You May Have Missed

Onceler said:
That's it?

I'll give you some advice, SF. You need to embrace your status as an apologist. No one but an apologist reacts to a story like this by casting serious doubt on testimony under oath, because the guy - who apparently must have created this out of thin air - didn't name the individual specifically (and then stupidly question why in the world someone wouldn't name a name if they didn't absolutely have to).

You are an apologist. Embrace it; rejoice in it...
Click to expand...

I'll return the favor and provide you with advice. Taking someone, who makes an accusation like that, at their word... and not wanting to know who they are actually accusing is partisan crap. You call me an apologist simply for wanting to know who said it? Then you are a party hack.
 
I don't know about "obvious", Damo - only for fans of Dr. Seuss, who have fairly decent memories regarding obscure children's literature characters...
 
Superfreak said:
I'll return the favor and provide you with advice. Taking someone, who makes an accusation like that, at their word... and not wanting to know who they are actually accusing is partisan crap. You call me an apologist simply for wanting to know who said it? Then you are a party hack.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying a first reaction has to be "this must be the absolute truth because he said it," and YES, I am curious as to who it was that told him that, but unlike you, I can see reasons why someone would not publicly divulge a name unless they had to, and clearly, he DID have reasons, since he was willing to do so privately.

I just don't understand a 1st reaction of seriously casting doubt on testimony like this because of something so small, when it is consistent with so much of what we have heard & know about this admin...
 
Onceler said:
Here's the link on that last one - not sure if it matches the article that was posted originally:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/11/news/health.php

Clearly, there were reasons why he didn't want to publicly divulge the names of admin officials.
Click to expand...

Certainly a more informative piece and I thank you for that. It makes a huge difference to the story that he was willing to provide the names. I still think he should have provided them in public, but as long as he was willing to tell the committee in private that adds validity to the accusation.

I still would like to know who the hell said that about the special olympics.
 
Superfreak said:
Certainly a more informative piece and I thank you for that. It makes a huge difference to the story that he was willing to provide the names. I still think he should have provided them in public, but as long as he was willing to tell the committee in private that adds validity to the accusation.

I still would like to know who the hell said that about the special olympics.
Click to expand...


So, do you now agree that this is probably a valid explanation, instead of "B.S.", as you previously characterized it?:


Cypress: "If it doesn't pertain to a criminal or civil matter, its a standard professional courtesy to not snitch on someone in a public forum - exposing them to possible ridicule and embarrassment."
 
Onceler said:
I'm not saying a first reaction has to be "this must be the absolute truth because he said it," and YES, I am curious as to who it was that told him that, but unlike you, I can see reasons why someone would not publicly divulge a name unless they had to, and clearly, he DID have reasons, since he was willing to do so privately.

I just don't understand a 1st reaction of seriously casting doubt on testimony like this because of something so small, when it is consistent with so much of what we have heard & know about this admin...
Click to expand...

The reaction was such, because...

1) the article did not address the fact that he was willing to provide the names

2) the accusation was so disgusting (not the fact that he informed us... but the actual comment itself) that it should have been divulged. When it comes to public policy on say embryonic stem cell research, I can understand a certain degree of pressure to "be on the same page" with the admin. But to slam Special Olympics goes way way way beyond the pale.

3) I have worked with Special Olympics for many years and it really pissed me off that someone would say it and I really really want to know who it is.
 
Cypress said:
So, do you now agree that this is probably a valid explanation, instead of "B.S.", as you previously characterized it?:

Cypress: "If it doesn't pertain to a criminal or civil matter, its a standard professional courtesy to not snitch on someone in a public forum - exposing them to possible ridicule and embarrassment."
Click to expand...


I still believe it is BS to make an accusation like that in public but yet not go public with the name of the person who said it. It is a disservice to the public to not do so.

However, the fact that he was willing to provide the names in private certainly adds validity to the fact that it was likely said. Obviously we have only heard one side of this, so to confirm it, we would have to know who said it and address the issue with that individual.
 
Superfreak said:
The reaction was such, because...

1) the article did not address the fact that he was willing to provide the names

2) the accusation was so disgusting (not the fact that he informed us... but the actual comment itself) that it should have been divulged. When it comes to public policy on say embryonic stem cell research, I can understand a certain degree of pressure to "be on the same page" with the admin. But to slam Special Olympics goes way way way beyond the pale.

3) I have worked with Special Olympics for many years and it really pissed me off that someone would say it and I really really want to know who it is.
Click to expand...

Well, you might have revealed number 3 on this list a bit earlier. It might have changed how your response was being viewed.

It has Rove written all over it, don't you follow those guys? Sure, I think his name should be released, but guess what? When it is, unless someone has an email that he forgot to delete and shred, he's going to deny it. Or maybe you haven't noticed that MO either?

It will never be proved.
 
Superfreak said:
I still believe it is BS to make an accusation like that in public but yet not go public with the name of the person who said it. It is a disservice to the public to not do so.

However, the fact that he was willing to provide the names in private certainly adds validity to the fact that it was likely said. Obviously we have only heard one side of this, so to confirm it, we would have to know who said it and address the issue with that individual.
Click to expand...


For how long did Karl Rove deny telling ANY reporter who Valerie Plame is?

Until, Cooper came clean, and suddenly Rove "found an email he hadn't noticed before, and thought he forgot all about it, it ended up that yeah, he did have that conversation"

People who aren't you get that there si no point in asking these scums anything. That's why it's not so important.
 
"I have worked with Special Olympics for many years and it really pissed me off that someone would say it and I really really want to know who it is."

That explains some of your reaction, but you have to step outside of that perspective to understand why it's not crazy to think that someone would not want to publicly divulge info.

I was also pretty incredulous when I saw this, but not exactly surprised, given the intense political nature of this administration. I think, as Darla said, something like this has Rove written all over it.
 
Onceler said:
I don't know about "obvious", Damo - only for fans of Dr. Seuss, who have fairly decent memories regarding obscure children's literature characters...
Click to expand...
Or anybody who has had a child and had to read those books 100s of times.
 
Onceler said:
"I have worked with Special Olympics for many years and it really pissed me off that someone would say it and I really really want to know who it is."

That explains some of your reaction, but you have to step outside of that perspective to understand why it's not crazy to think that someone would not want to publicly divulge info.

I was also pretty incredulous when I saw this, but not exactly surprised, given the intense political nature of this administration. I think, as Darla said, something like this has Rove written all over it.
Click to expand...

You have to figure it's not bush. Look at the relationship between his father and Clinton. I don't know about Cheney, but I do know that I've read things like this about Rove. One time in particular I remember reading that someone he was working with asked why he was so intent on messing with this particular person, and he said, because he's a democrat that's why. And it was totally serious.

It's pretty well-known that this guy is as serious as a heart attack; he hates democrats. It's sick, but it's the case. So he's the first and best suspect.
 
"I was also pretty incredulous when I saw this, but not exactly surprised, given the intense political nature of this administration. I think, as Darla said, something like this has Rove written all over it."

Actually, I agree with both of you on this... which is all the more reason that I cannot think of ANY reason he wouldn't just tell us that. What possible loyalty to Rove could he have?
 
Superfreak said:
"I was also pretty incredulous when I saw this, but not exactly surprised, given the intense political nature of this administration. I think, as Darla said, something like this has Rove written all over it."

Actually, I agree with both of you on this... which is all the more reason that I cannot think of ANY reason he wouldn't just tell us that. What possible loyalty to Rove could he have?
Click to expand...


One can only speculate. However, I wouldn't discount the influence of fear, and not necessarily loyalty...
 
Darla said:
You have to figure it's not bush. Look at the relationship between his father and Clinton. I don't know about Cheney, but I do know that I've read things like this about Rove. One time in particular I remember reading that someone he was working with asked why he was so intent on messing with this particular person, and he said, because he's a democrat that's why. And it was totally serious.

It's pretty well-known that this guy is as serious as a heart attack; he hates democrats. It's sick, but it's the case. So he's the first and best suspect.
Click to expand...

But still only a suspect none the less. You already have him tried, convicted, drawn and quartered.

I don't like him either, ----BUT?????/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top