• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Rove - Guilty, Right?

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Just thought I'd open this thread for those who have an opinion without having any evidence of whether Carl Rove or Scooter Libby are guilty?

The media, and I will cite Chris Mathews of "Hardball" on MSNBC, is absolutely rabid in the wish that Karl Rove, Scooter Libby or anyone that has spoken with President Bush in the last 46 years please be guilty and have to resign, go to jail or out of pure respect, at least put a pistol in their mouth.

Now CNN's Jack Cafferty, ultra-liberal long time biased member of the CNN staff has come up with statements showing he would be actually happy if Karl Rove is guilty and has even taken it to a personal level. I'm not saying I am surprised, not when watching CNN. Here's how it came down:

From the "Situation Room" on CNN Monday, 10-17-05 approximately 3 pm:

Question from Jack Cafferty: "What should Karl Rove do if he is indicted?"

Answer from Jack Cafferty: "He might want to get measured for one of those extra large orange jump suits, Wolf, 'cause looking at old Karl, I'm not sure that he'd, they'd be able to zip him into the regular size one."

Wolf Blitzer comments: "He's actually lost some weight. I think he's in pretty good shape."

Cafferty answers that with: "Oh, well then maybe just the regular off the shelf large would handle it for him."

But as for an indictment being a sure thing Wolf comments: "Yeah, but you know, it's still a big if. It's still a big if."

But a jovial Cafferty goes on: "Oh, I understand. I'm, I'm just hoping you know. I love, I love to see those kinds of things happen. It does wonders for me."

This is our news media? Just as the partisans here on the board that hope for guilt before an investigation is done or all the information is in, here you have our news media with a Jack Cafferty or a Chris Mathews simply hoping that another reputation is ruined. That's what it ammounts to. How badly can you damage a persons reputation and when that person is found not to be indicted, how much time will be spent on the discussions about you being wrong?

I'm almost sure and can't be completely sure because just as I have to wait for the investigation to be completed I must also wait for the story to be completed but: It seems Chris Mathews can have it two ways. He will absolutely burst with pride if Rove or Libby are indicted and, if not, he will begin his reputation destruction of the man that ran the investigation. He has the mic; he controls the program.

For many that can't get over it, it is simply that this person is either working for or is connected in any way with President Bush. For the majority of the country, they voted him into office. Partisanship is going the way of the true politicians and those politicians and media people that insist on using partisanship for their own purpose wlll one day find that the majority of the country has left them for greener pastures. I think the signs are already showing. I think the majority of the American people are tired of it.

The media likes to point out low approval polls for President Bush. They never tell you that their approval polls are far below his. Of course, they control the "media". What would you expect?
:duel :cool:
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
gordontravels said:
Just thought I'd open this thread for those who have an opinion without having any evidence of whether Carl Rove or Scooter Libby are guilty?

The media, and I will cite Chris Mathews of "Hardball" on MSNBC, is absolutely rabid in the wish that Karl Rove, Scooter Libby or anyone that has spoken with President Bush in the last 46 years please be guilty and have to resign, go to jail or out of pure respect, at least put a pistol in their mouth.

Now CNN's Jack Cafferty, ultra-liberal long time biased member of the CNN staff has come up with statements showing he would be actually happy if Karl Rove is guilty and has even taken it to a personal level. I'm not saying I am surprised, not when watching CNN. Here's how it came down:

From the "Situation Room" on CNN Monday, 10-17-05 approximately 3 pm:

Question from Jack Cafferty: "What should Karl Rove do if he is indicted?"

Answer from Jack Cafferty: "He might want to get measured for one of those extra large orange jump suits, Wolf, 'cause looking at old Karl, I'm not sure that he'd, they'd be able to zip him into the regular size one."

Wolf Blitzer comments: "He's actually lost some weight. I think he's in pretty good shape."

Cafferty answers that with: "Oh, well then maybe just the regular off the shelf large would handle it for him."

But as for an indictment being a sure thing Wolf comments: "Yeah, but you know, it's still a big if. It's still a big if."

But a jovial Cafferty goes on: "Oh, I understand. I'm, I'm just hoping you know. I love, I love to see those kinds of things happen. It does wonders for me."

This is our news media? Just as the partisans here on the board that hope for guilt before an investigation is done or all the information is in, here you have our news media with a Jack Cafferty or a Chris Mathews simply hoping that another reputation is ruined. That's what it ammounts to. How badly can you damage a persons reputation and when that person is found not to be indicted, how much time will be spent on the discussions about you being wrong?

I'm almost sure and can't be completely sure because just as I have to wait for the investigation to be completed I must also wait for the story to be completed but: It seems Chris Mathews can have it two ways. He will absolutely burst with pride if Rove or Libby are indicted and, if not, he will begin his reputation destruction of the man that ran the investigation. He has the mic; he controls the program.

For many that can't get over it, it is simply that this person is either working for or is connected in any way with President Bush. For the majority of the country, they voted him into office. Partisanship is going the way of the true politicians and those politicians and media people that insist on using partisanship for their own purpose wlll one day find that the majority of the country has left them for greener pastures. I think the signs are already showing. I think the majority of the American people are tired of it.

The media likes to point out low approval polls for President Bush. They never tell you that their approval polls are far below his. Of course, they control the "media". What would you expect?
:duel :cool:
Well of course you're correct, they are biased, and they are irresponsible. Even though they are all these things, what they are not is this, irreplaceable. Dan Rather thought he could do what ever he felt was right, as partisan as it always was, and he learned the hard way. Old Jack has been sliding down the ranks at CNN for a long time now, as he can't seem to keep that liberal cack sucker closed, he too will be punished. Credibility is what is at issue here, Mathews may still have some, and he'd better hope he's right on this one, because if he's wrong, there will be a price to pay.
 

Stu Ghatze

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
gordontravels said:
Just thought I'd open this thread for those who have an opinion without having any evidence of whether Carl Rove or Scooter Libby are guilty?

The media, and I will cite Chris Mathews of "Hardball" on MSNBC, is absolutely rabid in the wish that Karl Rove, Scooter Libby or anyone that has spoken with President Bush in the last 46 years please be guilty and have to resign, go to jail or out of pure respect, at least put a pistol in their mouth.

Now CNN's Jack Cafferty, ultra-liberal long time biased member of the CNN staff has come up with statements showing he would be actually happy if Karl Rove is guilty and has even taken it to a personal level. I'm not saying I am surprised, not when watching CNN. Here's how it came down:

From the "Situation Room" on CNN Monday, 10-17-05 approximately 3 pm:

Question from Jack Cafferty: "What should Karl Rove do if he is indicted?"

Answer from Jack Cafferty: "He might want to get measured for one of those extra large orange jump suits, Wolf, 'cause looking at old Karl, I'm not sure that he'd, they'd be able to zip him into the regular size one."

Wolf Blitzer comments: "He's actually lost some weight. I think he's in pretty good shape."

Cafferty answers that with: "Oh, well then maybe just the regular off the shelf large would handle it for him."

But as for an indictment being a sure thing Wolf comments: "Yeah, but you know, it's still a big if. It's still a big if."

But a jovial Cafferty goes on: "Oh, I understand. I'm, I'm just hoping you know. I love, I love to see those kinds of things happen. It does wonders for me."

This is our news media? Just as the partisans here on the board that hope for guilt before an investigation is done or all the information is in, here you have our news media with a Jack Cafferty or a Chris Mathews simply hoping that another reputation is ruined. That's what it ammounts to. How badly can you damage a persons reputation and when that person is found not to be indicted, how much time will be spent on the discussions about you being wrong?

I'm almost sure and can't be completely sure because just as I have to wait for the investigation to be completed I must also wait for the story to be completed but: It seems Chris Mathews can have it two ways. He will absolutely burst with pride if Rove or Libby are indicted and, if not, he will begin his reputation destruction of the man that ran the investigation. He has the mic; he controls the program.

For many that can't get over it, it is simply that this person is either working for or is connected in any way with President Bush. For the majority of the country, they voted him into office. Partisanship is going the way of the true politicians and those politicians and media people that insist on using partisanship for their own purpose wlll one day find that the majority of the country has left them for greener pastures. I think the signs are already showing. I think the majority of the American people are tired of it.

The media likes to point out low approval polls for President Bush. They never tell you that their approval polls are far below his. Of course, they control the "media". What would you expect?
:duel :cool:





Just wait for when no indictment comes to either Rove, Libby...or even Cheney for lack of any real hard evidence!

Those whacko liberal media people will be screaming "conspiracy" all over again.

We need to put a magnifying glass on the liberal idiots at CNN, ABC, CBS, & MSNBC whos sole purpose is to empower the democratic party, & keep feeding it with horsecrap because they have nothing else to nourish it with but "conspiracy' theories that helps keep the democrats "somewhat" relevant.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You know, I used to like watching Hardball. Mathews was quick, aggresive and pretty darned bright. But this stuff lately, he is practically salivating over the prospect of a Rove or Libby, and just about orgasmic when he talks about the possibility of a Cheney problem. Even when he has a couple of guests on from opposite sides of the fence, if the person from the conservative side makes a good point, Mathews just shuts him/her down quickly or belittles the point.

Just can't watch this stuff any longer; it is just putrid.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I don't know if either of them broke any federal laws. I do believe that they leaked information to reporters, with the purpose of discrediting Joe Wilson. That may or may not fall into the category of a felony, depending on whether or not the information was actually classified and whether or not they knew it was classified at the time. However, both Libby and Rove clearly leaked the information for petty, vindictive reasons, and should resign even if they are not guilty of breaking the law.
 

Stu Ghatze

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Kandahar said:
I don't know if either of them broke any federal laws. I do believe that they leaked information to reporters, with the purpose of discrediting Joe Wilson. That may or may not fall into the category of a felony, depending on whether or not the information was actually classified and whether or not they knew it was classified at the time. However, both Libby and Rove clearly leaked the information for petty, vindictive reasons, and should resign even if they are not guilty of breaking the law.



That is YOUR presumption, & nothing more. Where is the PROOF that they leaked information, for any reason be it petty, or vindictive?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,445
Reaction score
72,348
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Stu Ghatze said:
That is YOUR presumption, & nothing more. Where is the PROOF that they leaked information, for any reason be it petty, or vindictive?
good point and the fact remains that since Plame was not in covert status within the meaning of the law there was no felony PERIOD
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kandahar said:
I don't know if either of them broke any federal laws. I do believe that they leaked information to reporters, with the purpose of discrediting Joe Wilson. That may or may not fall into the category of a felony, depending on whether or not the information was actually classified and whether or not they knew it was classified at the time. However, both Libby and Rove clearly leaked the information for petty, vindictive reasons, and should resign even if they are not guilty of breaking the law.
I'll give you one example of "petty" and "vindictive":

Valerie Plame Wilson sends Mr. Wilson to Africa to investigate WMD in the form of yellow cake uranium and whether Saddam bought or tried to buy quantities from the country Niger. Mr. Wilson has no expertise in WMD other than being wed to Valerie Plame.

It was reported (minutely) that she had actually told him in front of witnesses to go investigate this "rediculous" claim. It is no secret that Valerie and her husband are anti-war and anti-Bush (just read Mr. Wilson's book).

PETTY AND VINDICTIVE? When he turned in his report to the CIA, Mr. Wilson said in plain language that he couldn't verify whether Saddam had bought or tried to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger.

PETTY AND VINDICTIVE? When his book came out he was "positive" that Saddam had done neither. His book, even though touted by the New York Times as a "blockbuster" and "a must read" flopped as many questionable books do from the liberal left. The New York Times always pushes these books with "flowers and fat" to entice the reader but they seldom reach the level of sales or stay high on the bestseller list as do the books from the conservative right. Tis the way of the New York Times.

We'll find out what Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has in a week or so. Can't wait for Judy Miller's book. I'd say, "Hey Judy? Get Chris Mathews to write the forward for you. He likes you."
:duel :cool:
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,306
Reaction score
13,540
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
gordontravels said:
I'll give you one example of "petty" and "vindictive":

Valerie Plame Wilson sends Mr. Wilson to Africa to investigate WMD in the form of yellow cake uranium and whether Saddam bought or tried to buy quantities from the country Niger. Mr. Wilson has no expertise in WMD other than being wed to Valerie Plame.

It was reported (minutely) that she had actually told him in front of witnesses to go investigate this "rediculous" claim. It is no secret that Valerie and her husband are anti-war and anti-Bush (just read Mr. Wilson's book).

PETTY AND VINDICTIVE? When he turned in his report to the CIA, Mr. Wilson said in plain language that he couldn't verify whether Saddam had bought or tried to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger.

PETTY AND VINDICTIVE? When his book came out he was "positive" that Saddam had done neither. His book, even though touted by the New York Times as a "blockbuster" and "a must read" flopped as many questionable books do from the liberal left. The New York Times always pushes these books with "flowers and fat" to entice the reader but they seldom reach the level of sales or stay high on the bestseller list as do the books from the conservative right. Tis the way of the New York Times.

We'll find out what Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has in a week or so. Can't wait for Judy Miller's book. I'd say, "Hey Judy? Get Chris Mathews to write the forward for you. He likes you."
:duel:cool:
Well hell if a former horse show man could run Fema, then surely a diplomat could investigate WMD claims. :roll:

First off, all, every single one of Judy Miller’s prewar claims about Iraq and its supposed huge stockpiles of Chemical and Biological weapons turned out to be flat wrong. There is simply no denying that.

Secondly, Valarie Plame Wilson was absolutely right if she said that was a ridiculous claim. There is simply no denying that either.

She was not being vindictive. She was simply stating the truth and by taking action to prove wrong the Administration’s completely discredited claims, she was doing her country a valuable service. I never thought that this administration made a convincing case for war with Iraq even before the war began. A lot of people did though with all the talk of mushroom clouds coming out of this Administration. That said, a strong majority of Americans view the war in Iraq as a mistake. If a majority in 2002 and early 2003 knew the truth then, we would have never gone into Iraq. That is obvious. You on the other hand appear to have a cognitive dissonance with reality when it comes to this issue.

Guys like Rove don’t give a damn about this country, its all politics and winning to them.

Oh, and Jack Cafferty is not an ultra-liberal, he is an ultra-libertarian. Big difference there, and that conversation as anyone can read was entirely tongue in cheek.
 
