Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush whacked Rove on CIA leak (You are not gonna believe this one)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:39 AM
Original message
Bush whacked Rove on CIA leak (You are not gonna believe this one)
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 03:49 AM by hang a left
Bush whacked
Rove on CIA leak

BY THOMAS M. DeFRANK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF


WASHINGTON - An angry President Bush rebuked chief political guru Karl Rove two years ago for his role in the Valerie Plame affair, sources told the Daily News.

"He made his displeasure known to Karl," a presidential counselor told The News. "He made his life miserable about this."

Bush has nevertheless remained doggedly loyal to Rove, who friends and even political adversaries acknowledge is the architect of the President's rise from baseball owner to leader of the free world.

As special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald nears a decision, perhaps as early as today, on whether to issue indictments in his two-year probe, Bush has already circled the wagons around Rove, whose departure would be a grievous blow to an already shell-shocked White House staff and a President in deep political trouble.

Asked if he believed indictments were forthcoming, a key Bush official said he did not know, then added: "I'm very concerned it could go very, very badly."

"Karl is fighting for his life," the official added, "but anything he did was done to help George W. Bush. The President knows that and appreciates that."

Other sources confirmed, however, that Bush was initially furious with Rove in 2003 when his deputy chief of staff conceded he had talked to the press about the Plame leak.

snip>

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/357107p-304312c....

Daily News is who broke the Hannah turned states evidence story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. wowee!
W00T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anotherdrew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
197. Does this explain why Rove was made to crawl under the wheel of AF1 ?
remember that ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #197
201. I sure do remember that..
It was in NJ, just after an unfruitful campaign visit...(Don't remember the exact timing, though.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anotherdrew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #201
210. hey
there's a coffee shop here in Portland named after you :)

I hope to hell something comes of all this... wasn't today the day?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #210
212. maybe friday
or next Monday..
He said he'd go to Washington for this.. Is anyone watching travel plans?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #197
215. "it seems to have been an inside joke"
Probably Rove had forgotten all about his testimony earlier in the week, and Bush didn't even know about the Plame leak, anyway.

Right?!



October 15, 2004 Rove testifies before a federal grand jury for two hours. Fitzgerald assures Rove that he is not a target of the probe. (" Rove Testifies Washington Post, Oct. 2004).

http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html



McGUIRE AIR FORCE BASE, N.J. Oct 18, 2004 Karl Rove laid himself on the line Monday for his boss, the president of the United States.

That is, he laid himself under the wheels of Air Force One. Reason: Unclear, but it seems to have been an inside joke between Rove and President Bush.

Returning to the aircraft after Bush's foreign policy speech, the two men traded words. As Bush climbed the stairs, his top political adviser set his briefcase down in front of the tires and stretched out on the ground with his back to the wheels.

Rove stood back up moments later; a smiling Bush waved from the plane and they both got aboard....

"It was a humorous moment on the campaign trail," was all Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel would say about Rove's antic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anotherdrew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #215
216. bush said to him...
"this plane's on a down slope rovie... why don't you get on down there and be a wheel block for me. get down there and stop me rolling away..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaded_at_best Donating Member (115 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
207. if the Unelected Chimp really whacked Rove
it was for being caught, nothing else.

Americans, get ready for another 911. This time, though, the inside job will kill many more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:47 AM
Response to Original message
2. Ahhh so BUSH KNEW.
Interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crikkett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:54 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. and lied again! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crikkett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:54 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. and lied again! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viking12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #9
79. and lied again!
that deserves to be repeated. :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #79
84. and lied again and again and again and....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hvn_nbr_2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #84
96. Bush lied, the sun rose in the east, and apples fall to earth n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #96
129. yeah, right and then Rover's promoted to Chief of Staff
That tells us how really angry W was... what a bunch of BS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #129
143. so he's pissed-big deal-pt is: BUSH KNEW
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nia Zuri Donating Member (576 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #129
159. this is such BS...a planted story to be sure
Now that their back is (almost) against the wall, Bush needs to distane himself from Rove. Show that he was the good guy in all of this, has integrity. Rove is the bad one, Bush didn't know, honest and when he found out he was sooooo pissed. What hogwash!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #159
190. That is exactly my reaction. Suddenly BUSH is the good guy? I don't think
so!!!! :shrug: No way Rove did this and Bush did not know exactly what was happening.
I could sooner believe that Rove would take the knife in the back to protect Bush, and Bush, being the piece of crap that he is, would let Rove do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #159
203. Ummm... that's not the big takeaway on this story.

If Bush rebuked Rove in 2003 for Rove's role in outing Plame, that means Bush has known about it since then and has done nothing to correct the matter.

Depending on what Bush told Fitzgerald, he could be in *big* trouble. Much bigger than a little blue lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Miss Chybil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #84
209. You're saying Bush is a liar?
Who'da thunk? I'm shocked... and awed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #2
104. Say It Again... Say It Again... BUSH KNEW!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hvn_nbr_2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #104
158. What did the president know and when did he know it?
For anyone not old enough to remember Watergate, that was one of the catch phrases of that scandal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #158
166. Yes... I Remember.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #2
119. If true, then, for starters, he's been in continuous violation of EO 12958
At a minimum ....

For reference:


Bush committed another crime today, in plain sight, on National TV

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

"Either way, the president has painted himself into a corner."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I rather doubt any of Bush's legal eagles (are ya listening Harry) would approve of intentionally leaking what is quoted in the NY Daily News. If the quoted "presidential counselor" has conveyed the truth then whomever it is did Bush dirty, big time.


Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #119
138. Could Fitz be going after Bush? And what are "appropriate sanctions" as
mentioned in the executive order?

This is just UNBELIEVABLE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #138
140. For starters, he would have yanked the security clearance of ...
... anyone involved and, given the nature of their jobs and where their offices are located, they would have been out, immediately.

Whomever is planting these rumors is definitely not a friend of Bush or any of those being named and I doubt that anyone on Bush's payroll is leaking this stuff "to protect him."


Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #140
144. What are the penalties for violation of the E.O.?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #144
152. From Congressman Waxman:
THE WHITE HOUSE OBLIGATIONS UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958

Under the executive order, 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.8

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.9

There is no evidence that the White House complied with these requirements.2

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/2005071...


Penalities would likely fall under 18 USC 793 and IIPA, in the matter of intentionally disclosing intelligence assets and willfully harboring and protecting those who disclosed the assets.


Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #152
156. What penalties do 18 USC 793 and IIPA provide? Do I hear impeachment???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #2
130. He knew AND committed a crime.
Take this at face value. Bush knew someone who outed a CIA agent. He did nothing about it, thus endangered the agent, the intelligence network, and this country's security.

Outing the agent is a felony, but I believe not reporting a security breach is also a felony. Bush is culpable and a co-conspirator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vitruvius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #130
178. So the best spin Bu$h can manage is a BS story that nevertheless admits
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 02:42 PM by Vitruvius
that he committed a felony! (Bu$h mad at Rove is BS; Bu$h knew is the truth -- by Bu$h's own spin.)

Bu$h is an incompetent liar -- just as he's incompetent at everything else except stealing elections, starting wars-of-aggression, and shoveling our tax dollars to his rich friends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MN ChimpH8R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
200. Obstruction of justice. Pure and simple
An impeachable offense. Off to the Hague. Bye, Chimpy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
213. Bush knew in the same way Nixon knew
Do the Democrats of today have the balls to impeach a President?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
springhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:48 AM
Response to Original message
3. Yea right..........
What a bunch of hooey! Bush is this thing up to his eyeballs. This is just an attempt to protect him. So obvious, how can anyone fall for this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:22 AM
Response to Reply #3
22. My impression is that he not only knew
but was present during the discussions about how to "get" Joe Wilson.

The man's a vidictive sociopath who hates being crossed (which is one thing Kerry should have known and used to his advantage). Had Kerry been more direct, straightforward and confrontative- like Dean would have been- Bush would have lost his temper for sure- and that would have been the election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #22
47. "...and that would have been the election."
You're forgetting that two far rightwing Bushite corporations, Diebold and ES&S, tabulated the votes using SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code.

Bush losing his temper (say, in the debates) might have helped Kerry get the 10% or so margin he needed to overcome the electronic theft that occurred in the east coast time zone (and other Bushite fraud and vote suppression)--because I suspect that the electronic fraud had to be pre-programmed to certain percentage levels--but it's hard to envision a poorer presidential record or a poorer debate performance than Bush's (other than just slugging Kerry or something). Actually, I'm flabbergasted that voters accepted the outcome, although I know why they did: a) the war profiteering corporate news monopolies CHANGED the exit polls (Kerry won) to fit the result of Diebold's and ES&S's secret formulae (Bush won), late on election day, thus depriving the American public of major evidence of election fraud, and b) the Democratic leadership, which is corrupt on the $4 billion electronic voting boondoggle (among other things) failed to object to Bushite corporations tabulating the votes in secret.

What I'm saying is that you may be right, but I tend to doubt it. I think that Bush could have disrobed and gone screaming from the debate forum, and the war profiteering corporate news monopolies would have found a way to "spin" it, and then would have crowed and cooed and drooled and barked and chirped and snarled and giggled madly about his "amazing recovery" by election day.

They all had billions and billions and billions more dollars they wanted to loot from us, and more Arabs and Muslims they wanted to torture and kill, and they wouldn't have let a little episode of presidential "stress" get in the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:21 AM
Response to Reply #47
48. I'm going to keep saying this, over and over...
... Diebold can steal 2%-4% of the vote, any more and it would be obvious to the point of being provable. They cheaters cannot risk being caught, for that would be their, and their party's, long term demise.

This fatalism that we "can never win an election as long as there are electronic voting machines" is simply wrong. We just have to win by a bigger margin than a couple percent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fly by night Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #48
54. Continuing to say it doesn't make you right. And accepting any amount ...
... of electronic vote theft doesn't benefit anyone, most especially the American people.

There is nothing fatalistic about our concerns over private companies counting our votes in secret on software that we are not even allowed to examine. Doing nothing about it is fatalistic -- in fact, it is political suicide for anyone who believes in government whose power is derived from the consent of the governed.

I have posted two threads recently that deal with what you can do to reduce the likelihood that more elections are stolen by electronic vote manipulation. You might want to give them a look-see... and then do something other than console yourself that we can afford a 2-4% theft-related disadvantage in future elections:

"Election reform: get up, stand up, show up, speak up -- or be silenced"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

"Tennessee's Democratic Party 'walks the walk' for election reform"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #54
65. I spent 4 weeks here..
... railing at Kerry for missing an opportunity to tackle the issue, so claiming I "dont' care" is stupid.

And, it isn't the fact that I say they can't steal more than a certain percentage of votes that makes it true, it's because it IS TRUE.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fly by night Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #65
99. Why on earth would you think electronic vote theft is limited to 2-4%?
If you've studied the Georgia 2002 election (where Georgians voted entirely on Diebold equipment), there was a swing of 10 percentage points or greater between the pre-election polls (a day or two before the election) and the "reported" vote. And Gahanna precinct in Ohio reported around 4,000 votes for Bush in a precinct with only around 600 registered voters. Likewise, some of the more questionable exit poll/"reported" vote discrepencies in 2004 (New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania) all showed discrepencies in the 6+% range.

So what makes you believe that electronic vote theft has a ceiling above which the thieves cannot go. All evidence I have seen is to the contrary. Put up or sit on your hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #99
106. First of all..
... SCREW the polls. They don't mean shit, except one particular poll, the properly executed, large sample EXIT POLL.

The first time such a poll is at a 10% variance with the stated results, the idea of vote theft will move from the tinfoil arena to the factual arena and they will have killed the golden goose.

These folks are stupid but they are not that stupid. You cannot just steal any number of votes and expect it to fly.

I stand by my analysis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #106
113. You might want to have a look at the Baldwin County
Alabama electronic Voting results for the last Govenors election..

During the middle of the night the Republican party kicked ALL the poll workers out, the media, etc and sat down and MOVED 6,500 votes from column A to column B - no other numbers in the state changed..

They blamed it on a Computer malfunction, that an electric strike THIRTY MILES AWAY had SOMEHOW caused that many votes to switch in ONE county and no where else..

The Democratic Ex Gov, went to bed thinking he'd won, only to wake up to find that he'd lost to Riley, the REPIG..

and they did it RIGHT there in one room of the Alabama County Courthouse. We interviewed the ex gov for a film we made (still fighting for the film in court) and he was screwed..

He demanded a recount, and of course as is usual in what I consider one of the most corrupt counties in the country, they refused.

In effect, in order to prove fraud they would have to recount the votes, but without evidence of fraud, and since they refused to open the box without evidence of fraud, there was no reason to open the box or count the votes, so there was no way to prove fraud, cute, eh?

Nice legal circular F*CK YOU logic and theft.

He walked away from it, it was rigged, the judges are all corrupt there and hard core right wingers and he knew there was no way to fight it.. I consider that the Template for the rest of the country's voting systems.

I was sentenced in that same building, and it While I was in their jail, my wife was interviewing the Ex Dem Gov about all this - the Judge that sentenced me KNEW I was working on a film about Electronic Voting fraud, and used Family court to put me in the clinker..

I hate that patch of land with a passion and wish I could come back there with three or four Senators, FBI and a Federal Prosecutor along with a Constitutional lawyer from NY or some place where the Big Boys play at law..

2 to 3% will ALWAYS be the rule, no matter HOW many people vote in every state that constitutes a win for the wrong side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fly by night Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #106
116. Once again, Georgia 2002 -- single large-scale exit poll w/ 10%+ variance.
It's happened, and if there was rioting in the streets of Georgia, I missed it. And if you're unwilling to review the evidence (which is certainly not limited to exit polls, but maybe you know that), you're certainly entitled to your uninformed opinion. Just don't try to pass it off as reality-based, 'k?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #116
137. What happened....
.... when very few people even suspected that this was going on, and what can happen now that there is widespead suspicion, are two very different things.

I'm talking about future elections here and I still stand by my analysis.

Of course, everything hinges on the cheated politician actually doing something, the primary reason I'm not interested in people like Kerry running for hotly contested positions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fly by night Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #137
146. Saying that people won't accept future stolen elections and working ...
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 11:52 AM by Fly by night
... to insure that reaction (and to reduce the probability of stolen elections) are very different things. Please read the two links I provided you earlier in post #54 and then tell me what YOU are doing to prevent future elections from being stolen (besides "anal-yzing"). Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #146
161. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #161
167. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #167
168. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Fly by night Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #168
170. Yawn. More "all hat, no cattle" self-important Texas effluvium. Bye-bye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #99
211. The Gahanna election was at the New Life Church
tied to Bob Jones University. I always wonder what role those evangelical churches have in election fraud. So many of them are voting sites. Even at my neighborhood in Seattle. Just wanted to pipe in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cookie wookie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-05 04:04 AM
Response to Reply #65
217. Not sure where you get your facts
Edited on Thu Oct-20-05 04:11 AM by Cookie wookie
but in 2002 in Georgia's first election using Diebold:

"Barnes lost the governorship to the Republican, Sonny Purdue, 46% to 51%. A swing as much as 16% from the last opinion polls and Cleland lost to Chambliss 46%-53. A last-minute swing of 9 to 12 points, making what you're saying particularly significant."

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/30/162...

I think everyone here needs to know that this past summer the whole country has gone to electronic voting and although about half the states instituted some kind of paper trail, most of the laws governing it call for small random recounts which are virtually useless in detecting electronic vote stealing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #54
67. I agree with Depakid and Sendero, Fly by night, in this sense: I think
it's a good and necessary strategy--and the truth--that we could conceivably overcome electronic election fraud by the sheer number of progressive voters. I DO think there is a limit on the fraud as to preprogrammed percentages--or at least there was in 2004--and that, at this point, they may fear exposure of these election theft machines, so they might proceed more cautiously.

Also, I would never, never, NEVER want to discourage people from voting. Never! WE MUST NEVER GIVE UP OUR RIGHT TO VOTE! We must NEVER give in to "it's all rigged" cynicism.

But I don't believe in lying to people--as the Dem leadership has been doing. People need to know the truth. They need to act on it. And they need to VOTE in massive turnouts.

Of course I don't agree to a 2% or 3% fraud! Nor would Depakid and Sendero, I'm sure. No one wants that. But we have to think realistically. For instance, in 2004, when I realized what was happening with electronic voting, I urged people to obtain absentee ballots, as one of the few ways to get a paper record, for comparison with machine results. And that turned out to be very, very useful in analyzing the election results.

We simply don't have time to correct all the fraudulent voting systems in the country, before '06 or even '08. We have to devise additional, temporary, ad hoc strategies--such as www.UScountvotes.org, and their statistical monitoring project; parallel elections; independent exit polls, and so on--and get-out-the-vote efforts that tell people HONESTLY what is going on, and fire them up to overcome it with our numbers.

We have to do both--repair this election system, AND deal with non-transparent elections however we can in the meantime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fly by night Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #67
101. I agree to creating a margin of support that makes theft obvious ...
... but my view of the evidence from 2004 and before indicates that election thefts have already occurred that exceed Sendero's 2-4% range. (See above post).

But I also agree that we need to keep the Rethuglican implosion going, and accelerate it, so that by 11/06, NO ONE would believe another sweep by the Republi-Nazis in this country. Unfortunately, I am still not sure whether there would be any massive response if it happened, other than folks dropping another Prozac and changing the channel. We have a lot of voting system improvements AND grassroots mobilization to do to overcome both the Rethugs' slippery fingers and the citizenry's somnolescence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
randomelement Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #54
86. Let Diebold and ESS keep the voting machine market
just force them to print out a paper ballot for hand counting. Under no circumstances should these machines TABULATE the vote - just print out a nice, standardized ballot that is then placed in the ballot box by the voter. This way, Diebold et al can keep their proprietary systems secret (I mean, who cares how they crafted up their User Interface) and we get the transparency that we all need. Knowing that Diebold has no problem with spitting out paper receipts at their ATM's, they certainly can't state that they CAN'T do the same with the voting machines. I consider this a win-win approach since we get what we want (transparency) and they can continue to reap profits for their user friendly machines (which do benefit the disadvantaged among us)

My two cents -
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #86
123. Welcome to DU!
Paper trails are always the way to go. It IS, after all, how you catch miscreants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trogdor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #54
88. I don't think he's accepting anything.
What he's saying is, first you have to win, no matter how. Second, you have to put everything right, but you can't do that if you can't win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fly by night Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #88
102. Other way around -- you can't ever win with a stacked deck ...
... or an election system where private companies count our votes in secret using software that we can never examine.

Voter-verified paper ballots, mandatory random manual audits, no wireless capability in our voting machines -- those are the necessary (though not sufficient) conditions to begin to have trustworthy elections again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SupplyConcerns Donating Member (305 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #48
100. The Kerry exit polls showed more than that
Explain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #100
124. Welcome to DU!
Glad you're here. Help us GET RID OF THESE PEOPLE!!!

Visualize IMPEACHMENT!!!!

Then go DO something about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #100
139. They did not...
... prove it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thinkingwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #48
117. you are right
the margin must be larger so that the fraud becomes more clear. Then people will pour into the streets like they did in Yugoslavia.

Some people don't want to accept that truth. They'd rather wring hands and talk in circles: "we can't win with voting machines and we can't change the voting machines until we win, what ever will we do?" :eyes:

Frankly, I think the magical number of elections that can be "stolen" in a row is 3. It was almost 2, honestly. Nobody was happy with the 2004 outcome because people knew in their guts that something was wrong--even repukes, who are notoriously bad winners, were QUIET where I used to live in southern Indiana, which, as anyone who has lived there knows, is a repuke haven.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #117
141. There is a lot of quibbling...
.... about numbers here. I pulled a number out of my ass, I'll grant that. It doesn't invalidate my point.

You cannot steal a closely watched election by more than a few points.

I suspect that the same hand-wringers who insist a Dem will never win office again are among the crowd who expect martial law and military coup any day. They are fucking nuts, even republicans have their limits. And every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and the opposite reactions are just beginning to build.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #48
171. Excellent point. I also believe the Repugs know it.
Tampering with the vote was a "Limited Deal" and they knew it. They knew they only had a certain margin they could steal, and then it would be all over for them.

Say for example, if 70% of the population supported Kerry, and only 30% supported Bush. There's NO WAY they could have pulled it off. It would have been too difficult. It would be so obvious to Americans what they had done. There would be rioting in the streets.

There would be HUGE push for change, and they would start throwing out Diebold voting machines in the streets, just dumping them.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnneD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #22
78. Exactly...
He is a thin skinned, hardnosed, vindictive, SOB that takes perverse pleasure in others pain. It would have been so easy to have him go nuclear and I agree that Kerry should have called him out more. I recommend 'Bush on the Couch' for a good psych profile. It is scary stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #22
120. Furthermore, let's not forget his track record.
He and kkkarl rove are brothers in arms. Joined at the hip. BOTH of them having gone to Dirty Tricks School, studying personally at the knee of the dreaded republi-CON Dark Lord lee atwater. They've been at this kind of thing for at least a couple of DECADES. This goes WAY back to the 80's. It's the kind of thing bush would have SAVORED. NOT excoriated his longtime partner-in-crime for doing. This is bullshit. Total bullshit. FAR more likely bush either got wind of it, or spurred him on, or gave him one of those "coded" winks or some such signal that they would understand between each other after so many years "working" and screwing people together. Or he was in on it from the moment he perceived that Joseph Wilson presented a problem to their grand power-grabbing, war-mongering scheme. No WAY is he aggrieved or otherwise outraged by the "mis-steps" of his longtime thug-brother. He probably would have been tickled by it. Might even have sent rove a bottle of expensive champagne to congratulate him for such a devious maneuver. It's only now, that they've gotten caught - AND gotten caught at something SERIOUSLY criminal that this shit is being dished out to the public.

Yeah, he was "outraged" at this, alright. Took ol' karlly-boy straight out to the woodshed. Yeah. SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURE. And I'm Imelda Marcos.

I guarantee you - he IS pissed now. But what he's pissed about is not that his old friend betrayed him or played too fast and loose. He's pissed that they've been found out, and that the jig may be up, particularly now when he's on the ropes as is. He's pissed that they somehow slipped up and got caught. And that there may, for perhaps the very first time in his life, be consequences he can't get around. THAT'S why he's indignant. Probably just seething at kkkarl for botching this so they DID get caught. This cover wasn't supposed to be blown. They were supposed to get away with this, too, just like they have with every other dirty trick and scummy stunt they've ever pulled that they never had to pay for. Remember, after all, kkkarl rove's formidable reputation has been made, over the course of MANY years and MANY campaigns and MANY destroyed reputations and careers, for pulling this stuff and NEVER LEAVING ANY FINGERPRINTS. This time that evidently didn't work out so well. THAT'S why bush is pissed at him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #22
128. You're also conveniently forgetting that Dean wasn't so hard to trip up
in debates, either. Gephardt did it easily in the Iowa debate.

How on earth has anyone come to the conclusion that Dean was such a great debater he could make Bush angry and get him to explode?

Dean already showed his reaction to the media's distortions of his own behavior by toning himself down, which was just sad to see, even as one who supported another.

Revising the strengths and weaknesses of any of the Dem primary candidates isn't exactly helpful and especially not accurate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NVMojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #22
205. nah ...it's better to watch the Repukes hang themselves, one at a time,
that way it's all out in the open for the American public to witness. The other way, we never really learn from their mistakes ...if that's even possible ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #3
82. Actually, this revelation is damning for Bush.
It means he knew. And that means he's been complicit in covering up Rove's involvement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #82
131. MAN! No-frickin'-KIDDING. That's the ballgame, folks.
I read this to my husband just a few minutes ago. He was aghast. He said the same thing. "It's ALL there! bush knew. He LIED. And he LIED AGAIN AND AGAIN!"

(snip)

But the President felt Rove and other members of the White House damage-control team did a clumsy job in their campaign to discredit Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, the ex-diplomat who criticized Bush's claim that Saddam Hussen tried to buy weapons-grade uranium in Niger.
A second well-placed source said some recently published reports implying Rove had deceived Bush about his involvement in the Wilson counterattack were incorrect and were leaked by White House aides trying to protect the President.
"Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and others as believing that they handled it in a ham-handed and bush-league way," the source said.

(snip)

Holy Cow!

I can't believe the excruciatingly delicious wording here - about it being handled in "a ham-handed and bUSH-LEAGUE way" - Oh. My. God.

:rofl:

GAWD I hope the other outlets are picking up on this one. YO, OLBERMANN!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #131
206.  KO LEADS w/ this story!
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 07:13 PM by krkaufman
Video will be available at CrooksAndLiars later, I'm sure, but here's a snapshot of the lead-in...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #82
134. Yep, and he allowed the treasonous traitor to remain leaving our country
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 11:23 AM by goforit
at stake for infiltrates to have access to top secret information
and exposing thousands of top agents, risking their own lives and their families lives.

You would think that this administration were KGB officers with the sole purpose to literally destroy this country!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melissinha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #3
112. this is standard evasion
Until is becomes inevitable that the truth will come out, no acknowledgement of wrongdoing will occur. Now that it seems inevitable all these reports abotu Bush punishing Rove are appearing, this is simple distancing and evasion of culpability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laurab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #112
175. It doesn't really matter if he "punished" Rove
it's maybe evasion, but that doesn't matter, either. What matters is that, if this happened two years ago, Bush KNEW - doesn't matter how he felt about it, he KNEW. THAT cannot be evaded, and "punishing" Rove doesn't make his boss any less culpable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melissinha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #175
185. thats right, but thats what
they have to TRY to do, not that it will be successfull.... I can't wait til Fitzmas!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:50 AM
Response to Original message
4. Bush Knew
Bush Knew, Bush Knew, Bush Knew Bush Knew, Bush Knew, Bush Knew Bush Knew, Bush Knew, Bush Knew Bush Knew, Bush Knew, Bush Knew Bush Knew, Bush Knew, Bush Knew Bush Knew, Bush Knew, Bush Knew Bush Knew, Bush Knew, Bush Knew

Yeah, we really can't say that one enough, can we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McKenzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:51 AM
Response to Original message
5. hey hang a left, am I getting this right?
the article is saying Bush actually KNEW about Rove's involvement TWO years ago and they have a source to confirm that?

Maybe I'm reading this the wrong way but if I'm not this is a damning revelation. Better go make some coffee for breakfast to jump start my brain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Yep
That is what it says. I think they are changing their stratergery.

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:56 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. strategery?!
They don't (think they) need no stinkin' strategery!!! LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:56 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Well their stratergery could use a little somethin nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
King Coal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #11
97. Get a dickshunary moran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:12 AM
Response to Reply #5
32. I'll have a spot of strong black tea to see if I can get my brain to grasp
this latest news from a NYC rag that I have very little respect for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
henslee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:46 AM
Response to Reply #32
40. A tabloid true but just because it's a working man's paper. Sure they
do plenty of fluff but they have plenty of legit news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #32
58. And please don't confuse the Daily News, as others have, with the NY Post
I'm sure you are aware of the difference between the News and the Post, 0007, but many on the board have confused them, sometimes even in subject lines. I just wanted to make the point: the NY Daily News is a tabloid, but far from the National Enquirer, is not owned by Murdoch, and does not exist to propagandize for the Right. Tabloid-sized papers are popular in NYC because they are easily read while commuting on subways and buses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #58
160. I've lived in NYC for a few years and understand the benefit of
reading a small paper while commuting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #160
187. Didn't mean to be a smart ass, 0007 -- my response was to your post...
but it was meant for a wider audience. (I lived in that great city many years, and still miss it. Everyone should live there a while.)

Again, sorry!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #187
194. No harm! I do understand what you're saying.
The best place I've ever lived. Wish I never left. I lived on 34th & 6th ave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #32
214. Keith Olbermann said tonight that Tom DeFrank is highly respected
as a journalist. I trust Olbermann's judgment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-05 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #214
218. That's good enough for me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #5
50. Yep. Because it means he was part of a conspiracy to cover up a crime
that is itself a blow to national security.

Go ahead, suckers--use this one!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:53 AM
Response to Original message
7. !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wellst0nev0ter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:01 AM
Response to Original message
12. All The Way To The pResident
I hope he likes clearing brush in a chain gang.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinniped Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:04 AM
Response to Original message
13. They were all in on it, only repuke fools fool themselves...
into thinking they nothing of this.

The order had to come from the top.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Journeyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:09 AM
Response to Original message
14. So Karl Rove outed a CIA agent and destroyed her organization. . .
but it's OK because ". . . anything he did was done to help George W. Bush. The President knows that and appreciates that."

Ah for the days when we had Presidents who understood the value of the nation's greater good and worked to protect that and not just their own ass. . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:18 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. Is this a headline or a buried story?
Some idiot thinks this CLEARS George. It indicts him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:20 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. It is a Newsday Exclusive eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:45 AM
Response to Reply #20
27. Daily News
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:52 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Sorry...
I really need to get some sleep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Earth_First Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:37 AM
Response to Reply #18
37. self-deleted
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 05:46 AM by Earth_First
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #18
148. It's inside the paper,page nineish....
Didn't W say he'll fire all those responsible? "Fire" not "whack"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truth2power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:45 AM
Response to Reply #14
39. That's what I find so shocking...
That anyone could say, with no further comment, that he did it to help Dubya. And no one bats an eye. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chiyo-chichi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #39
89. well, you see...
the President is sooooo popular and beloved that if Rove committed treason to protect him, then not only will Bush forgive him, but so will the majority of Americans. :sarcasm:

You're right, truth2power, that called for a strong follow-up question, e.g. "So if his staffers commit a felony with the intent of "helping" him, then the President is OK with that?" :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressivebydesign Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #14
147. Doesn't that quote sound like a McClellan special?
"... the President knows that and appreciates that". Spoken like a Scotty special.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zippy890 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:10 AM
Response to Original message
15. Can this be for real? Such detail about inner WH
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 04:11 AM by zippy890
told to reporters! Who is this 'presidential counselor' talking to the Daily News?

