How many people have to die so that Bush can be “proven right”? Who was that man who said, at a similar juncture in history- “Have you no shame” to Republican Joe McCarthy. I ask the torture apologists, the CIA leak apologists, the racism understanders, and the war apologists on this board

“Have you no shame?”

Apologist may be an incorrect term, as that would actually require too many proud people to shut up for a moment, remove their foot, and actually do something they’ve never done before, say “I’m sorry, I was wrong”.

But those of you that keep saying that what Rove did is either heroic or isn’t really an issue, that Wilson “lied”, that Plame was a desk jockey, whatever, are only making excuses, and you’re making excuses for a man that feels that smearing an opponent is the best way to win an election. This is the man that is behind every smear/attack campaign out of the White House, whether said campaign is necessary or even called for. This is a man that wants to win at all costs, regardless of anything else, and you are just bouncing on the balls of your feet, ready to thrust your tiny little fist into the air proclaiming how correct you are.

Here’s a news item, whether an indictment is handed down or not, those of you defending Karl’s actions are scum, because you believe that smearing war veterans and anyone else that gets in the way is not only OK, its honorable. By wanting him in the White House, you are smearing the integrity of America with the fecal matter that follows his every action.
Congratulations, I hope you’re happy.

Binkyboy, how am I an apologist for wanting to know the whole story and the findings of the prosecutor ?

Its all unraveling and apologists like JD above are just wearing out their rhetoric

My guess at this point–Fitzgerald won’t be able to make the “intentional exposure” portion of the indictment, and Republicans everywhere will treat Karl as if he had just been scourged and nailed to a cross for defying the liberal media.

Even if there’s no indictable crime, we shouldn’t forget that somewhere in the chain of command, lies were told. Either Rove and Libby told McClellan a lie when they said they weren’t involved, or they told him the truth and McClellan lied to the public, or they lied to Bush who unknowingly transferred that lie to McClellan (he who “speaks for the President”), or Rove and Libby told Bush the truth…and Bush lied to McClellan.

This is not a situation that smacks of credibility and “straight shooting.” Nobody comes out of this smelling great.

Uhh, first post, JD wrote: “Now that you know they have not committed a crime…”

So which is it, JD?

WTF? I can’t keep the wingnut talking points straight — is it ‘no crime has been committed’, or is it ‘wait for Fitzgerald to complete his investigation’? And if you have proof exonerating, say, Rove and Fleischer, by all means lay it out.

Is that the new strategy now? Now that you know they have no committed a crime, you will just go right on treating it as though they have, ignoring all evidence to the contrary ?

Nonetheless, of course this raises the question which is ALWAYS raised by these polls: Who the hell are these people who think The Weasel is remotely credible? (In this case, it would be the “quarter of Americans [who] think the White House is fully cooperating.”) I know, they’re the ones who either (a) don’t stay in touch with the news, (b) rely on dubious sources for their “news,” and/or (c) don’t want to be bothered with facts, their mind is made up.

It’s Nov ‘04 all over again: are there really this many ignorant Americans? Five percent I might could buy. But TWENTY-FIVE percent?!?

You’re right, O: time to make some noise.