Last edited:

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kandahar said:
I don't know if either of them broke any federal laws. I do believe that they leaked information to reporters, with the purpose of discrediting Joe Wilson. That may or may not fall into the category of a felony, depending on whether or not the information was actually classified and whether or not they knew it was classified at the time. However, both Libby and Rove clearly leaked the information for petty, vindictive reasons, and should resign even if they are not guilty of breaking the law.
Whoever leaked the facts, that several people over at the CIA plotted to create a fraud on the people of the United States and it's government by creating this false scenario of an investigation and then going public with false statements, should be congradulated. Joe Wilson's trip was a fraud, he was lying in public about it and the media was taking it hook line and sinker. The person who alerted the press to the nepotism that raised the red flag that finally exposed Wilson should be given a medal.
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The sad thing is that had the media been doings its job in the first place, the whole war reasoning would have been exposed for the ball of crap that it was.

It was a conspiracy to scare the American public into a war that they have been wanting for years.

Call it what you want, the law is catching up with them - finally. $200 billion, 200 American military deaths, at least 20,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, and at least 5 reason flip flops later, it is coming apart.

I admit that this is not the worse thing Rove has done, but you got to go with the cases you can make. And in the end Fitzgerald is not a partisan, so deal with it: Rove is in a mess, and he deserves it. Rove has been playing it dirty since his first political stunt when he stole letterhead and forged invitations to campaign events in Illinios. You can't screw people your entire life and not expect something to come back at you.

The GOP always wants to attack the media because it is a check in the execution of their policy, and this adminstrations attack on America is based on removing all checks so they can push through whatever greed driven goal their croonies want to dupe the public into buying: such as Iraq.


Stu Ghatze said:
Just wait for when no indictment comes to either Rove, Libby...or even Cheney for lack of any real hard evidence!

Those whacko liberal media people will be screaming "conspiracy" all over again.

We need to put a magnifying glass on the liberal idiots at CNN, ABC, CBS, & MSNBC whos sole purpose is to empower the democratic party, & keep feeding it with horsecrap because they have nothing else to nourish it with but "conspiracy' theories that helps keep the democrats "somewhat" relevant.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SouthernDemocrat said:
Well hell if a former horse show man could run Fema, then surely a diplomat could investigate WMD claims. :roll:

First off, all, every single one of Judy Miller’s prewar claims about Iraq and its supposed huge stockpiles of Chemical and Biological weapons turned out to be flat wrong. There is simply no denying that.

Secondly, Valarie Plame Wilson was absolutely right if she said that was a ridiculous claim. There is simply no denying that either.

She was not being vindictive. She was simply stating the truth and by taking action to prove wrong the Administration’s completely discredited claims, she was doing her country a valuable service. I never thought that this administration made a convincing case for war with Iraq even before the war began. A lot of people did though with all the talk of mushroom clouds coming out of this Administration. That said, a strong majority of Americans view the war in Iraq as a mistake. If a majority in 2002 and early 2003 knew the truth then, we would have never gone into Iraq. That is obvious. You on the other hand appear to have a cognitive dissonance with reality when it comes to this issue.

Guys like Rove don’t give a damn about this country, its all politics and winning to them.

Oh, and Jack Cafferty is not an ultra-liberal, he is an ultra-libertarian. Big difference there, and that conversation as anyone can read was entirely tongue in cheek.
For your "first off"; it turns out most of the intelligence from 5 countries including the United States were either wrong or incomplete in some instances. So if we hold the Bush Administration and Clinton Administration accountable for this we also have to include Germany, France, the UK, Italy and Spain among other countries that contributed.

The first to warn of mushroom clouds (over New York City) was Vice President Al Gore in a speach in the summer of 1998 when the Clinton Administration's highest officials were warning about the Iraqis meeting with al Qaida in the Sudan. That led to the Clinton Administration bombing a powdered milk/chemical plant in the Sudan. A fertilizer bomb laced with yellow cake urainum could cause 30 years of misery for the citizens in any city of any country who dare to breathe.

Your "secondly" I might even agree with if Valerie Plame had made the charge after her hubby, who didn't judge horse shows but actually worked for the CIA, finished his investigation. this word "rediculous" however, was the preamble to his investigation. This was absolutely a vindictive statement on her part. It's one thing to be anti-war, it's another thing to let it cloud your investigation designed to find fact. And, her husband's written report says he couldn't determine whether Saddam had bought or tried to buy yellow cake uranium. Months later his book says there was no buy or attempt to buy. Which is it?

My take on reality doesn't reside in the past alone but rather in the ongoing history and development of the entire scenario. Eleven million Iraqis just voted on a Constitution in a democratic country in the Middle East. Saddam is on trial for the hanging deaths, in mass, of 150 men and boys in a village where a few of his own anti-Saddam fanatics tried to assassinate him. 13 of those boys were under 9 years old. There are those who are sympathetic to Saddam given their culture but for the millions that know of friends or had relatives that were murdered by Saddam, his prosecution is long overdue.

