, then it’s obvious he isn’t doing his job, and therefore shouldn’t be speaking on information he isn’t fluent on. If Bush “isn’t lying” when he says something untrue – then your argument is that an adviser in the administration relayed a lie to him – by not correcting himself after informed of his error, Bush in effect turns whatever untruth he speaks into a lie.
And while I understand your argument that they didn’t TECHNICALLY lie – both your argument and theirs holds water about as much as Clinton “is” semantics legal silliness.
On top of that, conservative analysts such as Bill O’Reilley, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity lie consistently. You should speak out against them.
Look ‘em up.
The REAL liberal media, folks like Air America Radio, Mediamatters.org and The Daily Show run stuff like this all the time. They spend the multitude of their time uncovering lies on both the right and the “supposed” left. They make lists, records; the library of lies is phenomenal. Too bad you guys don’t watch and/or listen more often. You might know more about what your leaders and conservative analysts are saying to the people.
And don’t give me that crap about how I don’t do my own research and just parrot left-wing sites – the words speak for themselves.
July 10th, 2005 at 11:42 pmI can honestly see Dubya doing what his daddy did three weeks before he left office….parndoned en masse everyone who had the goods on him so that he wouldn’t be indicted/charged for Iran Contra….
With Dubya, alls he has to to is pardon Rove.
July 11th, 2005 at 1:47 amEd – John Smyth just killed your argument about lies in 184, right about the time you decided to quit.
I’ll admit there are some ridiculous comments on this blog – but perhaps you’d like to admit you were proven wrong on this one. If you say Bush didn’t lie – then anyone cansay from that logic that Clinton didn’t lie – and it’s obvious they both did. Liberals just have the political capital to afford admitting it.
July 11th, 2005 at 1:53 amGeorge Bush Lie: On the campaign trail in 2004 George Bush was at one of his rally’s and said “I think their ought to be a religious test for judges.” Audio was played, I believe, on the now defunct Air America Radio morning show with Rachel Maddow, Liz Winstead and Chuck D. It might have been another show, but it was audio, not someone quoting him.
Religious test for judges is expressly forbidden by the constitution’s establishment clause (1st Ammendment), and is backed up by at least (BARE MINIMUM!) in Lynch v. Donnelly (Supreme Court, 1984) in which O’Connor writes:
“The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person’s standing in the political community … [or conveys] a message to non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.â€?
July 11th, 2005 at 1:56 amGeorge Bush is telling his supporters – with carefully chosen words that are intended to communicate a direct message but open ended enough to spin like a top – that he intends to use a religious test for judicial appointments. He is either lying to these people or he lied when he took the oath of office.
We seem to be getting off topic here, which is exactly the fodder that conservatives will use to muddy up the argument beyond any point of recognition.
The topic of this forum is about Rove’s lawyer making statements that directly contradict language used in Mr. Cooper’s email to his editor.
While many of the other comments may have veracity in their own right, they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
July 11th, 2005 at 2:04 amThis story is turning into one of the best reasons yet why the traditional news (TV/Cable, etc) outlets can no longer be trusted, counted on for keeping the public informed. Scary stuff.
I hope this coming week proves me wrong.
July 11th, 2005 at 2:37 amStatements believed to be true?
July 11th, 2005 at 8:13 amOnly by an idiot.
That’s the point, they knew these statements weren’t true. That makes them a lie. The evidence proves thay knew they weren’t telling the truth when they said them.
It should be noted that Bloomberg is privately owned by billionaire Michael Bloomberg who is the largest donor to the Republican Party worldwide. Even as mayor for NYC, Mike Bloomberg constantly shills for the administration and gives them cover even when they short change NYC on funds for homeland security and the 9/11 recovery effort.
July 11th, 2005 at 9:32 amI’m a little late to the thread, but here’s my $0.02:
I believe the word ‘Confidential’ has a technical meaning in the security world as a designated level of classification. So technically, the info Rove leaked could have been classified at a higher level, say ‘Secret’ or ‘Top Secret’ (or higher), in which case it would not be false to say he ‘did not reveal any confidential information’. Who would be surprised that a lawyer would make this kind of obfuscation?
July 11th, 2005 at 9:35 amRe:Helen Thomas-
July 11th, 2005 at 10:01 amI read about a month ago that Bush & Scotty
didn’t like her hard hitting questions aimed at
Bush,-so they banished her to one of the rear rows away from the front row coveted seat!
I blew my chance this past weekend.
Surprisingly, I was able to get on C-SPAN and ask a question of a White House reporter. Since I hadn’t seen the beginning of the program, I didn’t know his name or what news organization he was with. We were supposed to ask a question about the G-8 summit and aid to Africa.
And like a good little droll, I stuck to the script and wasted a golden opportunity to ask why the hell no one is asking the Administration about the Rove imbroglio.
July 11th, 2005 at 10:09 amLooks like Rovie’s lawyer served as counsel for Colombian drug money launderers and has a colorful past. Nothing like stepping up in the world to defend fat-faced traitors!
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/index-old.php
July 11th, 2005 at 10:12 amI think that buckshot/fake/ed should take the rap for the outing of Valerie Plame.
His defense of Rove clearly demonstrates guilt.
July 11th, 2005 at 10:24 am“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” –Upton Sinclair
July 11th, 2005 at 11:13 amWhat I like to remind myself of periodically, is the there is supposed to be pluralism in our politics. So I ask the question, when will we be rid of the strangle hold the military industrial complex has on our nation, and elect a genuine third party and stop the ping pong game that goes on every election? “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss” This country was founded on puritanical hypocrisy and ir will catch up with us and bring us down.
July 11th, 2005 at 1:00 pm