Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > Fueling the fire...
Reload this Page Reply to Thread
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Thread: Fueling the fire... Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Jul 23rd, 2005 02:08 PM
KevinTheOmnivore quite.
Jul 23rd, 2005 01:56 PM
kellychaos I find you quite tedious, Kevintheomnivore.
Jul 23rd, 2005 01:46 PM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
If you read what I said, I explained exactly what I thought you were saying, and asked how someone becoming "above the law" because of past witch hunts could be percieved as a good thing. Particularly when said person is a conservative strategist and you have described yourself in the past as a liberal. If you can't see why I'd find that confusing then you are too focused on winning an internet argument, when I'm not even fucking arguing.

You read WAY too much into my statements.
No, I don't at all. I think the problem is that you like to cut and run on your statements.

I understand what you were confused about, you mis-read it. I get that. I still say it's pretty funny that a scandal over Karl Rove, being pretty much devoid of any sort of ideological significance, comes down to such "good vs. evil" implications for you. Hence the "HA HA".
Jul 23rd, 2005 12:07 AM
ItalianStereotype this entire "scandal" is intensely boring.
Jul 22nd, 2005 11:08 PM
ziggytrix
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
I don't think that result would be a good thing. I said that if this case just sort of fades away, that could potentially be the good thing.
Furthermore, I would like to add that I am 100% in agreement with you here. I just didn't understand that that's what you were saying.

and just for good measure
Jul 22nd, 2005 11:05 PM
ziggytrix
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
Furthermore, I find it pretty amusing that you think my lack of an obsessive hatred for Karl Rove should stand as a litmus test of my "self-professed" liberalism. I find that to be pretty telling.
I find it pretty telling that you find it so amusing. If you read what I said, I explained exactly what I thought you were saying, and asked how someone becoming "above the law" because of past witch hunts could be percieved as a good thing. Particularly when said person is a conservative strategist and you have described yourself in the past as a liberal. If you can't see why I'd find that confusing then you are too focused on winning an internet argument, when I'm not even fucking arguing.

You read WAY too much into my statements.

Quote:
I dunno, Rove very well may be full of shit. If he's guilty of a crime, then I think he'll be punished. That's the whole deal to me.
Rove is almost certainly guilty of a crime, as is a good 3/4 of Washington. The real question is whether he was sloppy enough to get caught and if the crime was big enough to warrant punishment.
Jul 22nd, 2005 09:41 PM
KevinTheOmnivore I don't think that result would be a good thing. I said that if this case just sort of fades away, that could potentially be the good thing.

In other words, what Blanco said.

Furthermore, I find it pretty amusing that you think my lack of an obsessive hatred for Karl Rove should stand as a litmus test of my "self-professed" liberalism. I find that to be pretty telling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kellychaos
If someone leaks it to you and then you leak it to a broader audience, then both of you have leaked information which is illegal. One action does not negate the other and, as government employees, both are well aware of this.
Rove and co. are trying to argue that Plame's identity was common knowledge within the belt way. This could very well be true, and if that's the case, then Rove was doing Cooper a supposed favor by "correcting" him on what may have been an erronious report on Cooper's part. Rove claims he was correcting Cooper's story, which was going to state that Cheney's office gave the green light to Wilson's trip. The Bush team denies this.

I dunno, Rove very well may be full of shit. If he's guilty of a crime, then I think he'll be punished. That's the whole deal to me.
Jul 22nd, 2005 06:20 PM
ziggytrix
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Blanco
I believe what he means is that if there is a big stink over that and Rove is exonerated, he becomes a martyr of the Evil Left Wing Media. Most people don't really understand whats going on (even we can't get a decent interpretation of the events). All they see is Karl Rove being accused of some serious stuff. If he is aquitted or the case is dropped etc etc, it looks like a witch hunt.

Anything else he is accused of, no matter how credible, becomes just more petty attacks that the public will view as the act of a small defeated left.
And what part of any of that would a self-professed liberal see as "a good thing"? That's what I'm not following.
Jul 22nd, 2005 05:21 PM
kellychaos
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
Furthermore, if the prosecution can verify what Karl Rove claims, that is if it can be verified that it was in fact Matt Cooper who brought Plame's name to Rove, then it was Cooper who violated the law, not the other way around.

Again, if we're seeing this memo now, then the prosecution saw it a while ago. I'll take his word for it.
If someone leaks it to you and then you leak it to a broader audience, then both of you have leaked information which is illegal. One action does not negate the other and, as government employees, both are well aware of this.
Jul 22nd, 2005 05:15 PM
El Blanco I believe what he means is that if there is a big stink over that and Rove is exonerated, he becomes a martyr of the Evil Left Wing Media. Most people don't really understand whats going on (even we can't get a decent interpretation of the events). All they see is Karl Rove being accused of some serious stuff. If he is aquitted or the case is dropped etc etc, it looks like a witch hunt.

