Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (23246)	10/2/2003 4:25:32 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Only idiots, pinheads and Bush hating morons fail to understand the Bush Administration's response.... The answer is clear....Rove did not do it, the Administration does not believe it was a WH person and Bush is very interested in finding out who the leaker is and canning his ass....

To: TigerPaw who wrote (23246)	10/2/2003 5:41:38 PM
From: Skywatcher	Respond to of 93284

The Most Insidious of Traitors © October 1, 2003 The Daily Brew While witnessing the whole Plame-Treason investigation play itself out, it is important that we view the scandal as it really is, and not as the White House seeks to portray it. Bush would have us believe that he does not know the identity of Robert Novak's source. In Chicago, Bush said " I want to know who the leakers are." These and other statements allow the White House to pretend they are the innocent victims of a rogue element within their ranks. This, in turn, creates a veneer of cooperation on the part of the White House as the investigation moves forward. The fundamental premise, however, is most assuredly false. Even a moment's reflection makes it obvious that Bush already knows the identity of Novak's source. Consider the alternative. If Bush really didn't know the identity of the source, he could find out in less than ten minutes. If Bush really wanted to get to the bottom of the story, all he need do is summon Robert Novak to his office, look him in the eye, and say: "Mr. Novak, I want you to put the national security interests of the United States of America ahead of whatever responsibility you may feel you have to the persons who committed treason by telling you Valerie Plame's name. I want you to give me their names right now, and if you do not, I am going to go on national television and tell the American public that I asked you for this information, and you refused to give it to me." Does anyone believe for a second that Robert Novak is going to tell the President of the United States that he would choose to protect a criminal, even if it were his "source," over assisting a Republican President in protecting American national security? Does anyone believe for a minute that Novak would rather have the American public know that Bush asked him for this information, and he said no? The fact that this conversation hasn't happened is the dead giveaway that Bush doesn't need to ask Novak to know the answer. Bush already knows who the leak is. The only other alternative, that Bush does not want to know, is even less plausible. Consider that for a moment. When one considers how easily the Bush administration could solve this mystery, the only rational presumption in the Plame-Treason investigation is that Bush ALREADY KNOWS WHO THE LEAK IS. To assume Bush does not know, or to assume that Bush does not want to know, is patent nonsense. When interpreted in light of that presumption, the actions by the White House take on an entirely different veneer. The Bush administration KNOWS who the leak is. The fact that they have not revealed the name to the Justice Department or the American public tells us how important the White House feels it is to protect this individual. The Bush administration is telling us that they cannot simply ask for this individual's resignation. The Bush administration is telling us that, in their mind at least, the presidency is at stake. CC

To: TigerPaw who wrote (23246)	10/2/2003 8:06:51 PM
From: KonKilo	Respond to of 93284

This exchange from Monday's WH press conference speaks volumes, between the lines. QUESTION: Did Rove say, "ridiculous"? McCLELLAN: I did, for him. QUESTION: Did you speak with him about it? McCLELLAN: Yes, I've spoken to him. QUESTION: But he told you, "ridiculous"? McCLELLAN: No, I said -- I told some of your colleagues that it was ridiculous. And, remember, I said this back -- what, July and September this issue came up, and said essentially what I've said now. QUESTION: Can you characterize your conversation with him about this? McCLELLAN: I talk to him all the time, so -- QUESTION: About this? McCLELLAN: No, about a lot of issues. QUESTION: But can you characterize your conversation about this subject with him? McCLELLAN: I don't think there's anything to characterize. I mean, I think that what I said speaks clearly, that the accusations just simply are not true. <...> QUESTION: Has the President either asked Karl Rove to assure him that he had nothing to do with this; or did Karl Rove go to the President to assure him that he -- McCLELLAN: I don't think he needs that. I think I've -- and I've spoken clearly to this publicly that -- but it's -- yes, I've just said it's -- there's no truth to it. QUESTION: But I mean -- McCLELLAN: So I think it doesn't -- QUESTION: But is the President getting his information from you? Or did the President and Karl Rove talk, and were there assurances given that Rove was not involved? McCLELLAN: I've already provided those assurances to you publicly. QUESTION: Yes, but I'm just wondering if there was a conversation between Karl Rove and the President, or if he just talked to you, and you're here at this -- McCLELLAN: He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved. QUESTION: How does he know that? QUESTION: How does he know that? McCLELLAN: The President knows. QUESTION: What, is he clairvoyant? How does he know? QUESTION: You spoke specifically -- you spoke to Rove specifically about this matter, correct? McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? QUESTION: You spoke to Rove specifically about this matter? You asked him whether or not he was the leaker, or -- McCLELLAN: I don't know what the relevance of getting into every private conversation, John -- is, John. I've made it very clear that it's simply not true. QUESTION: Based on what? QUESTION: Based on what? QUESTION: What are you basing -- what are you -- McCLELLAN: Someone asked me if I had spoken with him, and I said, yes. QUESTION: And you spoke with him about this issue? QUESTION: Did you ask him, directly? McCLELLAN: I have spoken with him, yes. QUESTION: But the President hasn't spoken with him directly about this issue? You have and the President hasn't? McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Keith. QUESTION: Well, that was the question. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? QUESTION: You spoke directly with Rove about this? McCLELLAN: I have spoken -- I speak to him all the time, on a lot of things. QUESTION: He categorically denied to you -- McCLELLAN: I just told you, it's simply not true. QUESTION: Yes, but you refuse to say whether or not it was Rove who told you it's untrue. McCLELLAN: No, no, I spoke to Rove. I spoke to him about -- no, I spoke to him about these accusations, I've spoken to him. QUESTION: And Rove told you that they were not true -- McCLELLAN: That's why I would be telling -- QUESTION: -- or is it just you -- McCLELLAN: That's why I would be telling you what I did. QUESTION: -- or is it just you who is telling us? McCLELLAN: No, I have spoken to him and been assured. And that's why I reported to you and reported to the media that it is simply not true. I like to check my sources, just like you do.