Karl Rove Source in Plame Case - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

powerclown · 07-13-2005, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

But we aren't going to know the whole of it until we hear Novak's testimony.

Do we know that Novak is going to testify? When??

This thing is so f----d up. Coverups, unknown sources, inter-government rivalries, nepotism, a million people with a million different agendas.

Cooper and Miller both have sources the prosecution wants. He gets Coopers source through his employer (Cooper's wife's father's company..wtf is that??), and Miller goes to jail, which is STILL a mystery, because she's not even directly involved with running the story. Meanwhile, the guy who revealed the agent's name to the public - Novak - remains silent (and free).

pan6467 · 07-13-2005, 05:44 PM

We may never know, but I'm sure Papa Bush knows and if he isn't sickened by all this then there's something wrong with the man. Politics is one thing, but watching someone from a secret agency you were head of be exposed for political advancement and to hurt someone is uncalled for and a disgrace.

Papa Bush should be taking whoever to task and ripping them a new ass, and telling W to dump them.

Elphaba · 07-13-2005, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Do we know that Novak is going to testify? When??

This thing is so f----d up. Coverups, unknown sources, inter-government rivalries, nepotism, a million people with a million different agendas.

Cooper and Miller both have sources the prosecution wants. He gets Coopers source through his employer (Cooper's wife's father's company..wtf is that??), and Miller goes to jail, which is STILL a mystery, because she's not even directly involved with running the story. Meanwhile, the guy who revealed the agent's name to the public - Novak - remains silent (and free).

PowerClown, Novak has testified, long ago. Cooper's wife's father hasn't been the head of Time for sometime, but I wonder why this relationship amazes you. Miller chose to go to jail for a reason that I believe served her well. Are you making any effort to follow this case in the news? You seem to be dumbfounded by every aspect including why this isn't "old news."

powerclown · 07-13-2005, 08:11 PM

I hear you, pan.
And there's blame enough here to go around for everyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

PowerClown, Novak has testified, long ago. Cooper's wife's father hasn't been the head of Time for sometime, but I wonder why this relationship amazes you. Miller chose to go to jail for a reason that I believe served her well. Are you making any effort to follow this case in the news? You seem to be dumbfounded by every aspect including why this isn't "old news."

Yeah, thats solid stuff Elphaba. I always appreciate blatant condescension.

For the 1st 3/4 of this thread, I patiently fielded questions from those who hadn't a clue about this case. You included.
Now I ask a question and I get this bullshit.

You don't seem to understand that Novak has a lot of public explaining to do, you don't see the TIME angle, you don't know why Miller went to jail, and you don't see the relevance of the (mis)timing of this whole thing.

Nice talking to you, Elphaba. I'll miss the sarcasm.

host · 07-14-2005, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Do we know that Novak is going to testify? When??

This thing is so f----d up. Coverups, unknown sources, inter-government rivalries, nepotism, a million people with a million different agendas.

Cooper and Miller both have sources the prosecution wants. He gets Coopers source through his employer (Cooper's wife's father's company..wtf is that??), and Miller goes to jail, which is STILL a mystery, because she's not even directly involved with running the story. Meanwhile, the guy who revealed the agent's name to the public - Novak - remains silent (and free).

powerclown - I am curious about your reference to "nepotism" in this "thing".
What has influenced you that nepotism contributes to "This thing is so f----d up"?

I'm going to further a discussion of how, IMO, "nepotism" fits into this "thing" on a new thread. I think that you will all find it quite interesting.

What do Karl Rove, Bob Novak, Ken Mehlman, Sen. Pat Roberts (KS - R), Jeff Guckert, and....the first poster at TFP Politics to "associate" the Plame "outing" with "nepotism", all have in common?

The answer is on my new TFP Politics thread, here:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=1838608#post1838608">Aiding and Abetting a Traitor: Conspiracy to "Save" Rove via Repub's NEPOTISM "Op"</a>

powerclown · 07-14-2005, 07:55 AM

Nepotism here refers to 2 things:

1) Plame sent her anti-war, Clinton Administration husband to report on war-related intelligence. Nobody else seemed to have officially sanctioned the trip.
2) Cooper's father-in-law's company cooperated with the prosecution, but Judith Miller didn't.

Curious, to say the least.

roachboy · 07-14-2005, 08:11 AM

how exactly is it that you, powerclown--and the bush administration as well--have managed to collapse the political fallout from this entirely into the minutae of a legal investigation the parameters of which no-one actually knows about yet?
how did it happen that everyone who supports the administration acts as though what is being debated is a trial?
the strategy seems to be pretend that there is no such thing as the political, cut directly to a nebulous pseudo-legal environment and repeat the same claims oriented toward that environment over and over and over.
within that space, it seems to me that the right makes clinton look like a piker in their ability to collapse registers and thread speculative legal arguments rooted in a definition-narrowing operation that any crackhead would recognize and even admire for its virtuosity....

i remember----as i am sure you do, powerclown-----the same political operatives making up a murder (vince foster) and putting clinton and his wife on trial for it day after day across the medium of right radio when they were in opposition.
so in this case, we are being asked to take seriously the masters of reactionary sleaze a decade ago when they now try to present themselves as the Defenders of Propriety here....
how does that work?

what is interesting in all this is that the critiques of rove are almost across the board far more measured, far less wanton, than any parallel sleaze campaign organized by the right and directed against their Enemies.

you're an intelligent guy, powerclown: why does this not make you feel as though your head is going to explode?

powerclown · 07-14-2005, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

how exactly is it that you, powerclown--and the bush administration as well--have managed to collapse the political fallout from this entirely into the minutae of a legal investigation the parameters of which no-one actually knows about yet?
how did it happen that everyone who supports the administration acts as though what is being debated is a trial?
the strategy seems to be pretend that there is no such thing as the political, cut directly to a nebulous pseudo-legal environment and repeat the same claims oriented toward that environment over and over and over.
within that space, it seems to me that the right makes clinton look like a piker in their ability to collapse registers and thread speculative legal arguments rooted in a definition-narrowing operation that any crackhead would recognize and even admire for its virtuosity....

i remember----as i am sure you do, powerclown-----the same political operatives making up a murder (vince foster) and putting clinton and his wife on trial for it day after day across the medium of right radio when they were in opposition.
so in this case, we are being asked to take seriously the masters of reactionary sleaze a decade ago when they now try to present themselves as the Defenders of Propriety here....
how does that work?

what is interesting in all this is that the critiques of rove are almost across the board far more measured, far less wanton, than any parallel sleaze campaign organized by the right and directed against their Enemies.

you're an intelligent guy, powerclown: why does this not make you feel as though your head is going to explode?

It's the Age of the Internet, baby. Power to the People.

With so much information so readily available - like the actual (assuming) transcripts to Senate Intelligence Hearings, for example - it's much simpler to come to an informed opinion than it was 10 years ago, no? But going by your critique for a moment, if the right is so thorough, so historically adept at organizing a sleaze campaign, how is it that this thing has seen the light of day? Shouldn't the right have been able to bury this? I'm sure you are aware that there are dozens of leaks - dozens of investigations - every MONTH in Washington DC, and 99.99% of them fade away. "Internal Matters." "Not Suitable for Public Consumption." Reporters who cover the DC scene are very rarely asked by a grand jury to reveal their sources. So what makes this different?

