Karl Rove might be in serious trouble... [Archive]

sharrukin

07-12-2005, 00:12

Valerie Plame was not simply an analyst or a data cruncher. Intelligence officials said Plame worked on the spread of missiles and nuclear, biological and chemical arms, collectively known as weapons of mass destruction. She was a CIA operative dedicated to tracking person's or nation's that might try to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

Larry Johnson - a former CIA and State Department official who was a 1985 classmate of Plame's in the CIA's case officer-training program at Camp Peary, Va., known as "the Farm" - predicted that when the CIA's internal damage assessment is finished, "at the end of the day, (the harm) will be huge and some people potentially may have lost their lives."

Ray McGovern, who was for 27-years a senior analyst for the CIA, further confirms the status of Plame within the CIA. "I know Joseph Wilson well enough to know," said McGovern in a telephone conversation we had today, "that his wife was in fact a deep cover operative running a network of informants on what is supposedly this administration's first-priority issue: Weapons of mass destruction."

She operated as an energy analyst for the CIA’s Directorate of Operations. The Directorate of Operations is the CIA's covert arm. In 1990 and 1991, Plame was attached to an American embassy somewhere in Europe, according to address records, suggesting she may have operated under official cover for a time. The exact embassy she worked for is not being revealed, for obvious reasons. Her name doesn't appear in State Department telephone and embassy directories from that period. They may have been removed or she may have been operating under a cover name.

She used a front company, Brewster-Jennings & Associates. The purpose of such a front is the monitoring, not only of WMD, but also ARAMCO, Saudi Arabia with their oil production and it's internal politics. The Bin-laden family also being part of the internal political makeup of Saudi Arabia. The usefullness of Brewster Jennings ended the moment Plame's identity was revealed. Brewster-Jennings & Associates was a well-established CIA proprietary company, and any other NOC (non-official cover) agents, associated with the company, along with their contacts and sources are now exposed as well.

Within hours of her name becoming common knowledge every intelligence apparatus in the world, friendly or hostile, would immediately begin investigating her, the front company, and anyone associated with it, in addition to any of her known contacts. Her sources, or indeed anyone she met with could be in danger now. Anything that Plame was involved with, any operation, any company she was supposed to be working for, any people she worked closely with, are possibly CIA assets, or at least work with CIA. They also now know to steer clear of them.

Good luck in attempting to recruit new sources, and operatives in areas where they could be threatened by such leaks.

This is treason.

Hurin_Rules

07-12-2005, 00:13

The woman was, as previously noted, an analyst and not a covert operative. It isnt covered under the statute.

I was under the impression that she WAS an operative. Not trying to cause trouble, but can you confirm that she was only an analyst? Perhaps with a link?

Xiahou

07-12-2005, 00:16

Within hours of her name becoming common knowledge every intelligence apparatus in the world, friendly or hostile, would immediately begin investigating her, the front company, and anyone associated with it, in addition to any of her known contacts. Her sources, or indeed anyone she met with could be in danger now. Anything that Plame was involved with, any operation, any company she was supposed to be working for, any people she worked closely with, are possibly CIA assets, or at least work with CIA. They also now know to steer clear of them.I find that hard to believe if the fact that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent was already public knowledge in DC.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-12-2005, 00:30

Now heres an article with a bit more meat to it.

Plame, By Any Other Name

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, July 11, 2005; 1:21 PM

There is no longer any question that top presidential adviser Karl Rove is a key player in the Valerie Plame case.

In fact, what Rove told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper about Plame is apparently one of the last things special prosecutor Patrick J.Fitzgerald is trying to determine before he wraps up his investigation into whether Plame was illegally outed as a CIA agent.

Newsweek yesterday described e-mails from Cooper relating his July 2003 interview with Rove. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, told The Washington Post yesterday that his client spoke to Cooper, but did not identify Plame by name. Luskin also said Fitzgerald has told him that Rove is not a target of the probe.

