Where did I complain about discussing the issue? Can you address the fucking issue instead of putting up strawman arguents?
Why is it a “dodge”, right now, to say that we don’t have all the facts necessary to know it was Rove? Not after he’s convicted, not after he’s serving time in jail. RIGHT NOW. That was the claim that was made, and that was my objection.
???
switch to decaf- folks on a message board saying they think he did it, for these reasons, others saying they don’t see enough evidence = ‘discussing the issue’ and doesn’t involve the courts. Did you make the same complaint (that we don’t have all the evidence) inalll the pre war threads? in the Jacko ones? etc,
Gee whiz, Johnny, can’t we just string him up? We’ll only lynch him once, scouts honor! Then we’ll all go clean our rooms and eat all our vegetables, and then attend lectures on the primacy of property rights and the vital centrality of the free market. (That last is subject to negotiation. Fifteen minutes? A bit steep, howzabout five? Eight?..)
For an interesting take on the nuances of Rove’s public defense, this discussion at The Carpetbagger Report, http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/… scroll down to Does Rove’s Lawyer Know What He’ Talking About?.
WARNING! Unabashedly liberal blogger! Bushiviks are advised to approach “Shields Up!”
I didn’t say that it was just about Rove. The line from the right-wingers on this since it happened has been “let’s wait until we have all the facts”, rather than any criticism of or indignation at the administration for a horrible security breach in the service of petty revenge. It doesn’t matter who it is; Bush has made no attempt to find out who it is, and that person is still working in the White House.
If Bush’s apologists have not been pissed off enough to say anything about this by now, why should I think they’ll speak up and call for heads when specific names come out? Will it be “they haven’t proven anything”? Will it be “we still don’t have all the facts”? Or will it be something else?
I’m reminded of the famous incident a couple of years ago when one of our popular right-wing posters said that if we hadn’t found WMD in Iraq by Thanksgiving of that year (2003? 2002? I can’t remember), that he would agree that we had been misled into the war and would join us in our distrust of the administration. Of course we didn’t find any WMD before that Thanksgiving, and we haven’t found any since, but as I recall, his apologia went on unabated, even as he was called on it.
Your recall is a bit clouded. That is the justly famous author of domestic comedy, Scylla. With the arrival of Thanksgiving, he did, in fact, admit the obvious facts, albeit grudgingly.
You’re probably right; I couldn’t find the original posts. I recall a lengthy thread about it when the time came around, but my recollection was that his support for Bush et. al. didn’t wane much.
It’s been a long few years since then. I retract the comparison.
One more time. Discuss all you want. I don’t particularly like Rove and wouldn’t trust him as far as can throw him. The only thing I objected to in this thread was the specific instance of calling it a “dodge” in this case to say that we needed to wait until we have all the evidence to say he did it. That’s an absurd claim since we don’t have enough evidence to do so at this moment. But he’s obviously a prime supsect.
Wouldn’t matter. I’ve stated many times that I never supported the war, and several times (once as recently as this week) that I wouldn’t have supported it even if we knew for certain that S.H. had WMDs.
You must be confusing me with someone else.
Michael Jackson is the one who leaked Valerie Plame’s name to Novak? 
Now, that’s a story that jounalists can sink their teeth into!
The kid gave him the information during pillow talk…
I guess I’m not reading that as a claim of fact vs a personal opinion. I saw folks expressing opinions, saying they thought so, suspected and alll, even speculating about the possabilty of no punisment, then you demanding more proof.
I don’t have you confused w/some one else- I don’t know youu.
In a similar vein, Bill O’Reilly declared in May 2003 that if it turned out that there were no WMD in Iraq, he would never trust the Bush administration again. And some people actually believed him when he said it!
There was some guy who said the same thing…blue something? He knew there were WMD’s. He himself had seen the evidence. His wife defended him against those of us who called him on it.
Haven’t seen him since.
Was it Bluesman? If it wasn’t and there is one on the board. My apologies.
From Daily Kos, http://www.dailykos.com/
(Utterly disingenuous disclaimer: thoroughly liberal blog!)
Offered without comment.
Utterly unbelievable. Rove would never stoop to politics like that.
It’ll probably turn out that Gannon/Guckert is behind the smear campaign. Not only that, but he stole classified documents relating to Plame during one of his whitehouse overnights, then leaked the goods to Novak while saying he got them from Rove.
There’s a rumor going 'round that Gannon leaked the info to Novak in his professional capacity as a man-whore. OK, so I just now started that rumor. I don’t care.
Bluesman was USAF enlisted, and worked for the National Security Agency. IIRC, he never offered public proof of said evidence, and is no longer here. (Please correct me if I’ve gotten anything wrong).
Offered without comment.
In point of principle, it can be a dodge for someone to claim that they cannot be convicted of something because there are insufficient facts, if they are the one who could, if they wanted to, release the facts.
Two comments: first, as to the general issue of revealing covert CIA operatives, the President is th eultimate authority for determining who is and is not a covert operative. The CIA is a creature of the executive. If he orders the release of the entire CIA payroll, that’s legal.
The matter that’s more serious is the grand jury testimony. If Mr. Rove denied, under oath, revealing Ms. Plame’s name, when in fact he had done so, then he should be fired, and indicted for perjury. And prosecuted. If he did this, he committed perjury even if the President authorized the disclosure.
Another typical dodge from a Bush aplologist. 
If President Bush felt that it was in the best interests of the United States to blow Valerie Plame’s cover, then I hope he will take the earliest opportunity to make a public statement to that effect so that he can receive the credit he deserves.