Otherwise I agree with your short statement about "guys like Rove". You are talking about the Political establishment flooded, held and abused by Democrats and Republicans from sea to shining sea. I have no problem with that and applaud your assessment.
:duel :cool:
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
gordontravels said:
Just thought I'd open this thread for those who have an opinion without having any evidence of whether Carl Rove or Scooter Libby are guilty? :duel :cool:
I think the same standards and procedure ought to be applied that Rove's government applies to folks they accuse of wrongdoing.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iriemon said:
I think the same standards and procedure ought to be applied that Rove's government applies to folks they accuse of wrongdoing.
I think anyone should be held accountable to the laws that are written by the congress for our justice system, the media and ourselves. The problem is that although the justice system has to work in it's own time and we as individuals may have opinions from guilty to innocent, the media feeds on it and then feeds us. This is the detrimental portion of what happens to anyone who dares to enter politics. "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"

It's one thing for Democrats and Republicans to be against each other's politics. It's another thing to put what has been called "the politics of personal destruction" in the hands of an unaccountable media. If you do watch those such as Chris Mathews, his guests have to answer each question he asks them (if he lets them answer at all) with, "But we don't know that!" Where does news, opinion and speculation begin and end? It isn't hard to find the conservatives and liberals in the media and you get what you pay for. Maybe it's only time you use for currency but, you pay none the less.

Considering that Bill Frist, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Tom Delay are either under investigation or maybe preparing to pay the price for what might just be their public position in politics itself, what about Democrats?

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi was found to have broken campaign finance laws but no district attorney brought charges. She did pay a fine but for something on the same level that Tom Delay faces in Texas. The only difference? She broke federal finance law (proven) and he broke (if proven) state law. Senator Schummer's two top aides illegally obtained the credit report of a Republican running against a Democrat that Schummer supported. Try to find it reported.

When you want everyone to stand for the same responsibility and consequences, don't you think you should take into account that the media that informs you may be working for one or the other side? It makes some happy and it makes some mad but I am disgusted.
:duel :cool:
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
gordontravels said:
I think anyone should be held accountable to the laws that are written by the congress for our justice system, the media and ourselves. The problem is that although the justice system has to work in it's own time and we as individuals may have opinions from guilty to innocent, the media feeds on it and then feeds us. This is the detrimental portion of what happens to anyone who dares to enter politics. "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"

It's one thing for Democrats and Republicans to be against each other's politics. It's another thing to put what has been called "the politics of personal destruction" in the hands of an unaccountable media. If you do watch those such as Chris Mathews, his guests have to answer each question he asks them (if he lets them answer at all) with, "But we don't know that!" Where does news, opinion and speculation begin and end? It isn't hard to find the conservatives and liberals in the media and you get what you pay for. Maybe it's only time you use for currency but, you pay none the less.

Considering that Bill Frist, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Tom Delay are either under investigation or maybe preparing to pay the price for what might just be their public position in politics itself, what about Democrats?

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi was found to have broken campaign finance laws but no district attorney brought charges. She did pay a fine but for something on the same level that Tom Delay faces in Texas. The only difference? She broke federal finance law (proven) and he broke (if proven) state law. Senator Schummer's two top aides illegally obtained the credit report of a Republican running against a Democrat that Schummer supported. Try to find it reported.

When you want everyone to stand for the same responsibility and consequences, don't you think you should take into account that the media that informs you may be working for one or the other side? It makes some happy and it makes some mad but I am disgusted.
:duel :cool:
Shoot at least these guys have a chance to proclaim and prove they are innocent. That is more than some Americans get.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,306
Reaction score
13,540
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
gordontravels said:
For your "first off"; it turns out most of the intelligence from 5 countries including the United States were either wrong or incomplete in some instances. So if we hold the Bush Administration and Clinton Administration accountable for this we also have to include Germany, France, the UK, Italy and Spain among other countries that contributed.

The first to warn of mushroom clouds (over New York City) was Vice President Al Gore in a speach in the summer of 1998 when the Clinton Administration's highest officials were warning about the Iraqis meeting with al Qaida in the Sudan. That led to the Clinton Administration bombing a powdered milk/chemical plant in the Sudan. A fertilizer bomb laced with yellow cake urainum could cause 30 years of misery for the citizens in any city of any country who dare to breathe.

Your "secondly" I might even agree with if Valerie Plame had made the charge after her hubby, who didn't judge horse shows but actually worked for the CIA, finished his investigation. this word "rediculous" however, was the preamble to his investigation. This was absolutely a vindictive statement on her part. It's one thing to be anti-war, it's another thing to let it cloud your investigation designed to find fact. And, her husband's written report says he couldn't determine whether Saddam had bought or tried to buy yellow cake uranium. Months later his book says there was no buy or attempt to buy. Which is it?