But let's look at what we can conclude from all this

LINK (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/07/11/BL2005071100701.html)

Draw your own conclusions.

Byzantine Prince

07-12-2005, 00:43

Don Corleone

07-12-2005, 00:47

Ahem. Karl Rove did what he did to punish Joe Wilson for saying the Bush admin. was wrong. To deny that is naive.

Furthermore the fact that she might be an analyst or whatever else is meaningless, if you consider the motive of Rove in getting her name in print. I'm sure he didn't do it for nothing, and I'm sure he won't be persecuted for publishing information already 'out there'. That's a stupid argument.

:embarassed:

I had no idea you were on his hotline and had insight into his thought process. What's naive is you assuming that because you want to nail Rove, the whole story must be true. Do you really think the Prince of Darkness, as you on the Left like to refer to him, the evil genius who convinced the country to vote for that schlep, Bush, not once but twice, would be dumb enough to send an email to a reporter for Time Magazine saying "Psst! Joe Wilson's wife is a spy. But don't tell anyone I'm the one who told you!"

econ21

07-12-2005, 01:01

Do you really think the Prince of Darkness, as you on the Left like to refer to him, the evil genius who convinced the country to vote for that schlep, Bush, not once but twice, would be dumb enough to send an email to a reporter for Time Magazine saying "Psst! Joe Wilson's wife is a spy. But don't tell anyone I'm the one who told you!"

I don't know much about the specifics of this case, but in some ways it reminds me of some of the shenanagins that our New Labour "spin doctors" have got up to in the UK. Our own "Prince of Darkness", Peter Mandelson, managed to get himself sacked twice for seemingly "dumb" actions. They are only human, working under a lot of pressure in a very fast moving environment. They are used to operating under the cloak of anonymity and perhaps to cutting corners to get things done. Those perceived to have a lot of power like Mandelson and Rove may perhaps be prone to delusions of grandeur.

ichi

07-12-2005, 01:17

Rove is clearly responsible for outing a deep cover agent.

and he did it in a show of force, to hurt a perceived enemy and remind others who might oppose the current admin that they, too, could be hurt.

He will escape criminal prosecution (what he did doesn't qualify as a crime under the law due to several factors, none of which can be proved intentional criminal behavior).

Bush owes him too much (and he knows too much about Bush and his *coughs* laundry *cough*) to ever be ousted.

In this episode I think we will see the lack of responsibility and accountability in this admin.

If Rove is 'let go' it'll prolly be a sham where in reality he goes to work plotting the Jeb's election in 2008.

ichi :bow:

Gawain of Orkeny

07-12-2005, 01:20

I tend to think your right about eerything except this

If Rove is 'let go' it'll prolly be a sham where in reality he goes to work plotting the Jeb's election in 2008.

Jeb aint a gona run yet. The country wouldnt elect another Bush so soon.

ichi

07-12-2005, 01:24

George Herbert Walker Bush still has one term he could legally serve

or maybe they'll reanimate Reagan

Tom DeLay clearly isn't human, so he's out

Teh Arnold is too left coast

OMG, Laura??!!

Alexander the Pretty Good

07-12-2005, 01:26

Jeb already said he won't. :embarassed:

:bigcry:

I'm telling you, clone Teddy Roosevelt. I think he'd be a great Republican candidate. ~:cheers:

Gawain of Orkeny

07-12-2005, 01:27

OMG, Laura??!!

Could you Imagine Laura Bush vs Madame Hillary? I know where my vote would go.

ichi

07-12-2005, 01:29

Could you Imagine Laura Bush vs Madame Hillary? I know where my vote would go.

I would have to go with you, or move to Canada

Gah!

I will not sleep well tonite

Papewaio

07-12-2005, 02:00

Independent of who leaked the information what should the penalty be?

Just pretend it was Hillary Clinton for those on the right...

sharrukin

07-12-2005, 02:02

I find that hard to believe if the fact that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent was already public knowledge in DC.

