|
OT White House Plays Dumb about Rove
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. |
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? |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... 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? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...0/AR2005071001 000_pf.html "Cooper, according to an internal Time e-mail obtained by Newsweek magazine, spoke with Rove before Novak's column was published. In the conversation, Rove gave Cooper a "big warning" that Wilson's assertions might not be entirely accurate and that it was not the director of the CIA or the vice president who sent Wilson on his trip. Rove apparently told Cooper that it was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip," according to a story in Newsweek's July 18 issue."........................................... ............... "Rove did not mention her name to Cooper," Luskin said. "This was not an effort to encourage Time to disclose her identity. What he was doing was discouraging Time from perpetuating some statements that had been made publicly and weren't true." |
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net... 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? You're a funny guy, you know? Who do you think decides who's a target? |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... 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? 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. 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. |
"NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... 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? 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. 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. Just wanted to make sure that in your own head, you weren't living in a fairy tale (again). :-) |
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!)? Reality just doesn't exit for NOBBY. DSK |
"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. 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. |
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. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
"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. |
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 |
"John H." wrote in message ... 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? Well....John....Rove *is* the president, you know. The buck stops at the top. |
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:01:01 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:
John H. wrote: 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. We don't know that. You may believe the Bu****es, but I don't. Further, Rove is involved. Bush said he would fire anyone involved. But Rove is still at the White House. More Bush lies? You don't know that Bush didn't pay someone to fly an airplane into the World Trade Center, either. Start broadcasting that as a new rumor. Lot's of folks will jump all over it! -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
On 12 Jul 2005 08:46:03 -0700, "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? What law did Rove violate? -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:49:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Curtis CCR" wrote in message roups.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?" What law did Rove violate? -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:21:11 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:
wrote: 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? Actually, the FACT is that no one aside from Rove and whomever he spoke to knows whether Rove named any names. Rove apparently had more than one conversation, and with different "conversants." Bull****! The Shadow knows! -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
"John H." wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:49:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Curtis CCR" wrote in message groups.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?" ********* What law did Rove violate? See the paragraph above, highlighted with asterisks? How does your question relate to that paragraph? |
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:57:58 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:49:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Curtis CCR" wrote in message egroups.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?" ********* What law did Rove violate? See the paragraph above, highlighted with asterisks? How does your question relate to that paragraph? He said, "...if the person has violated the law..." Your paragraph asked, "...who let him say that?" What bearing does his having said that have to do with KR, who has not been shown to have violated a law? -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
"John H." wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:57:58 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:49:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Curtis CCR" wrote in message legroups.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?" ********* What law did Rove violate? See the paragraph above, highlighted with asterisks? How does your question relate to that paragraph? He said, "...if the person has violated the law..." Your paragraph asked, "...who let him say that?" What bearing does his having said that have to do with KR, who has not been shown to have violated a law? Because it doesn't matter WHO has violated the law. Your boy will do nothing about it. It was just another one of his "Bring 'em on!" things. And, if it was Rove, your boy is powerless to do ANYTHING about it. Removing Rove would be like taking the motor out of a washing machine. Nothing left but an empty shell. |
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:55:28 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:57:58 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:49:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Curtis CCR" wrote in message glegroups.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?" ********* What law did Rove violate? See the paragraph above, highlighted with asterisks? How does your question relate to that paragraph? He said, "...if the person has violated the law..." Your paragraph asked, "...who let him say that?" What bearing does his having said that have to do with KR, who has not been shown to have violated a law? Because it doesn't matter WHO has violated the law. Your boy will do nothing about it. It was just another one of his "Bring 'em on!" things. And, if it was Rove, your boy is powerless to do ANYTHING about it. Removing Rove would be like taking the motor out of a washing machine. Nothing left but an empty shell. My boy? Hell, I'd have voted him out in a minute if the Democrats had put anyone decent on the ticket! I'm sorry. I didn't realize you could see the future and *know* that "...my boy will do nothing about [violations of the law]" Good! At least you are now using the word 'if'. I've accomplished my mission for today. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
"John H." wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:55:28 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:57:58 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message m... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:49:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Curtis CCR" wrote in message oglegroups.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?" ********* What law did Rove violate? See the paragraph above, highlighted with asterisks? How does your question relate to that paragraph? He said, "...if the person has violated the law..." Your paragraph asked, "...who let him say that?" What bearing does his having said that have to do with KR, who has not been shown to have violated a law? Because it doesn't matter WHO has violated the law. Your boy will do nothing about it. It was just another one of his "Bring 'em on!" things. And, if it was Rove, your boy is powerless to do ANYTHING about it. Removing Rove would be like taking the motor out of a washing machine. Nothing left but an empty shell. My boy? Hell, I'd have voted him out in a minute if the Democrats had put anyone decent on the ticket! I'm sorry. I didn't realize you could see the future and *know* that "...my boy will do nothing about [violations of the law]" Good! At least you are now using the word 'if'. I've accomplished my mission for today. You'll see: Even if Rove is found guilty, he won't get the penalty he should, which, if I'm correct, is life in prison. It's considered espionage, isn't it? |
Because it doesn't matter WHO has violated the law. Your boy will do nothing
about it. It was just another one of his "Bring 'em on!" things. John H. wrote: My boy? Hell, I'd have voted him out in a minute if the Democrats had put anyone decent on the ticket! Really? Like who, Al Sharpton? Face facts, you are one of the lead singers in the "Bush/Cheney Uber Alles" choir. It's funny that you try to pretend otherwise. I'm sorry. I didn't realize you could see the future and *know* that "...my boy will do nothing about [violations of the law]" That's like saying the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. DSK |
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:05:18 +0000, NOYB wrote:
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. Speaking of strings, I heard this quote. " Bush firing Rove would be like Charlie McCarthy firing Edgar Bergen." Cheap shot, but I thought it rather funny. |
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:15:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:55:28 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:57:58 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message om... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:49:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Curtis CCR" wrote in message ooglegroups.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?" ********* What law did Rove violate? See the paragraph above, highlighted with asterisks? How does your question relate to that paragraph? He said, "...if the person has violated the law..." Your paragraph asked, "...who let him say that?" What bearing does his having said that have to do with KR, who has not been shown to have violated a law? Because it doesn't matter WHO has violated the law. Your boy will do nothing about it. It was just another one of his "Bring 'em on!" things. And, if it was Rove, your boy is powerless to do ANYTHING about it. Removing Rove would be like taking the motor out of a washing machine. Nothing left but an empty shell. My boy? Hell, I'd have voted him out in a minute if the Democrats had put anyone decent on the ticket! I'm sorry. I didn't realize you could see the future and *know* that "...my boy will do nothing about [violations of the law]" Good! At least you are now using the word 'if'. I've accomplished my mission for today. You'll see: Even if Rove is found guilty, he won't get the penalty he should, which, if I'm correct, is life in prison. It's considered espionage, isn't it? "If is for children, if is for children, building daydreams." Roger Whitaker -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
"John H." wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:15:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:55:28 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message m... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:57:58 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:t0v7d1l3b5d4g1j64ncg7e5tj0rjt929b8@4ax. com... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:49:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Curtis CCR" wrote in message news:1121183163.924334.288800@g49g2000cwa. googlegroups.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?" ********* What law did Rove violate? See the paragraph above, highlighted with asterisks? How does your question relate to that paragraph? He said, "...if the person has violated the law..." Your paragraph asked, "...who let him say that?" What bearing does his having said that have to do with KR, who has not been shown to have violated a law? Because it doesn't matter WHO has violated the law. Your boy will do nothing about it. It was just another one of his "Bring 'em on!" things. And, if it was Rove, your boy is powerless to do ANYTHING about it. Removing Rove would be like taking the motor out of a washing machine. Nothing left but an empty shell. My boy? Hell, I'd have voted him out in a minute if the Democrats had put anyone decent on the ticket! I'm sorry. I didn't realize you could see the future and *know* that "...my boy will do nothing about [violations of the law]" Good! At least you are now using the word 'if'. I've accomplished my mission for today. You'll see: Even if Rove is found guilty, he won't get the penalty he should, which, if I'm correct, is life in prison. It's considered espionage, isn't it? "If is for children, if is for children, building daydreams." Roger Whitaker I know, John. It's dinner time soon. No time for a proper answer.Or thought. |