My take on reality doesn't reside in the past alone but rather in the ongoing history and development of the entire scenario. Eleven million Iraqis just voted on a Constitution in a democratic country in the Middle East. Saddam is on trial for the hanging deaths, in mass, of 150 men and boys in a village where a few of his own anti-Saddam fanatics tried to assassinate him. 13 of those boys were under 9 years old. There are those who are sympathetic to Saddam given their culture but for the millions that know of friends or had relatives that were murdered by Saddam, his prosecution is long overdue.

Otherwise I agree with your short statement about "guys like Rove". You are talking about the Political establishment flooded, held and abused by Democrats and Republicans from sea to shining sea. I have no problem with that and applaud your assessment.
:duel :cool:
1. Most countries get their intelligence from the United States. If we are wrong on something, then you can bet that most other countries will hold the same views.

2. Even the CIA was highly divided over whether Iraq posed a significant present or future threat and whether it still possess any significant quantities of chemical and biological weapons. This administration just choose to pick and choose the intelligence they wanted to go with as justification.

3. I don't care about Germany, Britain, or any other nation. Let their citizens hold them accountable for their mistakes.

4. Just like I cant blame my mistakes on my predecessor at work, the Bush Administration cannot justify its mistakes on mistakes of the Clinton Administration. The Clinton Administration did not give us a war in Iraq that has taken the lives of 2000 American servicemen, cost the American taxpayer over 200 Billion, and as a result created a training ground and recruitment poster for countless radical Islamists.

5. Valarie Plame thought the claims were ridiculous because the intelligence simply did not add up. Her husband's findings only bolstered her claims.

6. No evidence of something is as good as it gets. For example, I have never been to China. Therefore, if you went to China looking for evidence of my past presence there, you would find no evidence that I have ever been to China.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iriemon said:
Shoot at least these guys have a chance to proclaim and prove they are innocent. That is more than some Americans get.
I know the legal system in the United States very well and it is among the most advanced in the world. Here you don't have to prove you are innocent. The prosecution has to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused has a choice of a jury trial or a trial by judge. Even if convicted, there are appeals through a court system that is extensive enough to assure the guilt or innocence of any accused. Is it perfect? Nothing is. To think that someone in our government conforms to another set of laws that we as citizens have no access to is to be ill informed at the least.

Having said that; would you care to name any case history in recent memory here in the United States where the accused American didn't get a chance to proclaim their case and face their accusers? Just give me the who vs. who and I'll be glad to look it up. You must know something I don't.

And I fervently hope you're wrong. I'm in court on Wednesday next. Again.
:duel :cool:
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
QUOTES in black are SouthernDemocrat: 1. Most countries get their intelligence from the United States. If we are wrong on something, then you can bet that most other countries will hold the same views.

I'm not talking about Bhutan. I cited 5 major countries of Europe and we share intelligence for their benefit as well as ours. We also have intelligence that is shared from them as well. The idea that most countries get their intelligence from us and blindly follow it without using it as a piece of the overall puzzle must mean that the intelligence I am talking about and yours is worlds apart. I would only say that any intelligence can be wrong or do you seek perfection under a particular president and not another, hmmmm?

2. Even the CIA was highly divided over whether Iraq posed a significant present or future threat and whether it still possess any significant quantities of chemical and biological weapons. This administration just choose to pick and choose the intelligence they wanted to go with as justification.

As Senator Schumer, Democrat from New York said recently in relation to a terrorist threat, "It's better to err on the side of caution." Of course if you have 3 or 5 different views on intelligence you will "choose to pick and choose the intelligence" you feel is the best and provide the best response. But no. You think it is sinister. So was 9/11. The response to Saddam and his lack of cooperation will pay off big with a democracy in the middle of the Middle East.

3. I don't care about Germany, Britain, or any other nation. Let their citizens hold them accountable for their mistakes.

This is one of your bottom lines I've seen from you so often. "I don't care....". What a waste of time you are sometimes. I care whether it is right or wrong and I support our government because they are people like you and me. I've supported my country under Democrats and Republicans and I refuse the partisan road. I also refuse to "not care".

4. Just like I cant blame my mistakes on my predecessor at work, the Bush Administration cannot justify its mistakes on mistakes of the Clinton Administration. The Clinton Administration did not give us a war in Iraq that has taken the lives of 2000 American servicemen, cost the American taxpayer over 200 Billion, and as a result created a training ground and recruitment poster for countless radical Islamists.

I wish I could get up in the morning and forget history but I know better. You should too. Aministration taking over from administration is a continuation of our government and after a president is elected he spends months in briefings with the previous administration for an understanding of what has been classified "eyes only". You don't seem to understand but what you call blame from someone else is excuse from you. Same thing if abused.

5. Valarie Plame thought the claims were ridiculous because the intelligence simply did not add up. Her husband's findings only bolstered her claims.

