Posted on 07/11/2005 5:27:52 PM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
Top editors of the NY TIMES made the decision Monday afternoon to turn up the heat on White House adviser Karl Rove.
The TIMES is planning to lead with calls for Rove's resignation, newsroom sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT. MORE...
He mentioned it in "The Corner" on www.nationalreview.com
If you've never been, it is under the "Blog Row" pulldown. It's a great spot, although it trends a little insider joke geeky on occasion.
Hope this article is a big one...
The press getting excited about this (Jeff Moran from ABC asked a bunch of questions today that would have been quite appropriate if Rove had been proven guilty of treason and sentenced to the gas chamber) is like Woodward and Bernstein jumping up and down because they caught a Nixon Administration official admitting he ate lunch at the Watergate once. They are so desperate...
Yep that's our non biased NY Times.
The NYT has a reporter sitting in jail to protect its source, but is screaming to "out" a source of a sister publication?
What am I missing?
I'm slightly confused by one point though. -IF- Rove said "Wilson's wife," is that supposed to be different from saying her name?
I "feel their pain". And it feels great. :-)
I'm not sure if there is a disconnect - you mention Gregory whereas I am talking about David Bloom.
Would Bush appoint Rove "On February 8, 2005, Rove was appointed deputy chief of staff in charge of policy" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove), knowing that Rove was guilty?
I don't think so. Rove would have warned Bush he was going to be implicated.
The NYT is being very careless.
WItnesses are not bound by grand jury secrecy laws. Only the prosecutors are.
If you are called to testify before a grand jury, there is no law that would stop you from finishing your testimony, walking outside the grand jury room and holding a press conference disclosing every word of your testimony.
"Joe Wilson's wife works for the CIA". Sounds to me like Rove clearly identified her as working for the CIA. I don't understand the difference between that and saying her name. Sounds rather like Clintonian parsing to me.
Maybe we should start placing bets....Im betting McCain....
I had a long conversation with one rather bright young man that wanted me to not cancel. I cited chapter and verse of their editorializing in their news section (I made it clear to the lad that they had every right to say whatever they wanted to on the OP-ED page) and he was...speechless.
Someone should start a RINO pool.
that one is easy.. you would have to know the name of wilson's wife..
you are not revealing anyone's name if you are saying so and so's spouse sent them on the mission.
bump
So wtf is he waiting? If Novak can clear the air, why doesn't he?
Can you imagine what hell would break lose if a newspaper had pledged to turn up the heat on say, a Bruce Lindsey?
No. By identifying her role in the selection of her husband for the job, Rove doesn't have to and apparently did not reveal that she is an undercover CIA agent. So long as Rove did not reveal her job was any different that what her "cover" job was he did not reveal her status. At this point, I have not heard that his description of her job was inconsistant with her work known to the public.
Easy to tell the difference. If it is an article with a left-wing stance, it is the news section of the NYT. If it is an item with a hard-left-wing stance it is an editorial.
I guess this proves once and for all that the NY Times has forever stopped reporting the truth, but is enjoying suckling the liberal tit and pooping out all of their talking points.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.