Anything else he is accused of, no matter how credible, becomes just more petty attacks that the public will view as the act of a small defeated left.
Jul 22nd, 2005 04:54 PM
ziggytrix I don't follow. If Rove is ever convicted of some other crime he'll be a martyr because he was cleared on this one? And that's good?
Jul 22nd, 2005 03:46 PM
KevinTheOmnivore I honestly think that could be a good thing. If Rove gets exonerated after all of this (which he very well may), then that's it. That's the public victory for Karl Rove, and anything else ever brought up against him in the future will get smothered by stories of Rove the martyr, the angry Left, the liberal media, etc. etc.
Jul 22nd, 2005 11:00 AM
sspadowsky Honestly, I don't expect anything to come of this. Rove would never have given Cooper permission to testify if there was anything in his testimony that would stick to Rove. Besides, now that we have the London bombers and the SCOTUS nominee, this story is already getting kicked further down the news chain. I expect it will be on page 12 of the "home gardening" section by next week.
Jul 21st, 2005 11:56 PM
KevinTheOmnivore Wait, and something else about this article just hit me:

Quote:
Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.

The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.

Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said.
OK, so first off, the memo flat out tells you everything about her but her address and favorite food. It's also being insinuated by these journalists that Plame must be covert, even though he conceeds that the memo says no such thing. Seems like this episode of Crossfire is just getting started.....
Jul 21st, 2005 11:50 PM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by sspadowsky
OK, I declare this episode of "Crossfire" to be over.

Read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSNBC
Plame’s identity marked as secret
Memo central to probe of leak spelled out information’s status

By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei
The Washington Post
Updated: 12:21 a.m. ET July 21, 2005

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.
According to her own husband, Plame was not on any "clandestine" operation when the Novak piece came out.

Furthermore, if the prosecution can verify what Karl Rove claims, that is if it can be verified that it was in fact Matt Cooper who brought Plame's name to Rove, then it was Cooper who violated the law, not the other way around.

Again, if we're seeing this memo now, then the prosecution saw it a while ago. I'll take his word for it.
Jul 21st, 2005 12:50 PM
sspadowsky OK, I declare this episode of "Crossfire" to be over.

Read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSNBC
Plame’s identity marked as secret
Memo central to probe of leak spelled out information’s status

By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei
The Washington Post
Updated: 12:21 a.m. ET July 21, 2005

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.

The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.

Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret.

Prosecutors attempting to determine whether senior government officials knowingly leaked Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative to the media are investigating whether White House officials gained access to information about her from the memo, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.

Three key questions
The memo may be important to answering three central questions in the Plame case: Who in the Bush administration knew about Plame's CIA role? Did they know the agency was trying to protect her identity? And, who leaked it to the media?

Almost all of the memo is devoted to describing why State Department intelligence experts did not believe claims that Saddam Hussein had in the recent past sought to purchase uranium from Niger. Only two sentences in the seven-sentence paragraph mention Wilson's wife.

The memo was delivered to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on July 7, 2003, as he headed to Africa for a trip with President Bush aboard Air Force One. Plame was unmasked in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak seven days later.

Wilson has said his wife's identity was revealed to retaliate against him for accusing the Bush administration of "twisting" intelligence to justify the Iraq war. In a July 6 opinion piece in the New York Times, he cited a secret mission he conducted in February 2002 for the CIA, when he determined there was no evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium for a nuclear weapons program in the African nation of Niger.

White House officials discussed Wilson's wife's CIA connection in telling at least two reporters that she helped arrange his trip, according to one of the reporters, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, and a lawyer familiar with the case.

Prosecutors have shown interest in the memo, especially when they were questioning White House officials during the early days of the investigation, people familiar with the probe said.

Karl Rove, President Bush's deputy chief of staff, has testified that he learned Plame's name from Novak a few days before telling another reporter she worked at the CIA and played a role in her husband's mission, according to a lawyer familiar with Rove's account. Rove has also testified that the first time he saw the State Department memo was when "people in the special prosecutor's office" showed it to him, said Robert Luskin, his attorney.

"He had not seen it or heard about it before that time," Luskin said.

Several other administration officials were on the trip to Africa, including senior adviser Dan Bartlett, then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and others. Bartlett's attorney has refused to discuss the case, citing requests by the special counsel. Fleischer could not be reach for comment yesterday.

Rove and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, have been identified as people who discussed Wilson's wife with Cooper. Prosecutors are trying to determine the origin of their knowledge of Plame, including whether it was from the INR memo or from conversations with reporters.

Niger trip discussed
The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that the memo made it clear that information about Wilson's wife was sensitive and should not be shared. Yesterday, sources provided greater detail on the memo to The Post.