Here you are caught flatfooted wrong. Her husband's finding were, in his own words, inconclusive as to whether Saddam had bought or tried to buy yellow cake uranium. He wrote that in his report and then changed his mind in his book. Hey, no contradiction - no book. That rediculous word you use, "bolstered"? Bolstered what? Book sales? Their husband and wife anti-war sentiment? Why add up something if it was a forgone conclusion which Valerie Plame didn't do as any CIA agent should have with direct orders from her superiors. Someone that won't do their job properly can't be trusted. I wouldn't trust Valerie Plame or her husband because they are politicians and partisan at that.

6. No evidence of something is as good as it gets. For example, I have never been to China. Therefore, if you went to China looking for evidence of my past presence there, you would find no evidence that I have ever been to China.

Whether you have been to China or not is not up to the interpretation of hundreds of intelligence agents. However, that said, I believe you when you say you never went. :duel :cool:
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
gordontravels said:
I know the legal system in the United States very well and it is among the most advanced in the world. Here you don't have to prove you are innocent. The prosecution has to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused has a choice of a jury trial or a trial by judge. Even if convicted, there are appeals through a court system that is extensive enough to assure the guilt or innocence of any accused. Is it perfect? Nothing is. To think that someone in our government conforms to another set of laws that we as citizens have no access to is to be ill informed at the least.

Having said that; would you care to name any case history in recent memory here in the United States where the accused American didn't get a chance to proclaim their case and face their accusers? Just give me the who vs. who and I'll be glad to look it up. You must know something I don't.

And I fervently hope you're wrong. I'm in court on Wednesday next. Again.
:duel :cool:
Depends upon what you are accused of. Check out the cases of Hamdi and Padilla.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,306
Reaction score
13,540
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
gordontravels said:
QUOTES in black are SouthernDemocrat: 1. Most countries get their intelligence from the United States. If we are wrong on something, then you can bet that most other countries will hold the same views.

I'm not talking about Bhutan. I cited 5 major countries of Europe and we share intelligence for their benefit as well as ours. We also have intelligence that is shared from them as well. The idea that most countries get their intelligence from us and blindly follow it without using it as a piece of the overall puzzle must mean that the intelligence I am talking about and yours is worlds apart. I would only say that any intelligence can be wrong or do you seek perfection under a particular president and not another, hmmmm?

2. Even the CIA was highly divided over whether Iraq posed a significant present or future threat and whether it still possess any significant quantities of chemical and biological weapons. This administration just choose to pick and choose the intelligence they wanted to go with as justification.

As Senator Schumer, Democrat from New York said recently in relation to a terrorist threat, "It's better to err on the side of caution." Of course if you have 3 or 5 different views on intelligence you will "choose to pick and choose the intelligence" you feel is the best and provide the best response. But no. You think it is sinister. So was 9/11. The response to Saddam and his lack of cooperation will pay off big with a democracy in the middle of the Middle East.

3. I don't care about Germany, Britain, or any other nation. Let their citizens hold them accountable for their mistakes.

This is one of your bottom lines I've seen from you so often. "I don't care....". What a waste of time you are sometimes. I care whether it is right or wrong and I support our government because they are people like you and me. I've supported my country under Democrats and Republicans and I refuse the partisan road. I also refuse to "not care".

4. Just like I cant blame my mistakes on my predecessor at work, the Bush Administration cannot justify its mistakes on mistakes of the Clinton Administration. The Clinton Administration did not give us a war in Iraq that has taken the lives of 2000 American servicemen, cost the American taxpayer over 200 Billion, and as a result created a training ground and recruitment poster for countless radical Islamists.

I wish I could get up in the morning and forget history but I know better. You should too. Aministration taking over from administration is a continuation of our government and after a president is elected he spends months in briefings with the previous administration for an understanding of what has been classified "eyes only". You don't seem to understand but what you call blame from someone else is excuse from you. Same thing if abused.

5. Valarie Plame thought the claims were ridiculous because the intelligence simply did not add up. Her husband's findings only bolstered her claims.

Here you are caught flatfooted wrong. Her husband's finding were, in his own words, inconclusive as to whether Saddam had bought or tried to buy yellow cake uranium. He wrote that in his report and then changed his mind in his book. Hey, no contradiction - no book. That rediculous word you use, "bolstered"? Bolstered what? Book sales? Their husband and wife anti-war sentiment? Why add up something if it was a forgone conclusion which Valerie Plame didn't do as any CIA agent should have with direct orders from her superiors. Someone that won't do their job properly can't be trusted. I wouldn't trust Valerie Plame or her husband because they are politicians and partisan at that.

6. No evidence of something is as good as it gets. For example, I have never been to China. Therefore, if you went to China looking for evidence of my past presence there, you would find no evidence that I have ever been to China.

