|
Karl Rove headed to Prison???
We can only hope!
############# EDITOR & PUBLISHER ? America's Oldest Journal Covering the Newspaper Industry By E&P Staff Published: July 01, 2005 11:30 PM ET NEW YORK : Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Tonight, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove. Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's remarks: "What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury, the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is. "And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury." Other panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper. ######END######## Looks as though Krazy Karls Texas sized mouth may have once again overloaded his evil, sadistic pea-sized brain, huh?? Only THIS time we can only hope he will have to suffer some JAIL TIME for his actions! And it SHOULD be for TREASON, not just Perjury! Karl Rove had himself a little fun a week ago. "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war," Rove said in a New York speech. "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." That's a pretty harsh indictment of a substantial portion of the American people. It's also patently untrue. The reality is that in the wake of Sept. 11, distinctions such as liberal and conservative meant nothing. We were all Americans and were almost unanimous in our anger and determination to punish those who had brought the towers down on top of thousands of our fellow citizens. That unity is documented history, of course, despite what Krazy Karl says. And we now face other challenges, such as trying to extricate ourselves from Iraq without leaving behind an absolute mess that COULD have been prevented if Bush and his "brain" Karl had followed the advice of General Shinseki. But since Rove is one of this nation's most influential leaders, and since he apparently believes it would be useful to review events in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, it would only be patriotic that we indulge him. Now wouldn't it? :D As you recall, it became clear pretty quickly that the perpetrators had been members of Al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden (or is it Osama Been Forgotten??). The subsequent decision to invade bin Laden's refuge in Afghanistan was embraced by Americans of every political bent and nearly all civilized Nations. Congress passed a war resolution with only one dissenting vote, reflecting polls that found only minuscule public opposition ? 5 percent to 7 percent. Interestingly, more than 60 percent of Americans said they would consider the invasion a failure if it failed to kill or capture bin Laden . Hmmmm?? :cd: Already, though, Preznit Bush, Rove and others had secretly decided to betray that consensus by withholding troops and resources from the assault on bin Laden. Their intention, unknown at the time to the rest of us, was to reserve those troops for a later invasion of Iraq, a nation that had played no role in the attacks of Sept. 11 and little role (if ANY) in international terrorism. We will never know for sure whether things would have turned out differently had we invaded Afghanistan in force as we should have, instead of leaving the bulk of the fighting to local warlords hired for the purpose. But we do know that almost four years after those towers tumbled, bin Laden remains at large. That gnawing failure would be easier to accept if we could tell ourselves that at least we gave it our best shot. We didn't, despite heroic efforts of our undermanned Military, because our leaders had other goals. In his speech the other night, Rove also pounced on the controversial remarks of Sen. Richard Durbin, the Democrat from Illinois. After reading an FBI agent's description of illegal interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay, Durbin noted that they didn't sound like something Americans would do. It sounded more like something you'd find in the old Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. "Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?" Rove asked. "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals." How GD sick and disgusting can you get Karl? The wisdom of Durbin's remarks aside, the charge that he and others hope to get U.S. troops killed is an outrageous and remarkably ugly piece of business. Yet the White House defended Rove, and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said the remarks weren't slander, they were the truth. Fair enough, OK I say. Let's play Rove's game by Rove's rules. Y'all want "hard ball", you got it! If someone really did want to get U.S. troops killed, or if you didn't particularly care one way or the other, you would start by getting us involved in an unnecessary war that diverted us from our real purpose. Then you would ignore the advice of military officers and force our troops to fight that war with insufficient manpower and equipment, under incompetent civilian leadership that paid little or no attention to the aftermath. That way, you could ensure that withdrawal from that war would become impossible and that it would slog on month after bloody month. Of course, nobody would ever be foolish enough to start such a war. Now WOULD they? But if they did, you could probably get at least 1,700 Americans killed, and somewhere around 20,000 wounded, don't you think? Now, is that analysis brutal, harsh and unfair? Well, maybe. But it's no more harsh than Rove's crass attempt at bullying and outright lies, and it has the added virtue of being completely accurate. Unlike those remarks by Rove. Because when you're savagely attacked out of the blue, you don't offer your attackers therapy. You fight back hard. Right, Karl? Your "lessons" have been learned well by those you continually try and harm in your despicable, obnoxious and contemptable manner. By the way, when you are convicted of "perjury" for outing Ms. Plame as a CIA operative, you should make a fine "sugarbabe" for some of those incarcerated for crimes much less awful than the ones YOU'VE committed. Don't forget to take along lots of jars of vaseline and KY jelly, ok? How do you think you'll look in "prison orange" instead of Brooks Brothers Tweed, huh? Just asking. |
I have been saying for years that Karl Rove is a menace, and if this story proves out, as I suspect it well might, then those who doubted his duplicity in the past will need to accept it.
