|
WAB Bartender
Defense Professional
Military Professional
Join Date: 11-24-04
Location: Vacaville, CA.
Country: 
|
We were all waiting for 'more'?
HERE is more, courtesy of Little Green Footballs:
Quote:
Rove Talked to Reporter, Did Not Leak Name
On this July 4th weekend, left-wing blogs across this great nation are ranting and gloating and salivating over MSNBC partisan hack Lawrence O’Donnell’s accusation that Karl Rove is the source of the Valerie Plame leak. They share a common delusion that Rove is about to be “frog-marched” out of the White House (I’ve seen this term used in at least five places, including here in our comments), and this will start the impeachment snowball rolling down the hill of their dreams. They knew it! Svengali Rove is exposed at last!
Just one problem. According to Rove’s lawyer, Rove is indeed mentioned in the notes turned over by Time magazine’s Matthew Cooper—but not as the source of the leak: Lawyer Says Rove Talked to Reporter, Did Not Leak Name.
Karl Rove, President Bush’s chief political adviser, spoke with Time magazine’s Matthew Cooper during a critical week in July 2003 when Cooper was reporting on a public critic of the Bush administration who was also the husband of a CIA operative, his lawyer confirmed yesterday.
Rove is identified in Cooper’s notes from that time period, which Time turned over Friday to special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald — under court order. Fitzgerald is investigating whether senior administration officials leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame’s name to reporters in July 2003 as retaliation after her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly accused the Bush administration of twisting intelligence to justify a war with Iraq.
Rove’s lawyer said Rove never identified Plame to Cooper in those conversations. More significantly, Robert Luskin said, Fitzgerald assured him in October and again last week that Rove is not a target of his investigation.
“Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn’t disclose Valerie Plame’s identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else,” Luskin said. Luskin said the question remains unanswered: “Who outed this woman? . . . It wasn’t Karl.” ...
Rove answered questions under oath for about two hours before a grand jury on Oct. 15 as part of the special prosecutor’s investigation. According to Luskin, the prosecutor said he believes Rove was candid and forthcoming about his contact with reporters.
“I’ve been assured by the prosecutor they have no reason to doubt the honesty of anything he’s said,” Luskin said.
Hmm. Would Lawrence O’Donnell deliberately distort the meaning of the appearance of Rove’s name in these notes?
After seeing his disgraceful behavior during the Presidential election, it’s pretty clear that O’Donnell has an advanced case of Bush Derangement Syndrome. And BDS sufferers will say and do anything, without regard for their own safety or credibility. So I think the answer has to be, “yes, he probably would.” Left-wing blogs, of course, think this is irrelevant—because they’re all afflicted with BDS too.
The other delusion shared by left-wing blogs is that if Rove does turn out to be the source of the leak after all, LGF will be “crushed” or “devastated,” and that we’re going to stick up for Rove at all costs.
Remember how the left immediately circled the wagons around Dan Rather when the TANG memos were shown to be fakes, and even put together lengthy pseudo-intellectual exercises intended to prove that some magical typewriter available in the 1960s could have created them? The amount of absolute nonsense generated by these people, to defend a fraud, was astounding. To this day, many refuse to admit the obvious truth.
|
__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
|