He cannot fire Rove. There's be nobody left to determine policy.

"ed" wrote in message
...
Just another one of Bush's Lies, He said he would FIRE who ever leak the
information, ok now it turns out to be one of his friends and he has
NOTHING to say. We already know he lied to the American people about the
Iraq war and now this proves you cant beleive what he says.
wrote in message
ups.com...
Rove under fire
White House won't answer questions on new evidence in leak
Richard W. Stevenson, New York Times

Tuesday, July 12, 2005


Printable Version
Email This Article




Washington -- Nearly two years after stating that any administration
official found to have been involved in leaking the name of an
undercover CIA officer would be fired, and assuring that Karl Rove and
other senior aides to President Bush had nothing to do with the
disclosure, the White House refused on Monday to answer any questions
about new evidence of Rove's role in the matter.

With the White House silent, Democrats rushed in, demanding that the
administration provide a full account of any involvement by Rove, one
of the president's closest advisers, turning up the political heat in
the long- simmering case and leaving some Republicans worried about the
possible effects on Bush's second-term agenda.

Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, cited Bush's
past statements about firing anyone involved in the leak and said, "I
trust they will follow through on this pledge."

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and a private group, Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, called on Bush to suspend
Rove's security clearances, shutting him out of classified meetings.

And Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said it is
"disturbing that this high-ranking Bush adviser is not only still
working in the White House, but now has a significant role in setting
our national security policy."

In two contentious news briefings, the White House press secretary,
Scott McClellan, would not directly address any of a barrage of
questions about Rove's involvement, a day after new evidence surfaced
suggesting that Rove had discussed the CIA officer with a reporter from
Time magazine in July 2003 without identifying her by name.

Under often hostile questioning, McClellan repeatedly declined to say
whether he stood behind his previous statements that Rove had played no
role in the matter, saying he could not comment while a criminal
investigation was under way.

He brushed aside questions about whether the president would follow
through on his pledge, reiterated just over a year ago, to fire anyone
in his administration found to have played a role in disclosing the
officer's identity. And he declined to say when Bush learned that Rove
had mentioned the CIA officer in his conversation with Time magazine
reporter Matthew Cooper.

No comment

Rove made no public comment. A senior administration official, who
spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House now says
its position is not to comment on the case while it is under
investigation by a federal special prosecutor, said Rove had gone about
his business as usual Monday.

The criminal investigation into how the CIA officer's name came to
appear in a syndicated newspaper column two years ago continued largely
out of public view. But the disclosure in recent days of evidence that
Rove had discussed the CIA officer's identity, albeit in a vague way,
thrust the case squarely back into the political arena, reflecting
Rove's standing as among the most powerful men in Washington and his
place in the innermost councils of the White House.

Because of the powerful role Rove plays in shaping policy and deploying
Bush's political support and machinery throughout the party, few
Republicans were willing to discuss his situation on the record. Asked
for comment on Monday, several Republican senators said they did not
know enough or did not want to venture an opinion.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, merely responded to
the comments by his counterpart, Dean, by saying: "It's disappointing
that once again, so many Democratic leaders are taking their political
cues from the far left. ...The bottom line is the Democrats are engaged
in blatant partisan political attacks."

Rove, Bush's senior adviser, deputy chief of staff and political
strategist, was plunged into the center of the matter Sunday, when
Newsweek reported that an e-mail written by a Time magazine reporter
had recounted a conversation with Rove in July 2003 in which Rove had
discussed the CIA operative at the heart of the case without naming
her.

Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has said the e-mail showed that Rove was
not taking part in any organized effort to disclose the identity of the
operative, Valerie Plame Wilson, the wife of Joseph Wilson. Wilson is a
former diplomat who traveled to Africa on behalf of the CIA before the
Iraq war to investigate reports concerning Saddam Hussein's efforts to
acquire nuclear material.

In July 2003, several months after Hussein was toppled, Wilson publicly
disputed one of the administration's claims about the Iraqi nuclear
program. He has suggested that the White House sought retribution by
publicly identifying his wife, first in a syndicated column written by
Robert Novak, effectively ending her career as a covert operative.

