To fire or not to fire?

[cnredd]

We'll try once again, seeing how IValueFreedom should be renamed IValueHypocracy...

Quote from yesterday....

All in all.... Karl Rove = Culpable
He should be let go from the administration. Although she wasn't placed in any credible danger from having her name leaked, defaming her in order to hurt her husband is completely unacceptable and an abuse of power..

The conviction has been made....now behind today's door #2...

I am not the person to say if he is guilty or not, but I will state that with the information and order of events, these actions taken by the administration do not appear to be those of innocent individuals.

What a wonderful stance! "I think he should be fired" followed by "I don't have a right to say if he should be fired or not".

I think your parents should sue whatever educational system you went to.

 

[IValueFreedom]

Haha.

First, let's look at what I stated in first portion of yesterday's post.

"As there is an ongoing investigation combined with reporter(s) concealing their sources, the general public has limited information. As such, simple logic and reasoning maxamizing the info availiable will provide the most educated guess as to Rove's culpability in the situation.

After doing some reading, I am likely to lean that Rove was involved in the leak on some level, although I would not say this to 100% certainty as I do not posess all the facts or more importantly, the truth.

But as I said above, I believe (at this point at least) that he was involve by the order of the events."

Those do not appear to be the words of someone who has a definative answer.

If I had to guess, you read my post looking for something to argue instead of absorbing and understanding the content and theme. Read the post and try and understand what the author is trying to get at instead of trying to find something to argue just so you can feel superior.

Grow Up.

Now, for this last reply from you, I think this is just a simple misunderstanding on the vocabulary that I used.

Culpable and Guilty DO NOT mean the same thing.

Culpable is to be blameworthy.
Guilty is a verdict handed down only in a court of law. As I am not a judge, nor will ever be, I will never be in the position to deem if someone is guilty or not guilty.

Hopefully that clears up your misunderstanding.

P.S. I put myself thru college.

 

[Navy Pride]

Well, the potential problem with that that I see are that some rules do not apply to these people. As an agent of the government, Karl Rove is immune to certain legal action if it is found that he was working within his job description. As such, he may have slipped through the legal cracks on this one. The law are not specific and the past precidence for cases like this are not completely the same. There is some legal wigggle room for Rove. As such, he may be culpable yet not found guilty.

My guess (I am not a lawyer) is that her best action is to take sue Rove personally so that it will force all the information to surface and get him to testify under oath. But it might not even make it to court because of the reasons stated above.

This is a tricky situation.

So, I feel it is 100% legit to demand his resignation if he had leaked her identification.

This whole deal is just a sham........Valerie Plame was interviewed by Vanity Fair......She was not even a covert agent....She was manning a desk in Washington and has not been undercover since 1997.........

Try something else Libs.this one does not hold water.....

 

[Hoot]

Here's the bottom line for me...Bush originally said that anyone leaking information about CIA agent Plame would be fired.

Now because Bush's good buddy Karl is involved, Bush has to 'qualify' his statement...'anyone leaking information about CIA agent Plame would be fired..IF convicted of a crime.'

Gimme a frigging break! We know Karl lied when he said initially that he wasn't involved, we also know about the memo circulated on Air Force One labeled with a big red S for Secret...circulated the day after Joe Wilson's article.

The very next day, Karl is on the phone saying Joe Wilson's wife...etc...

You have to be an idiot not to connect the dots.

No wonder Bush's approval rating is at it's lowest ever.

 

[teacher]

Can you say, "grasping at straws"?

 

[Hoot]

Can you say, "grasping at straws"?

Sure, can you say treason?

 

[Fantasea]

If it wasn't Karl Rove, the socialist-lib-dem establishment would only be pounding away on another member of the Administration. That seems to be all these guys know.

The results at the polls over the past ten years still hasn't sunk in. And, that's good for the Administration.

The electorate is tired of the same old rhetoric, accusations, complaints, etc.. So long as the Dems remain the Party of NO, they will continue to lose more and more support from their traditional blue collar base.

I'm sure that the Republican leadership is overjoyed with the continuing Democratic leadership antics.

Why fire Rove? He's doing what he does best; taunting the Dems and then making them look silly.

 

[Nemo]

Why should the Republicans care about polls when they own the polling booths?

