Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 300 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What is Nacho's Twitter handle? (e.g. @xxxx - this is case sensitive)):

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: RottingCorpse
« on: November 01, 2005, 11:55:21 PM »

Oh! Oh! Ten bucks is slowly sliding it's way into Tyson's grubby little hands!

* * *

Some conservatives question Rove's future

By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Breaking with the White House and fellow conservatives, Republican Sen. Trent Lott and the head of the Cato Institute questioned on Tuesday whether top White House adviser Karl Rove, who remains in legal jeopardy in a CIA-leak probe, should keep his policy-making job.

Rove was not indicted on Friday along with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby. But lawyers involved in the case said Rove, President George W. Bush's top political adviser and deputy chief of staff, remains under investigation and may still be charged by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

The identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame was leaked to the media in July 2003 after her diplomat husband, Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush administration of twisting intelligence to justify the war in Iraq. Despite initial White House denials, Fitzgerald's investigation shows that both Rove and Libby spoke to reporters about Wilson's wife.

Lott of Mississippi and William Niskanen of the libertarian Cato Institute both echoed Democratic calls for a White House shake-up.

"He (Rove) has been very successful, very effective in the political arena. The question is, should he be the deputy chief of staff for policy under the current circumstances?" Lott told MSNBC's "Hardball."

"Most presidents in recent years have a political adviser in the White House. The question is, should they be, you know, making policy decisions. That's the question you've got to evaluate," the former Senate Republican leader added.

Lott went further than he did on Sunday, when he urged Bush to be on the lookout for "new blood, new energy, qualified staff."

Niskanen, who served as a top economic adviser to former President Ronald Reagan, said, "Bush is going to have to sacrifice people who have worked with him to regain some initiative."

Niskanen said any White House shake-up should "start" with Rove because of his association with the leak case.

"He's provided good political judgment on campaigns, but not good political judgment on getting legislation through," Niskanen told Reuters.

So far, the White House has rebuffed calls for an overhaul in response to Libby's indictment. "Karl Rove continues to do his duties," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

When asked if Bush retained confidence in Rove, McClellan said on Monday: "People who work here at the White House have the confidence of the president."

A Republican strategist with ties to the White House said any personnel changes would be gradual to avoid the appearance that the White House was panicking.

Libby is expected to plead innocent to charges of obstructing justice, perjury and lying when he is arraigned on Thursday.

Fitzgerald was expected to decide within weeks whether to bring charges against Rove. Lawyers involved in the case said Rove provided new information last week to Fitzgerald that prompted him to reconsider charging Bush's top political adviser with making false statements.
Posted by: fajwat
« on: October 29, 2005, 03:54:17 AM »

After staying up nursing a hangover until 9amish watching CNN, crashing in front of the TV, and being late to work watching Fitzpatrick's brilliant briefing, I'm doing the whole overnight replay with my ESB and Maker's Mark.  Rock on, Grandpa Nacho!

good points about backlash disease.  Personally, I think it's because the dems and repubs have both become shallow monopolies which have by mutual apathy done their best to avoid the real issues in lieu of fundraising and showmanship.  Given this cynical 2 party recipe (you have to pick one of us!) we'll always be stuck in backlashes.

yotoc: what irony?  I don't see this.  Then again I've been severely irony impaired since Bush promised to bring honor and respect to the white house -- starting with forcing a controversial election result through his brother's government and then claiming God-given mandates from the people whose votes he didn't want to verify.  Please, I'm bitter but not toward you -- what was your point?  

personal feelings/predictions: I think that Fitzpatrick is very smart and dedicated, and that his impartiality and propriety will slow him compared to Ken Star.  The investigation would thus naturally drag on longer, except that without the sex and cigars it could lose steam earlier.  National security and protecting our own operatives just isn't as sexy as killing infidels/"sand niggers"/arabs/terrorists, and the public, if it notices that hypocricy or inconsistency, is already too ashamed or just plain weary to give it the due publicity bump for as long as they gawked at Monica.

And the hardcore, paralyzed with shock and loathing, liberals like myself are worn out.  No amount of political carnage can satisfy us anymore; it's all pointless; he's a lame duck; we can't possibly oust Bush fast enough and even if we could -- he's done most of his irreversible damage.  We need to focus on a non-evil candidate who doesn't suck and trip over himself.
Posted by: RottingCorpse
« on: October 28, 2005, 04:42:43 PM »

Quote from: yotoc
And yet still nobody gets my point.


What's your point/question?
Posted by: Tyson
« on: October 28, 2005, 02:59:27 PM »

I'm assuming you're trying to make reference to the fact that the media is "predicting" or "expecting" the announcements from the leak investigation to come any minute now, as if someone's leaking this information to the press. They're not. Remember Ken Starr's investigation? I believe roughly 19,000 bits of information were leaked. I'll dig up the source later.

No one's leaking info on this case. It's just the media watching such-and-such go to the deli and then to the - oh wait! he's stopping to use his cell phone! he's GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY!

Annnddd....

Quote
AP: Vice presidential adviser I. Lewis "Scooter' Libby Jr. was indicted Friday on charges of obstruction of justice, making a false statement and perjury in the CIA leak case. Karl Rove, President Bush's closest adviser, apparently escaped indictment Friday but remained under investigation, his legal status a looming political problem for the White House.

The indictments stem from a two-year investigation by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald into whether Rove, Libby or any other administration officials knowingly revealed the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame or lied about their involvement to investigators. The five-count indictment accuses Libby of lying about how and when he learned about CIA official Valerie Plane's identity in 2003 and then told reporters about it. The information was classified. Any trial would shine a spotlight on the secret deliberations of Bush and his team as they built the case for war against Iraq.


Libby's resigned. Rove's not out of the hot seat just yet, either.
Posted by: yotoc
« on: October 28, 2005, 02:47:10 PM »

And yet still nobody gets my point.
Posted by: Tyson
« on: October 28, 2005, 01:51:16 PM »

From Daily Kos:

Quote
With Fitzmas Day apparently upon us, I think it is important to remind folks of the big picture again - that the President of the United States Lied to the American People. Phil Singer of the DSCC reminds as well:

Quote
   BUSH THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF SAID HE'D FIRE ANYONE FOR LEAKING, THAT NOBODY WAS INVOLVED...

    Asked in June 2004 if he'd stand by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked, Bush replied "yes." [Bush Press Conference: Savannah, GA, 6/10/04]

    When the White House was asked specifically whether Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams or Lewis Libby told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "Those individuals -- I talked -- I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands." [White House Briefing, 10/10/03]

    "I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." [Bush Remarks: Chicago, Illinois, 9/30/03]

    "The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." [White House Briefing, 9/29/03]

    BUSH THE CANDIDATE PROMISED TO UPHOLD THE HONOR AND INTEGRITY AT THE WHITE HOUSE...

     "I will swear to uphold the laws of the land. But I will also swear to uphold the honor and the integrity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God," said then-Governor George Bush [CNN, "Inside Politics," 8/11/00]

    "Americans are tired of investigations and scandal, and the best way to get rid of them is to elect a new president who will bring a new administration, who will restore honor and dignity to the White House." [Then-Governor George Bush on CNN's "Burden of Proof," 9/15/00]

    "Americans want to be assured that the next administration will bring honor and dignity to the White House." [Then-Governor George Bush on CNN's "Capital Gang," 8/13/00]
Posted by: nacho
« on: October 26, 2005, 06:27:30 PM »

Quote from: nacho
This thead's going to the editorial department! (Considering that I just talked to the head of the department and she told me that they're playing paper football down there.)


Haha:


Quote
Is the irony question is being asked by a conservative? Because there's liberal irony -- as in, isn't it ironic that an administration that sold itself to the American people as squeaky clean and above reproach is, in fact, as tainted as any of the most corrupt that have ever occupied the White House? Or perhaps that conservative "loyalty" turns out, IRONICALLY, to be as jaundiced and temporary as any so-called political loyalty.
Posted by: Nubbins
« on: October 26, 2005, 04:47:27 PM »

I think I see it....  "seriously President George W. Bush"... like, seriously... HE'S the President!
Posted by: nacho
« on: October 26, 2005, 04:15:08 PM »

This thead's going to the editorial department! (Considering that I just talked to the head of the department and she told me that they're playing paper football down there.)
Posted by: nacho
« on: October 26, 2005, 03:52:36 PM »

Quote from: Tyson
Irony being defined as "a meaning (often contradictory) concealed behind the apparent meaning of a word or phrase," I'm afraid I don't see any irony in the passage.

