quote:

Originally posted by Shakka You said "knob"...again!

Good observation, Beavis.

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/hacker.s/bandb/knob.wav

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Good observation, Beavis. http://web.ukonline.co.uk/hacker.s/bandb/knob.wav

LOL!

Why, Bush would NEVER, I mean NEVER move goalposts on anything, would he? He is "a man of his word", right? He says what he means, and means what he says, right?

September 29, 2003

quote:

McClellan: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it (the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity), they would no longer be in this administration." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20030929-7.html

September 30, 2003:

quote:

Bush: "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003...ain575986.shtml

Today:

quote:

Bush: "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration." http://today.reuters.com/News/newsA...USH-LEAK-DC.XML

And the press finally continues to show a pulse:

quote:

WASHINGTON, July 18 - President Bush changed his stance today on his close adviser Karl Rove, stopping well short of promising that anyone in his administration who helped to unmask a C.I.A. officer would be fired. C.I.A. Inquiry May Hinge on What the Leaker Knew (July 18, 2005) "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration," Mr. Bush said in response to a question, after declaring, "I don't know all the facts; I want to know all the facts." For months, Mr. Bush and his spokesmen have said that anyone involved in the disclosure of the C.I.A. officer's identity would be dismissed. The president's apparent raising of the bar for dismissal today, to specific criminal conduct, comes amid mounting evidence that, at the very least, Mr. Rove provided backhanded confirmation of the C.I.A. officer's identity. http://nytimes.com/2005/07/18/polit...8A56NV5Nmgq/53Q

McClellan also continued to get grilled today on C-Span. Word on the street is that Bush is going to announce a SC nominee this week rather than next week to take the pressure off him and Rove.

I wonder who thought that one up - Bush, or Rove?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Why, Bush would NEVER, I mean NEVER move goalposts on anything, would he? He is "a man of his word", right? He says what he means, and means what he says, right? September 29, 2003 September 30, 2003: Today: And the press finally continues to show a pulse: McClellan also continued to get grilled today on C-Span. Word on the street is that Bush is going to announce a SC nominee this week rather than next week to take the pressure off him and Rove. I wonder who thought that one up - Bush, or Rove?

You can smell the blood can't you? However much evidence or rumor/bullshit is actually being leaked and causing people to draw their own conclusions, Bush is right when he says, "We have a serious ongoing investigation here and it's being played out in the press".

Opus, your concerns are appreciated, but I appreciate due process even more. You will get your answer at the end of this, so just calm down, take a sip of your single malt and worry about your finals for now.

Well despite the fact that the investigation is still ongoing, this administration has already flip-flopped (no! it can't be!).

quote:

Asked about the matter on nine occasions over the years, Bush has said he welcomed the investigation, called the name disclosure "a very serious matter," and declared that the sooner investigators "find out the truth, the better, as far as I'm concerned." "I want to know the truth," Bush told reporters in September 2003 after news of the investigation had burst into headlines. "If anybody has got any information, inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business." (occrider: I guess rove didn't get the memo teehee) In 2003, McClellan said it was "a ridiculous suggestion" that Rove was involved. "I've made it very clear, he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was," he said. He also said that any culprit in the White House should be fired "at a minimum." (occrider: poor poor McClellan) At one point, McClellan vowed: "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." (occrider: anyone INVOLVED in the affair. INVOLVED.) Bush replied "yes" when asked in June 2004 if he would fire anyone who leaked the agent's name. (occrider: Anyone who LEAKED the agent's name. No mention of whether the act was criminal or not) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...1101568_pf.html

But it's nice to see that the administration is taking such a daring stance in firing anyone convicted of a crime. What balls! Such decisiveness! Any appearances of impropriety will be resolved by a criminal court of trial! Haha stupid policemen who are suspended from active duty pending an investigation ... they need to learn from the administration of ultimate accountability!

Really. I don't need to read the Onion anymore. I can just read the regular news and get my fill.

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Jul-18-2005 at 19:47

And if Rove isn't fired, because he hasn't committed a criminal act, why has his security clearance not been revoked based upon violations admitted to by statements from his own lawyer?

quote:

Question 19: If information that a signer of the SF 312 knows to have been classified appears in a public source, for example, in a newspaper article, may the signer assume that the information has been declassified and disseminate it elsewhere? Answer: No. Information remains classified until it has been officially declassified. Its disclosure in a public source does not declassify the information. Of course, merely quoting the public source in the abstract is not a second unauthorized disclosure. However, before disseminating the information elsewhere or confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, further dissemination of the information or confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure. http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/sf312.html

FYI, SF312:

quote:

Executive Order 12958 SF 312 The White House has an affirmative obligation to investigate and take remedial action separate and apart from any ongoing criminal investigation. The executive order specifically provides that when a breach occurs, each agency must "take appropriate and prompt corrective action." This includes a determination of whether individual employees improperly disseminated or obtained access to classified information. The executive order further provides that sanctions for violations are not optional. The executive order expressly provides: "Officers and employees of the United States Government ... shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently ... disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified."

What a farce.

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Jul-18-2005 at 21:14

quote:

Originally posted by occrider And if Rove isn't fired, because he hasn't committed a criminal act, why has his security clearance not been revoked based upon violations admitted to by statements from his own lawyer? FYI, SF312: What a farce.

Thanks for bringing that point up - his security clearance being revoked should be a no brainer. Unauthorized disclosure. This completely blows the argument of "Rove was the receiver of info., not the giver" out of the water - the point is rendered moot by this '82 law. IOW, instead of saying to Novak (if this was the actual conversation), "yeah, I heard that too" about Wilson's wife, Rove had a LEGAL obligation instead to state, "No comment, Bob".

And Matt Cooper tells all, if anyone haven't read it yet:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/a...1083899,00.html

Also, here's a pretty interesting tidbit with Russert's interview with Cooper Sunday morning:

quote:

MR. RUSSERT: This is the cover of your magazine: "Rove on the Spot," subtitled "What I Told the Grand Jury," by Matthew Cooper. And here is an excerpt from your article, which will be available tomorrow in Time magazine. "So did [Karl] Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that [Joe] Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him?"--to Niger. "Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the `agency' on `WMD'?"--weapons of mass destruction. [/b]"Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon,[/b] was that itself impermissible? I don't know." For the record, the first time you learned that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA was from Karl Rove? MR. COOPER: That's correct. MR. RUSSERT: And when Karl concluded his conversation with you, you write he said, "I've already said too much." What did that mean? MR. COOPER: Well, I'm not sure what it meant, Tim. At first, you know, I thought maybe he meant "I've been indiscreet." But then, as I thought about it, I thought it might be just more benign, like "I've said too much; I've got to get to a meeting." I don't know exactly what he meant, but I do know that memory of that line has stayed in my head for two years.

So let's see, Rove mentioned that things on Wilson's wife will be declassified soon. So IOW, uh, could this possibly mean that Rove was perhaps giving away CLASSIFIED information to Cooper, and that he felt he already "said too much"?

Couldn't be, could it?

Regardless, once again Bush is on the wrong side of the fence with the people, not that he gives two shits:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Poll...story?id=949950

GOP better start cuttin' their losses and tell Bush to fucking kick Rove out fast - otherwise the Dems. are gonna tie this one along with Delay's antics around their necks.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Not to be hypercritical, but...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 And Matt Cooper tells all, if anyone hasn't read it yet: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/a...1083899,00.html

I actually tried to hold back

"It was my first interview with the President, and I expected a simple "Hello" when I walked into the Oval Office last December. Instead, George W. Bush joked, "Cooper! I thought you'd be in jail by now." The leader of the free world, it seems, had been following my fight against a federal subpoena seeking my testimony in the case of the leaking of the name of a CIA officer. I thought it was funny and good-natured of the President, but the line reminded me that I was, very weirdly, in the Oval Office, out on bond from a prison sentence,..."

that's awesome!

too bad he's pimpin his rag for sales. j/k. i just might have to steal one.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Why, Bush would NEVER, I mean NEVER move goalposts on anything, would he? He is "a man of his word", right? He says what he means, and means what he says, right?

Not to stoke up an argument, but you continue to criticize "talking points" from the right as if they are irrelevant simply because they are talking points, yet notice nobody gives you shit for quoting Ted Kennedy of all people.

On September 30, 2003, when Bush was first asked about the leak, here is what he said: "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of." Essentially the same thing he is saying now. Oh gee, you mean Dubya's not gonna let someone be tried by the media? What a novel idea. Furthermore, do you really think Judith Miller is protecting Karl Rove?

I mean seriously, is this what you want to lose sleep over at night? Moving the goal posts maybe an inch or two at best? You're going to die of a heart attack at 35 if you get that worked up over such minor issue that amounts to little more than some twisting of words.

Well, actually when asked by a reporter whether Bush would fire anyone from the whitehouse who was involved in the leak of Plame's name he did say "Yes."

As for Judith Miller I’m sure she’s protecting someone high up in this administration if not Rove, since she’s pretty much in bed with it.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I mean seriously, is this what you want to lose sleep over at night? Moving the goal posts maybe an inch or two at best? You're going to die of a heart attack at 35 if you get that worked up over such minor issue that amounts to little more than some twisting of words.

Wow, we're you a member of your party when it so solidly embraced Kerry's "flip-flops" as if it were manna from heaven?


On a different note, how is this for a flashback in time?

quote:

" After the oath was administered, Bush told the staff and 100 or so family members on hand "You all are here because you have my full confidence." "Today, everything is so promising and new," the new president said. "I'm hoping the day will never come when any of us take this place for granted." Bush warned that he expected his White House staff to meet the highest ethical standards, avoiding not only violations of law, but even the appearance of impropriety. "We must remember the high standards that come with high office," he said. "This begins careful adherence with the rules. I expect every member of this administration to stay well within the boundaries [that] define legal and ethical conduct. "No one in the White House should be afraid to confront the people they work for over ethical concerns, and no one should hesitate to confront me as well." Bush told his staff that he sees civility as a central part of the required behavior of White House staff. "There is no excuse for arrogance and never a reason for disrespect toward others," he said. "I expect each of you to be an example of humility and decency and fairness." And he concluded that the ultimate goal of White House service is to advance the agenda Bush was elected on. "We are here for a reason," Bush said. "You and I and the vice president share the same goals for our country we are here to make progress. We are not here just to mark time." http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art...22/213715.shtml

Such lofty goals … sigh.

___________________
Retro ...

Oh God

that limb is so not gonna support two heavyweights such as youself and Opus.