No, what's incomprehensible is how many "intelligent" people who love to claim their moral and Patriotic superiority, compulsively choose to ignore incident after incident, fact after fact which CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY reveal this administration to be consistently ethically and veridically challenged at best , because they can't admit their "party of integrity" has turned out to be ANYTHING but.

It's cult-like in nature and dangerous for our country.

No, this is seriously a non-issue. It's another attempt to hang a manufactured scandal on the Bush administration. It was tried with Enron, Haliburton, Iraq WMD's, etc. It gets tiring if you ask me.



His motives are here:

Wilson's sell job

The evidence he lied is here:

Wilson is a liar



You call me "childish" and refer to Rove as a "mobster"? Not a surprise from the camp that equate our president with the terrorists in moral-relativism-run-amok.

Johnson (sorry Quarkhead) IS a left wing flake. Just read his blog posts or his webpage.

He voted for Bush? Says who? Him? Yeah, and I voted for Sharpton.

Michael Moore claims he's an "NRA Member". Does that mean he supports the Second Amendment? lol.

I can't believe anyone falls for Johnson's "I'm a republican" nonsense. His postings on the blog read like moveon.org talking points of the day. You know, "Bush lied, people died", that sort of far left nonsense.



Whether Rove is guilty of a crime IS the issue we're talking about. Treason is a serious crime. One that can be punished by the death penalty.

You don't know (neither do I) if Rove (or anyone) is lying outside of the documented case of the liar Joe Wilson.

Therefore, we should give Rove due process and not hang him before charges are even brought, which, by the way, is unlikely to ever happen.

Even if Rove were found guilty of treason, I would not support his execution.

If Rove were a school teacher or some lower level public servant, he would be suspended with pay until the investigation is complete.

I think Rove should be suspended with pay until Fitzgerald completes the investigation.

Edited to add:

I don't think that is going to happen, but I liked what one writer said in a leter to the locaL paper today:



http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/search/search_r...=Terry+Lipscomb]Letter to the Rditor FWST, 8-2-05://http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/search/s...WST, 8-2-05</i>://http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/search/s...-2-05</i>

A school teacher in Chelsea Michigan, some years ago, walked into the superintendent's office and blew that guy's brains out.

The NEA fought that teacher's suspension after he was arrested for homicide. Their position was to wait until he was found guilty and keep him on the payroll.

Rove hasn't been charged with any crime.

Why should he be suspended as a result of partisan democrat noise-making?

If everyone who John Kerry, Dean, and the other members of the DNC thought should be fired or resign actually leave, the Bush administration would be empty.

The Rove issue is a joke.

During my time as a teacher, I worked on the grievance committee for the teacher union. The procedure in the district was to suspend, with pay, personnel "accused" of a crime--sometimes in a complaint by a student or parent. While the process was ongoing, there might be an investigation by the school district, the police or both. Sometimes charges, indictments, etc. were handed down, sometimes not, but the person accused, would often be suspended with pay until the district's investigation ran it's course. There were times when personnel would be transferred to another building, even after being exonerated by the investigation(s).



No one has said he has been charged.



This is just your opinion and you are entirely welcome to it. I don't think, however, that you can accuse Matthew Cooper of being part of Democratic noise.

When we fail to see any credibility established, we can always count on your hypocrisy lordhelmet. According to this post, you didn't give the same credit to OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson to wit:

Not only one example of the hypocrisy, but a twofer.

Some of us have been consistent using the same common sense logic as you did previously. Yours stopped with Rove.

As far as Wilson, I don't want to drail this topic. So, create a "Joe Wilson is a liar" thread and bring your "A" game. I dare you...

Hmmm. So, referring to Democrats as the "just say no" party is calm, mature, and factual? You say all they have to offer is attacks against Bush, and giving "aid and comfort" to the terrorists... yet you can't seem to refrain from blaming Clinton for something in practically every post. In fact, most of your posts consist of partisan attacks. Are you the "just say no" poster? Is there no way for you to engage in debate without resorting to polemics?



Well, it's not your opinion. It's your spin. Here's what he said, in full:

He went on to say

CNN

Wow, he sure is evil! Imagine, thinking about the rule of law in such a treasonous, horrible way!

