DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Mucho on March 23, 2007, 03:21:29 PM
-
blowjob:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-moore23mar23,0,3813754.story?coll=la-opinion-center
Don't expect the truth from Karl Rove
Bush's top political aide has built his career on diverting and deceiving; he'd do the same under oath.
By James C. Moore
JAMES C. MOORE co-wrote "Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential" with Wayne Slater.
March 23, 2007
CONGRESS WANTS TO hear from Karl Rove, and members want him sworn in. Rather than accept a politically expedient deal from the White House — a no-oath interview — Senate and House committees have approved subpoenas for Rove and others. Lawmakers hope to figure out whether Rove hatched the plan to fire U.S. attorneys who were not hewing to the Republican Party's political playbook.
Whether Rove chats or testifies, Congress will surely be frustrated. Asking Rove questions is simply not an effective method of ascertaining facts. Reporters who, like me, have dogged the presidential advisor from Texas to Washington quickly learn how skilled he is at dancing around the periphery of issues. Any answers he does deliver can survive a thousand interpretations. Few intellects are as adept at framing, positioning and spinning ideas. That's a great talent for politics. But it's dangerous when dealing with the law.
Rove has testified under oath before investigative bodies twice, and in neither case was the truth well served. In 1991, he was sworn in before the Texas state Senate as a nominee to East Texas State University's board of regents. The state Senate's nominations committee, chaired by Democrat Bob Glasgow, was eager to have Rove explain his relationship with FBI agent Greg Rampton.
Rampton was a controversial figure in Texas, and Democrats suspected that he'd been consorting with Rove for years. During the 1986 gubernatorial race, when a listening device was discovered in Rove's office, it was Rampton who investigated. No one was ever charged — and Democrats suspected that Rove planted the bug himself to distract reporters from the faltering campaign of his client, Bill Clements (who won the election).
Then, in 1989, Rampton launched a series of devastating investigations into every statewide Democratic officeholder in Texas, including Agricultural Commissioner Jim Hightower. Rove (at the time running Republican Rick Perry's campaign for that job) often leaked things to reporters, such as whose names were on subpoenas before they were issued.
So when the Texas state Senate committee found nominee Rove before it in 1991, members thought they had the power to get at the truth.
"How long have you known an FBI agent by the name of Greg Rampton?" Glasgow asked.
Rove paused for a breath. "Ah, senator, it depends — would you define 'know' for me?"
Rove, who later vilified President Clinton's request for a definition of "is," clearly had his own linguistic issues.
But Glasgow pressed on: "What is your relationship with him?"
Rove said: "Ah, I know, I would not recognize Greg Rampton if he walked in the door. We have talked on the phone a var- — a number of times. Ah, and he has visited in my office once or twice, but we do not have a social or personal relationship whatsoever…."
Rove's famous memory, which recalls precinct results from 100-year-old presidential elections, often seems trained only to serve his political ends. In an interview with me after the 2000 presidential election, Rove said he did not remember meeting with Rampton at all. But in fact, Rove had met with Rampton — and he even disclosed it on a questionnaire after George H.W. Bush nominated him to the Board for International Broadcasting. In sworn documents, Rove stated that he met with Rampton in 1990 during the investigation of Hightower — an encounter that surely fits the definition of "know."
Rove's memory also made some creative leaps during a pretrial hearing in 1993. Travis County Dist. Atty. Ronnie Earle was preparing to prosecute Rove client Kay Bailey Hutchison, who was the Texas state treasurer. A grand jury had indicted her for allegedly using government phones and computers to raise campaign money. When law enforcement officers raided the treasurer's building to confiscate evidence, reporters documented the whole thing.
Hutchison's attorneys filed for a change of venue because of a perceived political and media imbalance, which they insisted made a fair trial impossible in Austin. Rove, called to the stand to offer evidence of bias against Republicans, told the court that two reporters had informed him that they were tipped off to the raid by D.A. investigators.
Under oath, Rove named David Elliot of the Austin American-Statesman and Wayne Slater from the Dallas Morning News as the reporters. Both men later told me they hadn't spoken with Rove, nor had they told anyone they had received a tip from the D.A.'s office. They had gotten a call from staffers at the treasurer's office, which is precisely how all of the other journalists, including myself, learned about the raid.
If Rove winds up under oath before Congress, members will get a command performance by a man with masterful communications skills. They can expect to hear artful impressions, bits of information and a few stipulated facts.
But they should not expect the truth.
-
If Rove lies under oath then the perjury trap succeeds.
Course he doesn't have to lie under oath. He is a republican afterall and has free will.
-
If Rove lies under oath then the perjury trap succeeds.
Course he doesn't have to lie under oath. He is a republican afterall and has free will.
Not if you are a Bushidolator as he and you others.
-
Not if you are a Bushidolator as he and you others.
Please expand on this thought.
How does support of a candidate negate free will?
Please provide examples or at the minimum a doctors note showing you just pulled this one out of your ass.
-
:D
-
Not if you are a Bushidolator as he and you others.
Please expand on this thought.
How does support of a candidate negate free will?
Please provide examples or at the minimum a doctors note showing you just pulled this one out of your ass.
Never in American history has so dangerous and un-American an administration built such support for its “leadership,†and it was done in spite of the evidence showing its un-American ways. Indeed, this president ought to have never made it to Election Day, as he should have been impeached for any number of crimes and misdemeanors, of which the preemptive invasion of Iraq is but one.
How did this happen? It is simple. It all comes back to evidence. To reiterate, humanists insist on evidence before making decisions about anything from medicine to creationism to buying a car, and we also must insist on evidence in politics. But evidence is not a word Americans embrace. Instead, they embrace “faith.†I am not just talking about faith as in the belief in a god or even the kind of religious beliefs (or misbeliefs) blinding those millions of fundamentalist Christians who voted for Bush on “social issues.†I am instead talking about a sort of political faith “virus†that seems to have infected conservative America even among nonbelievers.
To illustrate our point, the Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks just released a study called “The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters.†What they found is appalling for twenty-first century America. Steven Kull, director of PIPA, reported, “One of the reasons that Bush supporters have these beliefs is that they perceive the Bush administration confirming them.†According to the study, 82 percent of Bush supporters perceive the Bush administration as saying that Iraq had WMDs (63 percent) or that Iraq had a major WMD program (19 percent). Similarly, 75 percent say that the Bush administration said Iraq was providing substantial support to Al Qaeda.
Bush supporters also believe(d) that Bush favored multilateral approaches to various international issues—the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69 percent), the treaty banning land mines (72 percent); and, regarding global warming, 51 percent incorrectly assume he favors U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol, according to the study. And whatever happened to Abu Graib? These findings were only a partial list of misinformation Bush supporters took for granted—or shall I say, on faith.
Part of the reason Bush supporters believed these lies is no doubt due to the right-leaning agenda of the television media like Fox News and radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. And of course, many folks (and churches) in the so-called Red States were more interested in fundamentalist ideas about marriage and sex than the economy or war. But what of those Bush supporters who did know the facts and who are not Christian fundamentalists? Kull explained, “To support the president and to accept that he took the U.S. to war based on mistaken assumptions likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about prewar Iraq.â€
Ah! Suppression of facts in favor of beliefs—again, faith.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/shb/seidman_20_04.htm
-
Would you like to attempt to answer my question on your own instead of relying on psycho babble from a critic with a God fixation?
or would you rather us wait whilst you forge the doctors note.
-
Would you like to attempt to answer my question on your own instead of relying on psycho babble from a critic with a God fixation?
or would you rather us wait whilst you forge the doctors note.
I knew you wouldnt comprehend it and therefore call it some sort of deprecating name. The simple fact is that Bushodolators have made a disastrous leap of faith to eat ever bit of lying shit He drops. They only have faith , no reason and certainly no free will outside of Bushova.
-
I knew you wouldnt comprehend it and therefore call it some sort of deprecating name. The simple fact is that Bushodolators have made a disastrous leap of faith to eat ever bit of lying shit He drops. They only have faith , no reason and certainly no free will outside of Bushova.
Please defend your position.
Your previous documentation said that Bush supporters accepted the WMD rationale prior to the war as an act of faith yet when WMD's were not found in 2004 which was the time your author put pen to paper they were involved in some sort of suppression of reality.
I dispute that assertion. The simple fact that WMDs were not found at that time did not mean they did not exist. it simply means they were not found, a fact i don't recall being disputed by Bush supporters.
As we have seen at later dates stockpiles previously undiscovered were in fact found.
But i digress. Your original assertion was that Bush supporters have a free will deficiency and you as yet haven't backed that up with anything even closely resembling a logical defense.
Is it in you? Do you have what it takes to be a contributing member of this forum?
-
Not if you are a Bushidolator as he and you others.
Wow, you're really just the far left version of hOOt, aren't you?!?
-
I knew you wouldnt comprehend it and therefore call it some sort of deprecating name. The simple fact is that Bushodolators have made a disastrous leap of faith to eat ever bit of lying shit He drops. They only have faith , no reason and certainly no free will outside of Bushova.
Please defend your position.
Your previous documentation said that Bush supporters accepted the WMD rationale prior to the war as an act of faith yet when WMD's were not found in 2004 which was the time your author put pen to paper they were involved in some sort of suppression of reality.
I dispute that assertion. The simple fact that WMDs were not found at that time did not mean they did not exist. it simply means they were not found, a fact i don't recall being disputed by Bush supporters.
As we have seen at later dates stockpiles previously undiscovered were in fact found.
But i digress. Your original assertion was that Bush supporters have a free will deficiency and you as yet haven't backed that up with anything even closely resembling a logical defense.
Is it in you? Do you have what it takes to be a contributing member of this forum?
You are proving my point over again by still asserting that that which is proven not to exist did(WMD's) You refuse to see reality in order to defend the indefensible. To not recognize reality is the greatest expression of being led by the nose. You have to believe your leader against all else. I can understand why because if you admit how badly you have fucked things up, you might go madder than you already are.
-
Not if you are a Bushidolator as he and you others.
Wow, you're really just the far left version of hOOt, aren't you?!?
Oh Miss Henny, knute makes Hoot look positively Plane-like 8)
-
You are proving my point over again by still asserting that that which is proven not to exist did(WMD's)
I did not make that claim. Show me where i did.
-
Not if you are a Bushidolator as he and you others.
Wow, you're really just the far left version of hOOt, aren't you?!?
hOOt had more sense than the RW remains left here. So take your sissy insults elsewhere, my dear.
-
You are proving my point over again by still asserting that that which is proven not to exist did(WMD's)
I did not make that claim. Show me where i did.
As we have seen at later dates stockpiles previously undiscovered were in fact found.
-
hOOt had more sense than the RW remains left here.
Umm... if memory serves, hOOt was shown the door.
So take your sissy insults elsewhere, my dear.
Piffle. I learned to flame with the best of them years ago. It just got old somewhere around... say... age 25.
That said, I actually wasn't insulting you, just making an observation. Your reference to KKK Rove reminded me of hOOt's frequent references to the Klintons and AmeriKa.
-
As we have seen at later dates stockpiles previously undiscovered were in fact found.
Is that an untrue statement?
Were stockpiles not in fact found? Stockpiles certain folks insisted did not exist because up to that time had not been discovered.
Yet they apparently did exist..... if they were found.
Don't see how that is an example of blind faith. And that was your claim about Bush supporters, which you have neither backed up or produced a doctors note excusing your pulling that statement out yer ass.
-
hOOt had more sense than the RW remains left here.
Umm... if memory serves, hOOt was shown the door.
So take your sissy insults elsewhere, my dear.
Piffle. I learned to flame with the best of them years ago. It just got old somewhere around... say... age 25.
That said, I actually wasn't insulting you, just making an observation. Your reference to KKK Rove reminded me of hOOt's frequent references to the Klintons and AmeriKa.
Actually , I initially based my Knutester persona as a reverse copy of what I was seeing from RWers in chat. I wanted to show that they could be hated as much as they hated Bill. Once I got into it, I saw how much fun they were having hating so much and I began to enjoy it as well. After the Bushidiot was selected I could see that my hatred for them was well founded .
I still feel that hOOT was far more honest and interesting than these dreary regurgitators of Bushadmenstration lies.
-
As we have seen at later dates stockpiles previously undiscovered were in fact found.
Is that an untrue statement?
Were stockpiles not in fact found? Stockpiles certain folks insisted did not exist because up to that time had not been discovered.
Yet they apparently did exist..... if they were found.
Don't see how that is an example of blind faith. And that was your claim about Bush supporters, which you have neither backed up or produced a doctors note excusing your pulling that statement out yer ass.
Where is the evidence that they were found? Or did you just take that on blind faith or, better yet, make it up with your supposed free will?
-
Where is the evidence that they were found? Or did you just take that on blind faith or, better yet, make it up with your supposed free will?
There were reports by Reuters as well as AP and a slew of minimizing by lefty blogs. Google is your friend.
-
Where is the evidence that they were found? Or did you just take that on blind faith or, better yet, make it up with your supposed free will?
There were reports by Reuters as well as AP and a slew of minimizing by lefty blogs. Google is your friend.
You dont know how top Google to make a specious point?
-
You don't know how top Google to make a specious point?
It is not specious. And not only is the information available via google but most probably you can find further back up in this very forum. I know it was discussed in the lead up to the November Elections.
-
You don't know how top Google to make a specious point?
It is not specious. And not only is the information available via google but most probably you can find further back up in this very forum. I know it was discussed in the lead up to the November Elections.
Put up or shut up. no one believes anything a Repub says without proof anymore. You have used up your lie allotment.
-
Never play post poker with a guy wuith a url up his sleeve:
Mustard, sarin warheads found
02/07/2004 08:37 - (SA)
Washington - Polish troops recently discovered more than a dozen warheads containing mustard or sarin gas in Iraq, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a radio interview.
Rumsfeld said Polish Defence Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski told him about the find when they met earlier this week at a Nato summit in Istanbul.
"He pointed out that his troops in Iraq had recently come across - I've forgotten the number, but something like 16 or 17 - warheads that contained sarin and mustard gas," Rumsfeld told Newradio 600 KOGO of San Diego, California in an interview on Wednesday.
"Now these are weapons that we always knew Saddam Hussein had that he had not declared, and they have tested them," he said.
The Pentagon released a transcript of the interview on Thursday.
The head of the US-led hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Charles Duelfer, had previously reported that 10 to 12 warheads containing sarin or mustard gas have been found.
A US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the number could have gone up since Duelfer's spoke about the chemical rounds June 24 in an interview with Fox television.
Rumsfeld added that he had not seen the weapons or the results of the tests, but noted that the Poles believed they "in fact were undeclared chemical weapons - sarin and mustard gas - quite lethal."
"And that is a discovery that just occurred within the last period of days," he said.
Rumsfeld also said there had been "a lot of intelligence speculation and rumours and chatter about the fact that Saddam Hussein may have placed some of his weapons of mass destruction in Syria prior to the start of the war.
"Until that can be validated and proved, you'll find people in the administration not talking about it" he said.
The question of what happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction - or indeed whether it had any hidden stockpiles at the time of the war - remains intensely controversial.
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1551580,00.html
Duelfer said his inspection team has uncovered bombs filled with blistering mustard gas or the nerve agent sarin.
"We're not sure how many more are out there that haven't been found, but we've found 10 or 12 sarin and mustard rounds," he said. "I'm reluctant to judge what that means at this point, but there's other aspects of the program which we still have to flush out."
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/06/wmd_reports_yea.html
and then there is the Iraq Survey Group itself.
http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2006-05/iraq-doc.pdf
scroll down to page 4.
-
D'OH :D
-
That is the best you can do? Degraded and useless mustard gas found by Polacks that probly dated before the first Gulf war? How incredibly pathetic. You had these urls up your ass for sure! BWAHAHAHAHA!
Even the Defense Dept knew this was bullshit and not the WMD's we went to war over. More parsing RW lies.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/dod-disavows-santorum/
I am surprised that you didnt also mention those mobile chemical labs which was also raw shit.
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2006/04/12/mobile-labs-lie/
-
blowjob:
Just a suggestion Mucho:
Before cutting and pasting you ought to make sure you delete your search keywords.
-
That is the best you can do?
That is all i had to do.
Weapons were found. And the left minimized the find. Neither statement was untrue.
Can you say the same for your posts?
-
That is the best you can do?
That is all i had to do.
Weapons were found. And the left minimized the find. Neither statement was untrue.
Can you say the same for your posts?
As I have said many times , facts without context lack meaning and are used by liars like all you Bushidolators. You should be ashamed, but I know you have none.
-
[qote]"Actually , I initially based my Knutester persona as a reverse copy of what I was seeing from RWers in chat."[/quote]
That is interesting.
Do you mean the very worst and rudest or is there a plateau near the tolerance level?
Is Knute entirely artificial and nothing like your real self?
Does there ever occur an escalation of racorous retoric as outrage anwers outrage?
-
As I have said many times , facts without context lack meaning and are used by liars like all you Bushidolators. You should be ashamed, but I know you have none.
Where is the lie?
The context is that WMD's were in fact found.
-
Actually , I initially based my Knutester persona as a reverse copy of what I was seeing from RWers in chat.
Oh, it's an act. Good. I was kinda horrified that someone could be as big an idiot as you.