From: Adam Flinton 

Mark wrote:
> I doubt very much that anything comes of all this hyperbole, but the Dems
> probably should think about this a bit more. What if they're successful in
> getting Rove bounced out? Who then will they blame for all their
losses? 
>

It's not just that though is it. It's the "The white house does not
operate like this"  "We are straight talking down home
types" etc.etc. It's all bullsh*t coz the mendacity comes right from
the top but this is the first rotten fruit to fall.


Adam


> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> news:42d31908$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>>The White House seems to have changed their tune regarding commenting on
>>Rove 
>>
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/11/AR20050711010
27.html
>>
>>WASHINGTON -- For the better part of two years, the word coming out of the
>>Bush White House was that presidential adviser Karl Rove had nothing to do
>>with the leak of a female CIA officer's identity and that whoever did
>>would be fired.
>>But Bush spokesman Scott McClellan wouldn't repeat those claims Monday in
>>the face of Rove's own lawyer, Robert Luskin, acknowledging the political
>>operative spoke to Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, one of the reporters
>>who disclosed Valerie Plame's name.
>>
>>McClellan repeatedly said he couldn't comment because the matter is under
>>investigation. When it was pointed out he had commented previously even
>>though the investigation was ongoing, he responded: "I've
really said all
>>I'm going to say on it."
>>
>>"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
>>news:42d30c4f$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>
>>>I think last week his lawyer said he never mentioned her name.  I don't
>>>see
>>>any difference.  This week he mentioned her but not her name.  There is
>>>no
>>>conflict between the two.
>>>
>>>Gary
>>>
>>>"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>>>news:42d2cdcc$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>
>>>>Why would I ask that? - Because I can? 
>>>>
>>>>The problem is that as the information slowly trickles in,
it seems to
>>>>contradict previous positions. Last week Rove's lawyer was
engaging in
>>>>linguistic tomfoolery stating that Rove never mentioned Ms Plame when
>>>>talking to the reporter.  I'll give you that there is no smoking gun
>>>>yet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
>>>>news:42d2c52a$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>
>>>>>No, why would you ask that.  There isn't any evidence
that Rove knew
>>>>>she
>>>>>worked in anything other than some non-covert job.  She
worked at the
>>>
>>>CIA
>>>
>>>>>under her MAIDEN NAME, so to say Wilson's wife wouldn't even
>>>>>indirectly
>>>>>disclose her name.
>>>>>
>>>>>Gary
>>>>>
>>>>>"Rich Gauszka" 
wrote in message
>>>>>news:42d2aec7$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>>So the White House has now redefined 'highest
standards of conduct' ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20050711/cm_thenation/35295/nc:742
>>>>>>McClellan declared of the Plame/CIA leak,
"That is not the way this
>>>
>>>White
>>>
>>>>>>House operates. The president expects everyone in
his administration
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be
>>>>>>authorized
>>>
>>>to
>>>
>>>>>do
>>>>>
>>>>>>such a thing."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5