And his name is Howard Dean, not "Dean-the-scream." For all you rail against people who call Bush names, can't you see you are engaging them exactly the same way? Can't you see that this kind of name-calling does nothing for your credibility? You talk about being all facts and logic. Is this sort of playground level scrapping what you think of as mature debate about issues?



So, you attack unknown Democrats for saying Rove is a traitor. Yes, that is a serious charge. Yet you can't seem to resist lowering yourself to the same barbs. Now Michael Moore is a traitor? Please provide some proof. And please, not some quote that is mere dissent. After all, we live in a country with a Constitution which allows freedom of speech. Or is disagreeing with you or Bush grounds for a treason charge? This was laughable when Coulter did it in Treason, it's not any less so now. But really it's not a laughing matter at all. It's mean and spiteful and if the bulk of conservatives were to start believing it (thankfully they don't, as most of them - like most liberals - are intelligent and truly believe in everything America stands for), it would mean the implosion of the Republican party.



Actually, you're not. You're posting opinions, without much in the way of logic and reason to back them up. You're also trying to distract from the issue. I'M not saying he did, but it doesn't matter if Wilson lied. It does not matter if he said that the president of Niger was a Martian. The issue here is the outing of a covert CIA agent. I'm not going to say yet whether or not Rove is guilty of a crime. I will be glad to wait and see. However, it's not enough for you to say that. It's not enough for you to state your position, which is essentially the same as mine: let the investigation happen. Hopefully the truth will out. No, in typical polemic fashion, you have to throw in the kitchen sink. Here we are, discussing the reporters and Rove, and suddenly, the Democrats are traitors, Dean is a traitor, Jimmy Carter is the worst ex-President ever (had to find some way to throw that in, eh?), Michael Moore is a traitor, the Democratic party consists only of nay-saying... and on and on. None of which is true or pertinent.



Are they? Actually, as more facts come to light, the more it looks like Rove may be in some deep water. You have no proof that the reporters are "dutiful little partisans" who have been "manipulated" by "the left." Or if you do, please post it here, instead of more polemics.



You are quite right. And in that light, I will respectfully ask you to please stop accusing various people who disagree with you of being traitors.

OJ and Blake were both charged and tried. In OJ's case, there was DNA evidence available and in Blake's case, a murder weapon.

What charges have been brought against Rove again?

I thought so.

But, according to Dean, Bin Laden is innocent until we prove him guilty in a court of law. Do you subscribe to the DNC chair's positions on both Rove AND Bin Laden?

And with respect to Wilson, it's not "me" who think he's a liar. It's the bipartisan report from the US Senate. I think they explored that issue sufficiently. They concluded that Wilson "misled" them through his recollections. In other words, he lied.

Spare me your hyperbole, GOP talking points and playa hatin' as they say in the hood, lordhelmet.

I didn't get your vote? If this is a snide reference to the America's Debate award I was presented, apparently I didn't need your vote!

Don't hate. Appreciate.

And let me throw your own pious words back at you.



I will remind you of that when Karl "T.B." Rove gets a "perp walk" out of the White House in handcuffs.

It's charming....in a sick and pathetic way...the way the Rove apologists are trying to make it seem as if Rove were the victim here and not Valerie Plame and the persons she was working with as a CIA agent.

Speaking of hyperbole, it is hype at it's worst to feign mock outrage when we are AT WAR and when democrat-left partisans are giving AID AND COMFORT to our enemy and some sleazy political hack in the White House violated national security and outed a CIA agent to exact some small measure of revenge.

It is utterly monstrous on the same day when the number of American soldiers that have died in the Iraq war passes the 1800 mark, to compare the self-inflicted stupidity of Rove the REAL soldiers that are dying for the sake of a LIE told by a chickenhawk Chief Executive. Who's really giving "aid and comfort to our enemy" but the lying liars and their sniveling sycophants in this Mis-Administration who start wars they can't finish ?

But that's the way it goes in Operation: "Save T*** Blossom." Smear, sidestep, stonewall, distort, hedge, mislead, prevaricate, flip-flop and lie if that is what it takes to save Rove.

I wonder what would we be hearing from the Rove groupies if the EXACT SAME THING had occurred during the Clinton Adminstration?

None dare call it treason. But that's what it is. All the spin in the world can't change that.

I didn't notice this got re-opened

I noticed a new development surrounding this whole thing. There is a great story over at the LA Times (registration req'd) that everyone needs to read. The article follows the state department memo on Wilson from the date it was authored (June 10, 2003) to July 7th, 2003. This is a pretty big nail in the coffin I think and suggests that Rove and Libby aren't telling the truth. The question remains on who was in the front of that plane and begs the question as to whether someone higher than Rove and Libby was involved.



Edited to add: It is starting to come together again - on July 8th (the next day) Libby met with Miller - source:


I wonder what they might have discussed...

It's time for Congress to get involved in this. The only problem is, they are just as derelict as the President. Here is Representative Conyers' statement on the need for such intervention.



It's interesting that so many of the President's close personal aides and appointees are now under public review for illegalities, ethic lapses, and incompetence. Many others should be but aren't.

Now that we know who really exposed Plame to the public inadvertantly, and that Fitzgerald knew that name on the day he took the reigns of prosecution charged with finding that information yet never indicted the miscreant or even exposed the information to the same public, I wonder if those in this thread that have accused others of the nefarious (but legal) deed wish to join David Corn in a giant mea culpa?

Similarly I wonder if those same posters have any reservations about Richard Armitage and his boss, Colin Powell, for actively allowing those maligned in the real Bush administration to twist slowly in the wind (even to this day), while they had/have all the answers? The silence is deafening.

1. Are the reporters telling the truth?

2. Are Rove and Libby telling the truth?

3. Is anyone telling the truth (to show I have a sense of humor)?



Finally, dragged kicking and screaming to the public dock, but still no live appearance. He has to get his lawyers and underlings to do the job. Who's the coward now, Dick?

Even the New York Times has been forced to comment on the subject, although they issue no apologies for the massive numbers of scurrilous attacks on others placing blame for a crime that didn't exist (as posters here have not done, nor Armitage/Powell/Fitzgerald either). Talking all around the issue, the feckless NYT still omits that their revered Joseph Wilson IV lied like a dog when he said he was recommended for the gig by Cheney, not his wife, and that he reported to the CIA Saddam was prowling Africa for yellowcake during the run-up to the war, while publicly saying something else.

Not only did Armitage, with Powell in tow, fail to reveal in public his instigation of L'affair Plame, but he actively concealed the fact by rebuffing Novak's requests that he come clean. What a mendacious and perfidious set of scumbags. The Democrat prosecutor has established his modus operandi to prosecute as Victoria Toensing says, "If you were against the war, it was okay to forget or to reveal details about Valerie Plame, but if you supported the war, you get indicted."

It remains curious at this point that the ever-present face of Quatro in the news has not made an appearance demanding that Armitage and his accomplice-after-the-fact, Colin Powell, be "frog-marched" in a perp walk to jail. Where is the news media on this hot interview?

I agree that this is a very interesting turn of events, Bulwark.

It was Richard Armitage all along. Novak was correct--he's not a political gunslinger and was, in fact, dovish on the war.

The fact that Fitzgerald knew about Armitage is even more interesting. Why go after Libby when Armitage was the "leaker" and the primary source (although not necessarily a law breaker)?

I also wonder how long David Corn has had this information and why his columns over the last few years have said one thing and now his book says another. Corn has called the Plame affair a "White House smear" since at least July of '03.

It seems that Corn is now shamelessly promoting his new book "Hubris" and ignoring this glaring inconsistency, refusing to respond to his critics. www.davidcorn.com

I guess we know who was doing the lying now

I wonder how come this revelation isn't more prevalent in the media?

Also I would like to echo AMLord's remarks "The fact that Fitzgerald knew about Armitage is even more interesting. Why go after Libby when Armitage was the "leaker" and the primary source "

I'm sure the unbiased media will look into that one.

This was a huge topic of debate not too long ago, and I liked the term nadagate. In other words nothing really happened, all the charges, the speeches, cries for investigation yielded nothing but a perjury charge. I'm not even sure that's going to hold up in the long-run. The Washington Post sums it all up.

It is QUITE clearly a white house smear- first off, Wilson didn't lie about anything- it is Armitage, Libby and others that have done the lying.

