I recently had a very heated email exchange with a conservitive blogger
Bob Parks. His recent blog was an
all out attack on Wilson. Being the well rounded person that I am I questioned him on how attacking the victim in this case lessened Rove and Libby's responsibility in the matter... I think you will find the discussion
enlightining. Let me know if I said anything that can be used against me.
I'll give hime points just for responding, most conservatives don't even bother to reply when I shoot down their arguments with facts.
As always I try and be as logical as possible, always restraining urges to attack things that I know to be true without some backing in fact. This is a limitation that Bob abvious does not share.
I don't think I would have published this, but he claims he will use my words against me on his blog so I though turnaround is fail play.
While I often disagree with your conclusions, I usually respect your thought process and your ability to break rank on items.
But I was very discouraged with your blog about Plame. What I found most startling is the fact that you let Karl off despite his direct and personal responsibility in the matter. It is well know that he knew her identity was secret ( as shown by the memo itself ) and that he was the primary source for at least one reporter. Just because in this case no one was hurt should make no difference. The leak did destroy two decades worth of work with a company that did business in the region as a front for the CIA. Just as you would punish the drunk driver who didn't kill anyone we should punish the deliberate and dangerous acts of Karl Rove. While we may disagree if a crime has taken place, he did violate his security clearance contract and it should be revoked and the White House should take the high moral ground on this one and follow through on their threats to fire anyone in the administration who was responsible for the leak.
Cheers,
Eric
and the responce
Hello Eric,
It's apparent you want Rove to be found guilty, despite all the news that comes out to the contrary. Here's more, if you choose to look at it with an open mind:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/joelmowbray/jm20050720.shtml
Bob
Since he didn't really get the idea that I was putting forth ( attacking the victim is not a defense ).
Bob,
I think you need to be open as well. This is not about Wilson, blaming Wilson is like a rapist blaming their victim. It is meant to distract from the real questions before us.
I don't know if they should be convicted, that should be decided in a court of law. What is obvious is that Rove and Libby have both violated their top secret contract and should have their access suspended. Based on his contract both confirmation and denial are information that can not be given out. The president has already back peddled on his original statement to let go anyone who is involved in the leak, which seems like moral weakness to me. He can't even follow through on his own promises to the american public and even goes so far as to distance himself from his previous statements on the matter.
If Wilson lied his time will come as well and so be it, but that does not change the questions about this administration. Either way Rove, Libby, and any others that have breached confidence needs to come forward and accept their legal and or MORAL responsibility in this leak.
Cheers,
Eric
But we continue to go downhill... now we are blaming "Clinton's cock" and the Yugoslovia mess ( I think this is what he is refereing to ). So when the administration is good they are gods, but when they are bad we can blame their bad behavior on Clinton?
And with the eight plus years of Clinton lies, were you and others this principled when it came to honesty?
I don't recall so, in fact with all the proof in your faces, you were all enablers letting Clinton bully women and drop missiles without even a blink of the eye. Your sanctimonious ravings inconsistent and irritating.
Trying to be the better person..
Bob,
Seems a shame that you have to point to Clinton as an excuse as to why this administration should get away with treason. My reasoning has never been inconsistent and I an offended that you would just lump me in with the rest of the talking heads when every time I have bothered to write I would like to think I have been reasonable with you.
Cheers,
Eric
Yet he comes back with more personal attacks
Eric,
Talking points come to mind when every responsible journalist is backing off Rove and every liberal talking head is still going by the same script. Words like "treason" are part of the daily talking points, and even IF Rove outted Plame, her cover no where near jeopardizes national security and you're smart enough to know that.
But I wanted to know his take on the personal responsibility of Rove, not his take on their legal fight.
Bob,
Rove didn't endanger lives because...
a) He looked her up and new that her NOC was a desk job. This would indicate he fully understood her status and blew it anyways a willful and intentional act that can be prosecuted.
b) He negligently dished out information to the media. This would be like the drunk driver who manages to drive home and not kill anyone, their actions are still a thread that can be prosecuted.
Pick you poising Bob, both lead to legal and moral implications for Rove and this administration.
trea·son (trē'zən) pronunciation
n.
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.
Cheers,
Eric
But we can never admit the possibility of responsibility in this world.
And when the Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald (a Democrat) clears Rove, will you email and admit you were wrong as I am obliged to do on my blog? Probably not. Despite being wrong, superiority complex liberals would never admit to someone they consider beneath them they were wrong. So this back and forth is going nowhere.
He can't seem to answer a straight answer to save his life.
Bob,
You never did answer the question.. did Rove leak the information knowing full well her status or not?
You must admit as a firm believer in personal responsibility that there is a large gap between legal and moral responsibility. I have never claimed any superiority in this debate, and in fact said in second email that I didn't know if he was legally guilty of breaking a law, what I have said is there is enough information from Rove himself to remove his security clearance and question the administrations backing of him.
I will try and keep an open mind if you try and remember that vilifying the victim does not lessen the personal responsibility of Rove and Libby for their actions.
Until next time.
Cheers,
Eric
And finally
Eric,
Cooper who was there, those who heard the grand jury testimony, all say "no". If you choose to blow that off, then there's only one conclusion you'll accept.
Cheers,
Bob
The problem with this whole exchange is that I don't really care who get off or does not get off on a technicality, I wanted to know from a diehard "personal responsibility" person what his take on Rove and Libby were. I was very dissapointed to know that the vitue of responsibility is as quickly offered up in the greater conservitive community when it comes to towing the lie.. I mean line of the GOP.
It comes down to something very simple either Rove knew her status and intentionally outed it or he negligantly in his conversations with the media knowing full well he must check first.