Flat denial

In the fall of 2003, McClellan said flatly that Rove had not been
involved in disclosing Plame's name. Asked about the issue on Sept. 29,
2003, McClellan said he had spoken with Karl Rove, and that it was not
true that Rove had a role in the disclosure of her identity.

Two weeks earlier, he had called suggestions that Rove had been
involved ridiculous. On Oct. 10, 2003, after the Justice Department
opened its formal investigation, he said Rove, national security aide
Elliot Abrams and I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of
staff, had nothing to do with the leak.

McClellan and Bush have both made clear that the White House would
consider leaking Plame's identity a firing offense. Bush was asked
about that position most recently a little over a year ago, when he was
asked whether he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have
leaked the officer's name. "Yes," he replied, June 10, 2004.

Under some circumstances, it can be against the law to disclose the
identity of a covert CIA operative. Luskin has said he has been told by
the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, that Rove is not a target of the
investigation.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
He cannot fire Rove. There's be nobody left to determine policy.


The hell you say. There's still the Tinman with No Heart (Cheney), and the
Lion without Bravery (Chickenhawk Rumsfeld) backing up the brainless
Scarecrow.

Let's not forget the First Dog. :-)

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:37:00 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:

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

Makes perfect sense. You use a rice cooker?
Harry, what the phuque is a rice cooker????
A kitchen electrical pot in which you place measured amounts of rice and
water. It steams the rice until it is perfectly cooked. Mine is about the
size of a two quart pot, and it has a glass cover. They're inexpensive.
They're also called "rice steamers."

Here's one:

http://importfood.com/ricecooker.html


Some oriental families I know have very large and somehow boxlike rice
cookers. Chinese restaurants also use the bigger units.

I thought a pot with a lid did just fine for the past 30 years. I guess I
was wrong. :-)




You was wrong.

Actually, I use ours mostly when I am cooking a bunch of stuff at the
same time in four or five pots and the oven. As you know, you have to
keep an eye on rice to cook it properly, and the rice cooker not only
keeps its eye on the rice, as it were, but it also frees up a cooktop
burner.

Please show me something that says to keep an eye on rice to cook it properly.
If you've been raising the lid to look, no wonder a 'rice cooker' is your method
of choice.

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

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:18:23 -0700, "ed" wrote:

Just another one of Bush's Lies, He said he would FIRE who ever leak the
information, ok now it turns out to be one of his friends and he has NOTHING
to say. We already know he lied to the American people about the Iraq war
and now this proves you cant beleive what he says.
wrote in message
oups.com...
Rove under fire
White House won't answer questions on new evidence in leak
Richard W. Stevenson, New York Times

Tuesday, July 12, 2005


Printable Version
Email This Article




Washington -- Nearly two years after stating that any administration
official found to have been involved in leaking the name of an
undercover CIA officer would be fired, and assuring that Karl Rove and
other senior aides to President Bush had nothing to do with the
disclosure, the White House refused on Monday to answer any questions
about new evidence of Rove's role in the matter.

With the White House silent, Democrats rushed in, demanding that the
administration provide a full account of any involvement by Rove, one
of the president's closest advisers, turning up the political heat in
the long- simmering case and leaving some Republicans worried about the
possible effects on Bush's second-term agenda.

Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, cited Bush's
past statements about firing anyone involved in the leak and said, "I
trust they will follow through on this pledge."

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and a private group, Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, called on Bush to suspend
Rove's security clearances, shutting him out of classified meetings.

And Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said it is
"disturbing that this high-ranking Bush adviser is not only still
working in the White House, but now has a significant role in setting
our national security policy."

In two contentious news briefings, the White House press secretary,
Scott McClellan, would not directly address any of a barrage of
questions about Rove's involvement, a day after new evidence surfaced
suggesting that Rove had discussed the CIA officer with a reporter from
Time magazine in July 2003 without identifying her by name.

Under often hostile questioning, McClellan repeatedly declined to say
whether he stood behind his previous statements that Rove had played no
role in the matter, saying he could not comment while a criminal
investigation was under way.