Whats happening here, does this seem strange to anybody else that this kind of information is being told to newspapers? The most secretive, protective WH letting this information out,- ???

If this is real there's been a profound shift in the contiuum so to speak.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:12 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Well Newsday had the exclusive yesterday about
Hannah being a top administration aide that had turned states evidence in the Plame case. So they have some kind of a source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #16
59. Daily News, hang -- go to sleep!
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 07:12 AM by DeepModem Mom
:D

And on edit, as I'm reminded downthread, it was Raw Story, I think, that named Hannah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #16
60. no - RawStory broke that news
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=55213

RAWSTORY Breaks the Name of a White House Official Who is Cooperating with Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald

10/18/2005 2:38:00 PM

To: National Desk, Political Reporter

Contact: Ilene Proctor, 310-271-5857, for VelvetRevolution.us

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 /U.S. Newswire/ -- VelvetRevolution.us affiliate RAWSTORY, for the second time in a week, has broken a major story about the Valerie Plame investigation, beating out all the mainstream media.

Last week, RawStory.com was the first to report that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald was actively investigating the role of Vice President Dick Cheney in the outing of Valerie Plame as head of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG). And today, RawStory is the first to report that a highly placed White House Official is cooperating with Fitzgerald. "Individuals familiar with Fitzgerald's case tell Raw Story that John Hannah, a senior national security aide on loan to Vice President Dick Cheney from the offices of then-Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, John Bolton, was named as a target of Fitzgerald's probe. They say he was told in recent weeks that he could face imminent indictment for his role in leaking Plame-Wilson's name to reporters unless he cooperated with the investigation."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheney_aide_cooperati... .

...more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:15 AM
Response to Original message
17. Perhaps the White House needs a reminder of what they said...
... in September 2003:

Q Scott, what do you say to people out there who are watching this, perhaps, and saying, you know, I voted for George Bush because he promised to change the way things work in Washington. And, yet, his spokesman --

MR. McCLELLAN: And he has.

Q -- and, yet, his spokesman is saying that there's no internal, even, questioning of whether or not people were involved in this and he's just letting that be handled at the Justice Department, and letting it be more of a criminal investigation, as opposed to almost an ethical --

MR. McCLELLAN: Dana, I mean, think about what you're asking. If you have specific information to bring to our attention --

Q No, but you say that --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- that suggests White House involvement. There are anonymous reports all the time in the media. 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.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html

And in June 2004:

QUESTION: Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --

QUESTION: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/33463.htm

-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:19 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. What about when * was on television and said.....
"we may never know who the leaker was". Back when Ashcroft was in charge of the investigation and they thought they had it bagged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:30 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. I'm sure they felt that no one would ever connect the dots, but...
...if he was upset with Karl Rove for his involvement in 2003 and he stated in 2004 that he would fire anyone involved, why does Karl Rove still have a job in 2005?

It's almost like he's not being honest about the whole thing for some reason. :)
-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #19
77. ... Because reporters don't give up their sources...
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 08:29 AM by Virginian
I think he was counting on his interpretation of the first amendment to protect Rove et al from treason charges.

on edit:
If I remember correctly, when he said it, it was almost like he was ordering the press NOT to reveal their sources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:21 AM
Response to Original message
21. Maybe this is the part where Cheney and Libby turn on
Bush and Rove?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #21
122. Wouldn't you love to see them in some sort of WWF type tag-team
wrestling match for the control of the planet...costumes and all. After which they would all be taken to jail of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:33 AM
Response to Original message
24. Daily news didn't name Hannah. If you refer to this story:
Cheney's name has come up amid indications Fitzgerald may be edging closer to a blockbuster conspiracy charge - with help from a secret snitch.

"They have got a senior cooperating witness - someone who is giving them all of that," a source who has been questioned in the leak probe told the Daily News yesterday. http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/356858p-304125c....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:35 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. yes you are right....sorry
who was it that identified the cooperating witness then, I forgot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:07 AM
Response to Reply #25
31. rawstory said they had confirmation that Hannah indeed flipped as had
been rumored since last year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:43 AM
Response to Original message
26. This could be interesting to watch...
Bushco (sans Rove) trying to out stratergize Rove.

Or has Dr. StrangeRove decided his best strategy now is to smear himself and become the target around whom the godly and forgiving Bush circles the wagons of loyalty and hope... and eventually a gracious pardon?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #26
184. "... knows and appreciates that" = "pardon" if necessary,
I'm sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zara Donating Member (470 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:59 AM
Response to Original message
29. Lied to the American People? Lying now?
If this was on O Lielly at least we'd know we were in the no spin zone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:06 AM
Response to Original message
30. you're right: I don't believe it
a puppet does not rebuke its puppeteer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
randome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:25 AM
Response to Original message
33. When did Bush give his testimony?
Did he lie about knowing about Rove then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Verve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #33
94. If Bush lied to Fitz , technically he wasn't under oath.
I remember Cheney and Shrub making a big deal about the "under oath" thing with Fitzgerald. They ended up having private conversations with Fitzgerald without taking an oath.

Yet, even if Fitzgerald can't get Shrub and Cheney for perjury, I think obstruction of justice (if they lied to him ) and conspiracy charges are still game.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #94
142. It's a felony to lie to a federal investigator, under oath or not
It's what Martha Stewart was convicted of. The law, which lawyers usually call 1001, for the section of the federal code that contains it, prohibits lying to any federal agent, even by a person who is not under oath and even by a person who has committed no other crime.

Just FYI.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Verve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #142
177. Wow! Good to know! Thanks for the info. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #94
153. Are you sure it was testimony to Fitz and not to the 9/11 Commission?
He most definitely refused to testify under oath to the 9/11 commission, he refused to let the proceedings be taken down by a stenographer (court reporter), and he refused to testify without Cheney being there with him.

Whether or not he refused to take the oath before Patrick Fitzgerald, I haven't heard this before. Did Clinton have to take the oath before testifying in front of Starr?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #94
165. Verve, you are correct. I just found a link on BuzzFlash
* Bush: Early Summer, 2004 (did not testify under oath)
* Cheney: Early summer, 2004 (did not testify under oath)

See the entire list at http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2005/10...

Seems to me that bush and cheney both have a deep aversion to testifying under oath. Hmmm ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Verve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #165
179. I'm glad my memory served me well.
I'm sorry that you had to find the link. I should have included one with my post. Sorry about that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #179
181. Your memory is better than bush's, apparently, LOL
No problem about finding the link. I should have looked before mouthing off :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:28 AM
Response to Original message
34. What a shame to imagine the day approaching when the little pResident
will have to go on alone without his Rove. It really makes you weepy, doesn't it? So sad.

Mem'ries......


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eugene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:29 AM
Response to Original message
35. Bush was upset about the poor damage control, not the misconduct.
He wasn't mad about Rove's involvement is the plan
to discredit the Wilsons. He wasn't mad about Rove's
talking to the press.

