mattp Posted July 14, 2006 Posted July 14, 2006 Sorry to disappoint you, PP, but the truth is I really didn't notice much that was all that interesting in Novak’s recent revelations. He seems to confirm what I had previously thought, that Mr. Rove was involved in this - and I noted that you have in the past seemed to indicate that you thought such suspicion of Mr. Rove was unfounded paranoia or uniformed bush bashing or something similar. Perhaps you could fill us in if you feel that Novak has told us something more significant that I or anybody else may have overlooked. If there was a particular point you wanted me to address, I missed it. The "take away" lesson I see in all of this is that Congress is apparently completely unable or unwilling to address questions of whether Bush administration officials are acting in the National interest or demonstrating integrity. Quote
Peter_Puget Posted July 14, 2006 Author Posted July 14, 2006 Did you watch the broadcast interviews or read the transcripts? He seems to confirm what I had previously thought, that Mr. Rove was involved in this - and I noted that you have in the past seemed to indicate that you thought such suspicion of Mr. Rove was unfounded paranoia or uniformed bush bashing or something similar. Note again how you my views on something. of course this is not responsive to the question. I clarified my view ealrier in this thread. You do make a silly point and avoid the real issue. Of course Rove was involved in the issue. He testified in front of the grand jury that alone qualifies for involvment. I have never argued against the fact that he was "involved". What you are doing is suggesting something but doing so in a sly way - one that doesn't involve you being specific or laying out facts. One that gives you plenty of wiggle room. Quote
mattp Posted July 14, 2006 Posted July 14, 2006 Nope. I just read CNN's report and I read Novak's column. Do you have a link to a transcript? Instead of dancing about and shadowboxing, why don't you point out what you thought was so significant? Quote
Peter_Puget Posted July 14, 2006 Author Posted July 14, 2006 (edited) Puget Post: 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)... Puget Question: How do Novac’s interviews square with what you thought happened with him? How do they fit in with your broader view of the Plamegate? Mattp reply: Sorry to disappoint you, PP, but the truth is I really didn't notice much that was all that interesting in Novak’s recent revelations. He seems to confirm what I had previously thought….. Puget Question: Did you watch the broadcast interviews or read the transcripts? Mattp reply: Nope. Instead of dancing about and shadowboxing, why don't you point out what you thought was so significant? Shadowboxing? Dancing? I ask a question, you reply in a manner that suggests you have the capability to answer the question but the content of your question certainly implied that you hadn’t seen the interview or read a transcript so I asked if you had. You then say I am shadow boxing and dancing. Come on Matt Bush lied but you can’t even be straightforward and say you couldn’t be bothered to watch the interview? Edited July 14, 2006 by Peter_Puget Quote
tivoli_mike Posted July 14, 2006 Posted July 14, 2006 geez, why don't you guys go climb or something. Bush isn't going to be impeached, the lawsuit will be thrown out or be bogged down in "national security" concerns, Novak will continue make million from punditry, and plame/wilson continue to be darlings of the left. Quote
Crux Posted July 14, 2006 Posted July 14, 2006 Well, I figured this would happen sooner or later. Plame-Wilson to sue: WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 13, 2006--Valerie Plame Wilson, Ambassador Joseph Wilson and their counsel, Christopher Wolf of Proskauer Rose LLP, will hold a news conference at 10 AM EDT on Friday, July 14 at 10:00 AM at the National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor, Washington, DC 20045, to announce the filing of a civil lawsuit against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice-President Richard Cheney and Karl Rove. This could be an amusing story to follow -- will stay tuned for classic sling-fest to be waged by the usual suspects. But presently notice that the civil charges now made by Plame comprise a list of events already proven to have or have not occurred as a matter of public record. Consequently, the outcome of her case might simply depend upon whether the charges prove admissible and then whether the offenses listed are punishable by a civil court. Quote
mattp Posted July 14, 2006 Posted July 14, 2006 What is your problem, Pete? I never pretended I watched the interview. I DID read the CNN report of his interview, though, and I read his column. Nobody except you (I even checked the Drudge Report) has indicated there was anything exciting in that Interview. I searched the net and I don't find a transcript anywhere. Again I ask: what is your point? Was there a particular point that you found significant? What was it? Quote
Peter_Puget Posted July 18, 2006 Author Posted July 18, 2006 Are you so blind that you cannot see...Are you so deaf that you cannot hear..... Summary for those interested..... Bythe way I agree with Hitchens here his conclusions regarding "Plamegate" awere obvious upon inspecting the evidence. I also agree with his footnote at the end concerning the truthfulness of Bush's clain of Iraq's interest in buying African "yellowcake". Quote
Peter_Puget Posted July 18, 2006 Author Posted July 18, 2006 What is your problem, Pete? I never pretended I watched the interview. I DID read the CNN report of his interview, though, and I read his column. Nobody except you (I even checked the Drudge Report) has indicated there was anything exciting in that Interview. I searched the net and I don't find a transcript anywhere. Again I ask: what is your point? Was there a particular point that you found significant? What was it? Sophomore #1: Boy I just read Finnegan’s Wake in Modern Lit. What a tough and complex work. Sophomore #2: Are it just seemed childlike to me. Sophomore #1: When did you read it. Sophomore #2: I didn’t. I read some quotes in the New York Review of Books on the issue published on the anniversary of Joyce’s death. Sophomore #1: Ah….. Quote
olyclimber Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 Finnegan's Wake is not sophomore material. You have to be at least a junior. Quote
mattp Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 Could PP be right? Is it all some kind of misunderstanding and simply a coincidence that Valerie Plame's ID as an intelligence operative was leaked when the Admin was trying to discredit Wilson? I feel like such a fool. All along I believed THESE guys: evilgopbastards.com Quote
cj001f Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 so is Oprah gay or what????? Jeesh, spray doesn't even have hot lesbian fantasies anymore Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.