The material in the memo was based on notes taken by an INR analyst who attended a Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA where Wilson's intelligence-gathering trip to Niger was discussed.

The memo was drafted June 10, 2003, for Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, who asked to be brought up to date on INR's opposition to the White House view that Hussein was trying to buy uranium in Africa.

The description of Wilson's wife and her role in the Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA was considered "a footnote" in a background paragraph in the memo, according to an official who was aware of the process.

It records that the INR analyst at the meeting opposed Wilson's trip to Niger because the State Department, through other inquiries, already had disproved the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. Attached to the INR memo were the notes taken by the senior INR analyst who attended the 2002 meeting at the CIA.

On July 6, 2003, shortly after Wilson went public on NBC's "Meet the Press" and in The Post and the New York Times discussing his trip to Niger, the INR director at the time, Carl W. Ford Jr., was asked to explain Wilson's statements for Powell, according to sources familiar with the events. He went back and reprinted the June 10 memo but changed the addressee from Grossman to Powell.

Ford last year appeared before the federal grand jury investigating the leak and described the details surrounding the INR memo, the sources said. Yesterday he was on vacation in Arkansas, according to his office.
Jul 20th, 2005 07:14 PM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by kellychaos
Why else would they have gone after his wife and not the man himself based on the merits of his investigation?
By going after Plame, they in fact were going after Wilson, because Novak outed her in the process of explaining (according to him anyway) that his wife set up the trip, b/c she had CIA connections.

It wasn't so much an attack on his wife, but it was a way to make him look less credible.
Jul 20th, 2005 05:05 PM
kellychaos
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
So wait, you're saying that this simply re-affirms the fact that the Bush administration was wrong about WMDs??? WELL WE ALREADY KNEW THAT! And more importantly, we already had a referendum on that, it happened last Nov. 2.

This was a smear campaign against Wilson, but saying nasty things about someone isn't illegal. Violating the law by publicizing classified information, now THAT'S more relevant. The Senate intelligence committee, the same one that said our intelligence gathering was sloppy, also said that any assumptions made by Bush over Niger were reasonale. They also dismissed Joe Wilson's now infamous NY Times editorial, because the accusations he makes couldn't be totally verified by fact.

Do I believe Saddam bought viable yellow cake for weapons purposes? No. Do I think Joe Wilson could've been 100% sure of this? No..
I'm not saying that everything he insinuates is 100% correct or verfiable but, if you read between the lines, he must have been onto something bigger than he could handle (didn't have the resources?). Why else would they have gone after his wife and not the man himself based on the merits of his investigation?
Jul 20th, 2005 12:19 AM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
BUT there are quite a few of us out there who are capable of being pissed off by more than one thing at a time.
Whatever floats your boat, I guess.....

(btw, Pew, who I actually worked for at one point, tend to lean towards the liberal side).
Jul 19th, 2005 08:44 PM
ziggytrix Checking my source, I see that I should have said 'almost' not 'at least' half. Sorry, misremembered what I heard on the radio.

http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=250

It HAS changed opinions on the Bush administration among independents, at least, if you trust a Pew poll as an indicator.

Though I should clarify I meant 'cared bout it', as in, it's what's on their favorite media entertainment program.

Curiously enough, the number of people who responded to the Pew poll with 'Rove's guilty' OR 'Rove's innocent' (opposed to 'I don't know yet') was a greater number than respondents who said they were following the story 'very' or 'fairly closely'. So while you and Mr. President are saying "wait and see" most people have already come to their own conclusions.

Scroll down to the news interest index tho, and I think you'll be pleased that few think this story is the most important thing right now, BUT there are quite a few of us out there who are capable of being pissed off by more than one thing at a time.
Jul 19th, 2005 08:09 PM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
Right, the line must've been drawn at the Republican "goose stepping" comment. Forgive me.
So I can't make a Republican Nazi JOKE without you getting a bug up your ass? WTF is with you these days?
You said "That is disputed by everyone who isn't in (goose)step with Republican talking points." That was factually inaccurate, let alone tasteless, so I called you on it. Isn't that how internet message boards work?

The "bug up my ass" is the fact that the Left needs to revert to Nazi jokes and Karl Rove scandals in order to engage their opponents.


Quote:
Quote:
So wait, you're saying that this simply re-affirms the fact that the Bush administration was wrong about WMDs???
Nope. That's NOT what I said. I said that's why the tired WMD bullshit is still relevant, because it is the impetus for the smear campaign. It's not even the heart of the issue - tangential at worst, but still topical. Again, what's with the bug up your ass?
You might wanna keep this in context. According to you, the WMD angle is merely a tangent, but it apparently isn't that way to everyone on the Left (see above quote I was responding to by Rep. Harman of CA).


