Earth to Matt.......

[Peter_Puget]

Bob Novak will break his silence tomorrow night in two separate interviews with FOXNEWS CHANNEL, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. Novak will appear on Brit Hume (6pm/et) and Hannity & Colmes (9pm/et)...

[olyclimber]

that's fox "news" there buddy

[Dechristo]

Jane, you ignorant slut; it's spelled "gnus".

[Off_White]

DeC, have you ever called someone by name "you ignorant slut" and had them stare at you in a blank and offended manner? I know I have... Sort of like telling the uncomprehending that you were born a poor black child.

[Fairweather]

I killed my landlord.

[cj001f]

I killed my landlord.

 

Zed's dead?

[archenemy]

I have my thermos.

[Dechristo]

I was born a poor, black thermos.

[knelson]

I have my thermos.

 

...and that's all you need.

[ALLCAPS]

SO NOVAK AND THOSE DUMBSHITS ON FOX ARE ALL GAY LOVERS? ARE THEY GOING TO BE REPORTING ANYTHING THE GENERAL PUBLIC DOESN'T ALREADY KNOW?

[Jim]

So why isn't Rover under indictment?

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- White House political adviser Karl Rove was one of Robert Novak's sources for the 2003 disclosure of a CIA operative's identity, the syndicated columnist wrote Tuesday.

 

Novak said Rove confirmed information from another source, whose identity Novak is still keeping under wraps.

 

But he said special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knows the source's identity, and Novak said he does not think that person will be charged with unmasking now-former CIA agent Valerie Plame.

 

He also wrote that prosecutors have told him his role in the investigation is over.

 

"I have been subpoenaed by and testified to a federal grand jury. Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target were all untrue," Novak wrote in a column released for publication Wednesday.

[chucK]

Probably because in order to convict on the charge of leaking classified information or whatever crime it is for Rove to out a CIA agent, it has to be demonstrated that the outer knew that the info was classified.

 

Fitzgerald probably didn't feel he had enough proof of that aspect to be confident enough to be hauling one of the most powerful people in the country into court.

 

Either that or there's something fishy going on

[mattp]

Peter Puget, 5/2/06:

As a sidebar: Johnson declassified and leaked "secret" info to correct BS from a former governemnet official concerning the Vietnam war. Something as yet unproven concerning Mr & Mrs. Vanity Fair

 

Peter Puget, 7/7/2005:

Did the Wilson blame Rove out of Anger?

[Peter_Puget]

Peter Puget, 5/2/06:

As a sidebar: Johnson declassified and leaked "secret" info to correct BS from a former governemnet official concerning the Vietnam war. Something as yet unproven concerning Mr & Mrs. Vanity Fair

 

Peter Puget, 7/7/2005:

Did the Wilson blame Rove out of Anger?

 

Come on Matt at least provide lionk to your out of context quotes!

 

In my sworn testimony, I said what I have contended in my columns and on television: Joe Wilson's wife's role in instituting her husband's mission was revealed to me in the middle of a long interview with an official who I have previously said was not a political gunslinger. After the federal investigation was announced, he told me through a third party that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part.

 

Following my interview with the primary source, I sought out the second administration official and the CIA spokesman for confirmation. I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America."

link to Novak

 

With regard to quote 1 - It's still unproven and you have yet to provide a bit of evidence suggesting otherwise. But the point I was making in my original post was that such actions had they occurred would not be unique to the Bush administration.

 

With regard to quote 2 - It appears that as far as Novak is concerned the "leak" was not part of an evil plot by the administration. So was it anger or crass politics on Wilson's part?

[Jim]

So it was all a coincidence eh, and not retribution? Now there’s a fantasy on par with the Iraq justifications.

[mattp]

Hey Peter:

I used the search function to look for Peter Puget and "Rove" and these are two of the hits. I'm sure I could find others if I looked, as I believe you've been fairly consistent about scoffing at those who have said that Rove was involved in all of this. I'm pretty sure you could find these quotes yourself using the search function, too.

