It's looking like he undermined the war effort by revealing the identity of an undercover CIA agent and then lied about it under oath.
So, who will be next to get caught in the fallout from this treasonous web? Dick Cheney? Or how about that asslicking douchebag of liberty, Robert Novak?
So, who will be next to get caught in the fallout from this treasonous web? Dick Cheney? Or how about that asslicking douchebag of liberty, Robert Novak?
5 comments:
Has Novak cut a deal? Rove has testified to a grand jury so the perjury charge is the first thing to take him down, but an administration of TRAITORS: Rove, Cheney, Libby, on an on... you know the Party of Moral Values & Treason.
Novak has obviously lawyered up -- to the gills. All he can say is "I'm not allowed to talk about that."
It wasn't Karl
The New York Post Online Edition reports this morning that the Plame case special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, assured Karl Rove' lawyer in October, 2003 and then again just last week that Rove is not a target of his investigation.
Funny how some people suddenly take accusations of perjury seriously when it doesn't involve sex. Interestingly enough, everyone is fired up about this despite a lack of proof (i.e. two sources).
In fact, CNN.com reported Sunday that Newsweek shows that Matt Cooper and Karl Rove were in contact by e-mail, but the nature of their conversation is not yet known. And isn't Newsweek infamous for its one-source reporting, notably one recently that led to egg on its face (unproven reports on the mistreatment of prisoners at Gitmo prompted violence in the Middle East)?
Thanks for noticing one of the cartoons I've done of Rove and Novak for my blog HAIL DUBYUS! I always liked that statement of Jon Stewart's "douchebag for liberty." Please check out my more recent entries :)
As for counterpoint's argument about two sources, consider...if you get mugged by someone while alone in a dark alley, no witnesses present, but you can identify him (or her--I'm for equal opportunity) should he/she be set free for lack of corroborating testimony? Sometimes, one source is the best you can have. As for Newsweek's gaffe, mistreatment has been reported on so many occasions from so many sources it can't be denied except by the conmen in the administration and their dupes in the electorate--where Newsweek screwed up was taking someone's word that it was documented in a source they could not themselves check. I don't think you can lay the blame for the violence of that weekend on Newsweek's doorstep for a story that merely continued the year-long reporting of the abuse, even if Newsweek's source hadn't been properly vetted. Wake up and smell the coffee...one article didn't occasion any violence--a pattern of abuse and torture was responsible.
Post a Comment