You mention a pseudo-legal environment, and I would agree with you to a certain extent, and that's the price to be paid for information transparency, or what passes for today. This case has been an interesting example I think of the power of the web, the power of the free flow of information in shaping public opinion. How deep could the average citizen have dug into the Foster case 10 years ago, for example?

roachboy · 07-14-2005, 09:07 AM

i think that the defenses that are being floated from the right are in fact an attempt to bury the issue. waiting for supreme court nomination to blow up and knock this off the front page. there is nothing more to it than that.

moosenose · 07-14-2005, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

You have it wrong, IMO, moosenose, about you (your POV and how you convey it here) being "far less of a threat to me", than the "mods or admin" at TFP are. The mindset that it takes to write what you wrote in your last post, combined with your opinion that your point of view is reasonable, or even "American" <b>"then encouraged others to commit what some would call "acts of civil disobedience" and the rest of us would refer to as "felonies"</b>, is indicative of the gulf that exists between you and those of us who have an understanding and an admiration for the words contained in Thomas Jefferson's <a href="http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html">"Declaration of Independence."</a>

What's funny here is that according to your statements, you did NOT commit an act of civil disobedience when you committed your felony. Why? Because part of an act of "Civil Disobedience" is BEING PUT IN JAIL, and rather than do that, by your own admission, you ran away and hid. Remember Rosa Parks getting arrested and thrown in jail? Remember her being asked to move by the police, her refusal to do so, and her subsequent arrest? Remember MLK in an Alabama jail? Why was he there? Because he thought the law was wrong, stood up and said "This law is Wrong, I have broken it, arrest me." Remember Cassius Clay/Muhammed Ali? Remember his saying "I will not fight in this war"? Remember his trial and conviction? Remember his being in prison? THOSE were acts of civil disobedience. Yours was not.

BTW, by bringing up the Declaration of Independence, I trust that you are NOT calling for people on this board to revolt against the current government, are you?

Quote:

Is it your opinion, moosenose, that you could draw an analogy between my "crimes", as you label them, and a description of the activities of a child molestor, into an argument that would persuade anyone that your post is
"reasonable"? The only consistancy is that your tone is still threatening and designed to discourage discussion and protest.

Actually, Pedophiles have a mental illness which drives their criminality. Your actions were the act of a sane mind, unless you consider what the British called "LMF" in WWII to be a mental illness. So which is worse? A mentally ill person breaching the social contract because of their mental illness, or a person who is sane breaching the social contract "just because"? In my book, the mentally ill person belongs in a mental hospital, while the sane person belongs in prison, because the mentally ill person essentially has a diminished capacity to resist his particular brand of criminality, while the sane person is FAR more criminally culpable, because he or she did not have a mental illness, but instead acted out of personal gain in the form of abrogating their duties as an American to avoid that duty which was imposed upon them by law.

Quote:

You are not "Federal LEO", yet you still intone that you have a "jurisdiction".
You mention your ""personal network" of friends and professional associates",
but you state that it would not be rational of me to view them as a "threat".
Why mention them at all, unless it is to try to "influence me"? Heaven knows
what resources are at their disposal, especailly the "professionals" in your network, to deal with the likes of me, if called upon.

There are many ways to be an employee of the Federal Government other than being a LEO, and there are many ways to be an LEO without being "Federal". Many people have "jurisdictions" that are not "Federal LEOs". I'm sure that on your six or seven year oddessy prior to being pardoned, you found many "friends and professional associates" while tooling around in the underground. I'm sure that some of them were there for more than what you did. Does that make them a threat to me? You speak of "resources at their disposal", to "deal with the likes of you". Have you ever heard the phrase "Duty, Honor, Country"? They use their resources to deal with people who break the law, because that is their duty. They do not misuse their authority (be it Constitutionally or Statutorily provided) because to do so would be a stain upon their collective honor. And they put themselves in harms way to do their jobs because they love their country. They sure as hell don't do it for the money. And I certainly haven't talked with them about you.

Quote:

Consider that, in your own words, when you try to shift my focus from you, because of confrontational statements you've directed at me, to those who you perceive as most likely to "inform" on me, you likely demonstrate to more than a few of us here, how removed you are from what we consider being an "American" is; i.e., a non-violent, informed, reasonable, tolerant person.

