Karl Rove is the source

[seinfeldrules]

Do you deny that Bush lied when he said he would fire anyone involved in the leak?

He clarified that statement so Dems wouldnt use it as an excuse to steamroll Rove. You were way to willing to jump on this propoganda bandwagon.

 

[No Limit]

He clarified that statement so Dems wouldnt use it as an excuse to steamroll Rove. You were way to willing to jump on this propoganda bandwagon.

Since I've been gone I must have missed that new Republican talking point you seem to be using.

I also almost forgot how little sense those talking points make.

Bush at a June 10, 2004, press conference after the G8 summit:

Q: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President [Dick] Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

BUSH: That's up to --

Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

BUSH: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.

McClellan at a September 29, 2003, press briefing:

McCLELLAN: The president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the leaking of Plame's identity], they would no longer be in this administration.

[...]

Q: You continue to talk about the severity of this and if anyone has any information they should go forward to the Justice Department. But can you tell us, since it's so severe, would someone or a group of persons, lose their job in the White House?

McCLELLAN: At a minimum.

Q: At a minimum?

McCLELLAN: At a minimum.

Now, are you going to try and argue that karl rove wasn't involved in it? Don't make me bust out dictionary.com

 

[Icarusintel]

Since I've been gone I must have missed that new Republican talking point you seem to be using.

I also almost forgot how little sense those talking points make.



Now, are you going to try and argue that karl rove wasn't involved in it? Don't make me bust out dictionary.com

McLellan's a dumbass, where's bush's quote?
and yes, i'm a lazy bastard

 

[No Limit]

McLellan's a dumbass, where's bush's quote?
and yes, i'm a lazy bastard

Maybe you missed the part where I quoted Bush.

Second, do you not know what the job of a press secretary is? He speaks on behalf of the president:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Press_Secretary

http://www.whitehouse2001.org/files/press/Press-OD.PDF

 

[seinfeldrules]

new Republican talking point you seem to be using.

Been keeping up with democraticunderground.com? I hear they come up with new points by the minute.

 

[No Limit]

Been keeping up with democraticunderground.com? I hear they come up with new points by the minute.

Actually I have. Now care to address my question?

 

[seinfeldrules]

I did in another thread. Hopefully your newly found talking points will come in handy.

 

[No Limit]

I did in another thread. Hopefully your newly found talking points will come in handy.

Leets recap. This was my question:

Do you deny that Bush lied when he said he would fire anyone involved in the leak? Or was he just given bad intelligence at the time that said Rove didn't do it so he figured he was safe?

You responded with a false talking point which I disproved. Meaning you get to take another shot at it. Bush and the white house did indeed say they would fire anyone INVOLVED in the leak. Bush didn't clarify anything, he lied.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Bush didn't clarify anything, he lied.

Yes, he did. He says that he will fire anyone found guilty. This way you guys cant use one word to steamroll one of his closest advisors out of office.

 

[No Limit]

Yes, he did. He says that he will fire anyone found guilty. This way you guys cant use one word to steamroll one of his closest advisors out of office.

You are repeating bullshit I disproved. Changing your position on a matter is not the same as clarifying it. What do you not understand about that? THe following 2 have completely different meanings:

I will fire anyone involved in the leak.

I will fire anyone that the courts decide comitted a crime.

To make what you are saying right you would have to argue that Rove wasn't involved; clearly you can't do that.

 

[seinfeldrules]

THe following 2 have completely different meanings:

I dont think anybody expected the steamroll attempt that Dems have brought out. I think most decent people would wait to see what a court decides before passing judgement. Clearly Dems arent decent people. This is a null issue now anyways, Dems have moved on because they dont want to dig a grave they cant climb out of. This shit only lives on in extremist sites like demunderground.com

 

[No Limit]

I dont think anybody expected the steamroll attempt that Dems have brought out. I think most decent people would wait to see what a court decides before passing judgement. Clearly Dems arent decent people. This is a null issue now anyways, Dems have moved on because they dont want to dig a grave they cant climb out of. This shit only lives on in extremist sites like demunderground.com

You are the one defending a person that outed not only 1 but many undercover agents for political gain and you have the nerve to suggest Dems aren't decent people to be pissed about this. Everyone knows the courts won't find Rove guilty on the traitor charge because Rove has the best legal representation money could buy and he is a smart guy that knows how to cover his ass. The Plame probe is not only investigating perjury but also a massive cover up in the white house; now I know that those charges (maybe perjury will) will never stick. But I could tell you this, if the courts in October find Rove guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice you would still defend him; and I know I'm right like I was right when I said you would defend Rove if he turned out to be involved in the leak (all Republicans on this board claimed they wouldn't but now they are).

 

[seinfeldrules]

Everyone knows the courts won't find Rove guilty on the traitor charge because Rove has the best legal representation money could buy and he is a smart guy that knows how to cover his ass.

