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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doug R who wrote (52199)	7/11/2005 6:15:12 PM
From: geode00	Respond to of 173976

Bush Puts Partisan Politics Ahead of National Security Posted by Jesse Berney on July 11, 2005 at 03:30 PM The revelation that Karl Rove was the source who leaked Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent to Time's Matt Cooper probably comes as a surprise to exactly nobody. After all, dirty tricks have been the hallmark of Rove's political career since he was a teenager. As this story continues to unfold over the next few weeks, Republicans are going to try to parse every word Rove ever uttered about the case. They're going to dissect every letter of relevant law trying to find a loophole to prove that Karl Rove is innocent. But let's make one thing perfectly clear: Rove's secret outing of Valerie Plame put partisan politics above the security of our nation. He chose to reveal Plame's identity as a CIA agent, with no thought to the consequences to American national security, simply because it provided an opportunity to smear her husband. And this is part of a pattern. When Democrats proposed creating the Department of Homeland Security, Republicans fought it until they saw a partisan advantage to exploit in the 2002 elections. When the September 11 Commission was trying to get the facts about the terrorist attacks on our soil, the administration fought them every step of the way. And the war in Iraq is a disaster today because President Bush and his team have consistently chosen to score political points instead of doing the right thing. And that, ultimately, is what this is about. It's about an administration that chose to ruin a woman's career, expose a CIA agent, and smear an ambassador's name all for the sake of spreading more lies about a threat that never existed. The Bush administration will do anything -- absolutely anything -- to further its partisan politics. Don't you wish they'd put that kind of effort into protecting America? democrats.org ========= Now can the Dems stay united to stop the operation of the Senate if Bush decides to nominate Scalia II?

To: Doug R who wrote (52199)	7/11/2005 6:30:20 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

"I never had a doubt that have an opinion about Rove and that you knew what the transcript means." THAT makes no sense. (you left out a word in your haste to continue obfuscation.) It would probably help if I break it down into short sentences. Since you noticed I left out the word 'you' then your lack of comprehension must be do to the length of the sentence. 1) You have an opinion about Rove. 2) I don't doubt that you have an opinion about Rove. 3) You know what the transcript means. 4) I don't doubt that you know what the transcript means. 5) The article is evidence to you that Scott is colluding with Rove et al. What I contributed was my opinion. 1) I doubt that Rove can be convicted of a crime. 2) The American people will not like it if it appears that he is lying, or covering up. 3) Either way this episode is fuel for unending conspiracy theories. The meaning of my contribution is that if the American people are left with a feeling of distrust they will judge Rove more harshly than if he actually intended harm to Plame. The worst harm is that she become unable to perform undercover work which she wasn't doing anyway. It also is obvious to me that even though Plame is probably of little or no concern for most of you wingers, you see this as a way to cut some political hay. If the American people pick up on that, your mock outrage will produce an even bigger yawn than a yelling Gore. In addition to that, it is obvious to me that you have tried and convicted Rove beyond a shadow of doubt in your own mind. You are convinced that he has committed a heinous crime and you seem frustrated that I wont validate that point of view. Is that correct?