Karl Rove headed to Prison???

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally posted by Gimpy [b]It would appear that we (or at least me--- ) 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---- )!

Under NO circumstances ever, please, describe Scout in terms having to do with a "virtually empty cranium", or "that rarely used space between [his] ears."

That, is going too far.

[Gimpy]

Thou dos't protest too much methinks!

I didn't see any of your pronouncements of protest when SupeFella called me, a "misled mental midget" and "with an IQ only slightly higher than an onion". Not to mention " I really thought you were smarter"..." but I misjudged you again" .???

So then ...using the BlueHawk "method" of determining "appropiate circumstances" it IS OK for SuperSilly to flagrantly violate someone elses good name and use name-calling and character assasination to any extent he sees fit.

But NOT someone ELSE, huh??

You better look down and see if your "Slip" of HYPOCRISY is "showing" under your "skirt" of false appearances of virtue!

What's "OK" for the proverbial "GOOSE" is DAMN WELL "OK" for the GANDER where I COME FROM my friend!

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally posted by Gimpy Thou dos't protest too much methinks!

I didn't see any of your pronouncements of protest when SupeFella called me, a "misled mental midget" and "with an IQ only slightly higher than an onion". Not to mention " I really thought you were smarter"..." but I misjudged you again" .???

So then ...using the BlueHawk "method" of determining "appropiate circumstances" it IS OK for SuperSilly to flagrantly violate someone elses good name and use name-calling and character assasination to any extent he sees fit.

But NOT someone ELSE, huh??

You better look down and see if your "Slip" of HYPOCRISY is "showing" under your "skirt" of false appearances of virtue!

What's "OK" for the proverbial "GOOSE" is DAMN WELL "OK" for the GANDER where I COME FROM my friend!

I respond based upon what, in my opinion, is best for America and our people.

[Gimpy]

You ARE a "HYPOCRITE"!

Thanks for clearling that up for us.

We can now go about the business of accurately describing not ONLY your character "traits".

But, your unprincipled MOTIVES as well.

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally posted by Gimpy You ARE a "HYPOCRITE"!

Thanks for clearling that up for us.

We can now go about the business of accurately describing not ONLY your character "traits".

But, your unprincipled MOTIVES as well.

Please describe the precise way and evidence for which the conclusion above was reached.

[Gimpy]

I aim to please!

I used the post I've copied below to arrive at my conclusions.

#################

Re: Sir Blue
quote:
Originally posted by Gimpy Thou dos't protest too much methinks!

I didn't see any of your pronouncements of protest when SupeFella called me, a "misled mental midget" and "with an IQ only slightly higher than an onion". Not to mention " I really thought you were smarter"..." but I misjudged you again" .???

So then ...using the BlueHawk "method" of determining "appropiate circumstances" it IS OK for SuperSilly to flagrantly violate someone elses good name and use name-calling and character assasination to any extent he sees fit.

But NOT someone ELSE, huh??

You better look down and see if your "Slip" of HYPOCRISY is "showing" under your "skirt" of false appearances of virtue!

What's "OK" for the proverbial "GOOSE" is DAMN WELL "OK" for the GANDER where I COME FROM my friend!


I respond based upon what, in my opinion, is best for America and our people.


__________________
[><] In order to form a more perfect union...


############

Is THAT "clear" enough for ya?

[BLUEHAWK]

Exactly so.

[Gimpy]

I'm glad I cleared that up for ya Sir Blue.


It's a good thing to know HOW people arrive at their conclusions, and how their evidence supports those conclusions.

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally posted by Gimpy I'm glad I cleared that up for ya Sir Blue.


It's a good thing to know HOW people arrive at their conclusions, and how their evidence supports those conclusions.

And, what they might actually mean by what they actually say

[Gimpy]

EDITOR & PUBLISHER ?

America's Oldest Journal Covering the Newspaper Industry

By E&P Staff

Save the First Amendment--from Karl Rove

A man who taught with Rove, and considers him a friend, writes that in the Valerie Plame case, Rove is using journalists, and the First Amendment, "to operate without constraint, or to camouflage breaking the law." That's why neither reporters Cooper and Miller, nor their publications, should protect Rove (or anyone else) "through an undiscerning, blanket use of the First Amendment that weakens its protections by its gross misuse."

By Bill Israel

(July 05, 2005)

In 99.9 percent of cases I know, journalists must not break the bonds of appropriate confidentiality, to protect their ability to report, and to defend the First Amendment. I?ve testified in court to that end, and would do so again.

But the Valerie Plame-CIA case that threatens jail time for reporters from Time and The New York Times this week is the exception that shatters the rule. In this case, journalists as a community have been played for patsies by the president?s chief strategist, Karl Rove, and are enabling him to abuse the First Amendment, by their invoking it.

To understand why this case is exceptional, one must grasp the extent of Rove?s political mastery, which became clearer to me by working with him. When we taught "Politics and the Press" together at The University of Texas at Austin seven years ago, Rove showed an amazing disdain for Texas political reporters. At the same time, he actively cultivated national reporters who could help him promote a Bush presidency.

In teaching with him, I learned Rove assumes command over any political enterprise he engages. He insists on absolute discipline from staff: nothing escapes him; no one who works with him moves without his direction. In Texas, though he was called "the prime minister" to Gov. George W. Bush, it might have been "Lord," as in the divine, for when it came to politics and policy, it was Rove who gave, and Rove who took away.

Little has changed since the Bush presidency; all roads still lead to Rove.

Consequently, when former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson challenged President Bush?s embrace of the British notion that Saddam Hussein imported uranium from Niger to produce nuclear weapons, retaliation by Rove was never in doubt . While it is reporters Matthew Cooper of Time and Judith Miller of The New York Times who now face jail time, the retaliation came through Rove-uber-outlet Robert Novak, who blew the cover of Wilson?s wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame.

The problem, as always, in dealing with Rove, is establishing a clear chain of culpability. Rove once described himself as a die-hard Nixonite; he is, like the former president, both student and master of plausible deniability. (This past weekend, in confirming that Rove was indeed a source for Matthew Cooper, Rove's lawyer said his client "never knowingly disclosed classified information.") That is precisely why prosecutor Fitzgerald in this case must document the pattern of Rove?s behavior, whether journalists published, or not.

For in this case, Rove, improving on Macchiavelli, has bet that reporters won?t rat their relationship with the administration?s most important political source. How better for him to operate without constraint, or to camouflage breaking the law, than under the cover of journalists and journalism, protected by the First Amendment?

Karl Rove is in my experience with him the brightest and most affable of companions; perhaps I have been coopted, for I genuinely treasure his friendship. But neither charm nor political power should be permitted to subvert the First Amendment, which is intended to insure that reporters and citizens burrow fully and publicly into government, not insulate its players from felony, or reality.

Reporters with a gut fear of breaching confidential sources must fight like tigers to protect them. But neither reporters Cooper nor Miller, nor their publications, nor anyone in journalism should protect the behavior of Rove (or anyone else) through an undiscerning, blanket use of the First Amendment that weakens its protections by its gross misuse.


###END###

And MORE, from Congress:

July 5, 2005

The following letter, drafted by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), was issued to other House Democrats for signature this afternoon.

Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, calls on Bush adviser Karl Rove to explain his role in the outing of a CIA agent or resign his office.

###START###


July 6, 2005

The President

The White House

Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:


We write in order to urge that you require your Deputy White House Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, to either come forward immediately to explain his role in the Valerie Plame matter or to resign from your Administration.


Notwithstanding whether Mr. Rove intentionally violated the law in leaking information concerning former CIA operative Valerie Plame, we believe it is not tenable to maintain Mr. Rove as one of your most important advisors unless he is willing to explain his central role in using the power and authority of your Administration to disseminate information regarding Ms. Plame and to undermine her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson.


We now know that e-mails recently turned over by Time, Inc. between writer Matthew Cooper and Time editors reveal that one of Mr. Cooper?s principal sources in the Plame matter was Mr. Rove. This has been confirmed by Newsweek and two lawyers representing witnesses involved in the investigation. Mr. Rove?s attorney, Robert Luskin, also has confirmed that Mr. Rove was interviewed by Mr. Cooper in connection with a possible article about Ms. Plame three or four days before Robert Novak wrote a column outing Ms. Plame as a CIA operative.


We also know that Mr. Rove told Chris Matthews that Ambassador Wilson?s wife and her undercover status were ?fair game.? A White House source also appears to have previously acknowledged that Mr. Rove contacted Mr. Matthews and other journalists, indicating that ?it was reasonable to discuss who sent Wilson to Niger.?


The above facts appear to be directly inconsistent with previous statements by you and representatives of your Administration concerning leaking in general and the Plame case in particular.


For example, on September 30, 2003, you stated ?there?s just too many leaks [in Washington]. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.? You also stated ?I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.?


On October 10, 2003, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asked if Mr. Rove or two other aides in your Administration had ever discussed the Plame matter with any reporter, and he stated he had spoken to Mr. Rove and the others and ?they assured me that they were not involved in this.?


Regardless of whether these actions violate the law ? including specific laws against the disclosure of classified information as well as broader laws against obstruction of justice, the negligent distribution of defense information, and obligating reporting of press leaks to proper authorities ? they seem to reveal a course of conduct designed to threaten and intimidate those who provide information critical of your Administration, such as Ambassador Wilson.

We hope you agree with us that such behavior should never be tolerated by any Administration. While it is acceptable for a private citizen to use every legal tool at his or her disposal to protect himself against legal liability, high-ranking members of your Administration who are involved in any effort to smear a private citizen or to disseminate information regarding a CIA operative should be expected to meet a far higher standard of ethical behavior and forthrightness. This is why we believe it is so important that Mr. Rove publicly and fully explain his role in this matter.


Sincerely,


#######END########

More to come later!