DIEBOLD: The Leader in Voting Solutions!

 

[teacher]

THE LAW states if the outed person has not been involved in covert activity, oversees, within the last five years, it's all good. Her last covert doings were in 1997. What's all the bruhaha about. Now I understand you Bush haters posistion and all but, damn, get it right and I'm right behind you. It's just the LAW folks. Try harder. Thus: "Grasping at straws". The massive brain remembers all. Next......

 

[cnredd]

Why should the Republicans care about polls when they own the polling booths?

DIEBOLD: The Leader in Voting Solutions!

Don't need to cheat....Look at the House and the Senate....The Repubs were ALREADY becoming the majority.

I see the "sore loser brigade" still has some kick in it....

 

[teacher]

Why should the Republicans care about polls when they own the polling booths?

The left after Florida in 2000 set in place hoards of people to watch for fraud. And there was none. If there was it would have been rightly exposed.
You all sound like little girls who have had their Barbie beat up by their brother. Can you ever fathom the fact you lost fair and square? You sound petulant and childish. No one listens to your whining, let alone takes it seriously. If there was fraud it would be a giant news story that couldn't be covered up. You should be busy finding a candidate for the next go around with something better to say than "I voted against the war, after I voted for it". Please. Tell your mommy. The rest of us just don't care.

 

[ncallaway]

This whole deal is just a sham........Valerie Plame was interviewed by Vanity Fair......She was not even a covert agent....She was manning a desk in Washington and has not been undercover since 1997.........

Try something else Libs.this one does not hold water.....

Not that I don't believe you, but can I see your source on that? I've seen the number tossed around a bit.
It's odd, because I remember seeing quotes from George Bush about how serious this all is. I'll try and track down the sources for those quotes...

 

[ncallaway]

After a tiny bit of searching I found a quote where George Bush refers to this affair: "Leaks of classified information are bad things."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/

"The criminal division of the Department of Justice, with the assistance of the FBI as the lead investigative agency, opened a full investigation," Ashcroft said.

So, are they wrong?

[Sorry for the double post, didn't know there was a 10 minute time limit for editing]

 

[IValueFreedom]

If it wasn't Karl Rove, the socialist-lib-dem establishment would only be pounding away on another member of the Administration. That seems to be all these guys know.

I fail to see the problem with this. True, it would be wrong for anyone to unjustly target the Bush administration and the individuals within it, but the reporter named "two senior white house officials." Since a possible crime was committed, it seems perfectly reasonable and logical to search thru the Bush administration with a fine tooth comb.

Rove is a suspect. If he's ruled out, then why is it wrong to focus the investigation onto someone else in the administration when you know the leak came from within it.

THE LAW states if the outed person has not been involved in covert activity, oversees, within the last five years, it's all good. Her last covert doings were in 1997. What's all the bruhaha about. Now I understand you Bush haters posistion and all but, damn, get it right and I'm right behind you. It's just the LAW folks. Try harder. Thus: "Grasping at straws". The massive brain remembers all. Next......

I don't know where you're receiving your information, but it's wrong.
The law is called the Itelligence Identities Protection Act and it doesn't stipulate anything about 5 years overseas. If I were you, I would think about getting my sources from somewhere else. You've been misinformed/purposely mislead.

There are three parts to the law
1) A government official with access to classified information about covert agents and intentionally exposes that person while the government is "taking affirmative measures to conceal" their identity. 10 years or $50,000
2) A government official in a different sector does the same thing as stated above (has a lighter sentence).
3) Any person (not restricted to government workers) exposes operatives knowing that they're covert and realizes that in doing so, will hinder U.S. inteligence. 3 years and/or $15,000

To say that Plame hasn't been covert since 1997 is just wrong. Period. It wouldn't make sense to have what you claim to be the law, and then have the Director of the CIA start a criminal investigation. I'm fairly sure the Director of the CIA knows what the laws are. Thankfully he doesn't get his information from the GOP.

Besides that law... it may also be wise to charge him on perjury or obstruction of justice as Rove lied about having any involvement with the reporters to Fitzgerald during the investigation.

 

[teacher]

[

QUOTE=IValueFreedom]
I don't know where you're receiving your information, but it's wrong.
The law is called the Itelligence Identities Protection Act and it doesn't stipulate anything about 5 years overseas. If I were you, I would think about getting my sources from somewhere else. You've been misinformed/purposely mislead.