Am I missing something?


Ooh, Mr. Dictionary!

Irony has evolved somewhat from what Mr. Webster says.  It could also be something that contradicts expectations or assumptions.  

Then there's the whole Romeo & Juliet thing.  I am shocked to realize that I forget which one faked death, because I've read the play 18 million times and I should know.  But, dramatic irony!  

Let's use a more liberal form of irony to carefully analyze yotoc's sentence, since we have plenty of time now that the indictments are not going to be announced for 72 years.

Edit:  Aha!  It's right in front of us.  The indictments did not come down, though we expected them to.  Right?  Or would it be the indictments are assumed to hurt the administration, but they won't realy...?  No?  Yes?
Posted by: monkey!
« on: October 26, 2005, 03:39:13 PM »

Quote from: RottingCorpse
Quote from: yotoc
Nobody answered my question!


What's your question?


Do you know the road to Why Kee Key?
Posted by: RottingCorpse
« on: October 26, 2005, 03:33:17 PM »

Quote from: yotoc
Nobody answered my question!


What's your question?
Posted by: Tyson
« on: October 26, 2005, 02:12:19 PM »

Irony being defined as "a meaning (often contradictory) concealed behind the apparent meaning of a word or phrase," I'm afraid I don't see any irony in the passage.

Am I missing something?
Posted by: yotoc
« on: October 26, 2005, 01:53:04 PM »

Nobody answered my question!
Posted by: nacho
« on: October 26, 2005, 11:18:39 AM »

Quote from: Nubbins
This country has 2nd term disease.  


Oh, look.  Those fuckers had it coming!  LBJ got us embroiled in horror.  Nixon fucked us in the ass.  Iran Contra wasn't some made up voodoo, we're living the results now.  Clinton was a power-mad hillbilly (you and I probably would have been fucking openly in the rose garden and throwing bottles at the Marine guards).

The second term disease clearly shows us that these fuckers are just like us and, yes, absolute power corrupts.  It also shows us that we're all a bunch of idiots.  LBJ had to murder to get into the White House.  That's where it began.  An illegal president who campaigned with a ghost in 1964 and won through a veil of tears and panic.  What he brought us blew our minds and shattered our hearts.  Nixon got picked up because the blind and the ignorant were running scared, Reagan's the same.  Clinton, too.

It's backlash disease.  Nixon was a backlash president who promised to remove us from a war that makes Iraq look like a jog around the YMCA track.  Reagan got elected in a backlash, the great second wind of modern Republicanism, with dark threats from Russia weighing on the same societal psyche that produced movies like Rock Hudson's World War III and the Day After.  Carter belonged in the 1930's, not in the world of Terrorvision.  Clinton is backlash through and through.  The most obvious example of it and, in turn, his actions created the Bush backlash.  No election since JFK/Nixon has had any sort of thought to it.  Since LBJ stepped down in disgrace, we've been throwing anybody who shows verve at the problem and hoping to god that it gets fixed.  We're not listening to people who say they have the solution, because the solution is costly and painful.  We want people to tell us it's morning again in America.  Cowboys!  So, instead of politicians, we hire out of work actors, local governors, populists, madmen and next door neighbors for the job.  The candidates who are pros don't even get a chance to breathe before they get plowed under a speedboat heavily laden with party animals.

Lunacy can reign for four years.  It takes that long to get your footing.  Then, roll on the second term.  These weak, weak men have the power.  They have nothing more to worry about.  They've been validated by an America that's been shivering and frightened and utterly confused since Chicago 68.  And when these madmen are off the leash, it shows.  They fuck interns and lie, they haul us, screaming, into war, they play global mind games that explode in our faces.