He brushed aside questions about whether the president would follow
through on his pledge, reiterated just over a year ago, to fire anyone
in his administration found to have played a role in disclosing the
officer's identity. And he declined to say when Bush learned that Rove
had mentioned the CIA officer in his conversation with Time magazine
reporter Matthew Cooper.

No comment

Rove made no public comment. A senior administration official, who
spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House now says
its position is not to comment on the case while it is under
investigation by a federal special prosecutor, said Rove had gone about
his business as usual Monday.

The criminal investigation into how the CIA officer's name came to
appear in a syndicated newspaper column two years ago continued largely
out of public view. But the disclosure in recent days of evidence that
Rove had discussed the CIA officer's identity, albeit in a vague way,
thrust the case squarely back into the political arena, reflecting
Rove's standing as among the most powerful men in Washington and his
place in the innermost councils of the White House.

Because of the powerful role Rove plays in shaping policy and deploying
Bush's political support and machinery throughout the party, few
Republicans were willing to discuss his situation on the record. Asked
for comment on Monday, several Republican senators said they did not
know enough or did not want to venture an opinion.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, merely responded to
the comments by his counterpart, Dean, by saying: "It's disappointing
that once again, so many Democratic leaders are taking their political
cues from the far left. ...The bottom line is the Democrats are engaged
in blatant partisan political attacks."

Rove, Bush's senior adviser, deputy chief of staff and political
strategist, was plunged into the center of the matter Sunday, when
Newsweek reported that an e-mail written by a Time magazine reporter
had recounted a conversation with Rove in July 2003 in which Rove had
discussed the CIA operative at the heart of the case without naming
her.

Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has said the e-mail showed that Rove was
not taking part in any organized effort to disclose the identity of the
operative, Valerie Plame Wilson, the wife of Joseph Wilson. Wilson is a
former diplomat who traveled to Africa on behalf of the CIA before the
Iraq war to investigate reports concerning Saddam Hussein's efforts to
acquire nuclear material.

In July 2003, several months after Hussein was toppled, Wilson publicly
disputed one of the administration's claims about the Iraqi nuclear
program. He has suggested that the White House sought retribution by
publicly identifying his wife, first in a syndicated column written by
Robert Novak, effectively ending her career as a covert operative.

Flat denial

In the fall of 2003, McClellan said flatly that Rove had not been
involved in disclosing Plame's name. Asked about the issue on Sept. 29,
2003, McClellan said he had spoken with Karl Rove, and that it was not
true that Rove had a role in the disclosure of her identity.

Two weeks earlier, he had called suggestions that Rove had been
involved ridiculous. On Oct. 10, 2003, after the Justice Department
opened its formal investigation, he said Rove, national security aide
Elliot Abrams and I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of
staff, had nothing to do with the leak.

McClellan and Bush have both made clear that the White House would
consider leaking Plame's identity a firing offense. Bush was asked
about that position most recently a little over a year ago, when he was
asked whether he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have
leaked the officer's name. "Yes," he replied, June 10, 2004.

Under some circumstances, it can be against the law to disclose the
identity of a covert CIA operative. Luskin has said he has been told by
the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, that Rove is not a target of the
investigation.



Bush said he would fire a violator of the law. Who violated the law?

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

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:37:00 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:

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

Makes perfect sense. You use a rice cooker?
Harry, what the phuque is a rice cooker????
A kitchen electrical pot in which you place measured amounts of rice
and
water. It steams the rice until it is perfectly cooked. Mine is about
the
size of a two quart pot, and it has a glass cover. They're inexpensive.
They're also called "rice steamers."

Here's one:

http://importfood.com/ricecooker.html


Some oriental families I know have very large and somehow boxlike rice
cookers. Chinese restaurants also use the bigger units.

I thought a pot with a lid did just fine for the past 30 years. I guess
I
was wrong. :-)




You was wrong.

Actually, I use ours mostly when I am cooking a bunch of stuff at the
same time in four or five pots and the oven. As you know, you have to
keep an eye on rice to cook it properly, and the rice cooker not only
keeps its eye on the rice, as it were, but it also frees up a cooktop
burner.

Please show me something that says to keep an eye on rice to cook it
properly.
If you've been raising the lid to look, no wonder a 'rice cooker' is your
method
of choice.

