"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Hippy Dave? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Club Gitmo, and you curse the administration. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know - that Valerie Plame's outing, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall -- you need me on that wall. We use words like "honor," "code," "loyalty." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!"
-A Few Good Roves
:-)

That was actually pretty funny...

yet it was inaccurate.

How the heck did Valerie Plame's "outing" save lives? If anything, it put Plame in danger.

Roland...there is no excuse for the leak. It was illegal and dangerous. And it had nothing to do with saving lives. It had everything to do with punishing a person for blowing the whistle on the false claims of the Bush admin.

The war on terror saves lives. I personally think it's sad that Bush HAS to go to lengths to do what needs to be done. We didn't do this to FDR in WWII.

As for this story, I'm going to reserve my judgment until more facts are known. Rove is slimy and even I admit that.

There is still this to consider:
no proof. Rove was ONE of MANY sources mentioned in the emails.

and most importantly:
There is simply no way in hell that the reporters would have sat on this information for two years plus if Rove was the leaker. If it was Rove then his action would be one of the greatest scandals since Watergate. Reporters like fame and fortune as much as anyone. EVERY reporter want to be the next Woodward and Bernstien just like every kid in little league wants to be the next Mickey Mantle.

Exposing Rove means a Pulitzer, a movie deal, and lots of attention. Sitting on Rove to protect an anynomous source makes no sense what so ever. Imagine the accolades a reporter would get for exposing Rove.

If it was Rove the reporters in question could always claim that other anonymous sources pointed the finger him, therby exposing Rove yet still protecting the veneer of press confidentiality. Woodward and Bernstien pulled stunts like that all the time while persuing the Watergate case.

What we have so far is rumor by one reporter who was not the source of the Plame leak anyway.

Roland...you said that "outing" Plame saved lives. I want to know how that is true.

Not that specifically but anything that advanced the war effort and helped overcome the obstacles.

So does exposing a CIA operative advance the "war effort"?

I've been thinking about this, and I think I would be surprised if this turns out to be true. If Karl Rove was responsible for the leak, he is far too smart to allow himself to be connected with it directly. He would have sent it on through lower channels.

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

not sure where i stand on the whole uranium deal yet.

i'm with Roland (surprise) in letting the facts come out as i did with the newsweak story (and those on the left were right about that one too).

That's very um, charitable of you! :-)

that was the bi/tri/qua/multi-partisanship in me.

see, i gave you the uranium deal and the benefit of the doubt about rove *but* the newsweak debacle is in my favor.

=D

Refresh my memory. Was that the one where they accused someone of flushing a Koran down the toilet but then admitted it wasn't true...after people died in reactionary riots?

I'm honestly asking.

http://www.brendoman.com/index.php/2005/05/25/p7647#more7647

That should do.

The abuse of the Koran is true. The "reactionary riots" weren't true and were actually attributed to the political rumblings in Afghanistan. Karzai and one of our very own generals owned up to that. We can thank the WH spokesman for confusing the two. It's very hard to fight this one, I'll be surprised if you do.

"It's very hard to fight this one, I'll be surprised if you do."

Wait, wtf am i saying? i could probably convince a wall first before i could convince you.

As I recall, the Korans were flushed by the prisoners themselves in a form of protest. Not only were we not doing the flushing, but when we present them with a Koran, we do it in a culturally sensitive manner (i.e. not physically touching it, etc) and one of the so-called Koran abuses involved a guard who accidentally bumped into a table causing it to fall on the ground.

I'm telling ya, we're being too nice to these people.