It was considered to be of sufficient concern to the CIA that they referred the matter to the Justice Department. Do you have a source for this "public knowledge"?

Don Corleone

07-12-2005, 02:11

Independent of who leaked the information what should the penalty be?

Just pretend it was Hillary Clinton for those on the right...

Depends on what her role was. If she was a field agent, the leaker (whomever it is) should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If she was an internal analyst, that's not protected information. I'd say no penalty in that case.

bmolsson

07-12-2005, 02:52

It's a little bit of a hype everytime somebody tells government secrets in US. Maybe it's time for the US government to abandon the "secret policies" and just have everything public in the first place ?

Lemur

07-12-2005, 03:00

If we assume the worst, there are two defenses that spring to mind for Mr. Rove:

(1) He never uttered Mrs. Plame's full name. I seriously doubt that will stand the laugh test.

(2) He knew she was a C.I.A. employee, but he didn't know she was a covert asset. The law only covers covert operatives, and if he didn't know, or can plausibly deny that he knew, he might be able to save his bacon.

That's all I can think of on short notice. Didn't we used to have a couple of lawyers rolling around the Backroom? They might have more light to shed on the subject.

Hurin_Rules

07-12-2005, 04:28

Well, I still haven't seen any evidence to support the assertion that she was just an analyst, not an agent.

The fact that a criminal investigation has been launched would seem to suggest that she was of such a status that outing her would be a crime. Why else would an investigation be warranted?

t1master

07-12-2005, 04:34

democratic penis envy...

and about two years too late guys...

thank you drive through...
:OP

Proletariat

07-12-2005, 04:43

Scott McClellan getting murdered up there today:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000977098

Q: Does the president stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in a leak of the name of a CIA operative?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked related to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point.

And as I’ve previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it.

The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren’t going to comment on it while it is ongoing.

Q: I actually wasn’t talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the president said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak to the press about information. I just wanted to know: Is that still his position?

MCCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that’s why I said that our policy continues to be that we’re not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium.

The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium....

Q: Scott, if I could point out: Contradictory to that statement, on September 29th of 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one to have said that if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then, on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation, when the president made his comments that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you’ve suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, 'We’re not going to comment on an ongoing investigation'?

MCCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. And that’s something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow.

And that’s why we’re continuing to follow that approach and that policy. Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And, at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.

Q: So could I just ask: When did you change your mind to say that it was OK to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it’s not?

MCCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry’s question at the beginning. There came a point, when the investigation got under way, when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be — or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing.
I think that’s the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.

Q: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than: We're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

Q: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"?

MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.

Q: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?

MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation...

Q: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.

Q: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?

MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

Q: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began.

Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?

MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that.....

And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.

I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

Q: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't.

MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to them.

Q: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?

MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.

Q: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

Q: Well, we are going to keep asking them.

Where's Ari Fleischer at these days?

~:eek:

Lemur

07-12-2005, 04:44

The fact that a criminal investigation has been launched would seem to suggest that she was of such a status that outing her would be a crime.
Correct. Publicly outing an analyst is not a crime. Airing the identity of a covert asset is a crime. For those who assert that Mrs. Plame was an analyst, I am curious about how they've arrived at that conclusion.

Proletariat

07-12-2005, 04:54

When columnist Robert Novak reported that ex-Ambassador Joe Wilson had been sent to look into the claim that Iraq had sought yellowcake from Niger because his wife, a CIA analyst, had recommended him, it was the Big Media that demanded the Bush White House be turned upside down to find the source who had outed Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0712/p09s01-coop.html

Lemur

07-12-2005, 04:59

It would seem that Mr. Buchanan either has his facts wrong or meant "analyst" in a sweeping sense, not the C.I.A.-specific terminology. If Mrs. Plame were an analyst there would be no special prosecutor. No law would have been broken.

Proletariat

07-12-2005, 05:09

No law would have been broken.

Erm, that's been pointed out quite a few times now. Looks like he did it (in spirit, at least) and Bush will lose a few poll points over it.

(Is this some brilliantly devised scheme to get the US population to hate Rove more than GWB?! :idea: )

Gawain of Orkeny

07-12-2005, 05:11

This isnt going to go anywhere. He says he didnt know she was an operative only that she worled at the CIA. He also never mentioned her name. Yes its tacky but dont expect him to go anywhere. If he didnt know she was an operative he can hardly be accused of intentionaly blowing her cover. Was it common knowledge that she worked for the CIA as an analyst but not as an operative. If so hes off the hook for sure.

KafirChobee

07-12-2005, 05:27

Its really funny this whole thing started because a conservative wouldnt give up his source so unlike what happens when a liberal does this the media went after him and then one of their own winds up in jail. I find it very amusing.

Its a liberal in jail. Or didn't you know that?

BTW, where is our friend Novack in all this? After all he was the fisrt one to report it. Must be nice to have friends in high places. Where you can start something and let them blame others to finish it.

:balloon2:

Gawain of Orkeny

07-12-2005, 05:29

Its a liberal in jail. Or didn't you know that?

Read my post and what you quoted. Thats what I said. Or didnt you know that?

sharrukin

07-12-2005, 05:37

She was not an analyst.

The Directorate of Intelligence is where the analysts work. The Directorate of Operations is responsible for front line espionage.

Within the Central Intelligence Agency, covert action is housed inside the Directorate of Operations, headed by a deputy director for operations (DDO). This directorate consist of, among other subdivisions, a unit for political and economic covert action (the Covert Action Staff, or CAS), for paramilitary (PM) covert action (the Special Operations unit), for counterintelligence (the CI staff [CIS]), and for several geographic desks responsible for the collection of foreign intelligence. For our purposes, we will examine the Special Operations unit.

The Directorate of Operations also houses special groups for conducting counterterrorism and counternarcotics, for tracking nuclear proliferation, and other tasks. Administrated by the DO, the PM group (Special Operations) maintains an elite cadre (Special Activities Staff) that are are highly skilled in weaponry; covert transport of personnel and material by air, sea, and land.; guerrilla warfare; the use of explosives; and escape and evasion techniques. They are prepared to respond quickly to a myriad of possible needs, from parachute drops and communications support to assistance with counternarcotics operations and defector infiltration. For PM tasks (special operations missions) and its other responsibilities, the Special Operations staff attempts to recruit assets with the appropriate specialized skills, though the geographic desks remain the principal units involved in the recruitment of personnel in so-called denied areas (Libya, Iraq, Iran, etc.). Special operations also provides special air, ground, maritime and training support for the Agency's intelligence gathering operations.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-12-2005, 05:40

She was not an analyst.

Thats not what Im asking. Im asking is it well known or known at all that she worked for the CIA in any capacity. If so then hes off the hook.

KafirChobee

07-12-2005, 05:46

I find that hard to believe if the fact that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent was already public knowledge in DC.
Either you have been listening to RUSH, to long - or you accept the party line, and no longer believe in America as a democratic society (but, a theocracy).

Accepting the party line that giving up the name of a CIA agent is acceptable, because their possition in it is unimportant - is like saying that it is OK to give up an undercover drug agent (or informant), because they don't know the whole picture of what the administration's intent is. OK, sorta makes sense. [...]
(edited by Ser Clegane)
[...] Or, just agrueing a misguided point of view? Some times it can be hard to destinguish ... so, think about it a moment. Then, confess that Rove betrayed us, as a nation ... a friend on the principle that his Prez is never wrong ... and that he intended to embarrass someone for showing the prez was wrong.

How hard is that to accept? Plus, he put the man and his wife in harms way. How bad is that? Were we to call him a liberal would it make it easier for you to accept his betrayal?
:balloon2:

Gawain of Orkeny

07-12-2005, 05:52

Accepting the party line

You say that and they go off on a rant giving the democratic party line. Hypocricy at its best.