Whether you have been to China or not is not up to the interpretation of hundreds of intelligence agents. However, that said, I believe you when you say you never went. :duel :cool:
Plame and her husband were right. The Bush Administration was wrong. History has proved that. The entire case for Saddam trying to obtain that uranium was based on very poorly forged documents. The Bush Administration knew that at the time. What part of that are you not understanding? The Bush Administration justified a war on a virtually non-existant threat. I don't care if its a Democrat or a Republican in office, when mistakes like these are made, they have to be held accountable. Our government is now the boy who cried wolf. What are we going to do when we do actually face a real threat and we try to get the American people and the world to support a military action, and they don't believe our government.

I mean really, we should go to war only as the absolute last resort (your ideology is not sufficient). In this case, we did not do that. Had our government had more people like Plame in it, we would be better off today because of that.

I am not saying this as a partisan either. I am saying it as an American. My nic on here is SouthernDemocrat because I am a Southern Democrat. If you know anything about southern Democrats, then you know that they are some of the most moderate Democrats. I vote Republican almost as much as I vote Democrat. However, I am not going to support a president that I simply do not agree with. I dont dislike him personally. In fact, I find him very likable. However, I dont agree with the direction that he and those in his administration are trying to take this country in.
 
Last edited:

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
Plame and her husband were right. The Bush Administration was wrong. History has proved that.
You are demonstrably and categorically wrong. Or least if you are claiming their latter statements were right. Wilson did not find what he reported publicly and the CIA said his report actually bolstered the claim that Saddam was indeed interested in aquiring yellow from Africa. History has proven that.

The entire case for Saddam trying to obtain that uranium was based on very poorly forged documents.
Well that was one of Wilson's lies of one of the myths the media keeps repeating. Wilson claimed that he viewed the documents and knew they were forged and reported that. The problem is he didn't. The US didn't get the documents until months after Wilson made his trip. And they weren't what the British claims were based on anyway.

The Bush Administration knew that at the time. What part of that are you not understanding?
I think it is you who needs to get some understanding of what actually happened.

Wilson is a bald-face liar and his wife with him. They were exposed. Who ever did that deserves a thanks from the people.


I mean really, we should go to war only as the absolute last resort
OK what was the last resort?
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iriemon said:
Depends upon what you are accused of. Check out the cases of Hamdi and Padilla.
Let me try to understand. Are you equating this with the Valerie Plame investigation? If so, and I have to believe you are considering the title of this thread and your statements, why? I really need some explanation for your correlation. I enjoy debate but I have to know what you're talking about. :duel :cool:
 

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I like Anderson Cooper though, he's ok...



anywho.



I don't think Rove will go down, there is no concrete proof as of yet that Karl is guility.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is an outside chance that either Valerie Plame or her husband may be indicted. It has been shown that Wilson may have committed perjury since his CIA report and his own book are completely opposite on the uranium issue. Of course he will never be convicted because he can always claim his book is a work of fiction. It will probably not happen since if Rove and Libby are found without indictment the case will just die the death it should have already died. :duel :cool:
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
gordontravels said:
Let me try to understand. Are you equating this with the Valerie Plame investigation? If so, and I have to believe you are considering the title of this thread and your statements, why? I really need some explanation for your correlation. I enjoy debate but I have to know what you're talking about. :duel :cool:
I am equating only to the extent that in both cases the accused are American citizens who have been accused of wrongdoing.

The only thing this has to do with Rove is that someone made the point (you I think) that in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. That used to be the standard, and I'm sure that is the standard Rove would like applied to him, but his own Administration apparently doesn't feel that rule need apply to other Americans accused of wrongdoing.

You said:
I know the legal system in the United States very well and it is among the most advanced in the world. Here you don't have to prove you are innocent. The prosecution has to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused has a choice of a jury trial or a trial by judge. Even if convicted, there are appeals through a court system that is extensive enough to assure the guilt or innocence of any accused. Is it perfect? Nothing is. To think that someone in our government conforms to another set of laws that we as citizens have no access to is to be ill informed at the least.
Have Padilla and Hamdi been assumend innocent until proven guilty? Have they had a chance to prove themselves innocent? Did the prosecution prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Did they have a choice of jury trial or trial by judge? Were they convicted? Did they have an appeal as to whether they were guilty?

Then you asked:
Having said that; would you care to name any case history in recent memory here in the United States where the accused American didn't get a chance to proclaim their case and face their accusers?
It is not only recent memory it is going on now under this Administration.
Both are American citizens. Both are accused. Neither has had a change to proclaim their case and face their accusers. Hamdi was locked up for years and finally release after the Govt was told he'd have to have some kind of legal proceedings. Padilla has been locked up for years without constitutional due process as to his guilt or innocence, except it is being litigated in the Courts whether the Govt has to give him due process at all and if so what kind.

IMO, Rove should get the same kind of "due process" as his Administration has given these other Americans.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom