you guys are really sick. wilson did a service by seeking the truth about iraq nuke buys, and you see him as the bad guy. no wonder we continue to pour 5 billion/wk down the sewers of iraq

Jack, I think you misread the post. I am in agreement with you.

The White House hasn't made any excuses or statements about it. The press has been figuring it out on their own that Rove wasn't the leaker, with the help of more leakers (from the Grand Jury proceedings.)

PULEEZE- do you think that The New York Times and Time Magazine would do this much to protect Karl Rove?

Answer to question #2.

Sounds like a case of rope-a-dope to me. And ya'll are George Foreman.

(I apologize to "the Greatest" for this analogy. While I think Rove is very smart, it's a little over the top to compare him to one of my idols. Especially when I don't have any great love for Rove. But in this partuicular case, the analogy is probably correct. You guys have wasted an awful lot of time directing your ire at Rove when there are so many much more important things you could have been doing. Especially since Plame's identity as a CIA agent was not a secret- she was an analyst who had been introduced as an employee of the agency at conferences- AND since she was not a covert agent AND since Rove had already testified to every question you are asking to a grand jury.)

Rove knows he's not the leak. THAT is why the White House is letting the left continue their own orgasmic frenzy over this. They are again letting the froth continue because facts AND the law are both on their side.

And for your first question- National Security? She is a diplomat's wife now. Here covert days ended the day she got married. Actually they ended long before that- six years ago to be exact, but that's one of those Clintonesque technicalities that I'm sure that you hate coming from me as much as I do.

On a side note- I'm not commenting much lately as I'm busy with other things in the other side of my life (big things hopefully.) But I'm still reading when I get time.

No problem Marty, I appreciat it when you do comment. But your answers dont hold water. Especially number two. Looks like you been drinking the Koolaide again Bro. There is no way the White House would take this kind of beating as some kind of strategy. Bushes poll numbers show him slipping to below 40 soon, and his other issues are getting NO coverage, this is NOT what the WH wants. Good try though.

Hmmm- didn't the President take a pretty brutal beating on those CBS documents that turned out to be fake?

The problem with the froth is that even if Rove was the original leaker, which even the New York times has acknowledged aint the case, no law has been broken. (Yes, a technicality.)

Not the kind of beating he has taken on this, and the New York times has not acknowledged anything. They have quoted an unidentified source that is "friendly to Rove."

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Subscribe to this comment thread.

Comments: