Who's gonna blame the messenger? It is News Max.

I guess I did.

Awesome. I've got one square on "Fark Political Flamewar Bingo" right out of the gate.

Weaver
No, but seems like it would be pretty easy to verify or discredit if someone were properly motivated. Not me, but somebody.

This was greenlighted specifically for the admins' amusement at the ensuing flamewar, wasn't it?

Newmax, what is this Newsmax you speak of?

Hang on, I have a call from my old pal Goodwin, be right back..

Props to fark on green lighting this

2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton

I wasn't aware that she had declared her candidacy. Or that anyone had for that matter.

grab that headline and take a swing at this hornet nest

/just sayin'

Last time I checked Hillary != Bill. And I checked last week.

ok. even though it's Newsmax, i RTFA
this dude served two years after being convicted in '94
he was pardoned in 2001
put Rove in the federal PIA for 730 days & this liberal right here will pardon him my own damn self

Hillary has already used her "Right-Wing Conspiracy" card. And as that's the only card in her deck, it stands to reason she'd be quiet now.

good thing Bush has never done anything wrong...

Newsmax? Honestly.


For shame, Fark admins.

For shame.

Yeah yeah... I say so WTF difference does that make?

I predict people are really going to be sick of Rep at the end of Bush's term.

I feel like I need to shower even after reading about another republican coverup...

I'm sick of the stupid Dems too.

Weaver95: meh. newsmax. Not exactly reliable.

ditto

Awesome. I totally forgot that because Clinton screwed up everyone else is absolved for any wrong doing they may ever commit. I feel so much better now.

Isn't blaming a Clinton the equivalent of Godwinning for ReFarklicans?

Therefore, this thread was over before it began.

Ah yes. The "but Clinton did something bad too" defense.

I am just wondering how this has any relevance on the Rove matter? I mean did the fact that Bush 1 pardoned Cap Weinberger immediately before he was to be convicted of perjury prevent Dubya from commenting on the Starr investigation against Clinton?

Exactly. This is just another NewsMax article trying to downplay the fact that not only did folks in the Bush administration reveal a CIA agent's identity in order to get back at Wilson for telling the friggin' truth, but that they spent the next couple of years lying about it repeatedly.

And Weinberger wasn't the only guy on the hook for that mess. The Iran-Contra scandal involved an entire administration attempting to manipulate the Middle East by illegally handing over weapons, money, and training, then lying about it.

Sounds familiar, actually...

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/04/moynihan.html

Interesting letter from Senator Moynihan wondering why Morison was prosecuted while real spies weren't.

"What is remarkable is not the crime, but that he is the only one convicted of an activity which has become a routine aspect of government life: leaking information to the press in order to bring pressure to bear on a policy question."

So, politics as usual.

No, I'm actually wondering why Bush is being so quiet about the Rove scandal. Ok, so I'm not wondering.. I know why.

So Clinton pardoned somebody, what's wrong with that?

But it's going to be difficult for Dems to feign national security outrage over Plame's outing when the husband of their party's presidential front-runner let an actual convicted leaker off the hook.

Fark the dems, fark the Clintons, fark Rove, fark you, you're cool... and fark you.

I'm out!

MojoFraggle
Yes???

Ha, here we go. The modern-day neo-conservative chant - "but what about Clinton ...?"

It is not about Clinton (Mr or Mrs), it is about Karl Rove and GWBush. Bush said he would fire anyone caught leaking; Rove has admitted to leaking, but Bush has done nothing but renege on this promise. But diversion and obfuscation are the tenets (pun intended) of the current administration. Two wrongs do not make a right.

And I don't know about the source, but the author gives away his own bias with emotive language, half-truths, and unsubstantiated assertions ...

it became clear that [Rove] didn't violate the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act - no such thing is clear. I believe this is the subject of an on-going investigation - just ask Scott McClellan.

2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton ... their party's presidential front-runner - Really? Not that she has announced. This is premature to say the least.

Dems .. feign national security outrage - Maybe they are not feigning anything. Perhaps they are actually outraged?

And WTF has her husband got to do with her politics? They are not one person - she has her own capabilities, styles, and policies. Or is this just a ultra-conservative "women are just an extension of their menfolk" argument?

/start, the flamewar has...

This is all an attempt to distract and smear the truth. The true goal of all this is to numb the American public to where they won't care anymore, be disgusted with politics in general, assume the "it's just another political battle" standpoint, and turn their channels back to American Idol.

In the meantime, the Republican Administration is betraying our national security.

hinten: Two words: Cover up.

Newsmax is unreliable to the max!

/dude

Ok, since we all agree that this article is stupid, can we divert this thread to something more interesting?

Besides, Rove didn't kill anyone like Clinton did

http://www.lizmichael.com/clintond.htm

/Joking...or am I

I see. This is about the Clintons now.

My, my, the neo-cons never have anything better to say than "but, but Clinton!" It's really shameful.

My, my, the neo-cons never have anything better to say than "but, but Clinton!" It's really shameful.

It's 2005. Clinton hasn't been in the oval office since Jan of 2001. The "b-b-b-b-but clinton" line is rapidly moving from "shameful" to "pathetic" to "self parody".

flaEsq: Next up: John Roberts' wifey. the door swings both way

Yes, I have heard that she has some anti-abortion thing going on, and frankly I think this is irrelevant for 2 reasons - first, Roberts is an individual not an extension of his wife (cf. idem); second, she is not in the public eye anyway (at least Hilary and Bill are both public servants).

But - two wrongs etc...

Rove leaked and lied about it; Bush needs to sack him.