WB: Mr. Hadley Gets a Candygram + Wrong Stuff

July 16, 2005

In other words, within the Iraq Group “I warned him off the story” or “I told him not to get far out in front” might have been generally recognized shorthand phrases for “I just trashed Wilson again.”

Mr. Hadley Gets a Candygram

plus

I’m sure there was a point somewhere in Rove’s boyhood when he hadn’t yet heard the name Valerie Plame, and didn’t know she would grow up to become an undercover CIA operative.

The Wrong Stuff

Posted by b on July 16, 2005 at 06:09 UTC | Permalink

Comments

I’m sick and tired of PlameGate.
Not that I don’t want Fitz to get Rove. I do I do!
And Miller while he’s at it, too.
(Billmon, knowing what you now know, have you changed your mind about Miller deserving to be thrown in the slammer?)
But the reason I’m sick and tired of PlameGate is because it shows that America cares more about investigating the damage done to a CIA agent (a CIA agent for God’s sake!!!) than the meretricious behavior of its own governmenr that led it to kill hundreds of thousand innocent civilians.
The world burns while its gleeful and mostly unrepentant arsonist fiddles.
What is the case here? Damage to some of America’s “assets”. I’ll give you “assets” you bastards, I feel like screaming.
I do not consider getting Rove better than nothing, or a blow for our side.
Instead, it speaks to America’s self-centeredness and publicly exposes its inability to just DO THE RIGHT THING.
You want to help Al Qaeda (America Delenda Est ‘R Us) by all means let’s continue that orgy of nit picking.
I suppose at this point, realistically, we might as well hope Rove gets it, but the whole thing is one more example of the sickness of our society in the eyes of the world.
A leper picking at one of its boils.

Posted by: Lupin | Jul 16 2005 7:37 utc | 1

I tend to agree with Lupin that the Wilson-Plame-Rove
triangle, while not insignificant, is only a small part
in a larger story of wickedness at the service of greed.
This link from EIR brings some new detail to the sordid picture.

It is not surprising that an administration whose basic aim seems to be to restore the ethos, morality and sense of social justice characterizing the gilded age of robber barons, should itself be enmeshed in venality that puts Credit Mobiliere,
Jim Fisk, and Jay Gould in the shade.

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Jul 16 2005 8:50 utc | 2

My angle, which I haven’t specifically seen addressed elsewhere (but who knows), is that, to a foreigner’s eye, this is in fact quite similar to impeaching Clinton for a blow job.
Leaks of this kind (and worse dirty tricks) are dime a dozen around the world. Once again, we look foolish at best, hypocritical at worst.
Who cares about the Iraqi dead or tortured, but Valerie Plame, oh my! All men to battle stations!
In a weird “as above as below” paradigm, this can be seen (rightly or wrongly) as another “defend the white woman” story, when in fact there are massively more important and uninvestigated crimes.

Posted by: Lupin | Jul 16 2005 9:07 utc | 3

Blow back is a bitch. Whether it comes from inside the CIA or in the form IED’s. What is it that we are seeing here, the failure to actually do a reasonable job of creating a one party state, as the party hacks seem to only be able to work to simplistic cue sheets and what spin that needs to be created is much more subtle. If they are calling for help of the establishment, as it were, they’re in for a bad surprise. Too many people have been bulied into unacceptably poor representations of reality and are pissed off.

Posted by: YY | Jul 16 2005 10:10 utc | 4

Soem CIA folks weight in again:
The Intelligence Challenge: Can We Trust Our President?

Clearly some in the Bush Administration do not understand the requirement to protect and shield national security assets. Based on published information we can only conclude that partisan politics by people in the Bush Administration overrode the moral and legal obligations to protect clandestine officers and security assets. Beyond supporting Mrs. Wilson with our moral support and prayers we want to send a clear message to the political operatives responsible for this. You are a traitor and you are our enemy. You should lose your job and probably should go to jail for blowing the cover of a clandestine intelligence officer. You have set a sickening precedent. You have warned all U.S. intelligence officers that you may be compromised if you are providing information the White House does not like. A precedent, as one colleague pointed out during our brief appearances, allows you to build out a case based on previous legal actions and court decisions. It’s a slippery slope if it lowers the bar.
…
Not only have the Bush Administration leakers damaged the career of our friend but they have put many other people potentially in harm’s way. If left unpunished this outing has lowered the bar for official behavior. Further, who in their right mind would ever agree to become a spy for the United States? If we won’t protect our own officers how can we reassure foreigners that we will safeguard them? Better human intelligence could prevent any number of terror incidents in the future, but we are unlikely to get foreign recruits to supply it if their safety cannot be somewhat assured. If more cases like Mrs. Wilson’s occur, assurances of CIA protection will mean nothing to potential spies.
…
We joined the CIA to fight against foreign tyrants who used the threat of incarceration, torture, and murder to achieve their ends. They followed the rule of force, not the rule of law. We now find ourselves with an administration in the United States where some of its members have chosen to act like foreign tyrants. As loyal Americans and registered Republicans we implore President Bush to move quickly and decisively against those who, if not apprehended, will leave his Administration with the legacy of being the first to allow political operatives to out clandestine officers.

Posted by: b | Jul 16 2005 10:29 utc | 5

“led it to kill hundreds of thousand innocent civilians.”
Those unfortunate deaths occurred in a “known combat zone” and, while “regrettable”, are to be expected. They do not compare to those “assassinated” recently in London.
This logic brought to you by a recent “Letter of the Day” in a national newspaper.

Posted by: gmac | Jul 16 2005 10:52 utc | 6

AP? Were they always so? Solomon’s popped up before and again, Raum has got to be one of the biggest hacks to have ever slimed the earth, and Nedra … Is it top down or endemic? Going to be hard to crack with the media so compromised but oh what a little tidbit swapshop, clusterfuck White House Iraq Committee they had going, and, none ever being so indignant as the scoundrel, Cooper was wronged, sorely used, wronged indeed as was Dame Judith and Sir Adam of the Neocon Times not to mention the righteously indignant at the WP, Fox, ABC , NBC, and , I suspect many another at CBS and others too numerous to mention. “Mr. Woodward, did you, during the time from Jan 2001 to the present, receive frequent phone calls or e-mails from Mr. Karl Rove ?” “From Mr. Hadley?” “Mrs. Hughes?” Indignant scoundrels everywhere, now is the time to come to the aid of your country.

Posted by: ken melvin | Jul 16 2005 11:36 utc | 7

Yesterday’s “Democracy Now” had a “debate” (even DN feels the need for Bread and Circuses) between Sidney Blumenthal and Norman Solomon which essentially reprised Lupin’s argument above: Blumey talking about how you CAN’T out a CIA asset, and Stormin’ Norm asking “Is this what Progressivism in America has decended to–protecting the CIA–when we have a war of empire going on and we are killing tens of thousands of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is the true crime.”
As remembereringgiap implies in his new posting: Empires, empires, empires: that is the history of the world. Far better to kill than to be killed, but mortal to the soul to pretend that our’s is any different from all that went before, from the detritus of history’s dusty pages, that there is anything “exceptional” about us. Even our delusion about this is tragically jejune…

Posted by: Malooga | Jul 16 2005 13:27 utc | 8

If, as is eminently possible, no one in Bush’s inner circle pays for outing Plame we will have witnessed the final act in carte blanche for criminality. They currently engage in murder, genocide, undeclared & unprovoked war, enviromental destruction, attempted (and unbeknownst to us successful?) coups in other nations, flouting of Geneva, Kyoto and the Constitution. Ever know someone in a cancer scare, but the biopsy comes back negative? It looked bleak for a bit but after a huge sigh of relief they vow to tackle life with a bit more gusto and sense of urgency. This crew will breathe their sigh, then vow to themselves to go at all the above with a bit more gusto, a bit more of a sense of urgency. A few Amendments and nations shredded or destroyed, so many, many more to go…………..

Posted by: steve duncan | Jul 16 2005 13:59 utc | 9

“…imagine what might have happened if Novak had called Rove up to ask about Valerie Plame, and Turdblossom had said, “Sorry, Bob, but we have a policy of not talking about CIA professionals — especially when we’re not sure what they do or what their status is. I’m afraid I can’t comment.”
Now that is the best statement of the issue I have seen.
This idea that the real crime is that the United STates of America has power and uses it is utter nonsense.
America has abyssmaly failed American standards in its Iraq adventure. It has not failed Iraqui standards and it sure the hell has not failed European standards. Though, it has failed swiss and Finnish standards.

Posted by: razor | Jul 16 2005 15:17 utc | 10

Hannah, you are aware that EIR is a LaRouche operation, yes? Grains of salt recommended.