He was mad that Rove bungled the job and got caught.
This article names George Bush as an active co-conspirator
in the cover-up
if not the original crime.

Echoes of Watergate.
Recommended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ninkasi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:08 AM
Response to Reply #35
45. Exactly
Bush is only upset about Rove's getting caught in a bungled effort to cover up the crimes. Republicans think anything they do is justified, but hate getting caught. Even when they're caught, they scream partisan politics, and try to act like the victims. Psychopaths, all of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #35
51. Ding,ding, ding - we have a winner
and this article was supposed to help Bush?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissMarple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #35
69. Karl covered up in a "bush league way".
:rofl:

"Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and others as believing that they handled it in a ham-handed and bush-league way," the source said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #69
173. Rather an ironic phrase to use here, isn't it? "BUSH league". n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kostya Donating Member (769 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #35
125. Yes, that's the part that stood out for me, no remorse for having
destroyed someone's career, just remorse over having done it in a "clumsy way". So Nixonian.

As much as I'd like to see indictments come down, I'd more like to see Fitz ask for an extension, cast a wider net, and really make these a*holes sweat bullets.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Witch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:36 AM
Response to Original message
36. You're right. I don't believe it.
This is incoming-indictment spin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Earth_First Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:38 AM
Response to Original message
38. What to believe, what to believe, the sky is green and up is down...
Yesterday it was "Cheney may resign" today it's "What Bush knew about Rove two years ago"

Remember folks, they have mastered the art of public deception...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lanlady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:46 AM
Response to Original message
41. DU proves right again!
This little tidbit:

"A second well-placed source said some recently published reports implying Rove had deceived Bush about his involvement in the Wilson counterattack were incorrect and were leaked by White House aides trying to protect the President."

validates DU speculation last week about those same reports, that they were a clumsy CBA (Cover Bush Ass).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bklyncowgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:49 AM
Response to Original message
42. Throwing Rover under the train?
This seems to be a desperation move on someone's part.

Is it Rove trying to clear Bush of direct involvement in the leak?

Is someone else trying to take the heat off Bush?


Either way it confirms what most of us believed all along, i.e. that Bush, at the very least, knew damn well who the leaker was and lied to protect them--not just Rove but the whole sorry lot.

Bush not only protected Rove, but after the election, promoted the little worm. That makes him complicit in the coverup.

What did they call Nixon? Wasn't it unindicted co-conspirator?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:06 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. Trying to distance Bush from Rove
I'm reading it the same way - someone is trying to distance Bush from the scandal. There must be a great deal of evidence connecting Bush to the whole thing or they wouldn't have admitted his involvement 3 years ago.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bklyncowgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #44
49. My guess is that Bush was involved up to his cockeyed little eyebrows
This was done by someone who was nasty as hell and none too bright--or so desperate to shut Wilson up that they didn't stop to think about what would happen if this came out. Sound like anyone we know?

Leaking that he was just OUTRAGED that Rove would do this sort of thing strikes me as pretty damn self serving.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #49
133. Nobody stopped to think about what would happen if this came out because
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 11:21 AM by calimary
they never thought this WOULD come out. They figured their track record would hold steady - that they could do anything they wanted to anybody, for any reason, and they'd NEVER get caught for it. And why wouldn't they think this? I mean, just remember: for a LONG time (TOO long), they never did get caught. EVER. People suspected things, and people whispered things, but nothing ever came of any of it. Nobody would dignify it with a comment or, heaven forbid, some sort of report or something on it. And back then, they still had a lock on the media, and everyone was so dreadfully cowed and intimidated and bullied, they probably had every reason to remain smug. Who gives a shit? Nobody's gonna find out. Do what you need to do. Do whatever you want.

Remember what karen hughes said - "business as usual."

They never anticipated, or planned for, losing their momentum and their "golden" status with the press and much of the American people. They also thought sure Iraq was gonna be a cakewalk. They'd built up years of delusions of their own grandeur and omnipotence that had, up til then, been so fail-safe that they had no reason to believe it wouldn't just always stay that way.

The bigger they are, the harder they fall. And I CAN'T WAIT!!!!

:toast: :party:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bklyncowgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #133
176. You got it, they never thought it would come out.
My guess is that naming Fitzgerald, a known hardass prosecutor, would keep this from becoming a political issue and carry them through the election.

After they "won" they were on top of the world. Even if Fitzgerald came up with indictments, they figured they could ride it out. They were the masters of the universe and Bush had political capital to spend.

Interesting how things change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tight_rope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:11 AM
Response to Reply #42
46. Funny how history seems to be repeating itself....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #46
70. The first time as tragedy, the second as farce
;-)

(to quote Marx)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprobate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #70
149. Are you quoting Groucho or Carl?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #149
188. Karl
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 03:29 PM by alcibiades_mystery
"Hegel said that all great world historical events and personages appear, so to speak, twice; he forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce." - Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissMarple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #42
72. If Rove goes under, he could choose to pull them all under with him.
He doesn't just know where the bodies are buried, he knows who owns the shovels and dragged in the bodies, including himself and George.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #72
127. The Bushies know that Rove is a potential back stabber like Dick Morris.
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 10:34 AM by oasis
It's everyman for himself in D.C..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Julius Civitatus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #42
81. Yup. This comes out now to distance Bush from Rove
My guess is that it's bullshit. This probably never happened. It's just a last minute PR move to salvage Chimpy's tattered image and distance him from Rove. If they are already saying this, chances are they know something big is coming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tight_rope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:55 AM
Response to Original message
43. Well...I guess we do have grounds for "IMPEACHMENT"...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #43
52. Unfortunately, this congress will not impeach him.
We have to hope the Dems take over in 2006.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprobate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #52
154. I would not be too sure about that. Remember Libby's message to Miller?


About the Aspens turning, turning in bunches?

It's been interpreted as meaning that the conservatives have turned on bush and they have all turned. Those are the conservatives that control the party.

If that's true, little boy bush will be left out to dry in the wind.

Also, there are many congressional republicans who are scared to death that the actions of their party will give democrats the chance to unseat them.

I think it possible that the coalition that put Bush in power is falling or has fallen apart. That really bodes ill for the administration.

And I can't think of more deserving people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #154
189. DING DING DING! Reprobate, you're our grand prize winner!
Also, there are many congressional republicans who are scared to death that the actions of their party will give democrats the chance to unseat them.
If they even get to FACE the Democrat. If the GOP split continues, it might give rise to an army of hungry Repub "rebels" ready and willing to market themselves as "sensible moderates" in contrast to the incumbents' pro-Bush "extremism."

Exactly how many Repubs would it take to get an impeachment vote this year, anyway, assuming that none of the Dems "caved?"

:headbang:
rocknation

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeff In Milwaukee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:55 AM
Response to Original message
53. It's the motive that will kill them...
Once we figured out who fingered whom with regard to Valarie Plame, the prosecutor and the press will then turn their attention to the motive for the crime. And that gets back to the Downing Street Minutes and the forged Niger documents. All of this happened because Joseph Wilson caught the administration in an enormous lie -- one that has caused nearly 2,000 U.S. combat deaths (and counting). When Wilson blew the whistle, this administration (possibly with the President's explicit approval) outed his wife in retaliation. It's not the crime itself that will kill Bush, it's the motivations for the crime.

This is gonna get ugly.

