CNN News-Reporters have discovered Talking Points on Rove matter issued

[Pallas180]

by the White House. Essentially the Talking Points issued by the White House to republican operatives and cooperative media personalities are the same that Rove's attorney Luskin has been issuing claiming there is no criminal activity, attacking Plame and Wilson, and stating Rove did not knowingly expose a CIA operative, and did not use her name.

In a press conference shown about 1 PM McClellan refused to answer questions about the Talking Points asked of him by Helen Thomas and
other reporters.

[SpiralHawk]

1. "...cooperative media personalities..."

What he really means is BushCo propaganda agents in the mass corporate media

[kenny blankenship]

20. Now we have a better term than "media whore"

I propose it always be capitalized even when not abbreviated (CMP). the use of uppercase reflects the official nature of the position. eg:
Cooperative Media Personality Bill O'Reilley
...strident "Cooperative Media Personality" Sean Hannity
...well-known Cooperative Media Personality Wolf Blitzer

[alarcojon]

2. I'm shocked!

Shocked, I tell you! A coordinated effort by the Right Wing Propaganda Machine? I just can't believe it.

\sarcasm

[longship]

3. Say it loudly: "Cover-up," "Conspiracy"

WH management of news content is the most under-reported story of this administration!
:rofl:

Recommended!

[deacon]

58. Thats exactly what it is n/t

[myrna minx]

4. I loved that question during the press conference.

Sooo they can discuss the ongoing investigations with their "surrogates" who will spew the talking points, but not directly with the press. :eyes:

[displacedtexan]

5. That explains Orin Hatch(et) on Imus this morning.

Same lame "Wilson had an agenda and is wife wanted him to go to Niger" crap.

Imus, of course, was so fixated on his own personal shit that he didn't even question Hatch(et).

[NewJeffCT]

14. I've heard a week in Niger is like a month at the Ritz-Carlton in Hawaii

I mean, people would kill for the chance to take a trip without pay to Niger, right?

[crispini]

78. Imus is not any kind of news show.

Rumor has it MSNBC will be removing that annoying wanker from the lineup, and I say, it can't happen too soon.

[understandinglife]

6. And, we now have the 21st Century American version of "Let'um eat cake"!

White House Silence on Rove's Role in Leak Enters 2nd Day

By RICHARD W. STEVENSON

Published: July 12, 2005

<clip>

"Are you going to fire him?" the president was asked twice ... Both times, the president ignored the questions.

Then a White House aide signaled that the session was over. "Out those doors, please," the aide told journalists. "Thank you very much."

<clip>

More at the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/politics/12cnd-rove.html?hp&ex=1121227200&en=58863f7c28b3a331&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Hey, Bu$h, YOU ARE FIRED, dude.


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Last time I checked, We The People... pay these folk salary. So, let's act like responsible bosses and fire them.

[savannahana]

67. let ~THEM~ eat nothing but yellowcake

(i say again)

yellowcake
with karma filling
impeachment frosting

& a mandatory legal side
of their blood-soaked
PNAC-fried
coward-cut lies

(thanks, UL :thumbsup:)

[UpInArms]

7. "Talking Points" indeed

the stonewalling, cover-up and conspiracy continues with the mis-leadership of this mal-administration.

An administration full of criminals and Nixon-proteges - :puke:

[Pallas180]

11. Seems to me this is time to e mail/phone congcritters demanding IMPEACHMEN

T.

[Catfight]

8. It's about time they grow some kahuna's. nt

[grumpy old fart]

9. Fitzgerald should now subpoena Faux news "reporters" who spout these.....

talking points, to further prove the ongoing practice of the WH using "favored media" as propaganda tools.

[txindy]

16. Now, that is an excellent idea! n/t

[BrotherBuzz]

19. That's not a bad idea...

It would open up an entire new front in this battle. I like!

[DeepModem Mom]

66. They are cooperating in the cover-up. Yep -- subpoena them. nt

[Botany]

10. HMMMMMM!

Can you say toast.

[GracieM]

12. The longer this goes

the harder it will be for us. People in the know will be bribed or taken care of another way. Things need to happen now!

[Just Me]

13. DOH! Are they saying they didn't know about this SOP?

C'MON!!!!

Oh, well. I suppose I MUST be grateful for their POSSIBLE turn towards fulfilling their duty to the American people rather than a bullhorn for a corrupt and criminal administration.

[Pallas180]

21. ditto! Just Me. time they fulfilled their fourth estate duty.

but much too late - so much damage THEY have allowed to happen to the
country without a peep

[Stirk]

25. No kidding.

I remember it was back in '92 when I first noticed that all the right-wing commentators were using the same arguments at the same time. They'd start them the same day.

It was obvious even back then that they were being coordinated somehow. Since then the "talking points" have become common knowledge. Christ, O'Reilly even has a segment called "Talking Points Memo". C'mon.

[TankLV]

49. There is no "vast right wing conspiracy" - so stop saying that!

It makes all us democrats look bad!

sarcasm off

This was for all those DU'rs cropping up who tell us all to sit down and shut up.

You know who you are.

AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE DO TOO!

[Pallas180]

68. How would I know that? since I won't listen to hot air bags like

O reilly and rush and hannity,
Pure propaganda and drivel.

[joanski0]

15. McClelland told those reporters

who asked about the Talking Points memo that they should ask the RNC about them.

[Puzzler]

17. OK...

... so why can't he answer questions about the "talking points". That's not really the same issue is it?

-P

[alfredo]

18. They're trying to say Wilson's report was not true.

[grumpy old fart]

24. Yeah, heard that from a NY Post rethug on tweety last night. Sources?

Is there evidence out there that Wilson's assertions re yellow cake were "debunked" as this reporter put it? Isakoff (sp?) didn't try to rebut the assertion...

[Jane Austin]

48. It wasn't Isikoff. It was E.J Dionne

who was opposite Debra Orren. (Sp)

[marions ghost]

60. don't think so...

--all the evidence from collatoral sources (CIA and other) seems to
indicate Wilson had it correct.

Dee Dee Meyers (Clinton press sec) on Hardball just said that no one has proven Wilson wrong...

Looks like a tug-o-war on that question, which of course is how they want to spin it to discredit Wilson.

[countingbluecars]

26. Right,

and then they can justify leaking a CIA agent's identity. His wife was the one who supposedly arranged the trip. Wilson was being "unpatriotic". You're either with us or with the terrorists. Yada, yada, yada. Wonder how many flag waving Americans will believe that?

[Pallas180]

27. Yeah. Convincingly-Even I got confused whether Wilson had told truth -

they're very convincing - and I have all the info DU ers have....so
if I'm confused whether Wilson lied, the whole rest of the country non du'er probably believe their talking points!!

boy these neo fascist nazis spread deadly poison into the environment!

[kittenpants]

29. that was my reaction. They lie so boldly & with such confidence

that it made me wonder if I had missed something. It's disgusting.

[Goldmund]

30. IOW, trying to change the subject

Of course it was true -- Iraq didn't have any WMDs, did they? They didn't have yellowcake, did they? -- but this is an attempt at diversion. This has NOTHING to do with whether Wilson's report was true.

[grumpy old fart]

33. I understand that, but it is going to be a problem.............

Apparently this all came from a Senate intelligence committee report last week. A report from which the Dems on the committee apparently did not dissent.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20040715.shtml

[Goldmund]

34. How is it going to be a problem?

Assume the report wasn't true. How does that justify outing a CIA asset?

[Peace Patriot]

50. "A report from which the Dems on the committee apparently did not...

dissent."--grumpy old fart

The members of my party (Democrats) can't seem to tell the difference between a transparent and a non-transparent voting system, or between an honest, open, non-partisan, verifiable voting system, and one controlled by Bushite companies using secret, proprietary programming code--so it's no surprise to me that they would miss a falsehood in something subtler, like a Senate intelligence committee report.

[Peace Patriot]

44. What does Wilson's report being true or not true have to do with

the destruction of a 20+ year CIA eyes and ears information-gathering network on WMDs?

And on what basis do they SAY it's "not true"? Just because they say so? What is their evidence for Iraq nuke purchases in Niger? If there had been any, we certainly would have heard about it by now--in ten foot headlines in the NYT!

I don't understand this line of malarkey or how Bushite "pod people" are getting away with it.

Wilson was in Niger on behalf of our government. He could not and would not have gone there, seeking Iraq nuke info, WITHOUT an okay from the highest levels. And he says it was Cheney who requested it.

By outing Plame and her WMD network--Cheney first of all blinded the CIA to possible illicit Bush Cartel WMD activities, and, secondly, set in motion a cover story, to remove him as the agent of this destruction, by getting the patter going that Plame chose Wilson to go to Niger, couched in the outing revelation. This part of the story has always puzzled me. Why would Wilson being married to a WMD expert taint or discredit him in any way? It would seem, on the contrary, to ENHANCE his ability to carry out the Niger mission. And why would it even taint or discredit him in any way if Plame recommended him, or spoke to him on behalf of Cheney or her superiors, and asked him to go? They word this assertion (that Plame recommended him) as if it were a strike (or many strikes) against Wilson. But why would it be? It sure doesn't seem to me to be. And I've thought and thought about this.

But I think we're getting the whip end tail of the spin--or something. The spin is that Plame chose Wilson, and the tail is that IT WASN'T CHENEY. And in order to say it wasn't Cheney, they had to say it was Plame. Because why? Because (hidden in the twirls and gnashing teeth behind the spin) SHE WAS THE MAIN TARGET.

Think about this. Cheney is thickly involved in cooking WMD intel. In the midst of this, he requests that Joe Wilson go to Niger, knowing perfectly well that Wilson will not find evidence of Iraq nukes there. Wilson comes back and reports just that. Then, Cheney or minions go and put the Iraq nuke thing into Bush's State of the Union speech ANYWAY--an accusation that was provably false, and for which there was now a witness to the falsehood. Why would they do this? They had plenty of other less discoverable lies to tell. How could that have gotten into Bush's speech by ACCIDENT? I just don't believe that. And why is it still a mystery who did it (put it in the speech)?

I'm thinking the whole thing was a set up--Cheney setting up Wilson--and the Iraq nuke charge was planted in the speech to goad Wilson--who then whistleblew on it--providing the EXCUSE to out Plame and her WMD network, with the cover story (double-spin) that it was Rove seeking political revenge and chilling of dissent (which he is well-known for--a plausible story).

But why would Rove risk TREASON to get back at Wilson? Surely he has other tricks up his sleeve to ruin peoples' lives. I think maybe the stakes were quite a bit higher than a whistleblowing diplomat and a bit of dissent. What I most strongly suspect is that they had a little project to plant WMDs in Iraq--their most critical political need in summer '03--and Plame and her network were in the way; were in a position to suss it out.

We know that Cheney/Rumsfeld are involved in purging the CIA of anyone interested in accurate information, or independent thought. A covert WMD network of long standing, with an agent who really knew what was going on in the world of WMD traffic, would likely be a prime target of theirs, especially if they are involved in nefarious deeds such as trying to plant WMDs in Iraq, or intending to plant WMDS in other places (say, Syria), and/or are weapons profiteering.

See

"Plame...the tip of the iceberg... " (Plame maybe investigating Cheney arms deals when they busted her CIA weapons op)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2178477#2180220

My other little theory about this case is that there may be a connection to David Kelly's death. He was the Brit chief weapons inspector who was suicided in summer '03. (I am convinced of it--as surely as we can be of anything in the Byzantine world of the Bush Cartel. Read about it on the internet and see if you don't agree.) Kelly was whistleblowing to the BBC on the Blairites' "sexing up" of the Iraq WMD intel docs. What he actually said, however--which involved the WORDING of the docs, a subject that could be endlessly argued--didn't seem sufficient to stir up the tither it caused in the Blair circle, nor to prompt an assassination. And what WOULD be sufficient? That he knew of, or possibly thwarted, a plot to plant WMDs in Iraq. That would explain how badly they treated him (really, really badly--secret interrogations, outing him to the press with no warning, threats about his pension--he was a year from retirement--dragging him before a committee), and why he needed to be gotten rid of.

Kelly was for the invasion--then later seems to have become conscience-stricken about the "sexed up" intel. Why would he be? Why would this bother him so much AFTER the invasion that he had supported? It feels like something new happened, that caused him to want to shed a bit of public light on the WMD thing, and perhaps prompt independent investigation.

I have no evidence for this. It's just a guess. But it does fit his character (he would have been greatly offended and alarmed by such naked dishonesty as planting WMDs in Iraq) and it fits the circumstances (Bush/Blair's desperate need for a find of WMDs in Iraq). Which brings me to Judith Miller--who may have laundered the disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity to reporters (protecting Cheney, Libby and Rove)--after propagandizing for their war with false intel on the front pages of the NYT. It is to Judith Miller that David Kelly wrote one of his last emails, the day before he died--and the most famous one, in which he expressed concern about the "many dark actors playing games."

His emails to the several people he wrote to that day also expressed the belief that it would all blow over in a week (had he promised them he wouldn't say more?), and his intention to attend his daughter's wedding and to return to Iraq! (--no sign of depression whatsoever; upbeat; forward-looking).

A few hours later he took his afternoon walk, and supposedly sat down under a tree near his house, slightly slashed one wrist and took his wife's painkillers, and slowly bled to death and died over the course of the night, wide out in the open.

If British intel was watching him--which seems likely--where were his "watchers" as he bled to death? Would a scientist chose such an iffy method of death? Would a tough, feisty guy like Kelly--who had stood up to Saddam Hussein and the Russians on WMD issues--have chosen this distinctly feminine method of suicide? And would anybody with any brain cells left do it outside in his own neighborhood, near his home, in the rain? There were many other anomalies--and eyewitnesses and dissenting experts--all ignored by the official "Lord Hutton" inquiry, leaving the unmistakable impression of a whitewash and a coverup.

Judith Miller published a book called "'Germs" just after 9/11, about germ warfare, with David Kelley as an oft-cited source. Apparently, when she wrote about his death in the NYT, she failed to disclose this connection, and the "dark actors" email. (I've read one report that she DID disclose these things--and haven't researched it myself yet, so cannot say this for sure.)

See

"More About Judith Miller" (Plame/Miller/ David Kelly)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/3/17138/30618

How odd that Miller would show up as connective tissue in both events. Could be just a coincidence, given her interests. But with Miller now in prison for protecting Cheney, Libby and/or Rove, or someone else close to them, on the very same issues of suppression of dissent, whistleblowing, outing people, punishing people, committing crimes--all over WMDs--the coincidences are a bit too convergent to dismiss.

And I can't help but recall Judith Miller running all over Iraq with the troops after the invasion, looking for WMDs, pestering them, saying they weren't looking hard enough--positively annoying the commanders in the field--and even threatening them with her connections within the Bush regime. Why was she so sure they would be found? Was it just wishful thinking (--she'd constantly asserted that they would there, in her promotion of the war, and it would have greatly eased the disrepute she's now in, as a journalist, if they had been found)? (And think what it would have done for Bush and Blair--they would be kings of the world now, instead of increasingly viewed as liars and mass murderers.)

I don't know the end of this little novel--nor even if my guesses are anywhere near the truth. None of us do. But I think we had better put our thinking caps on when Bush "pod people" start spouting today's "talking points" on news monopoly shows, and ask questions like, "where are their talking points causing you to look?", and if it's at Rove, look the other way to where Cheney is slinking off the scene; or, "what are they saying is a lie?", and figure out what the lie about the lie might be covering up (i.e., they say Wilson's report about Niger is a lie; THAT is a lie (since no evidence of Iraq nukes in Niger has been brought forward); ergo, could it be that Cheney sent Wilson to Niger on a lie, a ruse, a deception, a wild goose chase? Why is the word "lie" being used in connection with this report?).

We need to learn to think like THEY do, in order to grasp that what George Orwell said of Stalinist propaganda--that it is a "Big Lie"--meaning a false world in which everything is a lie--is occurring here, in America.

----------

The answer to the stink in Washington DC is restoring our right to vote, by throwing Bushite electronic voting machine companies--Diebold, ES&S and brethren--out of the election business NOW--or at the least achieving some measure of election transparency with paper ballot backups, no secret programming code and strict auditing. The only place where we can get that done is in state/local jurisdictions, where the authority over election systems still resides, and where ordinary people still have some say. See the DU Forum "2004 Election Results and Discussion" for information and action ideas:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203

[Peace Patriot]

45. I should add that Joseph Wilson has said nothing at all that would

confirm my theories, and has said recently that his wife and Judith Miller are "collateral damage" in the Bush regime's campaign to crush dissent.

[Peace Patriot]

51. I just read Judith Miller's news article on David Kelly's death, dated

July 21, 2003, from the New York Times, entitled "Scientist was the bane of proliferators," at

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/scibaneprolif.html

...and she says not one word about her association with David Kelly, her extensive use of him as a source for her book "Germs" or about his final email (the "many dark actors playing games). This is not the original publication, which was in the NYT, so I'm still not 100% sure she failed to disclose these things. But it's looking more and more like she did not disclose them--an extraordinary omission.

It's a straight news article, and, interestingly, it contains, in the latter half, assertions that are near quotes (but not in quotation marks) about what David Kelly had "told associates," as follows:

-----

"After visiting Baghdad after the fall of Mr. Hussein's government, Dr. Kelly told associates that he believed that Mr. Hussein operated advanced chemical and biological research and development programs, and probably had chemical weapons.

"He said it was conceivable that deadly weapons and other material were still buried in Iraq, but he was critical of the way in which American armed forces had gone about hunting for them, and expressed the fear that material might have been looted, hidden or carried away. 'It may be virtually impossible to construct through traditional forensics what Iraq had done,' he once said.

"He also expressed frustration that the weapons hunters in Iraq included so few people who were knowledgeable about the country and its scientific and weapons experts."

-----

David Kelly is dead at this point--the writing of the article--and so could not dispute her putting words into his mouth. Those words seem self-serving, to say the least, particularly, "he was critical of the way in which American armed forces had gone about hunting for them." This was Judith Miller's shtick--that US troops were not looking hard enough.

Also self-serving: the first statement--"Dr. Kelly told associates that he believed that Mr. Hussein operated advanced chemical and biological research and development programs, and probably had chemical weapons." This seems wholly out of sink with the whistleblowing that he was doing to the BBC, that the threat had been "sexed up," that is, seriously exaggerated.

And look at that phrase, "he once said," in paragraph 2--the paragraph in which she attributes to him the thought that US forces weren't diligent enough hunting WMDs. She concludes:

"'It may be virtually impossible to construct through traditional forensics what Iraq had done,' he once said."

He once said. When did he say it? In what context? He'd been working on Iraq WMDs for decades. Did he say this in the context of the UNQUOTED attributed remarks about Iraq having WMDs in summer 2003, and about lack of US military diligence at finding them after the invasion, that she says he "told associates"?

I smell a rat!

She does say, in the opening paragraph that Dr. Kelly was "caught up in a dispute about whether the British government doctored intelligence reports on Iraq's weapons programs"--so the article does not wholly avoid his whistleblowing, and his final actions and thoughts. But I wonder about this: She states, in this 7/21/05 article, that Kelly "committed suicide." This was three days after his body was found. She doesn't say probable suicide, or suspected suicide. She says he "committed suicide," with no qualifications. How did she know this? I don't remember the exact timeline of revelations about his death, but it seems highly unlikely that anybody would have made this judgment so quickly (even if they were later going to lie about it).

[Peace Patriot]

54. Just a note on Judith Kelly saying David Kelly "committed suicide."

I just researched it at BBC news, and the BBC was still calling it an "apparent suicide" in 7/21/03--the date of Miller's article--but some Euro news titles were saying "suicide" on that date, and the next day, 7/22, news titles changed mostly to just suicide. There was a prelim inquest on 7/19 which found that he had bled to death from a knife wound to his wrist, and that a knife had been found at the scene (in addition to coproxamal pills--later determined to be his wife's painkillers). So Miller would be fairly justified, on the basis of other news reports, in saying "committed suicide" rather than "apparently," although, if I'd been writing it, I most certainly would NOT have given that judgment on the basis of prelim reports, especially in such an explosive case. I notice that somebody or other in the government was complaining about it still being called "apparent suicide" long afterward.

[Catrina]

53. Thank you for the reminder

about Dr. Kelly ~ I did not know he was connected to Judith Miller.

As far as the talking point that Joe Wilson was lying, I too saw the NY Post 'coopertive journalist' last night distracting from the issue of Karl Rove and focusing on Joe Wilson.

So, I did a little research to refresh my memory on what was going on in 2003 after the State of the Union address. I found this article by Sy Hersch, written two years ago. Something I had forgotten were the forged Niger documents. This article is about those documents. Sy Hersch is a very credible journalist who has lots of sources.

WHO LIED TO WHOM?
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Why did the Administration endorse a forgery about Iraq’s nuclear program?
Issue of 2003-03-31

President Bush cited the uranium deal, along with the aluminum tubes, in his State of the Union Message, on January 28th, while crediting Britain as the source of the information: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” He commented, “Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.”

Then the story fell apart. On March 7th, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in Vienna, told the U.N. Security Council that the documents involving the Niger-Iraq uranium sale were fakes. “The I.A.E.A. has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents . . . are in fact not authentic,” ElBaradei said.

One senior I.A.E.A. official went further. He told me, “These documents are so bad that I cannot imagine that they came from a serious intelligence agency. It depresses me, given the low quality of the documents, that it was not stopped. At the level it reached, I would have expected more checking.”

The I.A.E.A. had first sought the documents last fall, shortly after the British government released its dossier. After months of pleading by the I.A.E.A., the United States turned them over to Jacques Baute, who is the director of the agency’s Iraq Nuclear Verification Office.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1

This doesn't jibe with Joe Wilson lying, on the contrary, it proves he was telling the truth, imo.

Since the IAEA exposed the forged documents ~ no one has disputed that they were forged, but this too has never been resolved. I remember recently an attempt by the Bush administration to discredit the IAEA ~ don't have a link at the moment. This, I would imagine, was more payback because of their exposure of the attempt to use false evidence. It all follows a pattern.

The DSM shows how they were trying to make the evidence of WMDs fit their policies. What we have observed was, that anyone who interfered with their plans, was smeared, including members of the IAEA. I agree with you regarding Cheney. I think Doug Feith, Scooter Libby, Elliot Abrams and others connected to Cheney, were somehow responsible for the Valerie Plame leak. And, btw, AIRC, she merely recommended her husband, the CIA had a meeting which she did not attend, and chose him to go Niger ~

While the press has taken a few baby steps towards acting like journalists, I will believe it when I see them attack the 'talking points' and give the American people the facts. They are available. If we know some of them, they surely must know more.

