I knew it! how I wish I'd made a bet long ago, I'd be rich!

From today's Newsweek (Time came out with an article today to, saying that-paraphrased-"other publications have named a Rove as the source, but that would go against Time magazine's policy." Not denying it was Rove) The spin in the article is pathetic, and if this is the best that the WH can come up with in two years preparation..


July 18 issue - It was 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003, and Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. "Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation ..." Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, "please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]" and suggested another reporter check with the CIA/

*"double super secret background"-what's with this comic book talk?

**yes, it is photoshopped, just fantasizing...

-- Modified on 7/10/2005 3:53:58 PM

Great picture, I especially lied the wet pants.

However, you realize of course this is pure fantasy. After Bill pardoned so many of his friends, you better know Rove has a get of jail free card.

I posted about Rove being the leak several days ago... so that much isn't news, although it will be most interesting to see how this entire situation plays out.
But that picture is priceless! Did you photoshop it yourself Lauren? roflol!!!

Snowdude, one has nothing to do with the other. If Rove is indeed guilty of committing a Federal Felony, then he should face justice FIRST. He and his buddies can sleaze their way to a get out of jail free pardon in January 2008, unless of course, the Warmonger is impeached beforehand.
But I'm glad to see you can appreciate the humor of Laurens image.

-- Modified on 7/11/2005 2:30:51 AM

Nixon was pardoned but still seen as guilty, and the dirty truth came out for the whole world to see. This story is just the tip of the iceberg-the point of it is WHY did Rove out Plame? To do it just to "discredit" Wilson's article about the non-existent Nigerian yellowcake (intelligence which the admin admitted came from forged documents) is a big risk for something so petty-reporters write non-factual articles all the time, even though he was an ambassador they could have just shrugged off his claims. instead it was so important to them that he and his wife-who was investigating WMD's-keep silent that he took that grand step. The real story will be revealed in the process-it all relates back to the Downing Street Memos.

I'm sorry, I'm just so excited, and haven't read this site for awhile, been devouring news, like you I had heard about this some time ago-last Friday as a matter of fact, on the McLaughlin hour, but this confirms it. I should have known you'd be up on what's going on! A shame no one cared or took you seriously, ignorance isn't necessarily bliss.

Wish I could take credit for the great photoshop, but I have no talents in that department whatsoever-I found it on my fave site, http://www.democraticunderground.com  
where I spend half my day, and has been recognized by Rep. John Conyers Jr., Elizabeth Edwards, and Chris Heinz, among other noteworthy people.

-- Modified on 7/10/2005 5:41:52 PM

then you will have to explain to me why so many folks on the left wanted to give Bill a pass for lying to a Grand Jury? And please, no "sex" excuses. Lying to a Grand Jury is lying to a Grand Jury, there are no excuses.

Just looking for a little consistency from my friends across the aisle...

long on rhetoric; short on facts.

Let me first reiterate my earlier comment that anyone who outed Plame as an operative should be prosecuted.

That having been said, it might have been her husband.  From what I've seen of the Rove story, it appears that he did not commit a crime, because he neither named Plame, nor identified her as an undercover operative.  Indeed, it still is not certain that she was one.  These facts have been discussed in places far more credible than this Board, but I certainly don't believe that it will make any difference to the far Lefties here.  Facts seldom do.

that there are no ethics for Republicans. What does it say about a party when its members know that their leaders are liars and traitors and thieves and still support them?

Big difference. Perjury includes the requirement the lie must be relevent to the case at hand. Clinton's lie wasn't.

Rove on the otherhand, if he did lie about leaking the Plame identity, did indeed committ perjury.

No, "lying to a grand jury" is NOT just lying to a grand jury.  The Bush lies have killed and maimed thousands of Americans, not to mention innocent Iraquis.  Rove's alledged lies have put the life of a dedicated American intelligence officer in danger.  Clinton was just getting a blow job, from which W and Rove could, no doubt, derive great benefit. You are not looking for consistency, you are desperately trying to defend your conservative ideology, because you are intelligent enough to realize that your position has become untenable.

-- Modified on 7/12/2005 8:10:58 AM

-- Modified on 7/12/2005 8:12:11 AM

-- Modified on 7/12/2005 8:13:34 AM

(yes, that's my very own little donkey. aren't donkey's delightful? some anyway)

is law 101. You are just trying to excuse unexcusable behavior.

So I guess you are saying it is O.K. to lie to a Grand Jury?

If you want to say GWB lied about WMD's, I would point out that in order for something to be a lie, the person telling it has to KNOW it's a lie. If you want to say GWB got some bad intel, you might be more accurate. GWB thought he had them, Clinton thought he had them, most nations thought he had them. Perhaps if Carter had not gutted our intelligence gathering capabilities in the Middle East, we might have known better, but alas, that is the legacy of a bad democratic POTUS. BTW, if you failed to notice the last election, the left already presented that argument, and LOST. But you go on beating that dead horse...

As far as Rove, let's see where it goes....

when its members know that their leaders are liars and traitors and thieves and still support them"...Bender

Answer: Easy, it says they are Democrats

know that their leaders are liars and traitors and thieves and still support them?""""""""

It means they will make good Democrats.

the lie is not germaine to the case.

If Rove lied about the leak, it is germaine and thus a crime called perjury. The plame outing case is also a criminal case.

In the Clinton case, lying about having consensueal sex in a CIVIL case about gender discrimination, is NOT germaine and thus not a crime.

Simply lying under oath is not a crime. For instance, if you are a witness to a murder and you lie about your home address or phone number, it is not germaine to the murder case and is not a crime. (unless of course the murder took place in your home  

GWB does not KNOW much about anything. Also, why are you bringing Carter into this?  I love the way you guys operate.  Bush is OK, because he is not as bad as Carter.  Actucally, history will judge Jimmy Carter very well.  He was ethical, and honest.  That is why he was not reelected.

ps:  A tip.. keep your eye on the NEXT election

if it was not germaine to the case why Bill was impeached and disbarred. There is NO WAY these could happen without a violation of the law...

I'm afraid your reasoning does not add up...

He committed no crime. It doesn't even come close to meeting the requirements of the statute. Plame was not an opperative under the law.

BTW, none of you has enough of the facts (yet) to know what he did or didn't say.

anything short of a BJ is not a prosecutable offense.

was that, "Anything beyond a BJ"?

because it is a proven fact that Republicans consider the BJ the most heinous act imaginable.