THAT is why Fitzgerald went after Libby- it is pretty obvious that this has Rove's hands all over it- pretty much his pattern of behavior- like I said, pedophiles, murderers and politicians are all socio paths that stick to thier habits of evil- and this is pretty obvious that it is at the highest level of this admin's goverment- I mean, deputy secretary of state is not exactly a mid-level manager out of the loop professional beurocrat.

It is pretty obvious that members of the GW admin are up this up to thier neck, and yet, no matter what this Admin does, folks give them a pass, simply because, as far as I can tell:

1) he is republican, so off limits
2) he is conservative, so off limits

It amazes me that folks that are anti-goverment and anti-"situational" ethics when dealing with thier core beliefs, are so quick to make up any sort of twisted logic to declare this admin blameless.

Boggles the mind.

If this is in fact "quite clear" like you make it out to be by all means present some factual evidence. What "boggles the mind" is that people continue to beat the "smear horse" when all the facts are contrary to the story the Wilson tried to pass off as a scandal. Now for people to believe this is still a scandal have to believe that the Washington Post is a mouthpiece for the White House. If Libby is guilty of anything it's the same thing as Martha Stewart and President Clinton, two people who lied before a grand jury when the original investigation turned up nothing. So far out of these three people only one has received a pass. He was neither a republican nor conservative btw.

the mind boggles indeed

Armitage is hardly an ally of the White House, or a liar. CR you'll have to do better than launch a bunch of accusations without proper sources. I know what you want to believe, but what really happened is completely different.

Cruising Ram:

I find the lack of the words "Richard Armitage" very interesting.

Wilson brought this matter to the public's attention with his op ed. Wilson was the first one to go public here. His charges, as made in his editorial, are debunked.

Armitage was the one who gave Novak Valerie Wilson's name. The one interesting tidbit that remains is why Novak used the name Valerie Plame instead of Valerie Wilson.

Rove and Libby confirmed to Novak that Mrs. Wilson worked at the CIA. The CIA even confirmed that she worked there (an often overlooked fact).

But the primary leaker, Novak's primary source, is Richard Armitage.

Armitage was never a serious target of the investigation (as far as we can tell) and yet Fitzgerald knew, from Novak's testimony, that Armitage was the man who gave him the name and the information regarding her CIA status and possible role in getting Wilson assigned to this trip.

Why haven't the media staked out Armitage's house as they did Rove's? How come nobody is making a serious attempt to get Armitage's reasons for doing this?

And why did Armitage remain silent when members of the administration became targets of the investigation when he knew full well that it was himself that was the source?

Ahhh....the mind boggling continues.....

Not according to the REPORT ON THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON IRAQ
Wilson stated: "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter, she definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."
The Senate report states: Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." This was just one day before CPD sent a cable DELETED requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him "there's this crazy report" on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.

Wilson stated that Bush lied when he said in the SOTU "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The British and French intelligence agencies both made the same claim, and in 2003 an independent British parliamentary committee looked into the matter and determined that the claim made by British intelligence was reasonable.

Speaking mainly of the Butler Report, Factcheck.org writes: A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .
Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

Washington Post Staff Writer Susan Schmidt further wrote the following in 2004:
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Who exactly was lying again?


Purely speculation and utterly devoid of anything remotely resembling fact.

Wilson is a proven liar, and contrary to Democrats wishes for a 'Fitzmas present', the grand jury inquiry by the special prosecutor turns out to be just as much of a waste of time and money as the Starr investigations of Clinton. Once again the blind hatred of a man can turn reasonable people blind to truth.

I detect a lot of misguided conservative gloating on this thread. The book Hubris by Michael Iskoff and David Corn was the catalyst that smoked Richard Armitage out.

While it seems Armitage was the one who fumbled the ball, it was Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney who picked up the fumble and score tried to score a touchdown for political purposes.

I don’t wish Scooter Libby any ill will. He is, in my opinion the fall guy. That said, perjury is a serious crime.

I will admit that I wish Patrick Fitzgerald had nailed Rove’s hide to the wall. If this is partisanship, then so be it. We’ve had to deal with administration's partisan sniping for the last six years.

Isakoff was on Hardball, Monday, August 29. Here are a couple of questions and answers:



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14570837/

It's funny that you never mentioned anything about misguided democrat gloating in any of the Tom Delay threads BoF. Or is it conservatives that are the only ones who can be guilty of gloating?

The media(which I dare not say liberal media) ran with this story for months on end. And now suddenly... crickets... I wonder why

I don't see anything in the original questions about DeLay, so why should I mention him?

Here are Popeye47's original questions below. Which of the three questions asks about DeLay?

Ah, Sleeper, just another smoke screen.

1. Are the reporters telling the truth?

2. Are Rove and Libby telling the truth?

3. Is anyone telling the truth (to show I have a sense of humor)?

If I may interject, I believe Sleeper's point, although possibly un-clearly worded......was that this particular thread since opening on Jul 22 2005, has been a non stop diatribe of liberal gloating.
His point is salient, however......the media has been curiously silent compared to the speculation and criticism when the investigation started.

You know DTOM, I'm not clairvoyant.

I have no option but to respond to Sleeper's post as he wrote it.

If you want to poke fun at my inability to clarify my sentiments, by all means cast stones BoF.
That doesn't mean I don't have the ability to spot hypocrisy when I see it


And to Clarify.

Joe Wilson was lying.

Patrick Fitzgerald in a way way lying because he knew of Armitage all along and kept silent on it.

And Armitage himself was withholding the truth because he sat by and watched the wrong people be accused.

Sleeper, it was not I who brought your prowess with the English language into question.

Please see statement below.



Please give credit where it is due.

My mistake BoF... At least I am glad I am going back to college

Also just read something else in all this twist... Why was Valerie's name given as Plame and not Wilson?

According to Novak the answer is because his original source, who we now know was Armitage, only referred to her as "Wilson's wife," and Novak, with brilliant detective work, went to Who's Who In America and pulled the name Valerie Plame from an entry Ambassador Munchhausen put there himself for publicity purposes.

I will re-iterate BOFs post- adn DTOM- props for at LEAST being consistant in regards to the Clinton non- scandal

1) Armitage made the leak, through gossiping, actually criminal "loose lips sink ships"- not the intent that
2) Karl Rove and Scooter Libby ran with, Dick Cheney including.

Why hasn't the liberal media ran with it? Perhaps because it is not liberal after all?

In reality, GW has had a pass for pretty much every horrible evil thing he has done by the media- compared to Clintons minor indescretions by comparison, and the massive right wing out cry over what was really, nothing, and I mean, in comparison of this truly bad admin, ya, it is pretty hypocritical of any republican that doesn't go straight for the jugular for this guy, because it is SO much worse.

DTOM- Dave Chappelle did a great job of showing the yellow cake farce than I can, when he played 'black GW" and had a tinfoil full piece of well, "yellow cake"-

Seriously- how can someone get all mad at Dan Rather when the Nigerian document was SOOOO obviously amatuerishly forged? I mean- haven't YOU ever got th Nigerian swindle in your in-box? You think someone in the GW admin had NEVER opened the nigerian scam e-mail?

That level of incompetance ought to scare anyone that can imagine these drooling idiots with a talent for politics but the opposite for actually RUNNING goverment?

I think there is a real earned sense of outrage over the way Republicans have downplayed this when thier outrage was so in full court press during the Clinton years. I am very disappointed with my own reps here in my state, I really thought they may be slightly better human beings than the usual filth that inhabits DC. but they "played ball" as usual, very disappointed.

Pretty much on the face of it, GW lied (about the firing of the perps, at the very least- anyone remember this? ) Rove obviously lied, though he may have not broke perjury laws like Libby, Cheney obviously lied, Armitage lied, and the American public bought more Rovian/Goebells propaganda, hook, line and sinker "oh, you won't be safe if we go down".

To refute your statement that Wilson never lied, I quoted the Washington Post, Factcheck, the Butler Report and the Senate Report on the US Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq...........and you quoted Dave Chappelle. I think that it is safe to day that you have not proven that point.

Why hasn't the liberal media ran with it? If the media was conservative, the latest developments might well be front page news, just as the original story was. I believe your assessment of Bush receiving a pass from the media is grossly inaccurate.

