NOOOooooo not another Poll!

[Wildkow]

Here's your chance to prove that your not a [attachmentid=4719] to the left wing media. :P



[attachmentid=4720]

[Wildkow]

Hmmmm, odd two voted yes they thought that he was still guilty. Maybe they haven't been keeping up with the news. Maybe this will help... But I doubt it!


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDMwM...GUyMjU4NjIwMDc=

Wonder why the Biased Main Stream Media doesn't have this all over the headlines it's a pretty slow week news wise?


[attachmentid=4735]

p.s. So funny, bottom of the page is a survey ad asking "Did Rove Lie?" BaHaHaHaha

[hycamguy07]

Polls are cool, Rove was a scape-goat..

[Wildkow]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Aug 31 2006, 03:27 AM) [snapback]312067[/snapback]</div>

Polls are cool, Rove was a scape-goat..
[/b]

It seems that the left is just speechless with rage that Rove is innocent on this one.
Another false accusation from the left proven wrong, when will they learn? By the looks of the poll they still haven't! [attachmentid=4761]


[attachmentid=4762]

[Jack Kelly]

Rove has been Commander-in-Chief of the Dirty Tricks Unit for Bush since the latter was Governor of Texas. Anyone who thinks he didn't call this shot is stupid or naive.

[ShellyT]

Has the prosecution ever come out and said he was cleared, or was the announcement only from Rove's lawyer?

[dragonfly]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ShellyT @ Sep 1 2006, 01:10 PM) [snapback]312863[/snapback]</div>

Has the prosecution ever come out and said he was cleared, or was the announcement only from Rove's lawyer?
[/b]

Fitzgerald is persuing the lies that were told during the leak investigation, not the leak itself. Not even Libby is "guilty" in a legal sense of anything. He hasn't been tried yet. The kow is trying to play word games with the word "guilty", since Rove is culpable of leaking, so in that sense he is "guilty", but not in any legal sense.

[fshagan]

From the NY Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/washingt...itage.html?_r=1 (subscription required, but its free):

Source of C.I.A. Leak Said to Admit Role
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: August 30, 2006
Richard L. Armitage has acknowledged that he was the person who first identified Valerie Wilson as an officer in the C.I.A. to columnist Robert D. Novak.
[/b]

Now that the leaker is not one of the "neo-cons" but someone the Democrats like ... he's one of the "Powell Guys" ... the controversy will fade away. But the bro-ha-ha didn't need to happen anyway, and this whole affair is one more example why independent prosecutors, given full latitude, are a bad idea:

According to an account in a coming book, “Hubris, the Inside Story of Spin, Scandal and the Selling of the Iraq War’’ by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, excerpts of which appeared in Newsweek this week, Mr. Armitage told a few State Department colleagues that he might have been the leaker whose identity was being sought.

The book says Mr. Armitage realized that when Mr. Novak published a second column in October 2003 that said his source had been an official who was “not a political gunslinger.’’

The Justice Department was quickly informed, and Mr. Armitage disclosed his talks with Mr. Novak in subsequent interviews with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, even before Mr. Fitzgerald’s appointment.
[/b]

Ah, but why let an admission to the FBI stop you from appointing a special prosecutor? Its so tasty to have one fishing about, looking for loose change in the sofa. What's a few million here or there to spend when you might be able to embarrass Dick Cheney ... hire the prosecutor ANYWAY even though you already know who did it. You never know what you may turn up ...

For instance, maybe someone will slip up and say they "heard it in the papers" when you can prove they saw it in a memo ... if they read it, of course ... and AH-HA! Snagged the big one! A guy named "Scooter", for heaven's sake.

[Wildkow]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 1 2006, 11:35 PM) [snapback]312965[/snapback]</div>

From the NY Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/washingt...itage.html?_r=1 (subscription required, but its free):
Now that the leaker is not one of the "neo-cons" but someone the Democrats like ... he's one of the "Powell Guys" ... the controversy will fade away. But the bro-ha-ha didn't need to happen anyway, and this whole affair is one more example why independent prosecutors, given full latitude, are a bad idea:
Ah, but why let an admission to the FBI stop you from appointing a special prosecutor? Its so tasty to have one fishing about, looking for loose change in the sofa. What's a few million here or there to spend when you might be able to embarrass Dick Cheney ... hire the prosecutor ANYWAY even though you already know who did it. You never know what you may turn up ...

For instance, maybe someone will slip up and say they "heard it in the papers" when you can prove they saw it in a memo ... if they read it, of course ... and AH-HA! Snagged the big one! A guy named "Scooter", for heaven's sake.
[/b]

Can't say it better than that, at least not without rubbing some salt in with it. Well done.

Wildkow

[dragonfly]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Sep 1 2006, 03:24 PM) [snapback]312914[/snapback]</div>

... Rove is culpable of leaking, so in that sense he is "guilty", but not in any legal sense.
[/b]

On the other hand, the NSA activities have been found unconstitutional, and W's support of them could not only lead to impeachment, but possibly (although not probably) prison.