Enjoy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grytpype Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:55 AM
Response to Original message
55. The distancing begins...
... Karl who? He's not one of us, is he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:01 AM
Response to Original message
56. bush's repeated hissy fits are supposed to represent
some kind of honesty, sincerity, what?

since before the 2000 election we hear about his famous fits of righteous indignation -- and they are supposed to impart some kind of authenticity -- how?

now we see his that his fits cover for his lying?

bush is fucking out of his mind -- period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:07 AM
Response to Original message
57. My BS Detector is beeping like crazy!! CYA for Herr Busch....
...too late Georgie-Porgie...resign now and get it over with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:20 AM
Response to Original message
61. Well well well. So he knew. Clearly
LIAR.

TRAITOR

Impeach the Chimp!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
62. Is this the Watergate tapes? And where is the rest of our effing press?
Why is the investigation of this story left to the Daily News (which is not a bad paper at all, but not a major media outlet) and to websites??? Is the rest of our cowardly, coddled press too invested with these people, too cozy from too many D.C. cocktail parties? Too lazy? On Ambien???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
all.of.me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:26 AM
Response to Original message
63. "but anything he did was done to help George W. Bush"
shirking responsibility again! pass that freakin' worthless buck!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:28 AM
Response to Original message
64. Interesting how all of a sudden
it's the devils arond Bush - he of course is clean as a whistle. Fuckery - the buck stops with the Commander in Chit!! More lies is par for the course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #64
135. Hey, I like that - "Commander-in-CHEAT."
bush knew. bush knew. bush knew. I have a bumper sticker of that on my car. I'm liking it more and more every day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinfoilinfor2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:59 AM
Response to Original message
66. Nope. Don't believe it.
Disinformation given intentionally to the press to make it look like bush is concerned about someone in his administration doing something dishonest. Spin. Spin. Spin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
68. Doesn't this sound like Scotty?
"A White House spokesman declined to comment, citing the ongoing nature of Fitzgerald's investigation."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #68
73. Exactly like Scotty!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #73
115. And then, ongoing investigation, yadda, yadda, yadda.
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:07 AM
Response to Original message
71. This makes no sense. How can the puppet bush whack his master? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #71
76. Like Charlie McCarthy bitch-slapping Edgar Bergen
Karl tells HIM what to do and when to do it. Shrub doesn't even take a shit without KKKarl's approval. Oh, wait, that's Condi's job....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BamaBecky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:12 AM
Response to Original message
74. I can't imagine that Bush didn't know about the WHOLE effort
and I'm not so sure this article isn't an effort to pull sympathy for Bush.......

Sheesh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:19 AM
Response to Original message
75. Let's get our stories straight here
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 08:20 AM by Canuckistanian
Either the Prezteldent had no idea who did it and doesn't seem to have any luck finding out who did it (hard to believe because it was narrowed down to "a few SENIOR WH officials) OR Shrub knew who did it all along and chewed Rove out for it.

So this is either gross incompetence or a coverup by a lying president.
I'd go with the latter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
80. Bull
Sheet!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulfcoastliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
83. Bullshit. Weak ass cover story. Bush OK'd this leak. So he hired crim atny
Why else did Fitzgerald interview *, and * felt the need to hire the driminal defense attorney Sharp for the interview?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brooklynite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
85. Here's the money quote...
"Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and others as believing that they handled it in a ham-handed and bush-league way," the source said.


In other words, not that it was wrong, but they did a sloppy job and got caught.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brooklyn Michael Donating Member (403 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #85
108. Damn....just missed you making the same point I did
....must be the way Brooklynites think....

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brooklynite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
87. Let's have some more cover-up...
A second well-placed source said some recently published reports implying Rove had deceived Bush about his involvement in the Wilson counterattack were incorrect and were leaked by White House aides trying to protect the President.


Interesting that "well placed sources" are willing to spill the beans about this...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bethany Rockafella Donating Member (916 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
90. "Bush was intially furious with Rove"
Yeah right! They say that as if Bush is in control of Rove and we all know that is a crock-of-crap. Rove is in control of Bush, everybody knows this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunny planet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
91. So he is admitting he knew. I am not surprised but I am surprised he would
be caught admitting it. Is it perhaps a ploy to delay Fitz's finishing up the investigation to give them time for some nefarious deed to really derail it? Either that or Fredo Bush is admitting that Karl had something to do with the leak but not that he knowingly outed an undercover NOC, last line says he was angry that Karl talked to the press, nothing more specific. There is the stupid remark that * appreciates everything Karl has done for him, but if stupidity was actionable His Fraudulency would already be serving at least three consecutive life terms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imalittleteapot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
92. Bull.
So now they're trying to make bush out to be the good guy? Got news for them --- they're just proving that Bush lied about knowing whether or not KKKarl was involved in Plamegate.

:rofl: :applause: :woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
themaguffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
93. Of course this comes out now...
W is the noble leader upset with his bad child. So what. He knew then and should be held accountable. This W wasn't involved and let it be known to Rove is BS. This is the PR effort to distance W from all involved, but W is inherently involved even if Rove did it without discussing with W first.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Verve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #93
95. A Sociopath does not feel remorse for the act, only for getting caught!n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #93
136. Welcome to DU!
Of course he's involved. Up to his cocky little smirk. Beyond that, even.

Glad you're here.

Let the IMPEACHMENT begin!!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
98. Bush is covering up....
The story is probably correct except for one detail:

Bush didn't get angry.

He probably slapped Turdblossom on the back and gave him a medal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
103. Just how Stupid is bush's brain?
Anything he did was to help bush? Yeah, this is really helping him }( ..outing a CIA agent..fudgedabout our damn country!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jn2375 Donating Member (858 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
105. Shit what's little Scottie going to say in the press gaggle today
about this!!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AgadorSparticus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #105
169. "it's all Helen's fault because she did not support the war on terrorism"
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brooklyn Michael Donating Member (403 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
107. "Bush did not feel misled"....!!!!!!!!
"Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and others as believing that they handled it in a ham-handed and bush-league way," the source said.

The obvious joke about "bush-league" aside, I think this is the most damning part of the whole article. This says that A) Bush did indeed know what was going on (as he wasn't misled), and B) APPROVED of exacting revenge on Wilson. The only thing is Bush didn't like the "way it was handled"...

i.e. that it was so sloppy that they got caught.

Fuck 'em.

Then fuck 'em again.

Then impeach him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
109. Veddy veddy intereSTINK........
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
110. mr. smoking gun is in the house....
This is the admission that Bush participated in a cover-up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demobrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
111. I'm so stunned I can't even be happy yet.
They are guilty as sin. Bush knows they are guilty as sin. He has known and covered it up for two years. If we know this - Fitzgerald knows this.

Right there my brain shuts down. I can't even think what's going to happen next.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Festivito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
114. I smell a PLANTED STORY.
Not a widely read source.
Sources say the bad stuff 'Plame affair'
but, officials say 'concerned' 'could go badly'
Quote of strength, 'made his displeasure known' (as though this handled it)
followed by a however like apology 'doggedly loyal' (ummm, dogs)
Vivid quoting: "fighting for his life" 'furious with Rove'

Gee, 2003, BEFORE ELECTIONS? who'da figured. :smirk:

..nothing worth your six-o'clock news. Move along.. (Argggghhh!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TygrBright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
118. Yer right... I don't believe it.
My guess is that at the time it actually happened, * smirked and said "heheheh, good one, Turdblossom."

Then when the depth of the fecal matter became clear, THEN he threw a temper tantrum. Not because of Turdblossom, et al's, treasonous actions, but because they were so frickin' inept that they let Novakula attribute the treason in a way that led straight back to them.