I don't give a fuc*k what you think junior. It is not listed under that act. It came after. I refuse to search, post links, or any such bullshit. I am teacher, of the massive brain, and now complete monkey army, I remember stuff. I had a TSSBI before you were born. It's the LAW. You think someone as smart as Rove is gonna throw it all away just to prove Wilson a liar? Which is why he did what he did. Stop getting your news with those you agree with only. There's two sides to every story. You prove me wrong. You can't. I won't hold my breath. Your wrong. Prove me wrong and I'll apologize and send you Pez. Bur for now, I'll just eat Pez. If you can prove me wrong you would be the first to do so since I joined this site. I've said a lot. And posted only one link. PBS. Think you'll be the first sport? Just ask champs. And now Christopher Brooks. Speaking of whom. I've now been involved in "The Monkey Fiasco", "The Great Bumbershoot Controversy", and so now Mr. Brook's little dilemma I shall name...."The Buckner Debacle". Yes. Good luck.

Class dismissed.

And for Gods sake hit spell check would you. I'm not to proud to admit I do. Every time.

When spell check hits your name it comes back with "Alfredo". I can't make this shi*t up.

 

[cnredd]

I fail to see the problem with this. True, it would be wrong for anyone to unjustly target the Bush administration and the individuals within it, but the reporter named "two senior white house officials." Since a possible crime was committed, it seems perfectly reasonable and logical to search thru the Bush administration with a fine tooth comb.

And whatever a "reporter" said MUST be taken as gospel...Seeing how I've already PROVED how there are 5 times as many liberal journalists as conservatives(Pew Research), I can see how the general public would think that the "objectivity" of a reporter would come into question.

IValueStupidity has stuck again...He'll take the word of a "journalist" over the word of an investigation that hasn't even ended yet.

Wipe your mouth IValueFreedom...you have a little Schumer-spoo on your lips...

 

[ncallaway]

Since the "investigation that hasn't even ended yet" hasn't even ended yet it doesn't exactly have a word. So, according to you, he's taking the word of a "journalist" (whose actions may be suspect, according to you, and I have no evidence to deny that), over the word of...nothing. Which means he's working with what little the public knows about this matter. Which is all any of us are doing...

What makes you think that when the investigation ends, IValueFreedom would still believe the journalist over the investigation (assuming for the moment, that they disagree)?

 

[cnredd]

Since the "investigation that hasn't even ended yet" hasn't even ended yet it doesn't exactly have a word. So, according to you, he's taking the word of a "journalist" (whose actions may be suspect, according to you, and I have no evidence to deny that), over the word of...nothing. Which means he's working with what little the public knows about this matter. Which is all any of us are doing...
What makes you think that when the investigation ends, IValueFreedom would still believe the journalist over the investigation (assuming for the moment, that they disagree)?

Which means EVERYTHING being said on the subject is conjecture and speculation...why bother with an opinion when all of the facts aren't out?

 

[Navy Pride]

well said ncallaway

but I would demand Rove's resignation right now...

Just not for this scandal
he's done plenty in his past to have been dropped years ago :\

nccallaway..........I rest my case..........

 

[ncallaway]

Which means EVERYTHING being said on the subject is conjecture and speculation...why bother with an opinion when all of the facts aren't out?

Because, as human beings we are curious and social creatures, and it is our nature?

And, to Navy Pride: Read his whole post. Or, just the line directly below the one you put in bold

but I would demand Rove's resignation right now...

Just not for this scandal
he's done plenty in his past to have been dropped years ago :

He is talking about prior actions of Karl Rove. He is not talking about this issue when he demands Rove's resignation. He's just expressing his dislike for Rove, and however founded or unfounded it may be, is just his opinion and isn't really relevant to the topic.

 

[cnredd]

He is talking about prior actions of Karl Rove. He is not talking about this issue when he demands Rove's resignation. He's just expressing his dislike for Rove, and however founded or unfounded it may be, is just his opinion and isn't really relevant to the topic.

I think that was the point...

Saying Rove should resign for past indescretions is like saying...