Okay- where is your lie told by Joe Wilson now- are you saying he lied because he accused GW of lying? Pretty big stretch there- because that is about the extent of factchecks "thoughts" on lying. Also, in the factcheck, we see that one group says that the CIA was told to leave out reservations about the yellow cake memo- heck , they should have shown the documents to me- I have forged better excuse notes in my Mom's handwriting - I laugh but it is true- how could ANYONE look at those documents and not immediately realize they were fakes? - there is only one conclusion- GW regime ignored this stupidity, told the CIA to ignore it, and pressed on anyway.

Bottom line is pretty obvious- just from the pieces factcheck went through- Novak got the name from Armitage- confirmed it with a second source Karl Rove- and the rest is history.

Like has been penned before- what would have been the treatment of Clinton had this occured under his watch? Closest analogy is travelgate- a very, very innocous and silly little created scandal, were no one was killed, no wars started over it- but was the topic of scandal for months.

Ya, GW got a huge pass on this one. Compare even just this one "tiny" scandal of the worst Clinton was found to do, and Clinton's entire presidency becomes a beacon of shiny ethics and morality, with the amoral jackals of the press hounding the heals of the presidential lion in Bill Clinton.

GW got a serious pass pretty much for his entire presidency, simply by the success of republican "label making machines" that started with Lee Atwater. They have managed to tag anyone that doesn't believe as GW as a 'socialist, anti-patriotic unamerican liberal" - and the press lose money from this, and GW gets his pass.

I'm not going to repost what I wrote earlier, as you have obviously not read it. But the easiest lie is this, Wilson said that President Bush was lying when, in his 2003 SOTU, he pronounced these words: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." We know that the British still stand by that intelligence analysis, forged memo aside. So yes, saying that Bush lied was a lie by Wilson, plain and simple.
It is curious that you will go on about a plainly forged memo (as it certainly was) but give no thought to the fact that Iraq did discuss trade with Niger, who's exports consist of goats and uranium. How could anyone NOT think that Iraq was endeavoring to buy uranium?

CR, I can't help but think that partisan hatred has possibly blinded you to facts that may not support your opinion. Just look at the verbiage you use when comparing two unrelated circumstances. You overdramatically bash Bush at every opportunity, even when the debate is completely unrelated to Bush or America. When you aren't inserting Bush's name, you insert Rove's. When speaking of Clintonian problems, you use the term 'created scandals'.
It is painfully clear that you would not be happy unless Fitzgerald indicted Rove, Cheney and Bush, regardless of any damning evidence, and since that is probably not going to happen, you will turn a blind eye to anything that doesn't support your preconceived notions and predetermined conclusions.
I predict that Fitzgerald will not have evidence to bring forward anymore indictments, and the believers in Fitzmas will continue to believe in conspiracies and a conservative media.

The bottom line is obvious indeed, Wilson can't keep his story straight, is a partisan hack, and is no better than the Republicans that he claims are out to get him.

I think this debate has now come to the point where my sigline quote applies best:

When someone holds an opinion so tightly the real data is unimportant, facts have no value, and the conclusions are already reached, then any data supporting the opinion is golden and any data contradicting it is fabrication, exaggeration, or outright lies. In such an environment, truth is unimportant.

New facts have come out regarding this issue and it seems blind hatred for Rove and Bush are winning the day and truth has no meaning.

I've mostly tried to stay out of this debate and left it for those better equiped then I to discern what the hell is going on with this "scandal" or "pseudo-scandal". Sleeper in the previous post presented a pretty accurate statement of many people's feelings and clinging to ideology...of course it does not describe everyone.

But from my limited knowledge of the entire situation all i can truly see is the same old, same old. Yesterday it was Clinton, today is it Rove, and there will most certainly be someone tomorrow. Many people on this thread were either outraged that Rove was the leak (and tried to form an argument which has been recently disproven) or were outraged that Rove was even implicated. I didnt see many people show outrage to the political circus that our government has become. No outrage that we have come to a point in our history where we can no longer trust our government to do whats in the best interest of the people. And this isnt a Republican thing because the Democrats are just as bad. I didn't get very agitated for hyped up for this event because if I became passionate about every scandal that popped up in Washington then my life would revolve around defending hypocrites and vindicating scoundrels. I don't care about Rove's involvement in the case, all I care about is the truth and it appears that we have been provided it. Maybe it could then be put the rest so we can move onto the next scandal.

