Karl Rove is a Liar

Originally posted by junglejake
. As a result of the thread I linked to, I have made a far more active attempt to understand the reasoning behind the other side's arguement. (snip) He never said he would fire anyone involved, he said he would (crap, happened again) fire anyone who was involved and broke the law.

Ok, now you are throwing symantics to cloud an issue. Fact is, according to the president, Rove should not have a job and he still does. That is a clear fact.


Now, you really have to ask yourself, who is following only what their party speaks, carseller or you? Please don't take offense, I'm simply pointing out something you've said that was contrary to the facts, but in line with the democratic party's talking points.

Cant you read? I said EXACTLY what you quoted. Rove was I-N-V-O-L-V-E-D. Just as your quote says. He has admitted he did it, then took it back, then said someone else told him, and now his lawyer releases a statment adimtting Rove was involved. Have you forgotten this chain of events? And as far as towing a Party Line, Carseller isnt even admitting there is a problem. Even you have done that. So yes, I think Carseller tows the party line quite well.

As to the neocon question, every test I've taken ............(snip)So no, your assessment of me was incorrect,

I think you had better do some research about true Neocons and see for yourself where they come from and what political agendas they follow. You might be suprised to know that IMO, from what I have read in your post, you are not one. Carseller on the other hand, undoubtably.

: Neoconservative
Neoconservatives…

* Want the US to be the world's unchallenged superpower
* Share unwavering support for Israel
* Support American unilateral action
* Support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security
* Promote the development of an American empire
* Equate American power with the potential for world peace
* Seek to democratize the Arab world
* Push regime change in states deemed threats to the US or its allies

Historical neoconservative: President Teddy Roosevelt
Modern neoconservative: President Ronald Reagan

I am a neocon. This will point out where I differ, but there are very few points where I do.

As to calling for Rove to be fired, you can ablsoutly call for him to be fired because he was involved. You cannot, however, honestly say that Bush said he would fire him of he was involved. Bush never said that. Bush said he would fire anyone involved who broke the law. From everything I've found, Rove did not. He was involved, true. About 4 hours after he mentioned Wilson's wife to cooper, George Tenant came out and announced it. It was public information, and Rove knew it would be known to all the American people in hours. Plame was already known as a CIA worker in Washington D.C. by most politicians and reporters. No law was broken here, and Bush said he would fire lawbreakers, not people the Democratic party demands be fired. Can I demand John Kerry be fired for lying about his war record? Absloutly, but that doesn't mean the democrats have to force him out. That's politics.

You can look up any list you want about a Neocon and their values. There is a saying that gopes: Words dont make a man. Actions make a man.

Well, the same thing goes for political parties. Look at their actions over the last 35 years and see if they really coincide with their values. Also, a list of values tells you nothing of the history.

Now back to topic. Lets see what was really said by the president and the reports to back them up.

Bush said last year he would fire anyone found to have leaked Plame's identity.

Bush refused to directly answer questions about whether he had spoken to Rove about his discussion with Cooper.

"I have instructed every member of my staff to fully cooperate in this investigation," Bush said. Rove sat stoically behind Bush during the questions about his involvement.

www.cnn.com...

In an Oval Office meeting with the prime minister of Singapore, Bush did not respond to a reporter's shouted question about whether he intended to dismiss Rove.

Bush had pledged to dismiss any leakers in the case.

A growing number of Democrats are urging Bush to sideline Rove by suspending his access to classified information. Others say he should step down or be fired.

www.political-news.org...

Some of the denials, other comments, at media briefings by White House spokesman Scott McClellan

July 11, 2005:

Q: Do you want to retract your statement that Rove, Karl Rove, was not involved in the Valerie Plame expose?

A: I appreciate the question. This is an ongoing investigation at this point. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, that means we're not going to be commenting on it while it is ongoing.

Q: But Rove has apparently commented, through his lawyer, that he was definitely involved.

A: You're asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation.

Q: I'm saying, why did you stand there and say he was not involved?

A: Again, while there is an ongoing investigation, I'm not going to be commenting on it nor is ... .

Q: Any remorse?