Quote:
Oh, geeze, I'm sorry. OK Buddy, I won't say another WORD about it til it's over. Can't have Blanco (or whomever is representing the Republican Mocker these days) throwing this back in my face later on. I just couldn't bear it!
I don't give a fuck about what gets said on a damn message board. I do give a fuck about the war in Iraq (the ACTUAL one going on now), terrorism, the supreme court nominations, social security, and the economy....to name just a few. I care about winning elections, and frankly, I'd rather see Democrats win those elections. I think they're playing this hand the wrong way though, they're building this up with hopes of running on it in '06 and '08, and I think it could backfire. I think we should go after Rove when he is found guilty of a crime, not beforehand. I'd like to see the Democrats engage people on their own ideas, rather than constantly tearing down the Bush administration like sharks at feeding time.


Quote:
And while I'm at it, I'll call up FOX and CNN to ask them to stop talking about it, even though at least half the country is following the story.
Wait, wait, wait.....can you prove that at least half the country cares about this? And I don't mean cares about it, as in, hey it happens to be what Sean Hannity or Chris Matthews is talking about. Do you think people care to the point that this could change their opinion on the Bush administration, or on the WMD issue?

I have a hard time believing this story means as much to Joe Sixpack as it does to people within the Belt Way.
Jul 19th, 2005 07:47 PM
ziggytrix
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
Right, the line must've been drawn at the Republican "goose stepping" comment. Forgive me.
So I can't make a Republican Nazi JOKE without you getting a bug up your ass? WTF is with you these days?


Quote:
So wait, you're saying that this simply re-affirms the fact that the Bush administration was wrong about WMDs???
Nope. That's NOT what I said. I said that's why the tired WMD bullshit is still relevant, because it is the impetus for the smear campaign. It's not even the heart of the issue - tangential at worst, but still topical. Again, what's with the bug up your ass?


Quote:
I just think it would be good to wait and see what happens, because if the media shoves this down everyone's throats, and Rove gets off, it'll make the Democrats look retarded. Not only that, if this investigation brings no clear hammer down on Rove (the investigation is not focused solely on him), but Rove is pressured to resign anyway, he then will become yet another one of these conservative martyrs that we'll have thrown in our faces for years to come, like Justice Bork.
Oh, geeze, I'm sorry. OK Buddy, I won't say another WORD about it til it's over. Can't have Blanco (or whomever is representing the Republican Mocker these days) throwing this back in my face later on. I just couldn't bear it! And while I'm at it, I'll call up FOX and CNN to ask them to stop talking about it, even though at least half the country is following the story.
Jul 19th, 2005 07:33 PM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
Also, I have nothing to do with this moveon.org BS. Call me an NPR parrot if you must, but at least pigeonhole me in the right fuckin box.
Right, the line must've been drawn at the Republican "goose stepping" comment. Forgive me.

Quote:
Are you being sarcastic, or are you intentionally forgetting that this all came as a direct result of somebody's () character assassination of Wilson for speaking up about the Nigerian yellowcake rubbish?
So wait, you're saying that this simply re-affirms the fact that the Bush administration was wrong about WMDs??? WELL WE ALREADY KNEW THAT! And more importantly, we already had a referendum on that, it happened last Nov. 2.

This was a smear campaign against Wilson, but saying nasty things about someone isn't illegal. Violating the law by publicizing classified information, now THAT'S more relevant. The Senate intelligence committee, the same one that said our intelligence gathering was sloppy, also said that any assumptions made by Bush over Niger were reasonale. They also dismissed Joe Wilson's now infamous NY Times editorial, because the accusations he makes couldn't be totally verified by fact.

Do I believe Saddam bought viable yellow cake for weapons purposes? No. Do I think Joe Wilson could've been 100% sure of this? No.

I just think it would be good to wait and see what happens, because if the media shoves this down everyone's throats, and Rove gets off, it'll make the Democrats look retarded. Not only that, if this investigation brings no clear hammer down on Rove (the investigation is not focused solely on him), but Rove is pressured to resign anyway, he then will become yet another one of these conservative martyrs that we'll have thrown in our faces for years to come, like Justice Bork.
Jul 19th, 2005 12:28 PM
ziggytrix
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
Why is this about WMDs in Iraq? Can somebody refresh me on this?
Are you being sarcastic, or are you intentionally forgetting that this all came as a direct result of somebody's () character assassination of Wilson for speaking up about the Nigerian yellowcake rubbish?
Jul 19th, 2005 12:03 PM
sspadowsky To me, whether the act was illegal or not is irrelevant. The intent was malicious, and that's all that counts in my book. Rove is guilty of at least that, because character assassination and career ruination are that rotten motherfucker's bread and butter.

I just want to see karma catch up to that man for all the awful shit he has done to people over the years.
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:28 PM.

I-Mockery.com - Archive - Top

© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.