THEN * got pissed.

mordantly,
Bright
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dghll Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
121. they handled it in a bush-league way, the source said
bush-league hahahahah
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kurth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
126. Yeah right, Bush had NO idea until after the fact...
This is another attempt at misinformation to exonerate Bush. Still, many people will find it credible given the popular perception that Bush is some kind of dumb monkey... Far, far from the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
132. This makes him complicit, guilty too. OMG...what if Fitz is going after *?
That just seems to much to hope for, but given this info, isn't it a possibility?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressivebydesign Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
145. You spin me right round baby, like a record baby, right round...
So it begins. Bush DEPLORES the leak.. Bush = good guy. Karl = bad guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dangerously Amused Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
150. Who will turn on who?


It is going to be SO interesting to see who will turn on who now. This is not a cage match of mere mortals... money will not motivate any one of these thugs. Every single one of them has enough cash hidden away (offshore for Cheney, Bush, Rove and Libby at least) to live like a king for the rest of their lives, no matter HOW bad the economy gets. So now it's all about prison time, primarily... and then ego.


Oh yeah... sit back and enjoy the show!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superconnected Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
151. bush and rove have been wacking each other off all along.
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 12:00 PM by superconnected
cheney had better start wacking bush off. Till now bush has only wacked cheney off.

Jerry brown just wacks himself off. Okay he had to wack bush off at least once or he wouldn't have gotten his last job. Same with lotto lady and condi.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
155. Seems to me that NY Times and the daily News are leaked from Rove&co
See Ny Times article blaming Card and this clumsy attempt to say "poor karl, he had enough"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jane Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
157. Golly. Maybe Presidential involvement is why the talking heads recently
have been trying to make the whole thing sound like just tough politics.

As long as it just involved hirelings, it was serious stuff, but if it implicates bush and cheney it's just "Washington Hardball Politics".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ganja Ninja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
162. You're right I don't believe it.
I'll bet money Bush didn't just know, he was the prime instigator. Now we see a leak designed to imply that Bush wasn't park of the plot to out a CIA agent and in fact was miffed at Rove for his role in it. I'm not buying a word of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mudcloth Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
163. I wonder if...
...these well placed sources would testify to this under oath? If this is true, and they do testify, then house o' cards come down.I gotta say, though, I'm skeptical of any WH leak. Especially now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #163
193. Welcome to DU! You make an excellent point worth keeping in mind:
let's all remember that bush has NEVER gone under oath for ANY of these things. ANY of 'em, that I can recall, anyway. Remember the 9/11 commission? He characterized it as a "visit" when a few of them came to his throne room to interview him. It WASN'T on the record, it WASN'T under oath, and in that case, cheney was there with his hand up bush's back just to keep him in line.

I think it's EXTREMELY and GLARINGLY telling that this guy won't go under oath. It's not just because he saw what happened when Clinton testified under oath and got snagged. It's he KNOWS he has things to hide, and doesn't DARE burp or fart under oath. As john ashcroft would have said... if you've done nothing wrong, well, then, what's the problem? You've done nothing wrong? Then you surely have nothing to hide, now, do ya? Well, george???? How 'bout it, then? Go under oath. Be a man for once. What are you afraid of?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
164. Bush Knew!!! And he DID NOTHING!!!
that makes him part of the conspiracy!!! He lied about getting rid of him and allowed him to have access to secret documents for two years!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #164
174. He MORE than knew - he APPROVED of the "mission" to discredit Wilson
see my post (#172). The language seems clear. He didn't oppose the mission, he was angry about the messy way it was handled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
172. Here are two assertions in this article that are DEADLY for *'s position:
They come from two "well-placed sources" and they are absolutely devastating:


But the President felt Rove and other members of the White House damage-control team did a clumsy job in their campaign to discredit Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, the ex-diplomat who criticized Bush's claim that Saddam Husse{i}n tried to buy weapons-grade uranium in Niger.

A second well-placed source said some recently published reports implying Rove had deceived Bush about his involvement in the Wilson counterattack were incorrect and were leaked by White House aides trying to protect the President.

"Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and others as believing that they handled it in a ham-handed and bush-league way," the source said.



There's much more that strengthens the story: Bush knew, he approved of the "mission" to discredit Wilson, and he was angry only because it wasn't handled well. PLUS, you have those "leaked" stories from WH aides "trying to protect the president" who were falsely claiming that Rove had deceived Bush.

And then you see Bush's priorities all too clearly:


"Karl is fighting for his life," the official added, "but anything he did was done to help George W. Bush. The President knows that and appreciates that."



If these statements can be verified, that's the whole game right there. Bush committed treason and has continued to lie about it ever since. His only concern is to protect himself and his useful puppet-master.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
180. Bush whacked Rove. Ha!
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 02:43 PM by Independent_Liberal
It couldn't get any better I tell ya!

:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dwp6577 Donating Member (87 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
182. all is quiet on the dem front
It will be amazing to watch this all unfold. Novakula (stolen term from someone else that made me chuckle...thanks) starts the rethug self-implosion.

So quiet on the dem side...I wonder when they will speak out, and what they will say...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #182
195. Welcome to DU!
Glad you're here. There are more and more cases where I'm seeing some pundit on TV talking about how the Dems are being smart by sitting back and watch the republi-CONS self-immolate. Eventually they'll have to step up to the plate and take a swing, too, but for now, nice to have these schmucks doing our heavy lifting for us, isn't it?


What time is it?

It's time to VISUALIZE IMPEACHMENT, boys and girls!!!!

And then, to go DO something about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #182
202. Democrats question Bush-Rove meeting on CIA leak
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=pol...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats asked the White House on Wednesday for details of President George W. Bush's private conversations in 2003 with top political adviser Karl Rove after conflicting reports about whether Bush was aware of any role by Rove in the outing of a covert CIA operative.

more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
183. ***Olbermann will report on this story tonight on MSNBC***
8 pm ET, repeats at midnight. Thread on it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Thread title: MSNBC/Olbermann tonight: the huge Plame leak case news re *s involvement

I will post video and transcript from the show itself in that thread when they become available.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #183
196. Holy Cow!!! On Olbermann?
BEYOND delicious! We set a tape for KO every day, and savor it at night after the kids go to bed. I think we'll be breaking out the Mallomars tonight while we're watching - with the GREATEST glee. I wonder who he's got on as a guest, for this segment? CANNOT wait!!!


:toast: :party: :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #196
198. In the thread I linked to I'll be posting video clips and the transcript
when they are available. And come see the Toles cartoon in the OP! it is NOT TO BE MISSED!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Thread title: MSNBC/Olbermann tonight: the huge Plame leak case news re *s involvement
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
186. Just Googled Daily News circulation.
It's only about 16,000 less (735,000+) than the Washington Post (751,000+). Not 'arf bad!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
191. You're right, I don't believe it
:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
192. You're right, i don't believe it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
199. This means Bush did LIE to Fitz - UNDER OATH - via America Blog
In his own interview with prosecutors on June 24, 2004, Bush testified that Rove assured him he had not disclosed Plame as a CIA employee and had said nothing to the press to discredit Wilson, according to sources familiar with the president's interview.
So if this new story is true--Rove "came clean" to Bush in 2003--and Waas is also right, doesn't that mean that Bush lied to Fitzgerald in June 2004?
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/10/did-bush-lie-to...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NVMojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
204. but then he kissed his ass for the Nov. 04 election campaign!
They were here in Nevada together, hugging and kissing and killing us liberals in 04!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
208. This story feels leaked to me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 22nd 2014, 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC