posted July 12, 2005 04:50 PM            

Interesting. No Iraq either.

posted July 12, 2005 05:42 PM              

i might be hauled off to a cia/illuminati torture facility soon, when jwhop and his matrix agents finally track down the secret lair i'm posting from.....look for a headline on snoozemax like....

OSAMA BIN LADENS "BEST FRIEND" LOCATED...."HATES AMERICA"...COMMITS SUICIDE BEFORE CAPTURE...

posted July 12, 2005 09:44 PM              

*gulp*

posted July 12, 2005 10:54 PM            

Yep, God Bless the ole Seeker of the Stars

Blessings

posted July 13, 2005 09:36 AM              

Saturn's Child ~ yeah he did . Decided one day, after one of those previously mentioned debacles, that he had done too much damage here and he deleted them.

posted July 13, 2005 11:59 AM            

Which topic should provoke more media interest?

A report that White House adviser Karl Rove told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper that the wife of showboating Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson worked for the CIA - a revelation, by the way, that did nothing to damage her career as a desk-bound analyst, let alone endanger her life.

Or a woman who NBC spent a year trying to convince to detail her allegation that she was raped by the president of the United States.

If you're a member of the White House press corps, clearly the first story is a matter of supreme importance. The presidential rape allegation, on the other hand, is a real yawner.

At yesterday's White House press briefing, reporters peppered Press Secretary Scott McClellan with 48 questions on the Wilson-Plame case - focusing on whether Bush would now fire Rove.

The questioning turned so aggressively hostile that when McClellan asked a reporter to allow him to finish his answer, the reporter shot back: "No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything."

When President Clinton faced the press on March 19, 1999, however, it was a different story. Only ABC newsman Sam Donaldson dared ask the question that was on everybody's mind.

"Mr. President, when Juanita Broaddrick leveled her charges against you of rape in a nationally televised interview, your attorney David Kendall issued a statement denying them. But shouldn't you speak directly on this matter and reassure the public? And if they are not true, can you tell us what your relationship with Ms. Broaddrick was, if any?"

Clinton's response:

"Well, five weeks ago today - five weeks ago today, I stood in the Rose Garden after the Senate voted [not to remove me from office] and I told you that I thought I owed it to the American people to give them 100 percent of my time and to focus on their business, and that I would leave to others to decide whether they would follow that lead.

"And that is why I have decided as soon as that vote was over that I would allow all future questions to be answered by my attorneys, and I think I made the right decision. I hope you can understand it. I think the American people do understand it and support it.

"And I think it was the right decision."

Donaldson followed up, asking Clinton, "Why not simply deny it, sir?"

The president instead invoked lawyer David Kendall's denial, explaining: "There's been a statement made by my attorney. He speaks for me, and I think he spoke quite clearly."

And with that, the entire Washington press corps simply dropped the subject, never raising Broaddrick's claim with either Clinton or his then-Senate candidate wife again.

posted July 13, 2005 12:20 PM              

quote:

---

Which topic should provoke more media interest?

---

posted July 13, 2005 12:26 PM              

So you're saying that the press and public should let Bush of the hook because, once upon a time, they let Clinton off the hook? Out of a sense of fairplay? I always had a hard time with the But-mom-all-the-other-kids-do logic.

The charge of rape is a serious one. I would have deferred to my attorney as well. You might say that he was the the President and he owed his people an answer from his own lips. Generally I would agree but remembering that it was a personal charge against the man, rather than a charge against the President and his presidential duties, I think it was appropriate to defer.

posted July 13, 2005 12:59 PM            

Clinton was accused of a felony..rape. That's good of 10-15 years in the pooky..more with the aggravated circumstances. Further, at the time of the alleged rape...alleged by the victim, Clinton was Attorney General, the highest law enforcement official in the state. Clinton never denied the allegation.

Rove, on the other hand, has committed no crime whatsoever, and is not a target of the ongoing investigation. Bush has been accused of nothing whatsoever in this investigation.

That answer your questions?

The press is hyperventilating over Rove who has not so much as been accused of anything remotely resembling a crime. But, this same press never pursued the allegations of what is a major felony under the laws of Arkansas and federal law.

Were you able to follow along...logically?

posted July 13, 2005 06:31 PM            

As ties warm, U.S. pushes Libya on terror financing

Ailing U.S. Chief Justice Rehnquist hospitalized

Bush willing to consider non-judges for high court

Republicans agree to limits on Patriot Act

Vote on U.S. Social Security revamp may be delayed

Homeland Security chief revamps department

U.S. says Mideast must crack down on terror finance

Bush urged to back expanded stem cell research

House Democrats attack MTBE, Barton calls for deal

Bill Clinton plans private summit on global woes

Snow testifying on terrorism risk insurance

Afghan drug-fighting efforts failing- lawmakers

Discuss! lol

posted July 13, 2005 07:36 PM            

Further, the prosecutor has requested Rove and probably others in the Bush administration to not to make public statements until the investigation is complete.