His defense of Rove clearly demonstrates guilt.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/index-old.php

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.

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?

I hope this coming week proves me wrong.

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.

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€?
George 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.

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.

With Dubya, alls he has to to is pardon Rove.

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.

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.

“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!”

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.

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?