You can bet theres nothing to this story. He had no knowledge that she was an agent case closed. Its a democratic witch hunt and your following a pack of dogs. The more of the story that comes out the better it looks for Rove. In order for it to be a crime he would have to have known she was an agent and intentionally blown her cover. Theres nothing here to make such a case and thats why he isnt a target even of this investigation.

sharrukin

07-12-2005, 05:56

Thats not what Im asking. Im asking is it well known or known at all that she worked for the CIA in any capacity. If so then hes off the hook.

And I am asking where the idea of her being well known as a CIA asset comes from? If it is indeed so well known then point out the source, and this discussion becomes moot.

The knowledge that she worked for the CIA had to be known by someone or she would never have had her cover blown.

KafirChobee

07-12-2005, 06:01

I had no idea you were on his hotline and had insight into his thought process. What's naive is you assuming that because you want to nail Rove, the whole story must be true. Do you really think the Prince of Darkness, as you on the Left like to refer to him, the evil genius who convinced the country to vote for that schlep, Bush, not once but twice, would be dumb enough to send an email to a reporter for Time Magazine saying "Psst! Joe Wilson's wife is a spy. But don't tell anyone I'm the one who told you!"

Er, once.... the majority voted for Gore, the first time. You know? or, maybe you bought into the new reality?

Still wondering where the man that first reported all this fits into the picture - Novack. Of course he is protected, like Rush, and the other "if they agree leave thems alone".

Imagine, we got ourselves a Prez that feels so confident about his position that he can insult the heads of states of lesser pontates by calling them "pieces of work". Or, did you miss that one last week? Bush43, has as much idea of what international politics is about as he does the presidency.

:balloon2:

Gawain of Orkeny

07-12-2005, 06:06

And I am asking where the idea of her being well known as a CIA asset comes from? If it is indeed so well known then point out the source, and this discussion becomes moot.

Once more it all comes down to whether he new she was an agent or not. All indications are that he did not. If that is so theres no where to go with this. All the rest is just the media and the dems going after Rove.

Even thought the prosecuter in this case keeps sayng Rove is not a target of the investigation some people cant help but act like he is.

KafirChobee

07-12-2005, 06:10

I tend to think your right about eerything except this

Jeb aint a gona run yet. The country wouldnt elect another Bush so soon.

Jebby got to much in his closet to ever run. He got his bro the presiedency, and for him to ever attempt to run would expose his complicancy in the crimes committed. They would both go to jail. Jeb, can never run for office again, and he is using the expanation that his wife (the clepto) says no. Also, that he has a son of military age that is avoiding the military like it were the plague, maybe another reason.

Then again, name a Republican congressan's kid in uniform - maybe one ... out of +350.

Who could tell, with all their war talk and justification to support ROVE.

:balloon2:

ichi

07-12-2005, 06:16

How convenient that the number one Bush lackey let slip that the wife of an Ambassador who had gone against the Bush company line was a CIA agent.

Of course Rove knew what he was doing, he did it intentionally and with malice. But it will be impossible to prove that in court, so no responsibility will be taken. And he considers himself above the law, so he won't do the right thing. Very revealing about the true morals inside the circle.

As for the idea that this is just the Dems jumping on anything they can to hurt Bush, can you imagine how the Republicans would have howled had one of Clinton's minions done the same thing. OMG, what hypocrisy, the Republicans would have wet their drawers screaming how unpatriotic it was.

ichi :bow:

Gawain of Orkeny

07-12-2005, 06:21

How convenient that the number one Bush lackey let slip that the wife of an Ambassador who had gone against the Bush company line was a CIA agent.

Very

Of course Rove knew what he was doing, he did it intentionally and with malice. But it will be impossible to prove that in court, so no responsibility will be taken. And he considers himself above the law, so he won't do the right thing. Very revealing about the true morals inside the circle.

