I'M SORRY BUT ...34% say Rove should resign! (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 10, 2024, 01:10:42 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  I'M SORRY BUT ...34% say Rove should resign! (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: I'M SORRY BUT ...34% say Rove should resign!  (Read 3047 times)
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,023
United States


« on: July 20, 2005, 11:25:49 AM »


Like I said before:

If Rove is found to be guilty of exposing Plame as an agent, he should be fired and face the criminal charges accordingly.

If Rove is found to have intentionally leaked the name of Plame, but not that she was a covert agent, he should be asked to resign.

If Rove is found to have passed on information he should not have accidentally, but is not guilty of anything, he should offer to step down gracefully after the investigator gives his final report on the issue.

But NO ONE has the right to demand him to step down when there is an investigation in process.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,023
United States


« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2005, 11:37:21 AM »

If Rove mentioned she was CIA but didn't mention she was covert, it doesn't make it any less illegal. It's obvious that they're hiding something, and there seem to be double standards on proof.  Remember what this was all about, the Iraq war.

Not at all.  That would be the same as him saying I work for a defense contractor.  It's a reference to her employer, which coincidentally was the one who sent her husband over seas.  Not illegal at all.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,023
United States


« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2005, 12:41:06 PM »

If Rove mentioned she was CIA but didn't mention she was covert, it doesn't make it any less illegal. It's obvious that they're hiding something, and there seem to be double standards on proof.  Remember what this was all about, the Iraq war.

Not at all.  That would be the same as him saying I work for a defense contractor.  It's a reference to her employer, which coincidentally was the one who sent her husband over seas.  Not illegal at all.

It's illegal to out CIA agents, even if all you mention is they work for the CIA.

Actually, that's blatantly incorrect.  It's illegal to out covert agents, and it has to be done intentionally.  There are much more non-covert agents that work for the CIA than there are covert ones. They work in many aspects, from working with foreign governments on investigations down to doing background security checks. 
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,023
United States


« Reply #3 on: July 20, 2005, 01:31:29 PM »

That's what I meant by out, they're covert. They also blew her covert "company". It was all retaliation for Wilson showing that Bush had lied about Iraq buying Uranium from Niger. Sad that you don't see a problem this. We need people who think critically of members of their own party. You Republicans are sad.

What you say and what you mean are two different things.  Again, something you can work on and correct by slowing down and taking the time to verify what you are saying.  As far as the "front" (not covert) company, it was outed by the reporter who gained access to Plame's tax records where it showed she made a contribution to Gore's campaign, listing the front companies name on the W-2.  If you want to be technical about it, you could say she outed the company herself through that action.  And remember, the Uranium claim was based off of British intelligence and documents which turned out to be forged.  However, the intelligence commission indicated that the doubt gave more credit to the fact that more investigation needs to be done in Niger, dispite the conclusions Wilson made of no activity occurring.

(And for the last time, I'm a former reformist turned Independent.  You're testing my patience on this matter.)
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,023
United States


« Reply #4 on: July 20, 2005, 01:34:59 PM »


hahaha . . . no double standard.  Just unbiased analytical observations.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,023
United States


« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2005, 01:39:51 PM »


hahaha . . . no double standard.  Just unbiased analytical observations.

So you think that Bush was completely truthful in his reasons for going to war? What a bunch of utter bullsh**t.

hahaha . . . Nice try and spinning, but that's not what I said.  However, he gave many honest reasons for going to war including the hunt for WMDs, removing Saddam, and promoting democracy in the Middle East.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,023
United States


« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2005, 01:52:45 PM »

You said you support the Iraq war. Honest reasons? WMD was the main reason given, and there haven't been any. "Imminent threat". Rememeber that?

Again, faulty intelligence.  Hello?

Anyway, what happened to the WMDs we sold him?  Was it monkeys?  Did some band of alien monkeys beam down and stole them?
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,023
United States


« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2005, 02:57:32 PM »


Faulty intelligence is a right-wing talking point. Funny how all of the intelligence was faulty in Bush's favor, and people like Joe Wilson who found that it was faulty got massively attacked by the adminstration. Face it, you're defending a bunch of lying crooks.

hahaha . . . if you say so.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,023
United States


« Reply #8 on: July 22, 2005, 10:08:25 PM »


The stories seem to contradict themselves every day, so I'm just waiting for the investigation to end.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 13 queries.