|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jul 18, 2005 19:40:11 GMT -5
Funny that the full story would be completely contained in a conservative news magazine. And that it sights sources that can't be checked up on like unnamed Russian spies, Fidel Castro, and a media amicus curiae which was worded to force the court to say one of two things 1. "yes a crime could have been commited" or 2. "here's all the information on Wilson's wife". Either way there's a news story there - don't think that everything is so simple when it comes to a court proceedings, special prosecutors, and grand juries. Consider the source on this - McCarthy works for a conservative think-tank and writes in a conservative magazine and the only thing he can fall back on are untraceable information (Castro and the KGB), a misinterpretation of a court document, and a Washington Times staff member. Wow that's balanced. Thanks for setting me straight.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 18, 2005 21:40:19 GMT -5
Funny that the full story would be completely contained in a conservative news magazine. And that it sights sources that can't be checked up on like unnamed Russian spies, Fidel Castro, and a media amicus curiae which was worded to force the court to say one of two things 1. "yes a crime could have been commited" or 2. "here's all the information on Wilson's wife". Either way there's a news story there - don't think that everything is so simple when it comes to a court proceedings, special prosecutors, and grand juries. Consider the source on this - McCarthy works for a conservative think-tank and writes in a conservative magazine and the only thing he can fall back on are untraceable information (Castro and the KGB), a misinterpretation of a court document, and a Washington Times staff member. Wow that's balanced. Thanks for setting me straight. You forgot to mention Cliff May. He's another one to add to the group of conservatives behind this article. In the end, I think the question is really whether you even want members of an Administration talking about classified information to the press, especially current or former CIA personnel. Judith Miller is no stranger to the business because she pushed the NYT's "fair and balanced" reporting of the WMD in Iraq angle. Personally, I don't think Rove is a person who anyone should defend. This is a guy who makes a living on calling into question the service record of decorated veterans, including John McCain, Max Cleland, and John Kerry. If that is not enough, he also calls into question the morals of others based on purposely false stories out of the pages of Goebbels and Stalin (that would be the McCain-"black baby" whisper campaign). There is no question in most minds that this story is a loser for Republicans, which is why you'll probably see a SCOTUS nominee sooner rather than later. In the mean time, they are going to muddie the waters as best they can, with the hope that unsuspecting journalists will let again parrot the talking points faxed out from RNC HQ. At this point, I think most people want to see some legislative action. The President has not delivered as of yet on his key initiatives, namely tort reform, Social Security reform, and permanent tax cuts. If you think he'll have much luck with any of these after the midterm, I think Karl Rove and Scooter Libby may have some classified intelligence to sell you.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaDestroya on Jul 19, 2005 12:12:14 GMT -5
i like how both of you ignore big media's amicus brief... it's ok b/c they aren't reporting on it either.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jul 19, 2005 12:23:28 GMT -5
I explained what it was for. It was to get a story either way - and they did report it afterwards. I definitely saw an explanation of it on NewsNight.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 20, 2005 18:22:09 GMT -5
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Jul 20, 2005 18:30:15 GMT -5
talkleft.com/new_archives/010338.htmlArmstrong was referenced as a CIA employee for years, even having a profile on the CIA website. Plame, on the other hand, was a operative on non-official cover. Big difference. One really shouldn't get one's talking points solely from Powerline and Newsmax. They tend to, well, lie.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 20, 2005 18:49:45 GMT -5
If you don't like the source, trash them.
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Jul 20, 2005 19:01:15 GMT -5
I think "consider the source" is a pretty fair way of doing business. Your link has a headline that says "John Kerry Outed Undercover CIA Agent" which is obviously false to anyone who takes the time to do a google search. So, given that Newsmax shows such flagarant disregard for the truth in this instance (and in so, so many others) why should anyone pay attention? You can listen to them if they tell you what you like to hear, but it's not trashing them to make the fairly banal observation that they're totally full of it on this particular issue.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jul 21, 2005 2:06:00 GMT -5
Newsmax, if you read it consistantly, eschewes facts in service of trashing Democrats and liberals. Powerline does the same. If you can find an AP, Knight-Ridder, UPI, etc. story on this then I would be much more inclined to believe it. But if all that can be offered in service of your contention is this source I would not believe it what-so-ever.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 21, 2005 19:25:39 GMT -5
FWIW from a Drudge equivalent on the left: "Bloomberg News has slotted a story alleging that senior Bush advisor Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff 'Scooter' Libby provided false testimony to the special prosecutor to a Washington-based grand jury, RAW STORY has learned." rawstory.com/news/2005/Report_Bloomberg_to_reveal_Rove_Libby_gave_false_te_0721.htmlInteresting development, if true. I can't imagine anybody on the right will call for a resignation.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jul 21, 2005 19:40:08 GMT -5
The right won't call for a resignation of Rove - they are too committed to their president at all congressional levels. The story does not actually say that Rove lied to the grandy jury though - it only reports that Bloomberg is going to say that later on - so we'll have to wait and see what the Bloomberg story says.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 21, 2005 19:57:10 GMT -5
The right won't call for a resignation of Rove - they are too committed to their president at all congressional levels. The story does not actually say that Rove lied to the grandy jury though - it only reports that Bloomberg is going to say that later on - so we'll have to wait and see what the Bloomberg story says. Exactly. The funny thing is that this story is not going away, in spite of the SCOTUS nomination. August will be a quiet month on the SCOTUS front because Senators need to evaluate the candidate in advance of the hearings. That isn't exactly newsworthy.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jul 21, 2005 20:10:27 GMT -5
Well regardless I think August will be slow. It takes Grand Juries a long time to hand out indictments regardless of what the subject matter is - so the story won't go away, but I would assume that there will be other things that will come up in subsequent news cycles - such as the continued London terror issues, the progress of the war in Iraq, Rhinquist's health, etc.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jul 22, 2005 1:26:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jul 26, 2005 3:31:32 GMT -5
|
|