Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

MSNBC - Bush denied Rove was leaker n/t

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
janekat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 01:15 PM
Original message
MSNBC - Bush denied Rove was leaker n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
diplomats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. If Rove didn't do it
he sure as hell coordinated it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
24. Great questions for the media to ask - if they aren't owned by GOP
From the ABCnote:

"Has President Bush made clear to the White House staff that only total cooperation with the investigation will be tolerated? If not, why not?

Has he insisted that every senior staff member sign a statement with legal authority that they are not the leaker and that they will identify to the White House legal counsel who is?

Has Bush required that all sign a letter relinquishing journalists from protecting those two sources? Has Bush said that those involved in this crime will be immediately fired? If not, why not?

Has Albert Gonzalez distributed a letter to White House employees telling them to preserve documents, logs, records? If not, why not?

Has Andy Card named someone on his staff to organize compliance? If not, why not?

White House officials who might have legal or political exposure on this are going to have to decide whether to hire lawyers or not, and the White House counsel's office is going to have to decide what legal help they can and should provide to officials if and when the DOJ wants to talk to them.

That means that the '90s practice of every Washington bureau of calling members of the bar to see who has hired whom is about to heat back up. The first one to report someone hiring a criminal lawyer wins a prize, as does the first person who develops that lawyer as a source on all this.

A reminder that students of recusal politics will have to consider the Rove-Ashcroft history"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. If Bush knows who isn't guilty, he must know who is. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diplomats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Yes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonRiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Exactly. And the fall guys won't be low level operatives this time.
Novak has made it clear, and the media has repeated over and over, that this info came from TWO HIGH RANKING OFFICIALS IN *'S ADM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brian Sweat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. That is what I was thinking.
Someone should ask Bush how he knows?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
4. How does he know?
What? We're supposed to believe Bush*??????????


Bwahahahahahaha. Fucking liar
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ignatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. OK,Mr. pResident, who was it then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
6. Bush cant deny jackshit
There hasnt been an investigation yet!! what Bushit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brian Sweat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Not only that,
but isn't it considered a little unethical for the president to comment on something that is under imminent investigation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diplomats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. When the Clinton admin. was being investigated
the WH wouldn't comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
9. How does he know?
He just scans the headlines. Unless there was a headline that only he got that said "Rove wasn't the leaker," I'd have to say that Lil George is incompetent to make that assertion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
11. Good then that proves this goes up to the top since Bush's
Edited on Mon Sep-29-03 01:37 PM by nothingshocksmeanymo
indication of knowledge is evidence that he is involved in the cover up of a crime...these words will come back to haunt him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qanda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
12. How come it's so hard to believe that Rove didn't do it?
I'm almost positive that he didn't, BUT he either ordered it done or okayed it! Semantics baby, it's all about what the meaning of "is" is. Karl Rove *is* behind this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brian Sweat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. If Rove directed someone else to contact NoFacts and the
other journalists, the Rove "did it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asjr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
13. rove
Do you suppose it is (gasp) Condescending Rice?? She was shakier than a cat on a hot tin roof on MTP Sunday. She looked as if she was ready to crack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brian Sweat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Even if she did not do it, she could be the scape goat.
Even if she didn't do it and she will not be the scape goat, national security is still her area and she bears some responsibility for this breach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Rice would look fetching in an orange jumpsuit....
but only if accompanied by some of those corrupt Bushista "boys...

There is no love lost on my part for Rice, but pinning all this on her would be (IMO) just TOO conveneient.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleedingheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
16. because he's the one directing this nightmare
even more reason to impeach this ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
schrodinger_I Donating Member (683 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Rove couldn't do it
He would need a very high level security clearance to even be privy to such knowledge. I would be willing to bet something like a CIA agent's identity would be on a "Need to Know" basis and be classified as Top Secret/SCI. Rove couldn't have that clearance.... It has to be someone else. Perhaps Tenet was complicit or *'s father.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Classical_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Why wouldn't Rove have security clearance
He is the Presidents Chief of Staff. It would make no sense not to give him security clearance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleApple81 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. ROVE IS BUSH*'S BRAINS!!!! HE SEES EVERYTHING BUSH SEES
BEFORE BUSH SEES IT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brian Sweat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Isn't Andrew Card Bush's Chief of Staff?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
schrodinger_I Donating Member (683 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. You are correct....
Here is the link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html


Rove is an adviser......So I doubt he could have such a high level security clearance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brian Sweat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Does he have to have a specific position to have a specific clearance?
Couldn't Bush just have him vetted and then grant him clearance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoKingGeorge Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
18. Rove was not 'authorized' to know IDs'. Who is ??
The deserter and head of NSC are authorized to get this type of information. Someone had to give K the information ,including the detail of her duties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chookie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
25. I suspect Lord Sauron Cheney
Assembling the "evidence" to justify invasion of Iraq seems to have been Dick's project.

When Wilson publically cast doubt on the sensational story of Hussein buying uranium from Niger, he was messing with Cheney's case.

Therefore, to silence him Big Time, he outed Wilson's wife.

Although Dick is extremely valuable to smirky because he does all the work, Rove is absolutely indispensible to His Chimperial Highness, who can't function without this diabolical genius behind him.

I think Dick is going to resign soon, on the grounds that he does not want this story interfering with the work of the Bush Administration at this critical time. Then, Condi Rice will be VP. Why? To split the Democratic vote in 2004, because they will present her incompetent as as a historical opportunity to vote for a Black Woman. Dick has nothing to lose. He is arrogant and flippant. He has set himself up financially and powerfully for the rest of his stinking life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
27. how does Bush know?????????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
28. Doesn't matter who dialed the phone...
They're all in on it. Same m.o. as yellowcake when the scandal erupted:

First: Deny/Stall/Dismiss and hope it blows over

Second: Excuse in advance the media's most likely target (Rove's turn...Condi in yellercake)

Third: Order a "full internal investigation" - details shrouded in secrecy for "national security" reasons.

Fourth: Pick a patsy (Tenet, most likely) and slap him on the wrist. Case closed.

But in this case, I'll predict Tenet gets fingered and will at least be forced to resign. He already got his hands dirty, and it's better to focus the blame on one turncoat than to spread it around.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 03:25 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC