Quake3World

Freakaloin wrote:

Pauly wrote:Who is he? What has he done? I can't be bothered to read vast sentences on him so would someone please tell me in one sentence.

Thanks.

what a clueless fuck...

LOL

Time Reporter to Testify in CIA Leak Case

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer 24 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper agreed Wednesday to testify about his sources in a government leak of a
CIA agent's identity, a dramatic about-face which came as he faced going to jail.

"I am prepared to testify. I will comply" with the court's order, Cooper told U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan.

Cooper's turnaround came at a hearing at which Hogan was to consider whether to jail Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller for defying his order to testify about their confidential sources in the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity.

White House Scrambles to Stop Criminal Indictment of Rove:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/p ... 6981.shtml

As a top White House aide, Rove has "code level" clearance on security matters and would easily have had access to Plame's status at the CIA. White House sources say he requested additional information on both Plame and Wilson before talking to reporters.

If Rove knowingly disclosed classified information he could face federal felony indictments. Sources within the investigation say special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is pursuing such an indictment against Rove but that the White House is pressuring the Justice Department to put the brakes on such a move.

“It’s a power game,” says one Justice Department attorney familiar with the investigation. “The White House is very, very worried that this will come back down on Rove and them.”

'I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions' for not testifying, TIME mag reporter Matthew Cooper said. But he told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance, he had received 'in somewhat dramatic fashion' a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret...

nothing will happen.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:'I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions' for not testifying, TIME mag reporter Matthew Cooper said. But he told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance, he had received 'in somewhat dramatic fashion' a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret...

What in hell is that sneaky weasel up to now?

fresh news on the Rove/Plame thing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/

Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. "Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation ..."

wow double super secret background. that's pretty deep background

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:fresh news on the Rove/Plame thing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/

Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. "Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation ..."

wow double super secret background. that's pretty deep background

old...i read about this before i went to sleep last nite...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&c ... cs_leak_dc

PWNED...

I won't cry for that guy

I hope Rove gets hit by a bus.

He may escape criminal prosecution (the relevant law is very specific about what intentionally 'outing' a covert agent involves) but this will still stain Bush. I doubt Bush will take any action against him if he violated the spirit, but not the letter, of the law.

I wonder what O'Reilly will have to say about this. Somehow this will be the fault of the liberal media. And speaking of folks who don't check their facts before rambling on, RiffRaff is still MIA since he tried to defend O'Reilly...

if ur against rove, ur with the terrorists...

Except for his place in history, I don't think it really means anything for Bush himself, given that he's already been reelected and cannot be reelected again anyway. If this were Oct 2004 though, things may have turned out differently for him. Bush really doesn't have any incentive to distance himself from Rove unless there's some more direct presidental connection to the leak.

i saw some special awhile back about rove fan clubs on college campuses. there was even some girl who had karl rove panties with his face over the front. She was legitimately in awe of him...

scary.

@ dave:
But it does paint the whole administration as looking somewhat petty and vindictive towards those who exposed the flaws in the Iraq intelligence.

O'Reilly is a sour cup of cunt, full stop.

tnf wrote:I wonder what O'Reilly will have to say about this. Somehow this will be the fault of the liberal media. And speaking of folks who don't check their facts before rambling on, RiffRaff is still MIA since he tried to defend O'Reilly...

yeah but Bill is looking out for the little guy and doesn't care about who's democrat or republican or liberal or conservative!!!!!!!!!!!! It hurt to type that

tnf wrote:@ dave:
But it does paint the whole administration as looking somewhat petty and vindictive towards those who exposed the flaws in the Iraq intelligence.

That's the place in history thing. Unless there's some serious connection in there that can damn the administration to some kind of punishment, Bush will come out of the ordeal with his presidency intact. Look at Nixon. Watergate destroyed his administration since it could be tied to him. Few remember him favorably. On the other hand, Clinton was partially impeached and came out of the Lewinsky scandal with his presidency intact, but history often (but not always) judges him as soft on security because he was more concerned with the Lewinsky thing.

So here we have one administration that was destroyed and one that was not by scandals, but both are often remembered unfavorably because the parts those scandals played.

Dave wrote:Except for his place in history, I don't think it really means anything for Bush himself, given that he's already been reelected and cannot be reelected again anyway.

Probably so, but it may embolden the dems to fight him more (and Repubs in general) on his future initiatives...it all depends on how quickly the results of the investigation are made public...ffs, it's been going on for 2 years now.

tnf wrote:i saw some special awhile back about rove fan clubs on college campuses. there was even some girl who had karl rove panties with his face over the front. She was legitimately in awe of him...

scary.

was she cute? i'll take that challenge

I like how he goes on a total anti-Democrat rant and then ends it with..."as usual, we'll let the people decide" or some patronizing, petty bullshit like that.

The SNL skits with the guy doing O'Reilly are pretty accurate - I remember one that was something like this (this is just the idea of the skit, not the exact dialogue - only the spirit of the conversation here...)

Guest - "Christmas day is December 25"
O'Reilly - "I disagree."
Guest "ooookaaayyy....but it is December 25:
O'Really - "Well, that's your opinion. But you're in the no spin zone now, so if you can't back it up don't say it."
Guest - "The calendar says the 25th"
O'Reilly - "We'll agree to disagree. As usual, we'll let the people decide."

Hannibal wrote:

Dave wrote:Except for his place in history, I don't think it really means anything for Bush himself, given that he's already been reelected and cannot be reelected again anyway.

Probably so, but it may embolden the dems to fight him more (and Repubs in general) on his future initiatives...it all depends on how quickly the results of the investigation are made public...ffs, it's been going on for 2 years now.

Yeah, but as an example, the democrats probably can't get away for too much longer blocking Bush's judicial nominations unless they want to keep coming across to the American people as unreasonable and lose some of their own support. I think/hope that militant partisanship angers people more than the intense fight waged over whether or not Judge A is for abortion or not. Sure that judge's opinion is important, but one party, democrat or republican, needs to learn when to concede. The best thing Bush could do with the upcoming Supreme Court issue, if two of them resign, would be to not nominate anyone and leave it for the next president, especially given the hard time he's gotten trying to nominate lower court judges. Of course that wont happen because it's all about the interparty pissing match, but it would lighten some of the hostilities.

laff... what were we talking about?

The wound on my lower back from surgery is sore.