Posted by: ralphbon | Jul 16 2005 15:20 utc | 11

White House Press Corps Has Teething Pain
While I have criticized the White House Press Corps in the past for their softball questions and for their ignoring key issues such as the Downing Street Memo, I am happy to report that at the July 11 White House Press Briefing some reporters seem to have grown some new teeth, at least on one issue, Karl Rove.
In what The Washington Post characterized as “aggressive” and “combative” press briefings, certain members of the White House Press Corps kept a barrage of questions going at Scott McClellan. But, as always, because the questioners are unnamed in the official White House transcript, it was unclear how many questioners there were and who they were.
Despite the fact that there were several direct questions about Rove’s criminal culpability, the Washington Post reported that “It was the issue of credibility, more than of criminal culpability, that produced some of the most aggressive questioning at a White House briefing in recent memory — but no answers.” Were the two writers of the Post piece, Mike Allen and Dan Balz, actually there at the Press Briefing? One question was about as direct as you can get “Did Karl Rove commit a crime?”
I find it revealing that the Washington Post reporters would describe the briefing as one of the most aggressive in recent memory. You mean like for the first time since Bush was elected? Does this mean that the White House Press Corps is usually not aggressive? The answer, of course, is yes.
McClellan was at his most obfuscating and fuzzy best dealing with the onslaught of questions. This answer to one question neatly summarizes all of his many other answers, most of which were not as clean and pithy: “Well, I think the President has previously spoken to this. This continues to be an ongoing criminal investigation. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. And we’re just not going to have more to say on it until that investigation is complete.”
That phrase “No one wants to get at the bottom of this more than the President of the United States” was repeated many times in the course of this Press Briefing, and has been a stock phrase used by the White House and George Bush himself in the past two years. When he says it, he actually means “I really don’t want to get to the bottom of this because it will be really embarrassing.”
One curious item in the Washington Post story remains unanswered, at least for me. If Karl Rove never really revealed anything to the reporter Matthew Cooper, then why did Cooper need Rove to “release” him from confidentiality as a “source” for Cooper to be able to name Rove? Cooper could simply have said, yes, I spoke to Karl Rove but he didn’t tell me anything. I mean, any reporter in his right mind who did not call to interview Rove on this issue would have been shirking his journalistic responsibility.
The Washington Post characterized the conversation between Rove and Cooper as “vague”, despite the fact that it was on “double super secret background,” which sounds like something pre-pubescent boys would make up playing Spy vs Spy. Everyone knows Rove talks to everyone he can, as often as he can, giving them as many Rovian lines as he can, hoping many of them get into print and paint a good picture of his client, George Bush.
The one thing that goes unexplained, and untouched, is that Rove gave Cooper “a big warning not to get too far out on Wilson.” Now what does that mean? What is he warning Cooper about? Is he sending him a message that this is a national security issue, so tread lightly? Is he giving him some kind of vague threat, don’t delve into this too deeply or we will never talk to you again? Just what is the warning? No one ever says.
This is potentially dangerous ground for White House reporters. Careers are at stake. Some of them must sense some blood in the water on this issue or they would not be as aggressive on something that involves the second most powerful person in the White House, next to Dick Cheney.

Posted by: Stephen McArthur | Jul 16 2005 15:37 utc | 12

Lupin, I take your point, which you are far from alone in making. Even the sclerotic Dan Schorr just wrote an opinion piece reminding that the real scandal was launching a destabilizing war of aggression based on a pack of lies. Joe Wilson frequently tries to steer the discourse back to this point.
Similarly, the worst impeachable offense for Nixon was not the Watergate break-in and coverup but the invasion of Cambodia…
…the real Reagan scandal was not the diversion of profits from Iranian arms deals to the Contras (a point sadly lost today even among some progressive commentators) but the iceberg of which that was the tip: ie, the construction within the Executive branch of a massive un-Constitutional infrastructure for privatized warfare.
But Plamegate is truly significant on at least two scores:
1. There’s a real nuclear proliferation danger out there (cf AQ Khan), and some people at the CIA were really working on it, and some of that work just got fucked for no reason other than to service a venal political vendetta;
2. The hypocrisy! The Cheney admin railed righteously and bogusly about the dangers of WMD to justify invading Iraq and yet had no compunctions against sabotaging efforts to actually protect Americans from WMD.

Posted by: ralphbon | Jul 16 2005 16:11 utc | 13

a real nuclear proliferation danger out there (cf AQ Khan), and some people at the CIA were really working on it
We don’t really know?
They call em spooks for a reason.

Posted by: slothrop | Jul 16 2005 16:24 utc | 14

True, I am assuming, with no actual evidence, that Plame and colleagues occasionally engaged in genuinely productive work.

Posted by: ralphbon | Jul 16 2005 17:30 utc | 15

the absurdity of the WH declaration that everyone remains mum while they are pushing there lies daily thru luskin creating an unauthorized scenario we are dutifully supposed to digest for months between now and october explicitly for the purpose of us all being on the same page, so we can be shocked in unison when the fitzgerald version appears in oct and their troops will rise up and protest. by then the masses will be so familiar w/the drumbeat of the lies.
who is noticeably absent from all these latest stories? cheney.
Hannah, you are aware that EIR is a LaRouche operation, yes? Grains of salt recommended. i read the larouche story last week , it was the first story i read that matched my line of thinking but didn’t post it because i keep hearing what a nut job he is. but honestly lupin, this has everything to do with the big picture. it doesn’t take much imagination to anticipate where this is going. it all goes to motive which is the one thing we are being steered away from. why would they want to discredit wilson?? don’t get too far out on wilson , IMHO means when you write that story don’t tell his side of it. dismiss him as an irrelevant nutjob that only got the trip because of his wife but don’t go on and on about what he said in his article, nothing about fixing the evidence to drum up support, keep the story centered around ‘our side’ ‘our perception’
here’s why the press has to tow the line. why would the WH want to discredit wilson?because what wilson was saying was the truth. and what is that truth, that the evidence did not substantiate a threat, what threat? the threat the WH had formed whig for, the best propagandizers money can buy ,the scenario queens, whipping up their elaborate lies for us, and here is wilson debunking in the nyt no less. and where does that lead us, it opens the door to all of them, right to the top to the master of ceremonies. cheney. this is not just about plame. this is about the circle game.the administration had been circumcising the cia and anyone else who stood in their way. and this is an in. and i don’t want anybody dropping the ball.

Posted by: annie | Jul 16 2005 17:49 utc | 16

The Chickens Are Coming Home to Roost
this is the story i was referring to

The pivotal role of Lewis Libby sets the stage for the impeachment or forced resignation of the Vice President. This, Lyndon LaRouche has emphasized, is a precondition for any effective U.S. government response to the onrushing global financial meltdown. The reason to force Cheney’s resignation is not just the Plame leak, which emanated from his office; however, the involvement of Libby, along with other Cheney staffers, including John Hannah, in the orchestrated destruction of Wilson, Plame, and the Brewster Jennings proprietary, affords a sufficient cause for Cheney’s impeachment.

Posted by: annie | Jul 16 2005 18:03 utc | 17

heating up

While media coverage in recent days has focused on conversations White House senior adviser Karl Rove had with reporters, two sources say Miller spoke with Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, during the key period in July 2003 that is the focus of Fitzgerald’s investigation.

Posted by: annie | Jul 16 2005 18:14 utc | 18

(just a parenthesis)
every saturday in my town in the province – there is always some lndon larouche people selling their wares – some americans but mostly french – this has been regular for a couple of years now

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jul 16 2005 18:18 utc | 19

I’m not saying the LaRouchies are wrong, just…LaRouchies.

Posted by: ralphbon | Jul 16 2005 18:26 utc | 20

Is it really plausible that Rove didn’t know everything about Wilson within 24 hours of his Op-Ed? A smear-meister who doesn’t have everything on his opponent would not be very good at his job, and nobody has ever claimed that Rove isn’t good at his job.

Posted by: Marie | Jul 16 2005 18:49 utc | 21

Does it occur to you that since the media is being masterfully and malevolently manipulated by the propaganda minister and the diabolical machinations that pretend to be an executive branch of a republic rather than the evil board of directors of an omnipotent corporation whose capital is hegemony that this induced myopia is the perfect distraction from:
• the London bombings, which gave Bush a boost in the polls?
• the return of military tribunals to Guantanamo?
• the Boschian/Kafkaesque hell that has descended upon Iraq?
• the base, gratuitous racial pandering by the Republicans?
• the SCOTUS vacancy
• the imminent passage of the hegemonic CAFTA?
• the imminent passage of PATRIOT ACT II?
It is simplistic really. They know how we’ll salivate at the thought of indicting someone within this administration; to the distraction of everything else. Meanwhile, Rumsfeld is running around saying that the terrorist bombings in Israel were the work of the Iranians. No one is paying attention to globe trotting Rice-a-roni, Afghanistan is off the hook. Certainly we need to at least try to shed the light of truth upon the insidious, blatantly illegal and unethical attacks upon Joe and Valerie Wilson, and by association, all of us. However, playing directly into their hands may make our efforts exhibit one in the mock trial by the MSM.
this article certainly points directly to a cabal (including Rove) and an intricate conspiracy in this coordinated WH spin. (Maybe they’ll sacrifice Powell.)
One more thing: Boycott CNN. Their nationalistic fear mongering (see this as a typical example, interspersed between hurricane hyperbole and republican spin, lost white girls and propaganda talking points (Blair is talking about “evil ideologies”, implicitly compared to Nazism, right now…I’ll be turning it off…wait, now they’re saying how it was the Media who leaked Valerie Plame’s name…Now I’ll be turning it off…wait, holy shit, I can’t believe these lies. I’ve got to go; I’ve got to watch this.)

Posted by: ommzms | Jul 16 2005 18:49 utc | 22

@ommzms, your THIS link doesn’t work

Posted by: annie | Jul 16 2005 18:58 utc | 23

isn’t it time to call in the dog?
i think billmon is being obtuse, it is time to hammer this home by comparing the bush/rove statements that appear deceitful with those of (saintly) president clinton.
the “base” of these power-above-all demagogues still ostensibly *believes* in the ten commandments — thou shalt not lie, etc.
bush co. credibility hangs by a thread. billmon and others should be pounding on their corruption and deceit at every turn. it sucks, but everything should come back to the obvious pattern:
watergate … iran-contra … iraq&plame
eventually, people will have to face reality, if bush/rove parse and shift like (the hateful) president clinton, they must have something to hide, just like president clinton, e.g. they are hypocrites.
hypocrites who are imprisoning and murdering people across the globe.

Posted by: sean broderick | Jul 16 2005 19:17 utc | 24

What I find most interesting about Rove’s e-mail to Hadley is that there is no suggestion that anyone contact CIA to let them know that one of their own is now part of a media blitz.
Rove had just steered a reporter to a CIA agent, immediately e-mailed someone in NSC, but didn’t mention that? Is that really how we handle intelligence assets these days?

Posted by: shamanic | Jul 16 2005 19:23 utc | 25

bush co. credibility hangs by a thread.
what have you been smoking?? troll alert

Posted by: annie | Jul 16 2005 19:23 utc | 26

Boycott CNN? Methinks you stumbled into the wrong bar. No one here watches television to obtain information about the world.
Links to LaRouche by HOK??
Let me offer this instead – whoever programs TCM has a Classic & Relevant Fest on Today:
Strangelove – just ended; coming up Odessa File, followed by Soylent Green & Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Posted by: jj | Jul 16 2005 19:50 utc | 27

ralphbon
ô i think lyndon la rouche & his disciples are as mad as meataxes

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jul 16 2005 19:59 utc | 28

Lupin comes out strong, then come the crazies. Man, without at doorman, I guess this bar lets in anyone.
Back to the post. Billmon was correct in pointing to this as suspicious.
Hadley was deputy director of the National SECURITY Council — not the National Welfare Reform Council. Why would Rove start out by mentioning that Cooper called to talk about welfare reform? Why not cut to the case (or rather, the uranium?)
The thing really does read as if Rove was trying to establish an alibi, although at that point I don’t know why he would have believed he’d ever need one.
One more thing that I think is weird is that when he identified Matt Cooper, he does not identify his publication. As someone who has worked in government, that seems weird to me. We obviously weren’t at the WH, but the publication was always more important than the persons name, not the other way around, when I was in govt. And it just seems that since so many people cover the WH, it would be extremely difficult for someone outside of communications, perhaps like Hadley, to know everyones name. Lest we forget that Cooper was new to the beat when all of this happening.
Something is going on here, something undoubtedly criminal. For professional investigators I am sure all the tell tale “tells” are there. That is probably what keeps Fitzgerald’s flag burning. Let is see now if these guys can Walsh him. Dig up some dirt at work (implausible) or some dirt on the home front (more plausible). Did he have a nasty divorce? Can they plant rumors that he’s gay?