Of course

As for the idea that this is just the Dems jumping on anything they can to hurt Bush, can you imagine how the Republicans would have howled had one of Clinton's minions done the same thing. OMG, what hypocrisy, the Republicans would have wet their drawers screaming how unpatriotic it was.

To be sure.

Its a good thing Bush brought a new tone to Washington.

Red Harvest

07-12-2005, 06:29

Could you Imagine Laura Bush vs Madame Hillary? I know where my vote would go.

I have much less respect for Laura Bush than Hillary. I had a neutral opinion of Laura, until I heard an interview with her during the last convention. Paraphrasing, I got out of that she had been told by Barbara Bush never to criticize Dubya, and was sticking to it. The one time she had made a critical comment about one of Dubya's speeches he had driven into the garage wall. It said a lot to me about both of them. Very sad, and I pity her in a way. I don't think she is unintelligent, but I don't have much respect for someone who can be the partner to the president and yet have almost no impact on his thinking. It certainly isn't a sort of marriage I can understand. I consider my wife my greatest asset (not in a property sense, of course) even when we are diametrically opposed on issues. Of course, unlike Dubya I think gathering dissenting opinions and trying to understand them is a good idea, rather than just assuming I'm infallible and sitting on the right hand of Jesus or something.

I always found the disrespect shown by the right wingers toward Hillary downright amazing. From the earliest days, the hatred was palpable and mean spirited in the extreme. So called "gentlemen" speaking of her as they did provided quite a bit of insight into their characters and their fear of women who had their own ideas.

KafirChobee

07-12-2005, 06:37

Gawain of Orkeny

07-12-2005, 06:38

Paraphrasing, I got out of that she had been told by Barbara Bush never to criticize Dubya, and was sticking to it. The one time she had made a critical comment about one of Dubya's speeches he had driven into the garage wall. It said a lot to me about both of them. Very sad, and I pity her in a way. I don't think she is unintelligent, but I don't have much respect for someone who can be the partner to the president and yet have almost no impact on his thinking.

Wel its no wonder you like Madame Hilary then.

I always found the disrespect shown by the right wingers toward Hillary downright amazing.

Why? As a New Yorker I hate the carpet baggin B-tch.

From the earliest days, the hatred was palpable and mean spirited in the extreme.

Theres a lot there to hate.

I suppose you have more faith in a woman who dosent care that her husband is running around sexually using women and in fact facilitates it.

Red Harvest

07-12-2005, 06:40

Its a good thing Bush brought a new tone to Washington.

And what exactly would that be? Perhaps it is: "My daddy was president therefore I inherited the office and don't have to follow laws meant for others. I'm a spoiled rich kid of no real talent, I was AWOL during Vietnam, did cocaine, beat women, got a DWI, am arrogant as hell, and don't have to answer to anyone. I'm annointed by God and am a righteous president who can do no wrong." That's the tone I've seen. My wife and I noticed it back when he was governor...and it was reinforced when she actually met him. After shaking his hand, she said to me, "That man has never done an honest day's work in his life."

sharrukin

07-12-2005, 06:48

Once more it all comes down to whether he new she was an agent or not. All indications are that he did not. If that is so theres no where to go with this. All the rest is just the media and the dems going after Rove.

Even thought the prosecuter in this case keeps sayng Rove is not a target of the investigation some people cant help but act like he is.

Plame didn't have an official job with the CIA, so I do not really believe that Karl Rove didn't clue into the obvious. He had to have known she was undercover, or he is a serious moron.

The only way he couldn't have known she was NOC (non-official cover), is if someone else leaked the information to him and that someone is the individual who broke the law. Her cover was classified and that means the CIA will have the documents to prove who had the required clearances.

It is likely that Lewis Libby and Dick Cheney worked with Plame on the WMD issue (CIA's Non-Proliferation Center), and if Karl Rove was ever privy to that he is in big trouble. It wouldn't matter if he was cleared to know, or not.

