 |
 |
 |
||||
|
 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
Anyone else see the humor in that statement? 
The revelation of Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak raises a question the White House has never addressed: whether Mr. Rove ever described that conversation, or his conversation with Mr. Cooper, with the president.
This is what the left is aiming for. This whole thing has been orchestrated with this goal in mind, to tie President Bush himself into it.
Do they really think they're going to be able to use this story as a stepping stone to derailing President Bush's second term? This story's taken so many Byzantine twists and turns and double-backs upon itself that even people who follow it closely are getting a headache! Average people who aren't political junkies are just going to throw up their hands in frustration.
lovely misleading headline for an article. It sounds like he was talking about Valerie in a conference call.
Instead, this seems to suggest that Novak told Rove about Plame working in the CIA, and about how Plame got Wilson the gig.
This would explain why Rove would think there was nothing wrong with mentioning it in passing to another reporter later. If you learned something from a reporter, you wouldn't think it was a secret.
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
"The conversation between Mr. Novak and Mr. Rove seemed almost certain to intensify the question about whether one of Mr. Bush's closest political advisers play"
This is hilarious! How the NYT tells its readers to think opposite of the information given!
What the article intensifies is who is the "not a partisan gunslinger" and who the reporters who told Rove are! Judith Miller?
Is this what your source led you to expect?
I see the NY Slimes likes to get the lies out there as soon as possible...in the first paragraph.
Gee, that's really informative! Note that they don't even say that this is a government official. It could be Judith Miller.
And if "someone" is vague, just consider the vagueness of "officially briefed." What the hell does that mean? Briefed by an official? Briefed while wearing his decoder ring? Briefed in an office? Called in and told to write this story by Pinch Sulzberger?
I must be reading the article wrong, since it seems to indicate that Rove first learned of Plame's name from Novak. Wouldn't this, then, exonerate Rove of any wrongdoing?
What story I don't see NO STORY WHATEVER NY LIARS Whatever LOL!!!
So, exactly why does this amount to "news fit to print." Novak testified to the grand jury long ago, and Rove's lawyer says he has been notified by the prosecutor that Rove is not a target of the investigation. And Novak called Rove, not the other way around. What does this add to where we were yesterday morning? Redundancy. Nothing more. How the NYT gets away with masquarading this as news mystifies me; and gets a whirling siren and giant RED headlines from Matt Drudge to pump it, to boot!
The hatred drips off every page of the NYT, and off the lips of "reporters" like David Gregory (who's subbing on Hardballs right now).
Hmm...the MSM is jumping all over the President for not immediately firing his friend and most trusted advisor, yet how long did these same idiots stand by Dan Rather who USED FORGED DOCUMENTS IN AN ATTEMPT TO DESTROY A PRESIDENT.
Article comes complete with Rat talking points:
Point 1
The conversation between Mr. Novak and Mr. Rove seemed almost certain to intensify the question about whether one of Mr. Bush's closest political advisers played a role in what appeared to be an effort to undermine Mr. Wilson's credibility
Point 2
the White House press secretary, has refused in recent days to discuss any specifics of the case.
Point 3
The revelation of Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak raises a question the White House has never addressed: whether Mr. Rove ever described that conversation, or his conversation with Mr. Cooper, with the president.
Point 4
In June 2004, at Sea Island, Ga., soon after Vice President Dick Cheney met with investigators in the case, Mr. Bush was asked at a news conference whether "you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found" to have leaked the agent's name.
"Yes," Mr. Bush said. "And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts."
Point 5
White House officials may argue that Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak did not amount to leaking the name of the agent. But to critics of Mr. Bush - including the Democrats who have called for Mr. Rove's resignation - that is splitting hairs, and Mr. Rove in effect confirmed her identity, even if he did not name her.
Point 6
it seems certain to add substantially to the political maelstrom that has engulfed the White House this week after the disclosure that Mr. Rove had discussed the matter with Mr. Cooper of Time magazine.
Point 7
Democrats have been pressing the president either to live up to his pledges to rid his administration of anyone found to have leaked the name of a covert operative, or to explain why he does not believe Mr. Rove's actions subject him to dismissal.
Point 8
The new revelation also leaves Mr. McClellan, the White House spokesman, in an increasingly awkward situation. Two years ago repeatedly assured reporters that neither Mr. Rove nor several other administration officials were responsible for the leak.
Point 9
The case has also threatened to become a distraction to the White House and Republicans as Mr. Bush struggles to keep his second-term agenda on track and as he prepares for one of the most pivotal battles of his presidency, over the nomination of a Supreme Court justice.
Point 10
Most recently, Mr. Rove has been at the center of the White House's deliberations over the choice of a nominee to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor at the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
|
|