<p>And noone running the shop was held accountable…well we have become our enemies</p>
<p>What is your definition of “accountable” and who should be held accountable and why? Rumsfeld? If so, then by the same standards, shouldn’t Stinson have been held accountable for atrocities conducted by American GIs in WWII? There will always be atrocities in any war and they should and are investigated and guilty parties charged. Commanders who should have had better control of their troops should be reprimanded (which Karpinski was). But, to lay this at the feet of the Bush administration as a “mistake” that should be admitted is politically motivated nonsense. </p>
<p>It’s a shame that the left is so focused on embarassing the administration that they are willing to further inflame the Muslim world to do it. And then people use rhetoric like the Rove/Wilson/Plame incident as being like “holding a gun to our soldiers heads”. What nonsense. The real gun that is being held to not only our soldiers heads but our civillians as well is the further revelation of criminal conduct at Abu Ghraib. </p>
<p>It is/has been dealt with both legally and administratively - what possible good does it do to further inflame the issue with more pictures? That is, other than to satisfy the disgusting perversion of the left who can celebrate the fact that they think it embarasses the administration. So what if this causes more Muslims to join in the fight to kill Americans? The most important thing is that Bush gets the embarassment that is his due. Sick.</p>
<p>I recall reading a report about an Army press conference in which the Army revealed that it had arrested several soldiers in conjunction with prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, that they were to be court-martialed, and that there was an ongoing investigation. This was fully six months before the photographs taken by the accused were leaked to the press. It was no secret, and there was no coverup. But I do agree that the motives of those who want yet more photos released to the world (don’t forget that these have already been seen by those who need to see them) are obviously to undermine the administration and the military.</p>
<p>But perhaps this topic belongs in a non-Rove thread. Unless we also think he also orchestrated that (sigh).</p>
<p>Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilsons wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.</p>
<p>Harlow said that after Novaks call, he checked Plames status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plames name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified information.</p>
<p>washington post</p>
<p>Embarass the Administration? This is their own mess, they created this mess and are ignoring it…if you read much foriegn press, the left and the liberals. really don’t have to do anything to embarrass our Administration, they have done that themselves. We have very little credibility in the world. We are seen as liars and as torturers.
And it really hasn’t been dealt with, a few underlings were punished, but their superiors, very little and in some cases promotions.</p>
<p>So you’re suggesting that the special prosecutor is or should consider perjury charges against Novak?</p>
<p>I am saying that somebody is not telling the truth, but of course it couldn’t possibly be the golden boy Rove, who has such a sterling reputation of fair play, honesty, and ethics…and he has some history with Novak</p>
<p>so the CIA converstation with Novak took place AFTER the conversation with Rove, if my timeline is correct…</p>
<p>Novak took Rove’s comments as confirmation and contacted the CIA about their concerns around publishing. Novak’s verison of the conversation, which has been public for months and months, differs from that of the CIA representative he apparently spoke to. Not sure how you would resolve that. </p>
<p>It would be reasonable to speculate that this was CIA emplyee who approached Wilson on the street about Novak, however. </p>
<p>OK, you got me. What’s this disagreement about what happened got to do with Rove and whether or not he’s telling the truth?</p>
<p>Do you think Bush would fire Rove if he (that is, Rove) slept with an intern?</p>
<p>What if it was a male intern? ;)</p>
<p>You won’t find me going to bat for Novak. I’ve always thought that his printing of the Wilson/Plame stuff contrary to the CIA directive to not print it a bit slimy/irresponsible/illegal. Then, to interpret a “You’ve heard that too” from Rove as a “confirmation” just reinforces my general opinion of journalists of all stripes.</p>
<p>
If Rove lied under oath about sexual relations with an intern in order to undermine a lawfully-brought sexual harassment suit by yet another employee…yeah, I’d guess Bush would fire him, and it would be a good thing. Gotta get your context right.</p>
<p>You mean Bush would allow a secret gay affair - with interns! - in the White House? ;)</p>
<p>I think Bush would tend to agree with most Americans that the only people who should be having sex in the White House are the married couple that lives there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, according to some bloggers, it’s possible he nominated a gay lawyer to the Supreme Court. So much for complaining he nominated yet another everyday white guy.</p>
<p>Oh yes, those plaid pants.</p>
<p>The White House refuses to confirm that Judge Roberts also wore leisures in the 70s. Senate Democrats threaten filibuster.</p>
<p>SEX!!! That is it…do you know, people can’t figure out if Rove is married, what his does with the his special friend…</p>
<p>I am leaving the mutual admiration society to themselves…enjoy your trousers</p>
<p>Someone has told me that the link I posted earlier didn’t work…here’s the bit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, I liked this one better:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nationalreview.com/issue/long200507270750.asp[/url]”>http://www.nationalreview.com/issue/long200507270750.asp</a></p>
<p>(I thought better of a long quote and it looks like this link works, at least temporarily.)</p>
<p>Well it now looks like dingleberries outed his own wife in Who’s Who.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5538031.html[/url]”>http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5538031.html</a></p>
<p>Obviously if she was known as Plame in her alleged clandestine role and Rove referred to her as Wilson’s wife there isn’t any way our “enemies” could have connected the two personas without Herr Wilson’s helpful Who’s Who entry.</p>