Rove won't be charged

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Sourdoughman, Jun 13, 2006.

  1. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    When you can't win a debate you just change the subject. Do you think anyone is fooled?
     
  2. LsuCraig

    LsuCraig Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    55
    You voted for flip-flopping Kerry.....who's the fool?

    The original point of this thread was Rove right? Wasn't you who said his indictment was imminent and he was dirty? I said nothing would come of it........who was right and who was wrong again? There's no winning....you and your ilk just lost.
     
  3. LsuCraig

    LsuCraig Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    55
    Here's a good column by Mike Barone about Rove and media.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008527

    The visible slavering over the prospect of a Rove indictment is just another item in the list of reasons why the credibility of the "mainstream media" has been plunging. There's also a peril for the political left. Vietnam and Watergate were arguably triumphs for honest reporting. But they were also defeats for America--and for millions of freedom-loving people in the world. They ushered in an era when the political opposition and much of the press have sought not just to defeat administrations but to delegitimize them. The pursuit of Karl Rove by the left and the press has been just the latest episode in the attempted criminalization of political differences.

    So that's the honest dissent Jefferson was talking about? I don't believe so.
     
  4. kcal

    kcal Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,961
    Likes Received:
    7,880
    ok, let's take the moderate tag off both of you guys :lol:
     
  5. LsuCraig

    LsuCraig Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    55
    OK....but I was never a moderate and make no bones about. Some other people are kinda sensitive about such things.
     
  6. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Both of us were right. Rove was dirty and Fitzgerald hasn't indicted him . . . so far. remember that Fitzgerald has not made a public comment absolving Rove or Cheney. Rove's attorney has said that Fitzgerald told him that "absent any unexpected developments, he does not anticipate seeking any criminal charges" against Rove.

    The grand jury investigation continues, there may be unexpected developments, and the Libby trial begins in January 2007 when testimony will become public and these same figures will have to undergo cross-examination by a defense attorney. Libby will not likely take the fall alone. We will learn a lot more when the trial happens, which will occur during the 2008 Presidential campaign. Grand jury testimony has already indicated that Rove talked to reporters about Plame, Libby has testified that the leak was "authorized by the president through the Vice President".

    If Fitzgerald fails to indict anybody for the CIA leak despite taking three years and millions of dollars it will completely discredit the investigation. The fat lady hasn't sung yet.
     
  7. LsuCraig

    LsuCraig Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    55
    This is absolutely not true. Libby said Bush OK'ed the leaking of intelligence surrounding Iraq, not Plame's name. Read the article you posted.

    I find you very funny.....for a moderate.
     
  8. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    ok.

    if someone asks you what you stand for a reply of "wisdom" is pretty pointless. everybody claims they are pro-wisdom. that is why it is a meaningless way to describe a philosophy, and a poor excuse for an actual stance.

    without a real philosophy you end up favoring things willy nilly, things which oppose each other. for instance, you favor monitoring "windfall" oil profits while simultaneously favoring big government money for research into alternatives. so instead of high oil prices driving private money into research, you favor a policy that keeps private money in oil while effectively raising energy costs through taxing us for your research programs. all this while you whine about peak oil, while favoring policies that accelerate it. and also whining about global warming, while favoring policies that accelerate it as well.

    if you are afraid of global warming and peak oil, you should not make an effort to maintain our oil addiction by keeping oil prices down through government intervention, but of course without any philosophy (like trust in the market over government manipulation) you make poor decisions and favor counterproductive policy. you favor things and oppose their implementation at the same time.

    this is what happens when you dont stand for anything except policies that make you feel good about yourself.
     
  9. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    like i said earlier, i believe red has his leaks confused.
     
  10. LsuCraig

    LsuCraig Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    55
    Beautiful explanation. Hates big oil's monopoly and their hateful high gas price scheme.......but would refuse to drop the gas taxes as a temporary measure to lower prices for consumers.


    Typical moonbat philosophy.
     

Share This Page