Karl Rove Controversy Questions

Even the President can't force a "prosecution" if no laws were broken.

 

If some website that you believe to be a "wacky conspriacy nut website" said the sky was blue, would you deny it because of the source?

In 1970, at the age of nineteen and while a protege of Donald Segretti (later convicted as a Watergate conspirator), Rove snuck into the campaign office of Illinois Democrat Alan Dixon and stole some letterhead, which he used to print fake campaign rally fliers promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing," and distributed them at rock concerts and homeless shelters. Admitting to the incident much later, Rove said, "I was nineteen and I got involved in a political prank."

In 1986, just before a crucial debate in the election for governor of Texas, Karl Rove announced that his office had been bugged by the Democrats. There was no evidence for this, and it was later discovered that he had bugged his own phone to garner media coverage.

In 1992, Rove was fired from the Bush presidential re-election campaign for leaking information to journalist Robert Novak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010305&c=2&s=dubose

There is plenty information about Rove and his last 30+ years in politics, there is no denying, wether you like him or not, he is one of the leading political masterminds of our time.

 

Don't know about these accusations, but Rove isn't guilty of this one, and if you weren't biased you'd know it.

The leftists are in "save yourself" mode now because they've struck out on Rove. </font>[/QUOTE]You say Rove isn't guilty, but everyone is saying that he is the source of the leak. Is he not guilty of leaking the CIA information to the press?

I am no leftist, I would be to the right of most members of the GOP on most issues!

 

The truth is that everyone isn't saying that. You should not have said differently.

No, apparently not, based on teh reports that we know now. He signed a waiver of confidentiality more than 18 months ago for those who talked to to reveal his name. He did not reveal any classified information. He corrected a story that a reporter was about to write that would be soon refuted. He warned the reporter "not to go out on a limb."

In the future, more information may come out that implicates Rove. But to the honest person, as of now, there is simply no evidence of any wrong doing on his part. I don't even like Rove, but I can see through this one.

 

If that is the case, then you are right, he is not guilty, If in fact we do find out that he is once again lying and is guilty, then I won't be shocked, it just seems like "classic Rove" to leak information to the press like this.

 

Don't know about these accusations, but Rove isn't guilty of this one, and if you weren't biased you'd know it.

The leftists are in "save yourself" mode now because they've struck out on Rove. </font>[/QUOTE]You say Rove isn't guilty, but everyone is saying that he is the source of the leak. Is he not guilty of leaking the CIA information to the press?

I am no leftist, I would be to the right of most members of the GOP on most issues! </font>[/QUOTE]My mistake in mischaracterising you J. I do know better of you.

All evidence is against any malfeasance on Roves part. She did not fit the profile of an undercover agent. Rove never named her, nor intimated any connection of her to covert operations. There is simply nothing there. Keep your eyes on the NY Times, as to what they are covering up.

 

See Pastor Larry's post here: I hope this is OK to do.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/18/3231.html

 

As I said, if all of this is true, then you are right, he is not guilty. It just seemd to fit his MO , so it was very easy to believe that he was guilty.

 

If some website that you believe to be a "wacky conspriacy nut website" said the sky was blue, would you deny it because of the source?

In 1970, at the age of nineteen and while a protege of Donald Segretti (later convicted as a Watergate conspirator), Rove snuck into the campaign office of Illinois Democrat Alan Dixon and stole some letterhead, which he used to print fake campaign rally fliers promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing," and distributed them at rock concerts and homeless shelters. </font>[/QUOTE]It's a little off topic but I couldn't help but remember John Kerry's brother was arrested while in the office of Kerry's opponent in the middle of the night. Caught red handed as they say. That was in the early 70s.

 

If some website that you believe to be a "wacky conspriacy nut website" said the sky was blue, would you deny it because of the source?</font>[/QUOTE]Was that a no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove [/QUOTE]

Did you read the disclaimer that Wikipedia put on this article at the very top of the page:

At least they were honest and upfront about the fact that there might just be a political bias in this article.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010305&c=2&s=dubose [/QUOTE]

I found this advertizement on their home page:

http://www.christianalliance.org/site/c.bnKIIQNtEoG/b.592941/k.CB7C/Home.htm

Do you think they might just be promoting a political bias?

Joseph Botwinick

 

I would assume there is some political bias from every story you will find about Rove from both the right and the left, being that he is a political mastermind.

If the facts are true, you can't ignore them because you don't like the source of the facts. Rove has been involved in politics since the 70's and has used "dirty politics" to work his way to the top! He is a master of propaganda in politics!

 

I would agree that it would fit his character in that he is a brilliant political stratagist, but I differ with you in viewing that as a negative. I also actually believe him to be way to smart to get caught in something like that.

This whole thing isn't over yet and I think some interesting stuff is in the works.

 

I would agree that it would fit his character in that he is a brilliant political stratagist, but I differ with you in viewing that as a negative. I also actually believe him to be way to smart to get caught in something like that.

This whole thing isn't over yet and I think some interesting stuff is in the works. </font>[/QUOTE]Could it be that Rove has rope-a-doped the democrats again?

 

As I recall some bouncer hired by Hillary Dillary released raw FBI files on certain government officials, a felony, and walked.

 

December 2003 or January 2004: Rove's lawyer Robert Luskin says Rove has signed a waiver authorizing prosecutors to speak to any reporters Rove had talked to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

Rove had nothing to hide 18 months ago and has nothing to hide now. The democrats hate Rove more than Bush because he has always beaten them and will again.

 

Sure looks like it.
Their easy.

 

The Whitehouse said they would fire whoever was involved with this leak. They believed considering the circumstances that the person should be fired. The Whitehouse would not say this without considering the circumstances would they? So, that is it. Anyone having anything to do with this leak(revealing Wilson's wife's identity should be fired. Is the Whitehouse going to stand by their pledge or are they themselves too incompetent to have analyzed the situation properly. There will have to be alot of legal gymnastics used to free Rove of this Whitehouse pledge.

 

And the president may do so if he founds out Rove released her name or otherwise broke the law.

At any rate, he won't fire anyone until all the facts are in and the investigation complete.

Just as it should be.

 

I really enjoyed this article yesterday:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8557461/

Wow - so the plan is to engage in industrial-strength misdirection. And, now that they have received the marching orders, the misdirection continues. Today I was listening to Rush Limbaugh read right down the page from this article on the GOP website.
http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=5630

Perhaps Mr. Limbaugh has forgotten that REAL issue involves the outing of a CIA operative.

I guess the obvious question to my fellow Republicans is simple:
Why so much misdirection if no law was broken?

I guess the lesson here is that wives are "fair game."

Regards,
BiR

 

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507140001