New York Times Reporters Willing to Go To Jail to Protect Karl Rove

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Sure they were.

The moonbats are having orgasms over this. Problemis, proving it false won't matter. They'll always believe it, now and forever.

That's because they're part of the "reality-based" community.

And someone really needs to point out that Rove signed a waiver, a long time ago, allowing the reporters to pass along anything he told them to anybody they liked. No restirctions.

Thus, legally, he is not a "confidential source" and the reporters would have no legal grounds to "protect" the source.

Sorry moonbats. But I know this won't stop you. You just never seem to tire of having Karl Rove make monkeys out of you, do you?

Ever thought that maybe, instead of him being a "genius" that the real problem is that you guys are "stupid"??

Just asking.

 

I couldn't disagree more.

It was listening to Powell (and to a lesser extent, Blair) that created the mess.

They both insisted on the ridiculous negotiating at the UN with a bunch of governments who were not dealing in good faith because they were (as we know now) on the take from Saddam. They were in the bag and there was never the slightest chance they would go along.

All that accomplished was give Saddam six or eight months to set up Baathist terror cells, stash arms and money, pass around more billions to foreign politicians to try and stop the US and ship BioChem stuff to Syria and the Bakaa Valley.

Everyone from CLinton and Gore and Pelosi and Daschle (when they were in power and thus being a little responsible) on up to Bush knew that Iraq had to be taken out in order to stabilize the ME and curtail world terrorism. "Regime change" was a Clinton initiative, passed with a bipartisan majority three years before Bush took office.

That delay, which accomplished nothing, has cost us dearly. How much more "listening" to Powell should there have been?

As for being "more interested" in "discrediting critics" than in managing the problem, that's just ludicrous.

First of all, Joseph Wilson is the one who lied. Let me repeat that: Wilson lied. His anti-Bush wife, who works in Washington for the CIA, got him the job of going over to talk to a few people in Africa. He went over and discovered, from the former energy minister, that Iraq had indeed attempted to buy enriched, weapons grade uranium from them in 1999.

He reported this to the CIA.

THEN, he wrote an editorial in the New York Times saying that he had found NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER that Iraq had made any attempts to buy uranium, and called the President a liar.

What was the administration supposed to do? Every paper and every leftist and every Democrat politician in America was in full howl: "BUSH LIED> BUSH LIED< BUSH LIED" 24/7.

And they used Joseph Wilson's lies as evidence.

You tell me how the Clinton administration would have responded. Or Reagan or anybody else. OF COURSE they were interested in POINTING OUT THE FACTS about Wilson. They were being called liars by the whole national media. They couldn't very well ignore it.

And it was WILSON who dragged his demure little wife into this whole thing. He specifically said, in interviews and in articles, that "the administration" had chosen him for the trip because of his expertise, and specifically denied that it was his wife who had him selected.

It was a lie. Someone told a couple of reporters that it was a lie.

And in ANY of this, where is there evidence that they were "more concerned" about this than about military operations in Iraq?

Just absurd.