• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Karl Rove

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Brad S

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,017
Reaction score
0
Location
west of Soapweed
Better hurry up and get Rove roasted for this because it doesn't appear the facts, when released, will merit such response. Isn't it curious how many "news" outlets are down with partial facts and conjecture when the full investigation is at hand.

As long as those responsible for "news mistakes" are willing to take the Rather walk, I'm ok.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Good, complete post, Reader. I read that reporters actually laughed in the President's face when he came out with that yesterday. Releasing classified information of any kind is illegal. Rove knowlingly broke the law.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,017
Reaction score
0
Location
west of Soapweed
reader, that's an exhaustive account but I see many many points that are quite one sided. It would be possible for me to go point bby point and dispute them, but it would be unproductive without certified facts. I would be challenging supposition with the same, but it really looks like Rove ain't dirty.

Why is it necessary to resolve this case without the benefit of conclusive facts? Its now looking like Plume wasn't undercover, and Rove didn't know she ever was, and only answered affirmative to vague questions. Now, let's wait for the facts, but I submit the anti Bush crowd (upon realizing their charges are vacuous) is wanting to expedite the meting of justice before the truth comes out. If not, again, why the suppositions without the facts?
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,017
Reaction score
0
Location
west of Soapweed
Who was undercover? as I understand the definition, she must have been overseas sometime in the last 5 years and designated by the cia as covert. She satisified neither clause. see why the only sensible course is to wait for THE FACTS. If the facts show wrong doing, sure we deal with it. I don't think Wilson and the Democrats have sufficient credibility to make any assumptions or conclusions based on their conjecture.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Brad S said:
reader, that's an exhaustive account but I see many many points that are quite one sided. It would be possible for me to go point bby point and dispute them, but it would be unproductive without certified facts. I would be challenging supposition with the same, but it really looks like Rove ain't dirty.

Why is it necessary to resolve this case without the benefit of conclusive facts? Its now looking like Plume wasn't undercover, and Rove didn't know she ever was, and only answered affirmative to vague questions. Now, let's wait for the facts, but I submit the anti Bush crowd (upon realizing their charges are vacuous) is wanting to expedite the meting of justice before the truth comes out. If not, again, why the suppositions without the facts?

:D According to the reporter, Rove told him "this will be de-classified in a few weeks." Rove knew he was passing on classified informtion. That's illegal. It's not what this grand jury is investigating, but it's still illegal. Bush will ignore it because Rove is his pal. And Bush's pals get bys in life, just as Bush has always gotten by. As for Mrs. Wilson, Rove didn't know that she wasn't undercover. Personally, I hope Bush doesn't fire him. This is a great example of a liar at work and Americans are watching.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,017
Reaction score
0
Location
west of Soapweed
More suppositions from Dis? Well it now appears that Rove was mistaken. AGAIN, WHY TRY TO SETTLE THIS UNTIL CONCLUSIVE FACTS ARE ESTABLISHED? I suggest the left wants to hang Rove on suppositions they're now realizing are untrue - so they can't wait for the facts. If this isn't your mission Dis, WHY TRY TO SETTLE THIS UNTIL CONCLUSIVE FACTS ARE ESTABLISHED?
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Brad S said:
More suppositions from Dis? Well it now appears that Rove was mistaken. AGAIN, WHY TRY TO SETTLE THIS UNTIL CONCLUSIVE FACTS ARE ESTABLISHED? I suggest the left wants to hang Rove on suppositions they're now realizing are untrue - so they can't wait for the facts. If this isn't your mission Dis, WHY TRY TO SETTLE THIS UNTIL CONCLUSIVE FACTS ARE ESTABLISHED?

Gee, Brad, why not wait to invade Iraq until the "conclusive facts" were established? If we had waited for the UN weapons inspectors to finish their work, we would not have invaded Iraq and all this would have been moot. How come you can't question the Bush Bunch about why they didn't wait?
 