He committed a crime by revealing, or confirming her covert status, or someone else did! Valerie Plame was a CIA operative working on weapons of mass destruction. Nice to know that Karl Rove is doing his best to help Osama Bin Laden get through to New York again.

At the very least Karl Rove used his position of trust in the government to do what he know was not in his country's best interest. He is not a traitor in the same sense that Bill Clinton didn't have sex with Monica Lewinski!

"Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."
-George H. W. Bush

Gawain of Orkeny

07-12-2005, 06:54

And what exactly would that be?

That would be I was being sarcastic.

"My daddy was president therefore I inherited the office and don't have to follow laws meant for others.

I believe he was elected not once but twice.

I'm a spoiled rich kid of no real talent

Talent enough to be president of the most powerful nation the world has ever seen.

I was AWOL during Vietnam

False

did cocaine

Only an accusation. Besides I dont see that as any big deal. I bet Clinton has tried that and much more .

beat women

Who did he beat. At least he wasnt accused of raping them in any event.

got a DWI

Well that certainly disqualifies him from holding public office.

am arrogant as hell, and don't have to answer to anyone. I'm annointed by God and am a righteous president who can do no wrong."That's the tone I've seen

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I see no such thing.
For a man who usually makes reasoned and inteligent posts Im afraid your letting your hatred of the man get the better of you.

My wife and I noticed it back when he was governor...and it was reinforced when she actually met him. After shaking his hand, she said to me, "That man has never done an honest day's work in his life."

And your probably correct. But do you think Kerry, Kennedy or Hilary have either?

Xiahou

07-12-2005, 08:23

Do you have a source for this "public knowledge"?
Perhaps not. I've looked at the transcript from Hardball that it supposedly came out in and can't find it.

Here (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8498025/) is the link to (as far as I can tell) the transcript in question if anyone else wants to pour over it. The closest I could find was them talking about how all of the "Plame" articles, including Novak's cite multiple anonymous government sources. :shrug:

Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

07-12-2005, 09:12

You say that and they go off on a rant giving the democratic party line. Hypocricy at its best.

You can bet theres nothing to this story. He had no knowledge that she was an agent case closed. Its a democratic witch hunt and your following a pack of dogs. The more of the story that comes out the better it looks for Rove. In order for it to be a crime he would have to have known she was an agent and intentionally blown her cover. Theres nothing here to make such a case and thats why he isnt a target even of this investigation.

Are you looking for an award for the most naive poster around?

Just assume it was not happening in the US, and there is no party line going over there, would you really have the same opinion?
Don't you feel intellectually dishonest? Just a bit?

When I think the same exact people were all over the case for a blowjob and an unconsequential lie... And that was for a presidential impeachement. Now covering a security leak, which is a bit more serious. Oh, the irony.
I guess principles only apply to others.

How many of Plame contacts are now lost? What credibility the CIA got left? If you were to help the CIA, would you still do it knowing that any dumb politician in Washington would sell your liaison name for the sake of political convenience, very possibly endangering you in the process?

This case is also a problem for the media. Although not as important as the intelligence damage done, there is an issue with media not being able to cover its source (which is too bad for M. Rove)...

On that aspect, I found that quote disturbing:

Did the various editors at the Times, the WaPo, and Time magazine really sit on evidence that would have incriminated Karl Rove all through last fall's campaign? What happened to the public's right to know? ...Either they are awfully dumb (possible!), or the story is not there. Or both.

Hell, yes they would have sit on it. If they ever want to have story again, they better protect their source. That's journalism 101 and for sure it's not dumb. They gave the source after a controversial supreme court decision.
There is one sure point; I would not trust that so called analysis (or well, just usual biaised blog) as far as keeping source is concerned... Looks like anyone giving that person some anonymous information is going to be disappointed ~D

I don't think Rove will be successfully prosecuted. I don't believe him innocent, but that says how much trust I got in US (or any other...) justice for those cases.
I hope a prosecutor will have the balls to pleasantly surprise me.

