Comments on: U.S. Attorney Scandal: Something Of Note

By: midderpidge

midderpidge — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 23:30:27 +0000

Given you don’t squawk about the entire Iraq Occupation fuckup, I doubt there is much the Bush administration could do to make you squawk.

By: SpiderJ

SpiderJ — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 20:24:31 +0000

False promises, pedromd07. Thous shalt hear no squawking about Karl, for Karl hath never done anything wrong ever. The only time the GOP has harsh words about Karl is when he fucks up and loses Congress.

By: pedromd07

pedromd07 — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:08:36 +0000

When Rove takes over (and royally screws up) a task force designed to completely revamp healthcare in the US (without the input of physicians), then you will hear some squawking about Karl…

Until then, its apples and oranges

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:13:38 +0000

that to compare Hillary and Rove is superficial at best, and insipid partisan hackery at worst.

They’re both the Presidents bitch.

By: midderpidge

midderpidge — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 13:52:33 +0000

Jay, I’m sorry, my bad. I guess I haven’t been tracking the comings and goings of Dick Cheney. If he never actually enters the Senate to perform his one constituitonally appointed duty, it is something I just was not aware of.

By: midderpidge

midderpidge — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 13:37:49 +0000

Wasn’t Rove one of the guys telling reporters Valerie Plame was with the CIA? I’m not sure he deserves that security clearance anymore.

By: Jay Tea

Jay Tea — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 13:33:34 +0000

Spider, I wasn’t saying whether or not the Plame/Wilson supporters were correct or not. I was simply answering Oliver’s question about the difference between Karl Rove and First Lady Hillary Clinton.

The points you raise are not really germane to the issue at hand — that to compare Hillary and Rove is superficial at best, and insipid partisan hackery at worst.

By: SpiderJ

SpiderJ — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 13:21:56 +0000

Why are the Plame/Wilson supporters upset, though? Is it because Bush promised to punish anybody “involved,” and despite Rove’s clear “involvement,” absolutely nothing was done to him?

I’ve mentioned this elsewhere: Valerie Plame testified as to a lot of different GOP talking points on her and Joe Wilson. If you still believe she’s lying, then present evidence and try her for perjury, because she was under oath to Congress when she spoke. If you can’t or won’t do this, then let your talking points go.

By: Jay Tea

Jay Tea — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 13:02:14 +0000

Well, here’s one difference: in theory, Karl Rove can be fired. Kinda hard to “fire” a First Lady, especially one who touted herself as a “two for one” co-president…

Rove has also passed some vetting — note he has a very high security clearance, a fact that has several of the Plame/Wilson supporters upset.

In fact, Rove has a higher security clearance than Sandy Berger…

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 08:01:21 +0000

It started with the health care task force and grew from there, Jay, there’s an entire con book industry devoted to supposedly documenting the growing power of the eeeeevil Hillary Clinton.

By: SpiderJ

SpiderJ — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 04:37:27 +0000

The Veep is head of the Senate. That’s why he gets to break ties.

By: Jay

Jay — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 03:33:43 +0000

How about a guy like Dick CHeney who has said as a member of the senate he is not bound by the rules governing the executive branch and then says as a member of the executive branch he is not subject to the rules of the senate?

Dick Cheney was never in the Senate.

Oh and Oliver, the criticism of Hillary was limited to her role in the health care task force. It was not “for much of President Clinton’s term” as you claim.

By: midderpidge

midderpidge — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:28:55 +0000

By: Nimrod Gently

Nimrod Gently — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:10:28 +0000

No, no, you got that backwards. It’s us who have blind hatred of Bush. That’s all that could ever possibly motivate anyone to criticise the President.