Breaking Story! Its Rove!

I predict that this story will fade away just like it did before.

Have ya'll noticed how the anti-Bush crowd just keeps recycling the same stuff over and over again?

 

The reason that "the prosecutor is going after perjury/obstruction of justice related to the investigation--rather than the original underlying crime" as you write, A-pal, is that there is no underlying crime. It was the Democrats who insisted on the special prosecutor and he ended up having to chase a couple of Democrat reporters over perjury since it turned out that no CIA operative was exposed.

The best thing to do is to drop the whole thing, and I guess that in the long run The New York Times will cave as Time did and the case will be closed.

And poor Joe Wilson will be stuck with a warehouse full of his books that and be unemployed to boot.

 

Is that a real photo? If not, then that would be defamation of character and you should repent and retract your photo.

 

1) I don't think that is anything new.

2) Yes, from 9:00-12:00 Central Time on Sunday nights. I like to listen to it but missed it last night.

 

It's interesting that since the Downing Street memo didn't gain traction that it has dropped out of the news.

I predict that this Rove story will prove to be another blank fired by the Left and will also soon drop out of the news.

 

I went to the actual source of your picture and I note the following:

1) Rove is not actually making the sign you accuse him of with his hand. You need to repent and retract your statement.(I am surprised that the moderators allow you to get away with a deceptive photo to try to make it look like he is doing so.)

2) The picture you used is from what can only be described as a pro-Iraqi insurgency website. I guess that explains why you are posting about the war as you are but I hope that doesn't tell us whose side you are on. But I find it disturbing that you would use such a website that apparently takes delight in the killing of U.S. troops.

 

I didn't say it was fake. But when looking at the larger picture on the website it comes from it is clear that his hand is not even touching his nose. He has his hand raised from some reason, probably waving, and is looking to his right. You need to repent and retract your silly statement.

If you click quote on your post of the picture you will see this:

www.uruknet.info/uruknet-images/rove.jpeg

Shorten and go to:

www.uruknet.info

I guess you need to be careful where your pictures come from, ASLANSPAL.

It is clear that you are using the camera angle to defame Karl Rove. You should repent.

[ July 05, 2005, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: KenH ]

 

Actually it's no surprise the Downing Street memo(s) didn't get much traction in the mainstream media because the mainstream media is controlled.

I think your prediction could work out that way for the same reason, the mainstream media is controlled.

Both sides of the debate (whenever one is allowed) is controlled by the loyal members of the CFR acting as CEOs, talking heads, publishers, editors and so forth. To keep you the subject and paycheck coming back, paying lots and lots in taxes and staying loyal to "your party". Because both parties are controlled by the loyal members of the CFR and Trilaterals acting as congressmen, senators, advisors, experts and so forth Republican and Democrat where by they can control both sides of the debate there.

 

Wow, Joseph:

1. Did you know that she was a CIA operative? I didn't. Apparently, neither did anyone else, as she was outed by the despicable Mr. Novak.
2. When is it allowable to "out" a CIA operative? Are they fair game if they are not "undercover?"
3. What about all of the people who have now been compromised by outing Wilson's wife?
4. Why are you not bothered by the fact that she was outed?
5. Why are we not investigating the despicable Mr. Novak? Remember him? He is the one who actually wrote the article.
6. This is not the first time a certain person leaked information to Mr. Novak, is it?

Whether or not she was "undercover" is totally and completely irrelevant: the simple fact is that she was outed. There are many on this board who continually note that we are at war. Why does it not enrage all of us that this person who worked for the CIA was outed by a despicable reporter? Outing a CIA operative is nothing short of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy."

To quote Bruce Springsteen again:
"God have mercy on the man who doubts what he's sure of."

Regards,
BiR (finally back in Richmond, after visiting seven airports in five days)

 

BiR, if she was a CIA operative, why doesn't the law cover her? For all we know she was a file clerk. I think that her title was analyst. I think that the law only deals with overseas undercover types but I am not sure.

Wilson misled the public. It is clear now. He was a Republican once but turned Democrat and wrote his failed book.

Even the Democrats are admitting that Novak turned in all of his information. So did Time. That leaves only The New York Times. If they do not cooperate with the prosecutor, then their reporter faces 100 days in jail. This is ironical because the Democrats called for the special prosecutor, who concluded that the law did not cover the case--we assume that he is a Democrat--and then he took after 2 Democrat reporters for perjury. One reporter has been spared by his company. We are now waiting to see what the other company does and we are now waiting to see what the prosecutor concludes from the evidence that he had.

I saw the O'Donnel statement on live tv--maybe I am wrong but I think that he conceded that the only crime was perjury.

What gets me about Wilson is that he was in error in his report anyway--Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake. I am sure that he was just one of many sent to investigate and that his result was allowed for but Wilson acts as if he alone had the truth in the face of overwhelming evidence that he did his job and nothing more.

 

We have all been taught that perjury is not against the law for politicians, haven't we?

 

Good one, Carpro! It must be okay for New York reporters, also, huh?

 

Carl Rove is not thumbing his nose at the constitution, and you fully know that. That makes you a false witness. Deu 19:16-18 Pro 6:19, 12:17, 14:5, 19:9 and many others.

 

Carl Rove is not thumbing his nose at the constitution, and you fully know that. That makes you a false witness. Deu 19:16-18 Pro 6:19, 12:17, 14:5, 19:9 and many others. </font>[/QUOTE]I must say I'm a bit appauled. And nonetheless at myself. My human, knee jerk reaction is to quote verse telling many here not to sit in judgement. That duty is not ours, especially when used against our own brothers. Our righteousness is but filthy rags...