"Mr. Jackson, you have been found "not guilty" of child molestation, but seeing how the public thinks you're a freak, what with the Elephant Man's bones, the dangling of your kid from the balcony, and all of your other looney incidents, were just gonna put you in jail anyway."

 

[Navy Pride]

Because, as human beings we are curious and social creatures, and it is our nature?

And, to Navy Pride: Read his whole post. Or, just the line directly below the one you put in bold



He is talking about prior actions of Karl Rove. He is not talking about this issue when he demands Rove's resignation. He's just expressing his dislike for Rove, and however founded or unfounded it may be, is just his opinion and isn't really relevant to the topic.

You said no one is demanding Roves's resignation and in the next post one of your buddies did just that and he is not alone.......

 

[ncallaway]

I think that was the point...

Saying Rove should resign for past indescretions is like saying...

"Mr. Jackson, you have been found "not guilty" of child molestation, but seeing how the public thinks you're a freak, what with the Elephant Man's bones, the dangling of your kid from the balcony, and all of your other looney incidents, were just gonna put you in jail anyway."

Alright, this is how I read IValueFreedom's post:

I don't think this issue is worth demanding Rove's resignation over until the investigation is complete. However, I have long disliked Rove, and I (had I had the power) would have called for his resignation over other issues. This is just a light-hearted comment as indicated by the winky face, so I sure do hope no one reads too much into this

So I think we were just interperting his words differently, and I really don't wanna debate over the interpetation of someone else's opionion when we could just ask him.

And, in response to Navy Pride: He is not my buddy. I have never met him. I am in no way responsible for the words that come out of his mouth. The fact that he demands Rove's resignation over past issues doesn't, in fact, conflict with anything I've said. I simply said no one is demanding Rove's resignation right now over this issue.

 

[IValueFreedom]

I don't give a fuc*k what you think junior. It is not listed under that act. It came after. I refuse to search, post links, or any such bullshit. I am teacher, of the massive brain, and now complete monkey army, I remember stuff. I had a TSSBI before you were born. It's the LAW. You think someone as smart as Rove is gonna throw it all away just to prove Wilson a liar? Which is why he did what he did. Stop getting your news with those you agree with only. There's two sides to every story. You prove me wrong. You can't. I won't hold my breath. Your wrong. Prove me wrong and I'll apologize and send you Pez. Bur for now, I'll just eat Pez. If you can prove me wrong you would be the first to do so since I joined this site. I've said a lot.

I appologize if you're being serious with this post, but I just don't think it's real. Are you seriously attempting to debate with that post? If this is for real and not just to try to make me mad, then you should know, you've done nothing to furthur your side. Your entire defense rests on, "my massive brain remembers a law." How am I supposed to argue with that? I don't mean to burst your bubble, but I doubt you won any debates with those people you mentioned, I bet they just realized it was a helpless cause.

The law is the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act. If you chose not to offer any facts to refute this other than "I remember one," then there's no point to debating with you.

I'll tell you what, when you do remember that law, I'm sure there are some lawyers in Washington who would like to hear from you.

And for Gods sake hit spell check would you. I'm not to proud to admit I do. Every time.

You don't sound credible when you say things like that in a post with spelling and grammer errors. I do not spell check, nor will use spell check in the future. Umm... figure out what I'm trying to say or skip over my posts?

 

[IValueFreedom]

I think that was the point...

Saying Rove should resign for past indescretions is like saying...

"Mr. Jackson, you have been found "not guilty" of child molestation, but seeing how the public thinks you're a freak, what with the Elephant Man's bones, the dangling of your kid from the balcony, and all of your other looney incidents, were just gonna put you in jail anyway."

wow, the logic here is one for the ages. You're right. I am wrong. Oh wait, I can think above an 8th grade level to realize that what you're saying DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

I feel bad for you if you honestly believe that your analogy is accurate.

Here is a law analogy that is a little more relevant.

Mr. Smith is found not guilty for murder, but since he robbed a 3 years prior to the alleged murder, he is sentenced guilty for bank robbery (Not Murder). Two seperate crimes were committed, he was only found guilty for one of them.

It makes complete sense.




Ncallaway has provided a generally accurate interpretation of what I was attempting to express.

And no, we are not buddies, we have never met, we've never even talked (when you do not include these forums).