For once, I have to agree with John. Perhaps some people have issues with
measuring cups, or getting used to a particular stove. There are only 3
variables: Quantities, time and heat. Harry...tune into Emeril Live now and
then. :-)

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:18:23 -0700, "ed" wrote:

Just another one of Bush's Lies, He said he would FIRE who ever leak the
information, ok now it turns out to be one of his friends and he has
NOTHING
to say. We already know he lied to the American people about the Iraq war
and now this proves you cant beleive what he says.
wrote in message
roups.com...
Rove under fire
White House won't answer questions on new evidence in leak
Richard W. Stevenson, New York Times

Tuesday, July 12, 2005


Printable Version
Email This Article




Washington -- Nearly two years after stating that any administration
official found to have been involved in leaking the name of an
undercover CIA officer would be fired, and assuring that Karl Rove and
other senior aides to President Bush had nothing to do with the
disclosure, the White House refused on Monday to answer any questions
about new evidence of Rove's role in the matter.

With the White House silent, Democrats rushed in, demanding that the
administration provide a full account of any involvement by Rove, one
of the president's closest advisers, turning up the political heat in
the long- simmering case and leaving some Republicans worried about the
possible effects on Bush's second-term agenda.

Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, cited Bush's
past statements about firing anyone involved in the leak and said, "I
trust they will follow through on this pledge."

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and a private group, Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, called on Bush to suspend
Rove's security clearances, shutting him out of classified meetings.

And Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said it is
"disturbing that this high-ranking Bush adviser is not only still
working in the White House, but now has a significant role in setting
our national security policy."

In two contentious news briefings, the White House press secretary,
Scott McClellan, would not directly address any of a barrage of
questions about Rove's involvement, a day after new evidence surfaced
suggesting that Rove had discussed the CIA officer with a reporter from
Time magazine in July 2003 without identifying her by name.

Under often hostile questioning, McClellan repeatedly declined to say
whether he stood behind his previous statements that Rove had played no
role in the matter, saying he could not comment while a criminal
investigation was under way.

He brushed aside questions about whether the president would follow
through on his pledge, reiterated just over a year ago, to fire anyone
in his administration found to have played a role in disclosing the
officer's identity. And he declined to say when Bush learned that Rove
had mentioned the CIA officer in his conversation with Time magazine
reporter Matthew Cooper.

No comment

Rove made no public comment. A senior administration official, who
spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House now says
its position is not to comment on the case while it is under
investigation by a federal special prosecutor, said Rove had gone about
his business as usual Monday.

The criminal investigation into how the CIA officer's name came to
appear in a syndicated newspaper column two years ago continued largely
out of public view. But the disclosure in recent days of evidence that
Rove had discussed the CIA officer's identity, albeit in a vague way,
thrust the case squarely back into the political arena, reflecting
Rove's standing as among the most powerful men in Washington and his
place in the innermost councils of the White House.

Because of the powerful role Rove plays in shaping policy and deploying
Bush's political support and machinery throughout the party, few
Republicans were willing to discuss his situation on the record. Asked
for comment on Monday, several Republican senators said they did not
know enough or did not want to venture an opinion.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, merely responded to
the comments by his counterpart, Dean, by saying: "It's disappointing
that once again, so many Democratic leaders are taking their political
cues from the far left. ...The bottom line is the Democrats are engaged
in blatant partisan political attacks."

Rove, Bush's senior adviser, deputy chief of staff and political
strategist, was plunged into the center of the matter Sunday, when
Newsweek reported that an e-mail written by a Time magazine reporter
had recounted a conversation with Rove in July 2003 in which Rove had
discussed the CIA operative at the heart of the case without naming
her.

Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has said the e-mail showed that Rove was
not taking part in any organized effort to disclose the identity of the
operative, Valerie Plame Wilson, the wife of Joseph Wilson. Wilson is a
former diplomat who traveled to Africa on behalf of the CIA before the
Iraq war to investigate reports concerning Saddam Hussein's efforts to
acquire nuclear material.

In July 2003, several months after Hussein was toppled, Wilson publicly
disputed one of the administration's claims about the Iraqi nuclear
program. He has suggested that the White House sought retribution by
publicly identifying his wife, first in a syndicated column written by
Robert Novak, effectively ending her career as a covert operative.

