Karl Rove - creepy s***bag - Page 5

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!!!!!"

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....

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.

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.

Scrooge McSam · 07-12-2005, 01:07 PM

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

07-07-2005, 12:35 PM	#41
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	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.
	Submit to Quotes

07-12-2005, 10:14 AM	#44
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	Life is good these days.... 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. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

07-12-2005, 10:43 AM	#45
SacTown Chronic the myth of the dream Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,217	Treason is in the eye of the beholder, wendybeth. __________________ Is it the fingers, or the brain that you're teaching a lesson?
	Submit to Quotes

07-12-2005, 10:52 AM	#46
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	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.
	Submit to Quotes

07-12-2005, 11:24 AM	#47
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	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. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

07-12-2005, 11:31 AM	#49
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	Thanks, Sactown. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

07-12-2005, 01:07 PM	#50
Scrooge McSam What? Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,635	You really enjoyed that, didn't you, Sac? LOL
	Submit to Quotes