Ah, the lovely sounds of paranoia. Whatever helps put you to sleep at night. If a court wont find him guilty, neither will I.

Rove guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice you would still defend him;

And if hes found innocent you will still bash him...

and I know I'm right like I was right when I said you would defend Rove if he turned out to be involved in the leak

Sorry that we wait to see what happens in the end.

 

[No Limit]

Ah, the lovely sounds of paranoia. Whatever helps put you to sleep at night. If a court wont find him guilty, neither will I.

So you are saying OJ didn't do anything wrong? That Michael Jackson didn't do anything wrong? That Robert Blake didn't do anything wrong? That R Kelly didn't do anything wrong (even with a video out there). That Snady Berger didn't steal classified documents? All because those people worked the system?

And if hes found innocent you will still bash him...

Because I have a reason to. He outed many CIA agents for political gain. Only you and your republican friends don't have a problem with this. Newsflash, most americans think Bush is being dishonest about Rove. I'll try to find a poll later.

Sorry that we wait to see what happens in the end.

????

Was I not right when I said you guys would defend Rove if it turned out he was involved in the leak? Another newsflash, Rove was actually involved in the leak; you can't dispute that. Not even your lets wait for investigation to complete defense will make that simple fact go away.

 

[CptStern]

ever see that episode of the simpsons where Homer eats Chief Wiggums insanity chilli peppers and is halucinating? ..in his halucinatory journey homer finds marge and tries to get her attention but since she doesnt have a face she cant respond?





No Limit: you're homer ...and seinfeldrules is ...well I guess you're no-face marge :E

 

[No Limit]

Seinfeld before you respond to this respond to the post above. Here is the poll I said I would post:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-25-roberts-rove-poll_x.htm

Even so, 25% think Rove broke the law in the case. An additional 37% suspect that he did something unethical but not illegal. Just 15% say they think he didn't do anything seriously wrong.

Guess what, you belong with that 15% that would defend Bush and his administration even if they did a live baby sacrafice on the white house's front lawn.

 

[seinfeldrules]

So you are saying OJ didn't do anything wrong? That Michael Jackson didn't do anything wrong? That Robert Blake didn't do anything wrong? That R Kelly didn't do anything wrong (even with a video out there). That Snady Berger didn't steal classified documents? All because those people worked the system?

I am not conceited enough to put myself above a court of law.

Guess what, you belong with that 15% that would defend Bush and his administration even if they did a live baby sacrafice on the white house's front lawn.

And you belong with the .0001% of the population that are so extreme that they think places like democraticunderground.com would be a moderate website.

Newsflash, most americans think Bush is being dishonest about Rove.

Thankfully a court of law will decide his fate based on evidence rather than public opinion.

Was I not right when I said you guys would defend Rove if it turned out he was involved in the leak?

I wont defend him if he is found guilty.

 

[CptStern]

".0001% of the population that are extremists "


hardly ..he's no extremist ..the people who slammed planes into ny skyscrapers are extremists

 

[seinfeldrules]

.......

 

[seinfeldrules]

".0001% of the population that are extremists "


hardly ..he's no extremist ..the people who slammed planes into ny skyscrapers are extremists

Political extremist / religious extremist.


Not the same stern. You dont need to blow up a skyscraper to be considered an extremist. Kind of like how you reacted immediately following the London bombings. Pushing your agenda in the same sentence you 'show' your sympathy.

 

[Tr0n]

Hell...90% of you are political extremist.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I'm Xtreme, not extreme.

 

[Tr0n]

Sorry...correction.

XTREME!!!!!!!

 

[No Limit]

I am not conceited enough to put myself above a court of law.

Seinfeld, do you not have the mental capacity to give a straight answer or are you just doing it on purpose. I asked you if you think those people, Oj Simpson, R Kelly, etc did something wrong. Let me give you a sample reply:

No, OJ is not a murderer and he didn't do anything wrong/

or

Or OJ did something wrong.

lets do another one:

I know there is a tape of R Kelly having sex with an underage girl so I know he did something wrong.

or

no, he didn't do anything wrong since he beat the system. If you have enough money or enough brains to get away with it statutory rape is perfectly okay.

because this is what I am hearing from you:

I know Karl Rove leaked the name of Valerie Plame as I haven't been able to dispute it with any real facts but I have no problem with what he did as he will beat the legal system.

Tell me if I'm misunderstanding you.

And you belong with the .0001% of the population that are so extreme that they think places like democraticunderground.com would be a moderate website.

Point me to where I ever claimed DU was moderate.

Thankfully a court of law will decide his fate based on evidence rather than public opinion.

Like the court decided in those cases I mentioned, like with OJ.

I wont defend him if he is found guilty.

Guilty of what? The treason charge? Or will you also expand that promise to obstruction of justice or prejury?

