If Karl Rove is, infact, the leak...

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Stonecutter

It was more a commentary on Bond's unwavering, blind support of anything related to the grand olde party.

Oh Jesus, here we go... first of all, I simply stated that "if" was your keyword, which it was. I don't believe it has been proven that Rove was "the" leak, and I believe in this country we presume innocence until proven guilty. Now, if Rove was the leak then yes, I believe he should be fired. I believe he should be fired right now infact for being a complete moron to even let this situation start altogether.

[Stonecutter]

Yeah, but rather than actually answer my question the first time, you have to highlight the "if" part of the equation.

I find it quite funny.

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

Originally Posted by Stonecutter

Yeah, but rather than actually answer my question the first time, you have to highlight the "if" part of the equation.

I find it quite funny.

he did answer your question, its because nobody's sure whether or not he is the leak. Therefor he cannot be charged with anything until proof is given.

[Stonecutter]

Originally Posted by GiMpY-wAnNaBe

he did answer your question, its because nobody's sure whether or not he is the leak. Therefor he cannot be charged with anything until proof is given.

Uhh, no, he didn't answer my question. My question was and remains.

"If Karl Rove is, in fact, the leak...

.....explain to me how he's not guilty of treason?"

"If Karl Rove is the leak" is not a question. It's a hypothetical statement necessary relative to the actual question which is:

"Explain to me how he's not guilty of treason?"

[Professor S]

I hate when political conversation turns to semantic argument.