Karl Rove headed to Prison???

[Gimpy]

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?

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.