<p>Rove didn’t know what Bill Harlow said. He - by himself - leaked the name of a CIA operative (whether or not Novak already knew it is irrelevant) - and then, apparently lied to the President of the United States about it, or, alternatively, the President of the United States lied to us.</p>
<p>I was responding the Citygirls because I took her post re the Who’s Who entry to mean that she was saying Plame’s employment was unconfirmed since it didn’t appear in Who’s Who, but I was pointing out that Harlow had, in fact, confirmed to Novak. I’m not sure how you leaped to the other conclusions, though, because Cooper’s testimony and Miller’s testimony is so contradictory, and Novak’s article makes very clear that Rove was only a confirming source. If a reporter had told me something and I merely confirmed it (particularly if I knew or surmised that Armitage was the source), I wouldn’t consider myself to have leaked, either.</p>
<p>Only in the world ravaged by BDS is this viewed as any sort of security threat. Note that the CIA actually provided the information to Novak. Also note that Fitzgerald knows who all of the “leakers” are and has not indicted a single one of them for any crime regarding security.</p>
<p>You can ignore the facts all you want and hyperventilate about presumed security issues, but in the end the facts speak for themselves.</p>
<p>She was simply not a covert agent, so the shock is misplaced. Just curious, though: where is your outrage at the actual leaker? Where is your outrage at her husband for putting her in this position? Where is your outrage at Mr. Wilson for misrepresenting the truth in so public a way, thus causing a Congressional investigation that called him a liar? Where is your outrage at Ms. Plame for misusing her position to obtain benefit for her husband and then lying about it?</p>
<p>“If a reporter had told me something and I merely confirmed it (particularly if I knew or surmised that Armitage was the source), I wouldn’t consider myself to have leaked, either.”</p>
<p>Well, that seems pretty bizarre to me. He could have asked him about any name out of the phonebook. He could have been speculating about “Deep Throat” for all we know. Rove had no way of knowing what Bill Harlow said (unless there was actually a conspiracy to leak Plame’s name.) Then he lied to the President about it, or so it seems.</p>
<p>Of course, the President could have known, and gone on national TV and said, “Karl Rove has told me today that, while he does not believe he leaked Valerie Plame’s name, he did confirm to a reporter that she was in fact a CIA operative.” End of story.</p>
<p>Well, that seems pretty bizarre to me. He could have asked him about any name out of the phonebook. He could have been speculating about “Deep Throat” for all we know. Rove had no way of knowing what Bill Harlow said (unless there was actually a conspiracy to leak Plame’s name.) Then he lied to the President about it, or so it seems</p>
<p>It seems that way to you, which seems pretty bizarre to me. In the specific context of discussing WIlson’s OpEd in the Times, any name out of the phone book would be ludicrous. It’s also never been made public EXACTLY what was said, so you really are stretching. The federal judge made clear that there was no national security damage and no crime committed in the “leak.” It’s a shame that so many people were disappointed, but think of it this way, my side was disappointed by not seeing Joe Wilson indicted (although he is thoroughly discredited), so that makes us even, right?</p>
<p>Now, if you want to go after Rove, let’s discuss his meeting with La Raza and watch my head explode.</p>
<p>If you were “winking” at me, what about Clinton? Just typing his name makes me want to wash my hands.</p>
<p>Of course no one in the administration lied, Rove is clean as a whistle, Bush is a truthful, God lovin’ man who is a straight shooter. Nothing to see here. Moving right along. <sarcasm></sarcasm></p>
<p>I’ll happily bite on the winky Clinton reference. With all the protection the right wing offers to the many and obvious lies of the Bush administrtion, lies that have compromised our national security, among other such heinous acts, these lies are apparently not anywhere near as heinous as a blow job.</p>
<p>Imagine that we taxpayers spent $50M chasing a blue stained dress, the culmination of Clinton’s lie.</p>
<p>Imagine if anyone in the Bush cabal were actually prosecuted for the obscene number of lies in the past five years.</p>
<p>Ah, the lies of Clinton. A veritable walk in the park!</p>
<p>I’ll happily bite on the winky Clinton reference. With all the protection the right wing offers to the many and obvious lies of the Bush administrtion, lies that have compromised our national security, among other such heinous acts, these lies are apparently not anywhere near as heinous as a blow job.</p>
<p>Imagine that we taxpayers spent $50M chasing a blue stained dress, the culmination of Clinton’s lie.</p>
<p>Imagine if anyone in the Bush cabal were actually prosecuted for the obscene number of lies in the past five years.</p>
<p>Ah, the lies of Clinton. A veritable walk in the park</p>
<p>What you seem to forget is that Clinton lied in the context of denying a United States citizen her right to seek redress in the courts. That is a pretty serious thing, in my opinion. But folks on the left have never had any interest in actual human beings, especially the poor, white, less educated kind.</p>
<p>I think it is totally useless for people to argue politics here. No one, no matter what facts exist, will change their point of view. Sides will create “facts” or try to draw counter points (Clinton) that aren’t even related to the issue at hand (Sex vs. War). So folks why bother? If your a big GW fan, good for you. If your not, good for you too.</p>
<p>As I read the paper this morning I also noticed Haliburton lost it’s contract with the government as audits have found over a billion dollars in fraudulent overcharges ($45 case of pop and such). </p>
<p>Now the contract is going back out for bid and Haliburton must bid again. I thought about posting it, but I also know that some of the die hards “we do absolutely everything right” would jump all over the picking on of Haliburton, because they have a certain party’s ear. </p>
<p>Personally, I always thought it was good business to seek at least three bids on any project. I learned that in business classes at college. But here, with some, that is a liberal left wing commie attitude and how could I be so stupid, until the other side is in power and does the same and using a single bid contract is communism. </p>
<p>Being Stupid means you’re unwilling to consider another pov, you’re so locked into your own, that you refuse to even understand another pov. Learning means you have to be willing let go of your previous beliefs. </p>
<p>Now I’m not the smartest guy on the block, but I am not stupid enough to believe either side has my best interests at heart. So go ahead and attack, I’m neither liberal left wing commie, nor right wing neocon. So label will I be given? </p>
<p>Besides I’m from an era where communism was considered a threat to capitalism. Somehow that changed when we found out they will work for a dollar a day and gladly polute their environment. Can conservatives consider communism “bad” anymore when they provide such cheap labor? just a observation.</p>
<p>The stream-of-consciousness post, Im sorry to say, has already been claimed; that is to say it is owned by one of your fellow cc membersa rapid fire poster herself, and no slouch in such matters. I believe you will need to get permission to abuse it thus, in the future. Short of that, you could re-christen [inadvertent religious reference] the widely popular stream-of-consciousness rant into simply “thinking-out-loud,” or rambling-on-a-muse to pass the time away.:)</p>
<p>Anyhow, fwiw, I much prefer your thinking-out-loud lists to your compadres’ percolating stream-of-consciousness bulletins.</p>
<p>…However, I am not sure which is more Joycean and therefore literate/artistic/with-it. </p>
<p>Besides I’m from an era where communism was considered a threat to capitalism. Somehow that changed when we found out they will work for a dollar a day and gladly polute their environment. Can conservatives consider communism “bad” anymore when they provide such cheap labor? just a observation.</p>
<p>It is an excellent observation, but I would respectfully submit that it doesn’t just apply to conservatives, and many of the conservatives to whom it does apply are part of the conservative elite that are completely out of touch with the conservative base. Thus, the freefall of Bush’s poll numbers with the base.</p>
<p>I see you are at it again - spreading unsubstantited allegations (lies???) with nary a reference. Is the left wing echo chamber so significant that you actually believe what you said was true or are you just hoping that by continuing to repeat it that people will start to believe it to be true - sort of a left wing evangelist.</p>
<p>Maybe if you actually enumerated “points?” Instead of “Imagine if anyone in the Bush cabal were actually prosecuted for the obscene number of lies in the past five years.” Since one can’t read your mind, perhaps you could describe what lies you are referring to?</p>
<p>Allmusic, you may complain about “ad hominem attacks” all you want but until you start providing substance for your wild accusations, I’ll continue to call you on it.</p>
</p>