Reality just doesn't exit for NOBBY.



Doug Kanter wrote:
Doug, you know as well as I do that Monica could have choked to death during
her generous act of kindness. Therefore, Clinton's crime was just as serious
as the one committed by whomever "outed" the CIA agent, which might have
resulted in similar loss of one human life.


It was also a VERY serious crime for a person with NOBBY's professed
belief in regard to the utmost sanctity of potential human life.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Rove "isn't a target of the investigation", and yet the Democrats and
liberal press are jumping all over him. Would you like to bet that the
critics have egg on their collective faces once this investigation
unfolds completely?


How many years has it taken so far? Wanna bet the next 3 1/2 years fly by
with not conclusion?

You're a funny guy, you know? Who do you think decides who's a target?


The prosecutor.

Now don't ask me who pulls *his* strings, because I'm fully aware that
*all* investigations in Washington are a case of the fox guarding the hen
house.


Maybe President Bush's declaration that he'd get to the bottom of this was
just as feeble as his declaration that he'd get Osama Bin Laden.


It's really no different from Jamie Gorelick sitting on a committee
investigating 9/11 failures (and cover-ups a la Sandy Berger). She
drafted the damn memo that had us handling terrorism as a domestic
criminal act rather than an international act of war.


Doug Kanter wrote:
Just wanted to make sure that in your own head, you weren't living in a
fairy tale (again). :-)

Oh, he's still living in a fairy tale... notice how it's the Dems fault
that Rove is possibly under suspicion in a case the Bush declared a
horrible crime that he'd pursue no matter who it was? Notice how NOBBY
retreated to insisting that Clinton was worse (blow job! evil!)?

I never mentioned Clinton by name.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"DSK" wrote in message
...

Oh, he's still living in a fairy tale... notice how it's the Dems fault
that Rove is possibly under suspicion in a case the Bush declared a
horrible crime that he'd pursue no matter who it was? Notice how NOBBY
retreated to insisting that Clinton was worse (blow job! evil!)?

Reality just doesn't exit for NOBBY.

DSK


Doug, you know as well as I do that Monica could have choked to death
during her generous act of kindness.

More likely, she probably contracted an STD.

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Rove "isn't a target of the investigation", and yet the Democrats and
liberal press are jumping all over him. Would you like to bet that
the critics have egg on their collective faces once this investigation
unfolds completely?


How many years has it taken so far? Wanna bet the next 3 1/2 years fly by
with not conclusion?

You're a funny guy, you know? Who do you think decides who's a target?


The prosecutor.

Now don't ask me who pulls *his* strings, because I'm fully aware that
*all* investigations in Washington are a case of the fox guarding the
hen house.


Maybe President Bush's declaration that he'd get to the bottom of this
was just as feeble as his declaration that he'd get Osama Bin Laden.


It's really no different from Jamie Gorelick sitting on a committee
investigating 9/11 failures (and cover-ups a la Sandy Berger). She
drafted the damn memo that had us handling terrorism as a domestic
criminal act rather than an international act of war.


Doug Kanter wrote:
Just wanted to make sure that in your own head, you weren't living in a
fairy tale (again). :-)

Oh, he's still living in a fairy tale... notice how it's the Dems fault
that Rove is possibly under suspicion in a case the Bush declared a
horrible crime that he'd pursue no matter who it was? Notice how NOBBY
retreated to insisting that Clinton was worse (blow job! evil!)?

I never mentioned Clinton by name.


Not today.

HarryKrause wrote:
NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Luskin has said he has been told by
the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, that Rove is not a target of the
investigation.

Rove "isn't a target of the investigation", and yet the Democrats and
liberal press are jumping all over him. Would you like to bet that the
critics have egg on their collective faces once this investigation unfolds
completely?

Bush promised to "take appropriate action" if any member of his
administration was found involved in the matter.

I am looking at the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle which has
pulled out several past quotes from Bush administration and put them
under the headline: "ROVE UNDER FIRE"

"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it
is... If the person has violated the law, that person will be taken
care of." President Bush - 2/10/2004

"Involved" doesn't mean criminal activity.

Why hasn't Rove been fired?

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
oups.com...


I am looking at the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle which has
pulled out several past quotes from Bush administration and put them
under the headline: "ROVE UNDER FIRE"

"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it
is... If the person has violated the law, that person will be taken
care of." President Bush - 2/10/2004

I wish we knew how many of his staff heard him say that and thought to
themselves "Aw jeez....who let him say that?"

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Curtis CCR wrote:

HarryKrause wrote:
NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Luskin has said he has been told by
the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, that Rove is not a target of the
investigation.
Rove "isn't a target of the investigation", and yet the Democrats and
liberal press are jumping all over him. Would you like to bet that the
critics have egg on their collective faces once this investigation
unfolds
completely?

Bush promised to "take appropriate action" if any member of his
administration was found involved in the matter.

I am looking at the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle which has
pulled out several past quotes from Bush administration and put them
under the headline: "ROVE UNDER FIRE"

"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it
is... If the person has violated the law, that person will be taken
care of." President Bush - 2/10/2004

"Involved" doesn't mean criminal activity.

Why hasn't Rove been fired?



There have been other statements from the White House that call for firing
without the mention of illegality.

Unless Rove is paid as an independent consultant, we'd have to finance his
unemployment insurance. Better to keep him on the payroll where he's at
least a little more visible.

John H. wrote:

Rove did not leak a name.

And that is the ONLY thing that the Republicans think will save his and
their asses. The fact that Rove didn't use a proper name when outing
the operative. Let's put this another way. Do you think that it was
proper and prudent to the security of the U.S. and the C.I.A. for Rove
to do that? Why do you think he did what he did?

Doug Kanter wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Curtis CCR wrote:

HarryKrause wrote:
NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Luskin has said he has been told by
the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, that Rove is not a target of the
investigation.
Rove "isn't a target of the investigation", and yet the Democrats and
liberal press are jumping all over him. Would you like to bet that the
critics have egg on their collective faces once this investigation
unfolds
completely?

Bush promised to "take appropriate action" if any member of his
administration was found involved in the matter.

I am looking at the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle which has
pulled out several past quotes from Bush administration and put them
under the headline: "ROVE UNDER FIRE"

"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it
is... If the person has violated the law, that person will be taken
care of." President Bush - 2/10/2004

"Involved" doesn't mean criminal activity.

Why hasn't Rove been fired?



There have been other statements from the White House that call for firing
without the mention of illegality.

Unless Rove is paid as an independent consultant, we'd have to finance his
unemployment insurance. Better to keep him on the payroll where he's at
least a little more visible.

The only people who could possibly think that Rove isn't the one who
did this, are fools. Really. Rove has said as much himself.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:56:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:35:48 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Luskin has said he has been told by
the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, that Rove is not a target of the
investigation.

Rove "isn't a target of the investigation", and yet the Democrats and
liberal press are jumping all over him. Would you like to bet that the
critics have egg on their collective faces once this investigation
unfolds
completely?






Bush promised to "take appropriate action" if any member of his
administration was found involved in the matter.


"Involved" doesn't mean criminal activity.

Why hasn't Rove been fired?

"...involved in the matter..." and "... leaking the name of an
undercover CIA officer..." are not the same Harry.

Rove did not leak a name.

If was "involved" before a name was leaked, it was his patriotic duty to
have the soon-to-be-guilty party busted, and fast.

Notice the word "if", which indicates conjecture, just like your "Rove did
not...." comment.


So Rove knew who leaked the name?



--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD