Lounge of Tomorrow

Lounge of Tomorrow (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/index.php)
-   Daily Grind (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   Karl Rove - creepy s***bag (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=1478)

scaeagles 07-07-2005 12:35 PM

Am I that predictable? Gosh, I feel the need to bring up marijuana usage to throw you guys off balance.....

Who knows. It could be Rove. If it is, throw him to the wolves. I would find it more likely that Rove would give the info to someone not associated with the campaign (or on the far, far outskirts of it) if he wanted the info leaked. Call him what you will, but he's smart. Too smart to be directly linked to it. And way, way to smart to tell it directly to someone at the NYT....like I said, that would become the story, and would be have been tremendously damaging to the campaign.

wendybeth 07-07-2005 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles
Honestly, I don't think it was Rove. As this happened well before the election, I believe if it was Rove, THAT would have been the story - how the chief Bush strategist was leaking names of CIA operatives.

Perhaps it was Kerry. That would be funny. After all, didn't he recently (in the Bolton hearings) leak the name of a CIA operative named Armstrong? To be fair, Republican Richard Lugar did the same thing.


Oh, merde, Scaeagles. Just get it over with and say what you really want to.


"It was Clinton!!!!!"

;):p

scaeagles 07-08-2005 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth
It was Clinton!!!!!

Wendy! I am shocked that you would suggest such a thing!


but good lord, wouldn't that be great? :)

wendybeth 07-12-2005 10:14 AM

Life is good these days....:D
White House in hot seat

It is interesting how the party that has claimed the role of 'patriots' is downplaying Rove's role in this. You've got one of their own involved in the outing of a CIA agent, and it's just no big deal.:rolleyes:

SacTown Chronic 07-12-2005 10:43 AM

Treason is in the eye of the beholder, wendybeth.

scaeagles 07-12-2005 10:52 AM

I find it interesting that the NY Times won't reveal their source, yet they are going after Rove as if he is. If he is the source, then they should come out and say so. If he is not the source, then they should not act as if he is.

The NY Times wants to have it both ways. They want to act as if Rove is the source without saying if he is or not. This is not to excuse Rove should he be the source - I have said before if he is, he should be fired and prosecuted.

wendybeth 07-12-2005 11:24 AM

It's obvious what they're doing (Rove's handlers)- they are slowly acclimating people to the idea that Rove might be involved, and spinning it like crazy. By the time the full extent of his involvement is divulged, they hope that people might be bored with it, or desensitized to the whole subject, etc. Look for a character assassination on Plame and her hubby as well, although they've been making snotty little comments about them all along. The spin they are putting on his e-mail is just ridiculous and strains credulity, especially with his track record.

SacTown Chronic 07-12-2005 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles
This is not to excuse Rove should he be the source - I have said before if he is, he should be fired and prosecuted.

Let your voice be heard.

wendybeth 07-12-2005 11:31 AM

Thanks, Sactown. :snap:

Scrooge McSam 07-12-2005 01:07 PM

You really enjoyed that, didn't you, Sac? LOL


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.