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:18:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:15:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:55:28 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message om... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:57:58 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:t0v7d1l3b5d4g1j64ncg7e5tj0rjt929b8@4ax .com... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:49:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Curtis CCR" wrote in message news:1121183163.924334.288800@g49g2000cwa .googlegroups.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?" ********* What law did Rove violate? See the paragraph above, highlighted with asterisks? How does your question relate to that paragraph? He said, "...if the person has violated the law..." Your paragraph asked, "...who let him say that?" What bearing does his having said that have to do with KR, who has not been shown to have violated a law? Because it doesn't matter WHO has violated the law. Your boy will do nothing about it. It was just another one of his "Bring 'em on!" things. And, if it was Rove, your boy is powerless to do ANYTHING about it. Removing Rove would be like taking the motor out of a washing machine. Nothing left but an empty shell. My boy? Hell, I'd have voted him out in a minute if the Democrats had put anyone decent on the ticket! I'm sorry. I didn't realize you could see the future and *know* that "...my boy will do nothing about [violations of the law]" Good! At least you are now using the word 'if'. I've accomplished my mission for today. You'll see: Even if Rove is found guilty, he won't get the penalty he should, which, if I'm correct, is life in prison. It's considered espionage, isn't it? "If is for children, if is for children, building daydreams." Roger Whitaker I know, John. It's dinner time soon. No time for a proper answer.Or thought. Thank goodness there was little need for thought to give you a proper answer. Yes, gotta go cook. Tonight chicken fried steak with cream gravy, corn on the cob, and brown rice. Gonna get high on the carbs! -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:22:34 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:
John H. wrote: On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:18:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:15:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:55:28 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:57:58 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:49:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "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?" ********* What law did Rove violate? See the paragraph above, highlighted with asterisks? How does your question relate to that paragraph? He said, "...if the person has violated the law..." Your paragraph asked, "...who let him say that?" What bearing does his having said that have to do with KR, who has not been shown to have violated a law? Because it doesn't matter WHO has violated the law. Your boy will do nothing about it. It was just another one of his "Bring 'em on!" things. And, if it was Rove, your boy is powerless to do ANYTHING about it. Removing Rove would be like taking the motor out of a washing machine. Nothing left but an empty shell. My boy? Hell, I'd have voted him out in a minute if the Democrats had put anyone decent on the ticket! I'm sorry. I didn't realize you could see the future and *know* that "...my boy will do nothing about [violations of the law]" Good! At least you are now using the word 'if'. I've accomplished my mission for today. You'll see: Even if Rove is found guilty, he won't get the penalty he should, which, if I'm correct, is life in prison. It's considered espionage, isn't it? "If is for children, if is for children, building daydreams." Roger Whitaker I know, John. It's dinner time soon. No time for a proper answer.Or thought. Thank goodness there was little need for thought to give you a proper answer. Yes, gotta go cook. Tonight chicken fried steak with cream gravy, corn on the cob, and brown rice. Gonna get high on the carbs! Starch-r-us. Why corn and rice? Afraid the corn would go bad. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:26:09 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:
John H. wrote: On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:22:34 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: John H. wrote: On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:18:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:15:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:55:28 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:57:58 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:49:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "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?" ********* What law did Rove violate? See the paragraph above, highlighted with asterisks? How does your question relate to that paragraph? He said, "...if the person has violated the law..." Your paragraph asked, "...who let him say that?" What bearing does his having said that have to do with KR, who has not been shown to have violated a law? Because it doesn't matter WHO has violated the law. Your boy will do nothing about it. It was just another one of his "Bring 'em on!" things. And, if it was Rove, your boy is powerless to do ANYTHING about it. Removing Rove would be like taking the motor out of a washing machine. Nothing left but an empty shell. My boy? Hell, I'd have voted him out in a minute if the Democrats had put anyone decent on the ticket! I'm sorry. I didn't realize you could see the future and *know* that "...my boy will do nothing about [violations of the law]" Good! At least you are now using the word 'if'. I've accomplished my mission for today. You'll see: Even if Rove is found guilty, he won't get the penalty he should, which, if I'm correct, is life in prison. It's considered espionage, isn't it? "If is for children, if is for children, building daydreams." Roger Whitaker I know, John. It's dinner time soon. No time for a proper answer.Or thought. Thank goodness there was little need for thought to give you a proper answer. Yes, gotta go cook. Tonight chicken fried steak with cream gravy, corn on the cob, and brown rice. Gonna get high on the carbs! Starch-r-us. Why corn and rice? Afraid the corn would go bad. Makes perfect sense. You use a rice cooker? Nope, kettle with a lid. Two and a half cups water (or combination with a can of chicken broth), bring to boil, add one cup brown rice (Mahatma is fine). Cover, turn down to simmer for 45 mins. DO NOT PEAK! If it's not done (all the water gone), turn stove up a little more next time. If it stuck to the bottom, turn it down a little next time. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
... Makes perfect sense. You use a rice cooker? Harry, what the phuque is a rice cooker???? |
"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. :-) |
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com