Posted by: Bubb Rubb | Jul 16 2005 20:02 utc | 29

I must sincerely disagree with Lupin. We must hammer the Rove/Plamegate over & over & over again just like Bushie does with his propaganda. As stated on this site before, we will never get that bastard for war crimes.
But minor crimes is a given. The elite money interest (CFR, Trilats) will not let the office of the president get taken down to far because it is too important to their interest. Without control of the Oval Office, the monied elite would lose power to a congress made up of persons from po-dunk city/middle America. We can’t have that.
So, the monied elite will let Bushie get meyered in trivial bullshit to stop his regime from doing more damage than they already have.
So, I say, repeat, repeat, repeat, like a good facist over and over and over again that Rove did it. My god man, the elites are helping us.

Posted by: jdp | Jul 16 2005 20:08 utc | 30

Billmon says, Swopa has a theory that today’s stürm und drang is an effort to preempt whatever story Matt Cooper might be working on about his grand jury testimony. If something is going in the next issue of Time, it should be posted to the web on Sunday. The Rovians might have learned it is coming, and felt they needed to move today.
I have another theory. I think that this is organized case of newsrooms getting back at the WH. I believe that they were leaked this early in the week, say Tuesday or Wednesday, however decided to pay back the WH the favor by dumping their leaked stories out on Friday and Saturday.

Posted by: Bubb Rubb | Jul 16 2005 20:08 utc | 31

don’t know what HOK is. i just googled cheney plame impeachment one day and the article came up. have never read anything else from them. but that particular article, while i don’t think it’s likely(impeachment) did a wrap up i liked. i’m hardly in any position to defend larouche sense i know nothing about him except his reputation. as a nut. but i’ll be the first to admit i am also a bit of a nut. not quite invasion of the bodysnatchers….
at least not this year!

Posted by: annie | Jul 16 2005 20:10 utc | 32

Lupin: Rove-Miller-Plame is the first domino, if that falls, then exposing this administration will become that much easier in the continuation, and your end goal may eventually be achieved.

Posted by: SteinL | Jul 16 2005 20:16 utc | 33

this article (from Anti-War.Com yesterday)…apologies. However, out of context it will seem antithetical.
Boycott CNN was satirical; obviously for my own amusement.
Bubb Rubb: What kind of bars do you go to that have “a(t) doorman”?
THIS truly needs to remain our focus.

Posted by: ommzms | Jul 16 2005 20:37 utc | 34

It matters not at all what the media do in this case. It is far beyond propaganda and opinion. This is entirely a legal matter. That’s why it’s of utmost importance. Many people would love to see this administration get nailed for all their crimes, but the legal system is complex and very cut and dried. You go after what you can. This is the entrance and obviously, the evidence is there. People have been waiting for this moment when things are coming into alignment. If indictments are handed down, for whatever reason, it will weaken this enemy substantially.
I think mistakes were made in the Nixon case, and some people involved want more this time. They need the time to do it right.
The press is ridiculous, as I always thought they were, and right now, they are hysterical at the prospect of unleashing after such tight control. If this goes to trial, there will be the biggest circus this country has seen for some time. If there is any possibility of Cheney being tried, we should support all legal efforts wholeheartedly.

Posted by: jm | Jul 16 2005 22:29 utc | 35

bush co. credibility hangs by a thread. billmon and others should be pounding on their corruption and deceit at every turn.
Excuse me, sean, but exactly what do you think I’ve been going for the past two weeks straight? Writing poetry?

Posted by: Billmon | Jul 17 2005 1:58 utc | 36

That’s it Bubb. Call everyone whose ideas you can’t stomach crazy, it sure beats the hassle of arguing your point of view and why don’t we all argue amongst ourselves a la Society for the Protection of Gay Whales when confronted with Transvestite Dolphin breakaway group? After all then we not only don’t have to debate logically we don’t have to do anything concrete with any beliefs we may have cause we’re too busy backbiting and fingerpointing. And yes that must mean I am indulging in that which I profess to abhor. Nuff said.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jul 17 2005 2:39 utc | 37

Just for the record I’m not saying we mustn’t happen at RoveGate, I’m saying that at this stage, the overseas perspective is we (societally speaking) care about protecting CIA assets more than, ay, Abu Ghraib.
Look at it that way: your neighbor has a kid who defecates on your lawn, keys your car, hurls insults at you but the dad does nothing; then the kid does something to piss off the dad and he gets a trashing. Would that improve your view of your neighbor?

Posted by: Lupin | Jul 17 2005 6:38 utc | 38

Posted by: Bubb Rubb | Jul 18 2005 1:01 utc | 39

Back to Main