So I suppose those of us who don't think as you do are not real "Americans"? Considering the results of the 2004 election, I think you may be in the minority on that...after all, look at all the vitriol directed at the "Red States" after 2004 by the Left...

In my book, people who try and sell the slogan "Treason is Patriotic!" to the American People are misguided. And before you make noises about Rove, please refer to Article 3 § 3 of the US Constitution and try to apply it to what Rove is alleged to have done.

Quote:

The tone in your posts is inappropriate here, and in Amercia, from my point of
view. Nothing that I said in the following three quoted posts on this thread,
warranted the following from you. You still do not recognize it, judging by the tone, technique, and content in your last post.

Ah. Now we're back to the Left's favorite Mantra: "Free Speech for Me, But None For Thee!" Remember how "First Amendment Zones" came into existence? That wasn't the RIGHT trying to muzzle the Left....

You have a point of view. So do I. That's the great thing about America....people can and do have different points of view. It's only when a person's point of view crosses the line from being a "point of view" and turns into a "crime" that there is a problem. This happens more frequently than you might think. For example, I heard on NPR yesterday about one of the so-called "Paintball Jihadists". The person in question expressed his "point of view" to his friends. His friends took action based upon his "point of view" as he expressed it to them. They are all in federal prison now, his friends for going to Pakistan and training for Jihad, and him for inciting and encouraging them to break the law by expressing his "point of view" about how they should go to Pakistan and train for Jihad. Basically, he said "Go break the law". They did. And he went to jail for it.

tecoyah · 07-14-2005, 02:50 PM

We all have our points of view.......feel free to express them here...but,

When the shit gets personal.....tones change and threads die

Here is a prime example

07-13-2005, 05:44 PM	#122 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	We may never know, but I'm sure Papa Bush knows and if he isn't sickened by all this then there's something wrong with the man. Politics is one thing, but watching someone from a secret agency you were head of be exposed for political advancement and to hurt someone is uncalled for and a disgrace. Papa Bush should be taking whoever to task and ripping them a new ass, and telling W to dump them. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

07-14-2005, 08:11 AM	#127 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	how exactly is it that you, powerclown--and the bush administration as well--have managed to collapse the political fallout from this entirely into the minutae of a legal investigation the parameters of which no-one actually knows about yet? how did it happen that everyone who supports the administration acts as though what is being debated is a trial? the strategy seems to be pretend that there is no such thing as the political, cut directly to a nebulous pseudo-legal environment and repeat the same claims oriented toward that environment over and over and over. within that space, it seems to me that the right makes clinton look like a piker in their ability to collapse registers and thread speculative legal arguments rooted in a definition-narrowing operation that any crackhead would recognize and even admire for its virtuosity.... i remember----as i am sure you do, powerclown-----the same political operatives making up a murder (vince foster) and putting clinton and his wife on trial for it day after day across the medium of right radio when they were in opposition. so in this case, we are being asked to take seriously the masters of reactionary sleaze a decade ago when they now try to present themselves as the Defenders of Propriety here.... how does that work? what is interesting in all this is that the critiques of rove are almost across the board far more measured, far less wanton, than any parallel sleaze campaign organized by the right and directed against their Enemies. you're an intelligent guy, powerclown: why does this not make you feel as though your head is going to explode? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-14-2005, 09:07 AM	#129 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i think that the defenses that are being floated from the right are in fact an attempt to bury the issue. waiting for supreme court nomination to blow up and knock this off the front page. there is nothing more to it than that. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-14-2005, 02:50 PM	#131 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Enough We all have our points of view.......feel free to express them here...but, When the shit gets personal.....tones change and threads die Here is a prime example __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

07-14-2005, 07:55 AM	#126 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Nepotism here refers to 2 things: 1) Plame sent her anti-war, Clinton Administration husband to report on war-related intelligence. Nobody else seemed to have officially sanctioned the trip. 2) Cooper's father-in-law's company cooperated with the prosecution, but Judith Miller didn't. Curious, to say the least.