 

[seinfeldrules]

I asked you if you think those people, Oj Simpson, R Kelly, etc did something wrong. Let me give you a sample reply:

Let me go find 9 million names of people who were found guilty. 9 million > 5

Tell me if I'm misunderstanding you.

I go with what the court finds. End of story. I wont steamroll somebody for political gain as you are trying to do.

 

[No Limit]

Let me go find 9 million names of people who were found guilty. 9 million > 5

*Bashes head in to wall*

Okay, you wont give me a straight reply so I want to know if it turns out Rove was the source for Cooper if you support what he did. It's a simple yes or no question, I don't need any more spin from you.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Okay, you wont give me a straight reply so I want to know if it turns out Rove was the source for Cooper if you support what he did.

If Rove is found guilty, then he should be punished as such. Thats it.

 

[No Limit]

If Rove is found guilty, then he should be punished as such. Thats it.

Why will you not answer a simple question? If it turns out Rove was the one that leaked Plame's identity do you support what he did? I don't give a shit about what the law thinks, our leaders should be held up to much higher standards than that; as your friends at the white house have said (including Bush).

 

[seinfeldrules]

I don't give a shit about what the law thinks

Then I dont give a shit about what you think.

our leaders should be held up to much higher standards than that;

I disagree, this is a country founded on equality. If Bush says that, then I would disagree with him as well.

 

[No Limit]

Then I dont give a shit about what you think.



I disagree, this is a country founded on equality. If Bush says that, then I would disagree with him as well.

We are beating a dead horse, I made my point and I don't think you made yours very well. By your standards murder is okay as long as there are minor technicalaties in the law or in the investigation. Rove clearly leaked the name (you haven't been able to dispute it) but you are saying thats okay as the law can't touch him. Well fine, OJ killed his wife but thats okay because the law can't touch him. I know you think OJ killed his wife and I hope you don't support it; but you are willing to say OJ killing his wife was okay in order to defend Rove.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I know you think OJ killed his wife and I hope you don't support it; but you are willing to say OJ killing his wife was okay in order to defend Rove.

Again, do you want me to post millions of instances where the court was right? You are basing your argument on a handful of cases out of millions.

 

[No Limit]

Again, do you want me to post millions of instances where the court was right? You are basing your argument on a handful of cases out of millions.

Excuse my french but your argument is 100% total horse shit. In this case we know that Rove told reporters about the identity of an undercover agent, as we know OJ killed his wife. Both are horrible crimes to humanity and we all know they did it. But the problem is that the law can't do anything in both cases. And you are okay with this because Rove is a Republican, I know you aren't okay with OJ killing his wife.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Excuse my french but your argument is 100% total horse shit.

Same is yours. You are claiming to be better than the Laws of the United States. Just because your steamrolling didnt work out doesnt mean you can change the laws to suit your needs.

 

[No Limit]

Same is yours. You are claiming to be better than the Laws of the United States. Just because your steamrolling didnt work out doesnt mean you can change the laws to suit your needs.

Do you dispute that Rove told reporters about the identity of Plame? If you do not dispute that we will get no further in this discussion and my point stands; your argument is 100% horse-shit.

 

[seinfeldrules]

If you do not dispute that we will get no further in this discussion and my point stands; your argument is 100% horse-shit.

You know my stance, respect it for what it is or move on. Your point will only stand in your mind, and if those delusions make you feel better than so be it.

 

[No Limit]

You know my stance, respect it for what it is or move on. Your point will only stand in your mind, and if those delusions make you feel better than so be it.

No, I don't know your stance as right now your stance doesn't make any sense. Do you dispute Rove told reporters the identity of Plame? I apologize if I missed it but I don't think you ever disputed it.

 

[seinfeldrules]

No, I don't know your stance as right now your stance doesn't make any sense. Do you dispute Rove told reporters the identity of Plame? I apologize if I missed it but I don't think you ever disputed it.

I side with what the courts rule. End of story.

 

[No Limit]

I side with what the courts rule. End of story.

The courts won't be ruling on if he told reporters the identity of Plame, they will be ruling on if a crime was committed. I am asking you if you are disputing that Rove talked to reporters about her identity.

 

[seinfeldrules]

The courts won't be ruling on if he told reporters the identity of Plame, they will be ruling on if a crime was committed. I am asking you if you are disputing that Rove talked to reporters about her identity.

If he is guilty of being a traitor then he deserves to be fired. If not, then he broke no rule and doesnt deserve to be punished just because Democrats say he should be. That is NOT the way things work.

 

[gh0st]

lol @ no limit comparing the rove non-issue to OJ simpson's fiasco.

you dont give a shit what the law says? so you base george bush's press secretary above the courts? you've already made your mind up no limit. no matter how wrong it is just CLING to those talking points like one of those talking heads on cnn.. you are very good at it. especially ironic given that the courts are the only way to inject your idiotic thoughts into the american mainstream. yay for institutionalized liberalism!!