A: Nor is the White House, because the president wanted us to cooperate fully with the investigation, and that's what we're doing.

news.yahoo.com.../ap/20050711/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_quotes_1

Washington -- Nearly two years after stating that any administration official found to have been involved in leaking the name of an undercover CIA officer would be fired, and assuring that Karl Rove and other senior aides to President Bush had nothing to do with the disclosure, the White House refused on Monday to answer any questions about new evidence of Rove's role in the matter

Hmmmmm. It seems that there are many other people out there who have heard the president say the exact same thing I said he said. Even Mclellan admits as much.

It would seem that Rove is getting his butt coverd with the help of ole' Georgy boy.

Originally posted by Kidfinger
You can look up any list you want about a Neocon and their values. There is a saying that gopes: Words dont make a man. Actions make a man.

Well, the same thing goes for political parties. Look at their actions over the last 35 years and see if they really coincide with their values. Also, a list of values tells you nothing of the history.

Their actions matter not, there is no neocon party. Anyone can call themselves something, but if their actions don't support it, they call themselves something they are not. For example, during the election, Kerry was trying to come off as a moderate to conservative democrat. Look at his voting record. He can call himself whatever he wants, that doesn't make it true.

I will call myself a neocon based on what my interpretation of their vaules are. Sure, some people calling themselves neocons were dicks. Some people calling themselves liberals were as well.

I believe in an ideology. Don't take individuals who said they practiced the same idology and apply their actions to me. Apply the ideology to me.

As to the quotes you referenced, I found it interesting that non of them actually quoted what Bush said about removing someone from the Administration. One got close, he said all his staff would cooperate fully. From everything I've read, Rove did exactly that, he's been cooperating with the investigation fully. Everything you referenced that Bush "said" about getting rid of someone who leaked the information was a reporter's take on the quote, not the actual quote. Find me the quote where Bush said he would fire anyone involved, breaking the law or no, and I will bow my head and conciede the point to you. However, I am confident that you will not find that quote, because I have searched extensivly for it. He said anyone who broke the law in their involvement with this, not anyone involved.

The NeoCons can embrace their "alternate realities" all they want. Regardless of what role Rove played in this, he's in deep doo doo.

I guess its easier for Neo Cons to live with their absurd and twisted views by ignoring the truth. Those I've spoken to who have woken up and refused any more of their kool aid are embarassed and ashamed of their former support of the Neo Cons.

I say let the Neo Cons live in their darkness.. the real world goes on with and without them.

I have been following the news on this lately and it looks like instead of Mr. Rove looking clean he actually looks more and more in deep with the issue.

I read his profile and how he got to be Mr. "The Boy Genius", "The Architect" and "Turd Blossom," mostly because the dirty tricks at playing politics.

But he has more than one controvercy surrounding him.

Originally posted by marg6043
But he has more than one controvercy surrounding him.

His past is stained, as well. He's into Atwaterian dirty trix. That goes one step even beyond Nixon's demo crew. And that's just plain creepy.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I guess its easier for Neo Cons to live with their absurd and twisted views by ignoring the truth.

Hehe And you know I'm one of them If ya have any Kool-Aid for me, I'll take lime

I read his profile and how he got to be Mr. "The Boy Genius", "The Architect" and "Turd Blossom," mostly because the dirty tricks at playing politics.

Dang it, we agree again, Marg Yeah, he's gotten the title of "The Architect" because he used dirty tricks effectivly to combat the other side's dirty tricks. That's all politics is. If you have a subscription to RATS, check out what I said here. The dirty tricks have been going on in America under the guise of American politics since our nations founding. Rove is being commended by the right because he came up with a way that the Republicans could be on par with the Dems. Is it dirty? Yeah. Does it suck? Yeah. However, it's what politics is. Until all sides are willing to make a change, the dirty tricks will continue. That's the point I tried to make on that thread, and that's obviously the point I'm trying to make with this post.

Those who resort to dirty tricks know that they can't win an honest fight. I wouldn't tout that. It's rather weak.

And just b/c dirty tricks have been a part of the American landscape, if not the landscape of all of humanity, that does not make it right. It only makes it corrupt.