Flat denial

In the fall of 2003, McClellan said flatly that Rove had not been
involved in disclosing Plame's name. Asked about the issue on Sept. 29,
2003, McClellan said he had spoken with Karl Rove, and that it was not
true that Rove had a role in the disclosure of her identity.

Two weeks earlier, he had called suggestions that Rove had been
involved ridiculous. On Oct. 10, 2003, after the Justice Department
opened its formal investigation, he said Rove, national security aide
Elliot Abrams and I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of
staff, had nothing to do with the leak.

McClellan and Bush have both made clear that the White House would
consider leaking Plame's identity a firing offense. Bush was asked
about that position most recently a little over a year ago, when he was
asked whether he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have
leaked the officer's name. "Yes," he replied, June 10, 2004.

Under some circumstances, it can be against the law to disclose the
identity of a covert CIA operative. Luskin has said he has been told by
the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, that Rove is not a target of the
investigation.



Bush said he would fire a violator of the law. Who violated the law?

If you're around in 30 years, you'll find out. It'll probably take as long
as it did to find out the identity of "deep throat".

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:37:00 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:

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

Makes perfect sense. You use a rice cooker?
Harry, what the phuque is a rice cooker????
A kitchen electrical pot in which you place measured amounts of rice
and
water. It steams the rice until it is perfectly cooked. Mine is about
the
size of a two quart pot, and it has a glass cover. They're
inexpensive.
They're also called "rice steamers."

Here's one:

http://importfood.com/ricecooker.html


Some oriental families I know have very large and somehow boxlike rice
cookers. Chinese restaurants also use the bigger units.

I thought a pot with a lid did just fine for the past 30 years. I guess
I
was wrong. :-)




You was wrong.

Actually, I use ours mostly when I am cooking a bunch of stuff at the
same time in four or five pots and the oven. As you know, you have to
keep an eye on rice to cook it properly, and the rice cooker not only
keeps its eye on the rice, as it were, but it also frees up a cooktop
burner.

Please show me something that says to keep an eye on rice to cook it
properly.
If you've been raising the lid to look, no wonder a 'rice cooker' is your
method
of choice.

No ****.........once again harry show how little he knows


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

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
P. Fritz wrote:

So, Fritz...when your wife dumped you, was it because of your excessive
drinking or your physical abuse of her?

Hey....stay on track. Respond to my brutal rice accusations, or be in
contempt of court. Saving stovetop space is a valid point, but cooking rice
properly? Now you're pushing it, Harry. :-)

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
P. Fritz wrote:

So, Fritz...when your wife dumped you, was it because of your excessive
drinking or your physical abuse of her?

Hey....stay on track. Respond to my brutal rice accusations, or be in
contempt of court. Saving stovetop space is a valid point, but cooking
rice properly? Now you're pushing it, Harry. :-)

You've never overcooked rice and had it turn out dry or even burned while
watching other pots on the stove? I have, but no more. I don't use Minute
Rice.

I have 3 wind up timers. :-) You are in contempt of court. Bailiff, whack
this man's pee-pee.

John H. wrote:

What law did Rove violate?

--
John H.

Section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act:



FACT -- ROVE IDENTIFIED THE AGENT AND KNEW THAT WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS
WRONG: A number of factors weigh against Rove's assertion. First, Rove
identified Valerie Plame as "Wilson's wife." Under section 421 of the
Intelligence Identities Protection Act the disclosure of "any
information identifying [a] covert agent" is illegal. Second, Rove's
lawyer is undermining the distinction between naming and identifying
Plame as too legalistic and a minor detail. Third, Rove insisted on
speaking to Cooper only on "double super secret background." As Andrew
Sullivan notes, "Why would Rove have insisted on such a super-tight
confidentiality standard if he was not aware that he was divulging
something he truly shouldn't divulge?" Fourth, as Joe Wilson himself
has indicated, his wife goes by Mrs. Wilson, so it would have been
clear who Rove was talking about (and Rove attended the same church as
the Wilson family, indicating he may know more about Plame than he's
letting on