did Karl Rove commit treason?

[Drakonix]

since the prez only appears in carefully scripted stage events and manufactured photo opportunites, with fake props and prepped, prescreened audiences, one could conclude George W. Bush really doesn't exist at all - he's just a production of the GOP's rather stale imagination.

In modern times, a U.S. President NEVER makes a public appearance without every step of the way being carefully planned. The primary reason is to protect the President. A secondary reason is to project the President (and the government) in a positive image to the people. The same thing applies to press conferences. Every administration does all of the above, yet it’s only evil if the current Republican administration does it.

At least Bush doesn’t hold up air traffic over a major airport for over one hour so he can get a haircut on Air Force One while it’s sitting on the tarmac. Slick Willy the cigar bearer did that.

Props as used in context it means a portable object used on the scene of a play or film. Props are commonly a look-alike of real objects, or are a simulationl of an object that does not actually exist. As such props by nature are “fake”. Therefore, a “fake prop” must refer to the real thing.

The statement “one could conclude George W. Bush really doesn't exist at all - he's just a production of the GOP's rather stale imagination” is interesting and revealing. It clearly reveals that the criticism levied against the President and his staff is motivated by political agendas, not by the quest for truth, justice, or responsibility and integrity in government.

Well, “as this indictment continues to get parsed” what doesn’t appear is an indictment for leaking the identity of the CIA operative to the public. As I understand it, that is what (supposedly) is under investigation. Now that Libby didn’t say what they wanted to hear, they just want to throw up their hands and say “Libby lied so we can’t figure it out”. The investigation is a sham.

Because the “investigation” was steered for political ends, the grand jury term will expire without discovering who uncovered the identity of the CIA operative. Justice and the interests of the people of the United States has not been served.

All they have to show on Libby is an indictment for “perjury, obstruction of justice, and false statements” - multiple ways to say they think he lied. This will only result in conviction if it can be proved that Libby knowingly and willingly testified falsely. Proving the accusations is going to be substantially more difficult than making them.

Remember the grand jury testimony of William Jefferson Clinton? I have a video tape of it. Over four hours of nearly continuous lies. His landmark statement “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky” proven to be false with scientifically based (pardon the pun) hard evidence. He didn’t get indicted. I guess we have to modify the rule of law stated above to “The rule of law is only something Democrats apply to Republican presidents”.

Oh well, no big deal - liberals should have no difficulty picking another “talking point” and coming up with more rumors and more obscure, meaningless “facts”.

[albed]

I'll nit pick the statement that Clinton didn't get indicted since impeachment is essentially an indictment.

The bold not guilty votes of democratic senators after the voting public saw the indisputable video evidence was imo a big factor in their expulsion.

Funny how the liberal propaganda parrots can't even remember that far back in history, let alone Nixon's corruption.

My own cowardly congressman Arlen Specter with his 'not proven' slithering lost my vote. Damn advances in cancer treatment.

[theknife]

you guys really need to move on - Clinton was last century, ffs

meanwhile. in today's news, the Libby indictment continues to ripple:

In a day of political drama, Democrats forced the Republican-controlled Senate into an unusual closed session Tuesday, questioning intelligence that President Bush used in the run-up to the war in Iraq and accusing Republicans of ignoring the issue.

"They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why," Democratic leader Harry Reid said.

could the Dems be growing spines? Harry Reid kicked Bill Frist's ass today and nailed the Libby indictment cold:

"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions," Reid said before invoking Senate rules that led to the closed session.

[albed]

Are they turning into cacti? We were warned about tampering with genes; but I guess it's working out ok.

The terrorists must be proud to have the dems fighting alongside, even if it is only ankle biting and annoying their enemies. But lacking the courage to put forth their own policies, it seems that's all they're capable of.

[Drakonix]

Clinton was last century, ffs

Clinton's term ended in the year 2001. I'm just comparing the current administration to the previous administration.

Nice dodge of my main points.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Drakonix

Clinton's term ended in the year 2001. I'm just comparing the current administration to the previous administration.

Nice dodge of my main points.

uh, Drak, you really didn't make any points. you stuck up for Bush with "everybody does it" (and no, not to the extent he did), slammed Clinton a few times coz it's a lot easier than defending Bush, and reiterated what Fitzgerald said about Libby: that Libby lied to such an extent that he can't prove the initial cirme.

oh, you did accuse Fitzgerald, praised by virtually all (including Bush) as fair-minded, apolitical, and one of the best proscutors in the country, as having conducted a "sham" investigation which he "steered for political purposes". that's a new one, but since you're all alone out there with it, i'll assume you pretty much made it up.

[albed]

Boy knife, your thread has really wandered off topic, but you've pretty much started the wandering yourself.

"Did Karl Rove commit treason?" was a good headline grabber for the liberal media long ago but has long since been revealed to be as baseless as any liberal propaganda campaign and rather than come out and admit 'no he didn't', the democrats are just grasping at any straws they can use to keep the campaign going.

If the mass media was conservative the headlines would have been "Did a CIA agent and her husband conspire to undermine the U.S. government?" And the activities and lies of Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson that triggered the 'outing' and subsequent inquest and obstruction would be revealed instead of concealed.

The refusal of Fitzgerald to get their testimony under oath shows just how biased his "investigation" is.

Your sudden respect for Bush's opinion when it reguards Fitzgerald is nothing short of amazing in light of everything you've proclaimed in the past.