Sierraman

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
299
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
HAha Disagreeable. There's another way to actually kindly ask permission from the UN (world dominator wanna be's) to do anything. They could lie and deny us in. We also had a lot more to do than secure a few bombs. Get off that soapbox about WMDs,( the use of it for your preciouis defense is so old it satrting to be putrid), and quick!
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,017
Reaction score
0
Location
west of Soapweed
Gee, Brad, why not wait to invade Iraq until the "conclusive facts" were established? If we had waited for the UN weapons inspectors to finish their work, we would not have invaded Iraq and all this would have been moot. How come you can't question the Bush Bunch about why they didn't wait?

Real dishonest stuff you suggest here Dis. I will illuminate your deciet.


1) The weapons inspectors were kicked out byHeussain, contrary to the cease fire agreement. Kinda hard to weapons inspect from France, well unless you inspect France's weapons exports to Iraq.

2) With the kind of wmd Heussain used on the Kurds, if you wait you wait for a year because of heat.

3) We waited what a dozen Fu#$en years to finally take Heussainb to task for violating the cease fire, and you are comparing that to a few months not to wrongfully accuse someone.
 

passin thru

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
2,603
Reaction score
0
hey dis, you had better drop trying to ride this dead horse. It will only make a fool of you , sorry I guess I am too late. :lol:
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Brad S said:
Gee, Brad, why not wait to invade Iraq until the "conclusive facts" were established? If we had waited for the UN weapons inspectors to finish their work, we would not have invaded Iraq and all this would have been moot. How come you can't question the Bush Bunch about why they didn't wait?

Real dishonest stuff you suggest here Dis. I will illuminate your deciet.

Illuminate my"deciet"! Do you, by chance mean deceit? :D


1) The weapons inspectors were kicked out byHeussain, contrary to the cease fire agreement. Kinda hard to weapons inspect from France, well unless you inspect France's weapons exports to Iraq.

There were weapons inspectors in Iraq. Bush told them to get out. Why didn't he wait for their report?

"In the clearest sign yet that war with Iraq is imminent, the United States has advised U.N. weapons inspectors to begin pulling out of Baghdad, the U.N. nuclear agency chief said Monday."

link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-inspectors-iraq_x.htm


2) With the kind of wmd Heussain used on the Kurds, if you wait you wait for a year because of heat.

But we didn't invade Iraq because they gassed the Kurds. George W. Bush justifed his invasion of a soverign country on the claim he WMDs.

3) We waited what a dozen Fu#$en years to finally take Heussainb to task for violating the cease fire, and you are comparing that to a few months not to wrongfully accuse someone.

Bush didn't take Saddam "to task" for violating the cease fire or for murdering Kurds or for killing his own people. He invaded Iraq because he claimed they had WMDs. You're shown to be a fool or a hyprocite when you claim it's wrong to rush to judgment on Rove, but ok to rush to judgment on Iraq. I won't let that pass.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong, Brad?
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Reader, I apologize if you think I'm hijacking your threads. My focus on this board is the Iraqi war and the way the Bush Bunch as misused the Army. I appreciate your posts and will try to join the discussions, but, again, my focus is Iraq. We need to bring out troops home from there now.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,017
Reaction score
0
Location
west of Soapweed
Violating the cease fire is the international justification that GORE said he would use before Bush invaded Iraq. Now, perhaps if Iraq wasn't in Africa trying to buy yellow enriched uranium, Bush may have postponed enforcing the cease fire agreement.

Oh you mean the inspectors that Hussein let back in so he could make hostages out of them. It doesn't work that way.


Hussein clearly had wmd when he gassed thre kurds, but as usual Dis proves himself a dullard and misses the point. Because we knew Hussein had gassed the Kurds, we had to be prepared for chemical warfare which included chemical suits that are heavy and hot. So we knew to go into Iraq while its still cool, Hussein knew to try to delay us until it was hot. Dis and the filthy hippies can't grasp this dynamic.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Brad S said:
Violating the cease fire is the international justification that GORE said he would use before Bush invaded Iraq. Now, perhaps if Iraq wasn't in Africa trying to buy yellow enriched uranium, Bush may have postponed enforcing the cease fire agreement.

Gore wasn't elected president. Gore didn't invade Iraq based on a lie; Bush did.

Oh you mean the inspectors that Hussein let back in so he could make hostages out of them. It doesn't work that way.

But he didn't try to make hostages out of them. The truth is that you're shown to be a fool. You claimed Saddam refused inspectors. I showed that there were inspectors in Iraq when Bush was ready to invade the country. So spin away; the truth is well documented.

Hussein clearly had wmd when he gassed thre kurds, but as usual Dis proves himself a dullard and misses the point. Because we knew Hussein had gassed the Kurds, we had to be prepared for chemical warfare which included chemical suits that are heavy and hot. So we knew to go into Iraq while its still cool, Hussein knew to try to delay us until it was hot. Dis and the filthy hippies can't grasp this dynamic.

Yes, Saddam gassed Kurds with technology given to him by the United States. We had to be prepared for chemical warfare, since Bush chose to go into Iraq before the facts were know. I understand that very well. You can spin all day, but the facts are there: Bush lied to the world and lead us into an unnecessary war. A war where thousands of humans have died and billions of our taxdollars have been spent for nothing. The Sunnis should never have been in on writing the Constitution because they weren't elected. Yet the politicans in Iraq picked several Sunnis (not elected by the pople; picked by the Shites) to help write the Constitution. Many of them have walked out! Story below with link, my emphasis. If they don't care any more about their country, why are American soldiers dying for their country?

"Kamal Hamdoun, one of the 12 remaining Sunnis appointed to the commission last month, said the Sunnis would continue their boycott pending an international investigation into the assassinations of two colleagues Tuesday and until other demands are met."

“Our decision is to go on with suspending our participation until our conditions are met,” Hamdoun told The Associated Press.
He said the conditions include an international investigation into Tuesday’s killing and a greater role for Sunnis in drafting the constitution. He also demanded that the chairman of the committee, Shiite cleric Humam Hammoudi, withdraw a statement made Wednesday that the final draft would be finished by the end of the month."


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8615916/
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Lets see, Dis wants to convict, and fire Rove with out a trial, or any proof of wrong doing,

yet he wants Lawyers and trials for Radical Islamic terrorists, under our Laws, ?

seems lick a case of liberal bias, to me.....
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Steve said:
Lets see, Dis wants to convict, and fire Rove with out a trial, or any proof of wrong doing,

yet he wants Lawyers and trials for Radical Islamic terrorists, under our Laws, ?

seems lick a case of liberal bias, to me.....

And you want to ignore the fact that Bush took us into a war with Iraq without any proof of WMDs. I want every American to have his Constitutional and Civil Liberties protected. The Bush Bush have held American citizens without charges or lawyers for going on five years now.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
reader (the Second) said:
So today's news talks about a State Department memo circulating that had a classified paragraph about Valerie Plame Wilson. Assuming that the information in that document is what the White House official -- whoever he or she was -- disclosed, that is illegal behavior and any White House official would know it to be illegal and would been made aware of what constitutes classified information and that disclosing it was punishable by jail.

Well, it's not necessarily "illegal behavior" if you're a pal of George W. Bush. The Bush Bunch isn't accountable for their mistakes like the rest of us. Look at Tom DeLay. The Republicans were going to change rules of the Ethics Committee to protect him!
 

Sierraman

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
299
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Disagreeable said:
And you want to ignore the fact that Bush took us into a war with Iraq without any proof of WMDs. I want every American to have his Constitutional and Civil Liberties protected. The Bush Bush have held American citizens without charges or lawyers for going on five years now.

Yeah, Disagreeable, I heard about some kids, Bush held after 9/11, telling them about their parents and the fates they faced, and his promise to them for healing. Dang, he shoulda charged them? What ludicrous, not like they killed their parents. Lawyers around woulda ruined that scene now wouldn't it. If you took a split second to think Disagreeable, you'd post 7000 times better than you do now! :!:
 

Latest posts

Top