Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
what a shock!
an article from the national reivew defending karl rove!
say it aint so!
well, that certainly puts any questions i had to rest.
phew.
back to sleep now.
|
When you wake back up, if you quit trying to discount facts by ridiculing the medium that reported them, you might notice that the article is very well documented/referenced. It seems that you don't intend to let these uncontested facts influence your opinion.
Also, from your own quote:
Quote:
|
Mr. Cooper also wrote that he told the grand jury he was certain Mr. Rove never mentioned Ms. Wilson by name, and that he did not learn of her identity until several days later, when he either read it in a column by the syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who referred to her by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, or found it through a Google search.
|
Quote:
Mr. Cooper said in his article that Mr. Rove did not mention the name of Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, or say that she was a covert officer. But, he wrote: "Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the C.I.A. and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the 'agency' on 'W.M.D.'? Yes.
"Is any of this a crime? Beats me."
The details in Mr. Cooper's article about his conversation with Mr. Rove are largely consistent with the broad outlines of Mr. Rove's grand jury testimony about the conversation as portrayed in news accounts.
|
I don't expect this to still the cries of "Rove lied! "Rove lied!" but at least it makes it plain he didn't.
Besides, aren't these Democrats screaming for Rove's head the same ones who claimed lying under oath wasn't a big deal? Around 1998, maybe?
Quote:
|
sleep well, rightwingers: the national review has figured everything out.
|
Too bad many others haven't.