Wait a minute- there was no "disproven leak"- instead- Armitage provided the initial leak- and Rove confirmed it with Novak, without actually naming it himself.

Interesting that Rove is not even held to as high a standard of confidentiality as I am over patients records- I would have been fired for Rove's "slip" or whatever you want to call it- it is pretty soft pedaled by the right in any form I think-

for instance, if presented with the same question that Novak asked Libby or Rove- i would have to say "that is a matter of confidentiality, I can neither confirm nor deny my knowledge of this person with whom you speak" -

Rove- by the very factcheck doc you provided, instead said something to the effect of "ya, that is what I heard too".

If little ol' me in public safety has to watch what I say in merely confidential matters- why do you hold Rove to such a much lower standard when it comes to CIA spooks?

I find it pretty laughable though that your entire pretext of calling Wilson a "liar" is because he called GW a "liar"- that is really the best ya got on him huh? Dang, i think the fact he is better aquainted with which admin outed his wife as a spy, I think the worst you can even call Wilson is angry over the admins continuied "swiftwater lying" against this guy and his wife.

I mean, c'mon DTOM- I wouldn't feel too comfy hearing about how we came about the conclusion of the Uranium/Niger intel- I mean, the minister never did actually mention Uranium directly or actually have a meeting past the one mentioned with the Iraqis.

I think that is why the Brits pretty much know that this whole thing was 'sexed up" by the Blair and GW admin, and, just as the dems say, pretty much slanted everything they could to thier favor to attack iraq, regardless of poor planning and not following up on shaky intell.

I don't think it much of a stretch to go with intentionally not following up with the intell, verifying and what not-as "lying"- I don't think that is much of a stretch at all- it is just artful lying, that is all.

What are lies anyway?
1) Out right not telling the truth
2) purposely ommited info and leaving only part of the truth intace, just enough to mislead the listener
3) Telling the truth in such a manner than no one would believe the truth.

Out right lying is dangerous for any admin
#2 is a bit easier, adn you can go with 'plausible denyability" because of gaps of info
#3 takes a great deal of skill to pull off a lie of any type of complexity, or would make a smart person check out the statement- so, in otherwords, not really able to do on a large scale

I think Wilson was perfectly okay with calling GW a liar based on #2, because it is pretty obvious, just from the fact check site, that this was how it went down

1) Armitage gossiped
2) Cheney, Libby and Rove capitalized on it.

Highlights are mine.

Two points. One, the report claimed Wilson was a liar in an addendum added at the last minute by 3 republicans after the vote. The committee wanted a revote and were denied. If this "lie" was so clear, why resort to this slimeball tactic and why not let the lie remain on it's own merits? What did the republicans have to lose?

Second. Why did the adminstration backtrack on the SOTU remarks and say they should not have been included? DTOM, your argument is as weak as Wilson's excuse for mis-stating what was later to be determined a fact. The documents WERE forgeries. That's the bottom line. I suppose one could parse words to make Wilson's statement technically correct, but only Bush has that luxury. His statements make Clinton's word games look like the straight talk express.

This whole "Wilson is lying" is the pot calling the kettle black. He's become the lightning rod to deflect the truth away from Bush - that it is a 100% certainty Bush trumped up the reasons to invade a nation that had not attacked us, had no plans to attack us, had no capabilities to attack us, and has never been a sponsor of international terrorism. Why did he do that? A topic for another 14 threads.

In my opinion, if a democrat did this, he'd be at the Hague on trial for war crimes already. Instead, we have obfuscated the problem by pretending Valerie Plame is the root cause of this issue.

Hmmm details keep getting in the way of some of the republican facts, their is some new excerpts from Hubris that reveil some new details.

What Valerie Plame Really Did at the CIA



So it seems she was actually working in the exact department that was trying to answer the Iraq WMD question and also working on intell about Iran but her cover, the front companies cover, other agents working in the front companies cover were all blown against this nations security. Now can anyone say they feel any safer? Also like the article says she was moving from NOC to Official cover around the time her cover was blown to put in time in an adminstration role but she intended to go back to NOC eventually possibly, which means the CIA would have held information about her close to them to allow her to be used in the future if she and them deemed it necessary.