|
Hmmmmmmmmm,
And what, pray tell, was the action taken by the Clinton administration against the WTC attackers in the 1993 attack? It was indictments. It was not viewed as an act of war, which is was, so Rove's statement is true on its face. And what was the Clinton administration's reaction after the attack of the USS Cole, clearly another act of war? He did nothing.
Have I missed something? Isn't testimony given in grand juries supposed to be secret? So how does this political hack get this information, except by a criminal act, the disclosure of grand jury testimony and evidence? I accept nothing about Karl Rove's alleged duplicity, which has only been charged by political hacks. |
Re: Hmmmmmmmmm,
Quote:
I hold that Mr. Rove has misled our President, among others. I do understand that the President relies upon Mr. Rove, but I regard that reliance as a very serious error. Though I am not quite sure what I would have done differently, I am confident that such reliance was always more destructive than productive. In the end, it won't matter much one way or the other. A year from now the news will have changed dramatically in any case. Mr. Rove either will or will not still be on staff, and the Presidency will be intact. It may already be too late to accept Mr. Rove's resignation anyway. What concerns me as, or far more, deeply is the presence of Ahmad Chalabi at the number 2 spot in Iraq's provisional government. |
Re: Re: Hmmmmmmmmm,
Quote:
|
Blue
You can "hold" what you will. You offer nothing substantive of the charge of how Rove might have misled the President, why he is such a malevolent menace, or anything else of substance. Simply wishing something doesn't make it so.
|
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm??
Contrary to conventional wisdom's view of Bush media Svengali Karl Rove as a 'political genius,' he's made some significant missteps, from Bush's May 1, 2003 'Mission Accomplished' aircraft carrier photo-op mega-blunder, to theTerri Schiavo case, to the current losing GOP battles over Social Security reform to mention just a few.
However, his most disastrous blunder so far may just now be coming to the surface. As this "update" below shows. #####Start##### 07.03.2005 Lawrence O'Donnell Update on Rove On Friday, I broke the story that the e-mails that Time turned over to the prosecutor that day reveal that Karl Rove is the source Matt Cooper is protecting. That provoked Rove?s lawyer, Robert Luskin, to interrupt his holiday weekend to do a little defense work with Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times. On Saturday, Luskin decided to reveal that Rove did have at least one conversation with Cooper, but Luskin told the Times he would not ?characterize the substance of the conversation.? Luskin claimed that the prosecutor ?asked us not to talk about what Karl has had to say.? This is highly unlikely. Prosecutors have absolutely no control over what witnesses say when they leave the grand jury room. Rove can tell us word-for-word what he said to the grand jury and would if he thought it would help him. And notice that Luskin just did reveal part of Rove?s grand jury testimony, the fact that he had a conversation with Cooper. Rove would not let me get one day of traction on this story if he could stop me. If what I have reported is not true, if Karl Rove is not Matt Cooper?s source, Rove could prove that instantly by telling us what he told the grand jury. Nothing prevents him from doing that, except a good lawyer who is trying to keep him out of jail. ##### EDITOR & PUBLISHER ? America's Oldest Journal Covering the Newspaper Industry By E&P Staff Published: July 04, 2005 6:20 PM ET NEW YORK --Two days after his lawyer confirmed that his name turned up as a source in Matthew Cooper's notes on the Valerie Plame/CIA case, top White House adviser Karl Rove refused to answer questions about the development today. Rove traveled with President Bush when he spoke at a July 4 event in West Virginia today, but refused all requests for interviews about his role in the controversy that threatens to send Cooper, of Time magazine, and Judith Miller of The New York Times to jail this week for refusing to reveal sources. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) had called on Rove to clear the air on Sunday. "We've heard it from his lawyer, but it would be nice to hear it directly from Mr. Rove that he didn't leak the identity of Valerie Plame, and that he didn't direct anyone else to do such a dastardly thing," said Schumer. Outside the presidential rally in Morgantown, one protester made reference to the case, holding a sign that read: "Jail Karl Rove," according to a New York Times dispatch. Rove's lawyer has asserted that while he was interviewed by Cooper he was not the key source who revealed Plame's identity as a CIA agent. Rove's critics, however, suggest that he could be charged with perjury if he did not tell the truth about this to a grand jury. Meanwhile, Lawrence O'Donnell, the MSNBC analyst who first broke the Rove/Cooper link on Friday, wrote on the Huffington Post blog today, that Rove's lawyer had "launched what sounds like an I-did-not-inhale defense. He told Newsweek that his client 'never knowingly disclosed classified information.' Knowingly. "Not coincidentally, the word 'knowing' is the most important word in the controlling statute ( U.S. Code: Title 50: Section 421). To violate the law, Rove had to tell Cooper about a covert agent 'knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States.'" #####END###### Whatever Rove did or didn't say to Cooper, there's a bigger issue here that I think everyone's missing. Someone, or several someone's in the White House revealed a CIA op's identity in order to discredit a report that the White House's claim of Hussein getting yellow-flake was untrue. People in high places in the administration commited a felony crime to protect a key false premise that the White House used to mislead us to war. That, more than anything else, represents for me the true malignance of this administration. Let the cover-up, counter-attack, resignation, distancing, and eventual pardon begin! |
Check the timeline
If there was any substance to this allegation, that Time magazine had the goods on Karl Rove, it would have been a major story during the most recent presidential campaign, which resulted in the losing effort of John "Did I ever tell you I was a Vietnam veteran?" Kerry. Don't you think that ol' Cooper would have salivated over his Pulitzer Prize if he could have pulled it off, rivaling ol' Dan "Would you like to see some real memos" Rather? And can't you "defenders of the little people" get it through your skull that grand jury testimony is secret, the very act you claim was violated so you can find something? Doesn't your hypocrisy have any bounds or limits?
And BTW, you misled mental midget, the banner on the aircraft carrier was referring to that particular carrier's mission accomplishment, not the entire war effort. I really thought you were smarter than to fall for the Democrat whining talking point, but I misjudged you again. Anyone with an IQ only slightly higher than an onion realized that the Mission Accomplished banner was referring to the role of the aircraft carrier. Terri Schiavo: trying to protect human life is not an unholy and blessed effort, irrespective of the condition of that life. May your caregiver have more compassion on you than you are willing to demonstrate for others. May your caregiver continue to be gentle in wiping the drool off your angry chin. |
Re: Blue
Quote:
The man is doing a James Carville, and I do not believe the President (or maybe the party) thinks he/it has any other choice. I believe he/they do... can't recall her name, that fine Texas lady he has as an advisor. She'd be better for him (and us, IMHO), if she could get shed of Mr. Rove too... I reckon it'd take about one month's time for us to notice a clear difference. He ain't going to prison or anywhere near that though... |
Hmmmmmmmmmmm??
It would appear that we (or at least me--- :D ) have struck a raw nerve in that rarely used space between SuperFellas ears within his vitually empty crainium (except for the dust blowing through from that Rio Linda landscape down yonder---- :D )!
Oh well, time will tell whether or not the gentleman in question has his info correct about Krazy Karl, huh? Don't worry, I'll keep everyone posted on his progress to see that criminals get their just dues................no matter how MUCH certain "Cowboys" rant & rave! |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:30 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.