[annabanana]

70. ...best "dot connection" of the month award......

"But why would Rove risk TREASON to get back at Wilson? Surely he has other tricks up his sleeve to ruin peoples' lives. I think maybe the stakes were quite a bit higher than a whistleblowing diplomat and a bit of dissent. What I most strongly suspect is that they had a little project to plant WMDs in Iraq--their most critical political need in summer '03--and Plame and her network were in the way; were in a position to suss it out."

I do believe you are absolutely correct.. I remember some rumble about the (Syrian?) border and some interrupted nighttime shenanigans...

[DoYouEverWonder]

77. That does make sense

Thanks to PeacePatriot for finding that one. It just clicked in one more piece of the puzzle for me.

This is why we never found those WMD's. The good guys got in the way. Being forced to go to the UN and allow inspectors back into Iraq really screwed Bu$hCo too. Then there was an accurate record of what Saddam did and did not have, making it even harder to play games. Now I see. Thanks.

[Felix Mala]

22. It depends on what your definition of purger is.

[tandem5]

23. So CNN is reporting on the talking points and not actually using them?

That's new.

[kittenpants]

36. actually CNN anchor Kyra Phillips said there is an "obvious smear campaign

against Rove" :puke: Looks like they can only fake their integrity for so long.

[tandem5]

38. Must be a cooperative media personality!

you know I don't think that sounds as good as "MEDIA WHORE."

[AuntiBush]

28. It's not Working Anymore... Everyone knows that Talking Points

needs to just shut-up and lay back. "I" is coming. The truth will set all of us free. And that statement, "White House to republican operatives and cooperative media personalities" - I think there are plenty of authentic journalists to go around now.

Those "Talking Point Heads" can spin till they drop.

Can't wait to see Faux "cooperative media personalities" in the unemployment line. Tee-hee.

[shraby]

31. Covering up a crime is a crime itself.

The longer they stonewall the worse it will be for them.

[garybeck]

32. does it matter what the media and the public think about this?

isn't this in the hands of the investigator and the grand jury? why are we playing this game out in the media? i say let them have their talking points. i'll ignore them and wait for Fitzgerald to proceed.

[frictionlessO]

35. This is why I think much of the MSM or CM is just as bullshit as some

conspiracy sites!!

Its all bullshit, no one knows who might be telling the truth anymore... there is only what you agree with, and what you dont. Its up to the individual to decide who is lieing because no one knows. No matter how big their egos and how much they think they know... they don't.

[Terre]

37. Is there a link to this story anywhere?

I haven't seen it yet - just the mention at the press briefing.

[maddezmom]

42. here is the transcript

Q All right, Scott, since it's drawn media attention, it's also drawn attention here at the White House. You've totally changed some of your statements, as you said yesterday, so, therefore, it's been bandied about at the White House. And knowing the President has been advised of the talking points, what has he said to Karl Rove in relation to the situation today and yesterday?

MR. McCLELLAN: You're asking about the investigation --

Q I'm asking about the President's friendship and political advisement from Karl Rove --

MR. McCLELLAN: I appreciate you asking this. It's in the context of the investigation, and you've had my response on that.

Q I'm asking about the daily briefing --

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050712-4.html

[Terre]

55. Thanks maddezmom

but I meant a link to a story or the "talking points" themselves.

BTW, I did find a few hours ago exactly where you'd expect to find it - over at the RNC site:

http://www.rnc.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=5619

[Matariki]

39. this is interesting

do you have a link?

[yodermon]

40. This will affect Fitzgerald

and the Grand Jury proceedings precisely not-at-all.
Be patient and stand firm.

[spanone]

52. My thoughts exactly. Spin won't matter/law will.

[applegrove]

41. Way to go CNN! n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

43. CNN said they discovered these talking points?

ALL OF A SUDDEN?????? They are talking about the freaking talking points that have been issued on a daily basis for the last 4+ years????:grr:

I'm NOT complaining! I'm thrilled to death that they have finally decided that KKKRove needs to go DOWN, but sheesh! The WH has been doing this ever since they were appointed in 2000. "OutFoxed" detailed exactly how it works with Faux News. It, no doubt, was the same at all networks because they ALL became wannabe Faux News networks.

Was today's press conference as fun as yesterday's? I missed it. :(

[lovuian]

46. The White House is dictating the news !!! Proof!!!

:nuke: democracy!!!

[dogday]

47. Say it often enough it becomes the truth

REPUBLICAN MANTRA

[Natural Well]

56. It may not be a crime but it was a smear

Rove should be forced to resign simply for trying to destroy Plame's career, regardless of whether or not it was illegal.

[deacon]

57. Conspiracy and cover up n/t

[robertpaulsen]

59. Here's a link to the full transcript.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050712-4.html

Hi Pallas! :hi:

[robertpaulsen]

64. And here's yesterday's link: "this is ridiculous"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050711-3.html

[Pallas180]

69. HEY ROBERT!!! Here we go again- good to see ya back.

:hi:

:)

:toast:

[KTM]

61. So where are they ?

The OP says "News reporters have discovered Talking Points on Rove matter issued."

So where are they ? Do we get to see them ?? Who were they issued TO ?? Who from ??

This entire post states nothing about the title.. namely, that CNN has discovered TP's were issued. I know what they ARE, I've heard them all day.. but if CNN has a story about them, shouldn't there be a little more meat ???

[steve2470]

62. the R talking points are at rawstory.com

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Exclusive_GOP_talking_points_on_Rove_seek_to_discre_0712.html

[KTM]

63. Hehe - thanks, just saw that

[Pallas180]

72. Parsing words - Cheney didn't send him, but the report DID go to Cheney.

and more....parsing words.. by that to make Wilson a liar.

It really stinks, and it appears DU doesn't want to do any strong stuff like the RNC does...politically correct, right?

Tweety is another of the media whores,as is Time Mag and all of them and here's the reason why:

DAvid Rockefeller on the media keeping the secret of the elite's plan and play for One World Government, (with them as the Govt, at Bilderburg, where else would you expect it?)

"On a separate occasion, David Rockefeller stated: “We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost 40 years… It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards (one) world government. The super national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

that means you lil people are not qualified to vote, because you are not soveriegn by means of more money than anyone else. However IMHO money doesn't make you intellectualy smart...look at our fearless leader as a great example of that.

[laureloak]

65. Sounds like there are some press members who deserve

a pat on the back for launching a War on Propaganda and we should do all we can to support them. Would anyone like to start a list of this week's media all-stars?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

75. Guess what? NONE of the mainstream media would be asking ANY....

...questions unless their major conservative corporate owners had given them the "green light" to do so.

Think about what that means, and why we're beginning to see so much pressure being applied to the NeoCons.

[leftchick]

71. Paula Zahn used the term "Republican Talking Points" last night

I was down right shocked I tell ya! She also would not let the repuke spewing them off of the Hook and let Katrina VH make the last best point.

:wow:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

73. I watched the same show, and Zahn simply would not let the...

...Republican stick to his script. She was like a pit-bull, and although I was initially shocked by what I was seeing and hearing, I discovered that my shock wore off quickly! :-)

[Ganja Ninja]

74. Meanwhile poor Judith Miller rots in her cell.

I wonder if those talking points will get her out? Not that I give a damn.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

76. "Poor Judith"?? LOL!!

[Ganja Ninja]

79. The joke's on her.

She's sitting there while Rove is busy e-mailing talking points to try and save his ass. He doesn't even know she's alive.
:rofl:

[deutsey]

80. That line from "Animal House" comes to mind

Judy, you fucked up...you trusted them!