 

Anyway, you can still argue that even if involved, he was not "responsible" for it. And you could well be right -- though a leak to punish or discredit Wilson would certainly be consistent with his past actions.

 

While you are at it, tell us again about the difference between imminent and gathering threats. I'm so confused.

[Peter_Puget]

Hey Peter:

I used the search function to look for Peter Puget and "Rove" and these are two of the hits. I'm sure I could find others if I looked, as I believe you've been fairly consistent about scoffing at those who have said that Rove was involved in all of this. I'm pretty sure you could find these quotes yourself using the search function, too.

 

Anyway, you can still argue that even if involved, he was not "responsible" for it. And you could well be right -- though a leak to punish or discredit Wilson would certainly be consistent with his past actions.

 

While you are at it, tell us again about the difference between imminent and gathering threats. I'm so confused.

 

Thanks to Bablefish here is a translation from the "spin":

 

I just went fishing for some quotes that would look great taken out of context.

 

You're right Peter .

 

Blah. Blah. I am confused.

[cj001f]

Thanks to Bablefish here is a translation from the "spin":

For those wondering what the translation from douchebag baiting conservative wannabe hannity to English, here goes:

I, Peter Puget am an Ann Coulter felching Dick Cheney munging whinging gasbag NAMBLA member

 

PP's home page

[mattp]

Now now now. Just because he likes to brandish pseudo arguments but won't stand by his past statements doesn't call for that. Gasbag?

[Peter_Puget]

Now now now. Just because he likes to brandish pseudo arguments but won't stand by his past statements doesn't call for that. Gasbag?

 

[cj001f]

Gasbag?

Another bagpipe playing a hideous tune to lead fools to their demise.

[mattp]

Seriously, I'm on your side, Pete. I've never been one to favor calling each other fags or whatever. You took a cheap shot, though. Try answering the question: have you not sneered at those who have argued that Rove likely had something to do with this?

[Peter_Puget]

Seriously, I'm on your side, Pete. I've never been one to favor calling each other fags or whatever. You took a cheap shot, though. Try answering the question: have you not sneered at those who have argued that Rove likely had something to do with this?

 

Oddly you bring up in mocking tones an argument I was making in a completely different subject. (Imminent v gather storm) You went outside of the current discussion in order to hurl insults. I respond playfully and unlike you directly to what has just been written. You then conclude that I deserve cj$###’s post because I took a “cheap shot.” To that I can only shake my head. I will agree my shot was cheap but only because you provide such an easy target. Is it my fault that your arguements fall apart through little effort? I would enjoy a "more costly" disccussion.

 

I have not sneered at anyone because they thought Rove may have been involved.

[cj001f]

Seriously, I'm on your side, Pete. I've never been one to favor calling each other fags or whatever. You took a cheap shot, though. Try answering the question: have you not sneered at those who have argued that Rove likely had something to do with this?

 

Oddly you bring up in mocking tones an argument I was making in a completely different subject. (Imminent v gather storm) You went outside of the current discussion in order to hurl insults. I respond playfully and unlike you directly to what has just been written. You then conclude that I deserve cj$###’s post because I took a “cheap shot.” To that I can only shake my head. I will agree my shot was cheap but only because you provide such an easy target. Is it my fault that your arguements fall apart through little effort? I would enjoy a "more costly" disccussion.

 

I have not sneered at anyone because they thought Rove may have been involved.

 

Oh PP. Your kind of baiting mock debating partisan bullshit is exactly what's flushing this country down the shitter.

 

Please, post some more tripe from some assbag center of shill punditry - or just STFU

[mattp]

Look again, Pete. I didn't say you deserved such spew. Quite the contrary and, to make you feel better, I"ll add that I think CJ is a jackass. (I'll also add, though, that your pseudo hurt here is a little odd as you started this thread as a taunt in itself.) But, yes, I believe you have suggested your disdain for those who pointed fingers at Rove.