I agree, ECK, but what's the point of complaining about the weather? If you have a solution to it, I'd love to hear it. As I see now, the problem lies with the fact that all politicians would have to abandon the dirty tricks at the same time. The dirty tricks are, unfortunately, very effective. MoveOn.org had a choice, address what Bush has done or simply compare him to Hitler. They compared him to Hitler and brought about a whole new mentality in many people. They didn't go about addressing their problems with Bush, they addressed their problems with Hitler and said he was just like Bush. Sensationalism is a very effective political tool. I don't see either side willing to abandon the lies for the truth, for addressing the facts rather than spinning them. Untill all of them agree it's a bad thing, we're stuck with what we have.

Unless there's another option. I haven't thought of one, and I haven't read a realistic one. If you have one, I would love to hear it. I'll wind up posting many a-letter on the "Post your letters to Congress" thread if you do, and I hope others here would, too. I would much prefer an honest political landscape. However, history has never displayed one, and I don't have a solution that would allow one to emerge, taking into account the minds of the politicians and the voters.

Not all candidates take the dirty path route. Unfortunately for them, the media dutifully refuses to give coverage to those outside the game (Repubs and Dems). If the media gave those candidates equal exposure, the fraudsters would be in trouble.

That's a good point. I suppose the change would have to start with the media. If they didn't give power to the dirty tricks, there would be no point in using them.

Originally posted by junglejake
That's a good point. I suppose the change would have to start with the media. If they didn't give power to the dirty tricks, there would be no point in using them.

There are good journalists out there. Unfortunately, tho, where its most needed, they seem to be few and far between. That's the power of the machine. Most journalists are decent people, but they're not gonna go out on limbs constantly if they think their jobs will be in danger. Then there are reporters who willingly go along with what is not spoken. jailed NY Times reporter Judith Miller is a perfect example of them. She is definitely no hero to me. She was one of the leading cheerleaders (using bogus information & sources) for the invasion of Iraq "because" of WMD. She is involved in the deliberate outting of an active CIA operative working to control and contain real WMD! Now her cover is blown, the years' long operation is in the toilet and there are a lot of lives on the line, some may have already been liquidated b/c of this leak. All of those involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for this breach of national security.

If the media did better at its job, these things would not occur nearly as much. As it is, America's mainstream media is bought, therefore compromised.

forums.macrumors.com...

The Ghost of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan

John Aravosis at AmericaBlog brings up the awful possibility, based on an ABC report, that the Public Relations-hungry Bush administration may have interfered with a British and Pakistani investigation of an al-Qaeda plot to bomb London that ties into July 7.

The question is whether Bush played politics with terror around the time of the Democratic National Convention in late July, 2004. Jim Lobe reminded us at the time that ' The New Republic weekly quoted Pakistani intelligence officials as saying the White House had asked them to announce the arrest or killing of any "high-value [al-Qaeda] target" any time between July 26 and 28, the first three days of the Democratic Convention. At the time, former CIA officer Robert Baer said the announcement made "no sense." "To keep these guys off-balance, a lot of this stuff should be kept in secret. You get no benefit from announcing an arrest like this." '

In response to White House pressure, the Pakistanis were in fact able to make an arrest, which was announced during the Democratic National Convention. That arrest, of a Tanzanian named Ahmad Khalfan Gheilani, in turn led to the capture of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, a young computer expert who had old al-Qaeda documents on his laptop as well as a more recent archive of email correspondence with al-Qaeda in the UK. Among the old data were pre-9/11 plans for attacks in New York and elsewhere.

The Bush administration issued a heightened security alert just as the Democratic National Convention was ending. Many at the time suspected that this announcement was an unsubtle attempt to play to the general public's perception of Bush as better at fighting terrorists than the Democrats. USA Today wrote:

"some questioned the timing and tone of Ridge's Sunday news conference. Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean suggested it might have been an effort to bump Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry from the headlines after a convention in Boston that focused heavily on his credentials to be commander in chief. "I am concerned that every time something happens that's not good for President Bush, he plays this trump card, which is terrorism," Dean told CNN. Kerry's aides have said they do not believe the timing was politically motivated. But other Democrats have been quietly grumbling. And that prompted Ridge to proclaim Tuesday, for the second time in less than a month, that "we don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security." The last time he said that, he was standing on the Boston waterfront, just days before Kerry's political convention, answering charges he was hyping the possibility of terrorism around the convention to grab attention from Kerry. Some law enforcement officials worry that disclosing detailed information would tip off terrorists and dry up intelligence sources. But Ridge said the public has a right to know. "The detail, the sophistication, the thoroughness of this information, if you had access to it, you'd say we did the right thing," he said Tuesday. "It's not about politics. It's about confidence in government telling you when they get the information."

The information reported by Ridge was based on data that was three years old, raising real questions about how urgent such an announcement could possibly have been and raising further suspicions about the timing.

The announcement set off a frenzy of press interest in the basis for then Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge's alarm. Either from a Bush administration source or from a Pakistani one (each government blames the other), they came up with the name of Muhammad Naeem Khan, a recently arrested al-Qaeda operative in Pakistan, and published it. But it turns out that the Pakistanis and the UK had "turned" Khan and were having him be in active email contact with the al-Qaeda network in the UK so as to track them down.

On August 3, the Bush administration released the name of Abu Eisa Khan, a suspected al-Qaeda operative in the UK who had been arrested. The motive for this shocking lapse in security procedure appears to have been the desire to trumpet a specific arrest.

All of these public pronouncements by the Americans infuriated the Pakistani and British police.

For the sake of three year old intelligence, the Bush administration had helped blow the first inside double agent the Pakistanis and the British had ever developed. The British had been preparing a set of indictments and pursuing the investigation, in part by using Khan. They were forced to move before they were ready. Some suspects escaped on hearing Naeem Khan's in the media. Of those who were arrested, several had to be released for lack of evidence against them.

Muhammad Sadique Khan, one of the July 7 bombers, was apparently connected to one of the suspects under surveillance in early August, 2004.

It would be really nice to think that Howard Dean's dark suspicions were unwarranted. But we already saw in summer of 2003 how Karl Rove was willing to damage the CIA for petty political gain by leaking to the press the fact that Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife worked for that agency. That Rove would have been eager to use the terror issue to blunt the impact of the Democratic National Convention is all too plausible. If he did so, he may well have gotten people killed.

The connection to the Noor Khan plot helps explain why Tony Blair and Jack Straw were so unequivocal about July 7 having been an al-Qaeda operation so soon after the blasts.

Sorry Junglejake but I don’t have access to rats, Mr. Rove in the 70’s was a protégé of Donald Segretti, (one of the convicted as a Watergate conspirator) he may had pick up some dirty tricks from him.

He also play his dirty tricks on “Alan Dixon” campaign.

He attended go college but not degree, In 1972 he was a chairman of the college republican national committee.

He started working for the Bush family in the 80’s in 1986 he bugged his own office and claimed on the democrats for media coverage.

In 1992 he was fired from George HW Bush’s 1992 campaign for “leaking information to journalist “Robert Novak”

So he has done it before.

In 1993 he got over 300,000 from the John Ashcroft’s campaign.
In 1999 George Bush campaign paid him 2.5 million dollars

He also was involve in the recount of votes in Florida in 2000 elections.

He was involved in 2001 intel merger, he owned 100,000 in intel stocks.
He is also involve in 2001 with pharmaceutical industry lobbyists he also owned 250,000 stocks
He also had stocks in Enron, Boeing, General Electric, and Pfizer.
While been involved in energy policy meetings he owned stocks in Enron.

He also is link to decision of war against Iraq.

Hey the man is something else, and to tell you the truth he may be the most dangerous man in this country as now.

Rove needs to go.

It is now a matter of Bush keeping his word. He said that if anyone in his administration was found to have been involved, they'd be dismissed. And I'm paraphrasing. He actually said they'd

take care of it

.

Will he stand by his word, or will he cave? That is the question of the hour.

Originally posted by junglejake
One got close, he said all his staff would cooperate fully. From everything I've read, Rove did exactly that, he's been cooperating with the investigation fully. Everything you referenced that Bush "said" about getting rid of someone who leaked the information was a reporter's take on the quote, not the actual quote. Find me the quote where Bush said he would fire anyone involved, breaking the law or no, and I will bow my head and conciede the point to you.

Actually, after much searching, you and I BOTH have been deemed wrong. I have found the exact quote and it wasnt what either of us claimed it was. OOPSY!

McClellan also maintained at the time that "the president knows" that Rove wasn't involved in the leak. And he said that the allegation that Rove was involved in this leak was "a ridiculous suggestion" and "it is simply not true."

McClellan was wrong. Did that mean that Rove had lied to McClellan about his role in this? That Rove had also lied to Bush? Or was McClellan knowingly misinforming the public? If the latter, then there should be two resignations.

Days later, Bush took a clear stand on the Plame/CIA leak. He said:

There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. If there's leaks out of my administration, I want to know who it is, and if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.

According to Cooper's email, Rove did leak classified information, wittingly or not. Did he share that fact with Bush? If McClellan can be believed, Rove did not. If that's true, Bush should dismiss Rove for holding out on him. But it Rove did talk to Bush about his participation in the leak, what did he tell Bush? And what actions did Bush take? Did Rove tell Bush how he had come to know about Valerie Wilson's position at the CIA? Did he disclose to Bush who else knew about it? Did he tell his boss whether anyone else was passing this information to reporters? In the first column that disclosed Valerie Wilson's CIA identity, Bob Novak referred to "two" senior administration officials? So who in addition to Rove might have revealed this information to Novak?

Bush also said at the time that any government official with knowledge of the leak should "come forward and speak out." Rove certainly did not follow that presidential order. He should be pink-slipped for that, too.

It would seem that even though we were both misquoting a quote, there is still ample evidence he has broken the laws. I refer you to this site for a good read and the origination of my above quote.

www.commondreams.org...

What I like about this op-ed piece is how it breaks it all down.

Either Rove knew that he was revealing an undercover officer to a reporter or he was identifying a CIA officer without bothering to check on her status and without considering the consequences of outing her. Take your pick: in both scenarios Rove is acting in a reckless and cavalier fashion, ignoring the national security interests of the nation to score a political point against a policy foe.

Kind of hard to argue with simple logic. And that is what the Bush adsministration is trying to do. They are trying to muddy the waters so the common public will be so confused about what is going on, that they will never fully understand what has transpired.

And just to add one final thought. Isnt a leak of info from the White House still an info leak? How do you leak info and it not be illegal? After all, to the rest of us lowley tax paying citizens, ignorance of the law is no excuse. So why doesnt Rove have the same ideals about ignorance of the law applied to him? What makes him so special that just because he' didnt know ' (yeah right ) he shouldnt be indited? Food for thought.



[edit on 7/17/05 by Kidfinger]

Look what "web sleuth " posted over at the Huffington Post.

Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin's direct telephone number at his firm, Patton Boggs, is 202-457-6190. His e-mail address is [email protected].
Here is Luskin's bio page on the PB website:
www.pattonboggs.com...

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree

Look what "web sleuth " posted over at the Huffington Post.

Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin's direct telephone number at his firm, Patton Boggs, is 202-457-6190. His e-mail address is [email protected].
Here is Luskin's bio page on the PB website:
www.pattonboggs.com...

So what's the goal with this? To let you talk with him and find out the real story, to to allow people to harrass him non-stop because you don't agree with what he's saying? If it's the latter, great job. You sure will show him how horrible his opinion is by innundating him with viceral hatrid. I'm sure that will help him come around. This is an example of this, in it's extreme. If you can't convince the other side they're wrong, ruin their lives. That'll show them. I wish there was a way below button, if that was your intention.

I only posted a link that someone else posted.

If our members choose to contact Mr. Luskin's office, I would hope
they only do so with a reasonably amount of dignity.

BTW, jj are you aware of Luskins previous ties to organized crime?

It is only MHO, but Rove has clearly chosen an appropriate councel.

[edit on 17-7-2005 by FallenFromTheTree]