Louis,

Red Harvest

07-12-2005, 09:20

I believe he was elected not once but twice.

Nope, he was only elected once. The first election was a sham. He lost the popular vote, and he lost Florida. Make all the excuses you want, but it is true. The Florida count was not valid and it did not represent the intent of those who actually voted. I have not, nor will I ever consider his first administration as being legitimate.

Talent enough to be president of the most powerful nation the world has ever seen.

So was Nixon. Dubya has never earned anything on merit, nothing. He sells snake oil to the gullible, and they buy it. It is a bizarre mass hallucination. I look forward to reading the historical assessment of Dubya, it will be most unkind toward his legacy.

False

Definitely TRUE. He can't produce a single witness to prove he served his last two years or so, despite various groups offering $50,000 dollar rewards for such evidence. He failed to report when was ordered to, and he failed to take his physicals. His daddy swung him a Guard spot in the first place. He was a mediocre pilot at best, and a discipline problem with his sense of privilege. To me, he represents the antithesis of American meritocracy and achievement!

Only an accusation. Besides I dont see that as any big deal. I bet Clinton has tried that and much more .

Clinton at least made an admission of drug use (as weak as it was.) Dubya has dodge answering his. I don't recall Clinton as a member of the armed services during war time doing drugs. Of course, in some ways neither was Dubya, he was AWOL and did not bother to even maintain his flight status through a simple physical. We were paying him though. And I love the redirect to Clinton trying to use the "two wrongs make a right" approach. Clinton was 10 times the President Dubya has been. Clinton's failings were of a personal nature, but Dubya's are failures of leadership and abuse of power.

Who did he beat. At least he wasnt accused of raping them in any event.

I can't recall, I've seen some stuff referring to the court transcript though. Wife beaters are one of the lowest levels of scum in my book.

And your probably correct. But do you think Kerry, Kennedy or Hilary have either?

It's more of a case of false advertising...passing oneself off as something you are not. Dubya is a fraud.

An early example: His "dove hunting trip" during the Texas governor campaign was a real hoot. He shot a protected bird, a killdeer, then obliviously mocked dumbfounded reporters for not congratulating him on a "nice shot." They then pointed out that he had illegally shot a bird and damage control started...

Take off the rose colored glasses and you can see right through him.

Don Corleone

07-12-2005, 12:37

Er, once.... the majority voted for Gore, the first time. You know? or, maybe you bought into the new reality?

Still wondering where the man that first reported all this fits into the picture - Novack. Of course he is protected, like Rush, and the other "if they agree leave thems alone".

Imagine, we got ourselves a Prez that feels so confident about his position that he can insult the heads of states of lesser pontates by calling them "pieces of work". Or, did you miss that one last week? Bush43, has as much idea of what international politics is about as he does the presidency.

:balloon2:

That's right Khafir, I'm so stupid, I actually follow the elecoral law on the matter. Is it possible for you to take sides in an issue without launching into bitter insults against anyone who disagrees with you? It doesn't speak well for how well adjusted your ego is if everyone must constantly agree with every last word you say.

Don Corleone

07-12-2005, 12:40

Nope, he was only elected once. The first election was a sham. He lost the popular vote, and he lost Florida. Make all the excuses you want, but it is true. The Florida count was not valid and it did not represent the intent of those who actually voted. I have not, nor will I ever consider his first administration as being legitimate.

Not you too, Red. I'm amazed, this story has ginned up all the worst on your guys' side. Look, if the Florida election was a sham, why would the New York Times & USA Today come out and say there was no way Gore could have won Florida?

Do you know how Gore would have won Florida? The only scenario that worked was for him to exclued all absentee ballots, not just ones delivered late. That's why he and Daly toyed with that idea for a while, even though there was no grounds for doing so. Yeah, screw the military, just let us win...

Don Corleone

07-12-2005, 12:53

And what exactly would that be? Perhaps it is: "My daddy was president therefore I inherited the office and don't have to follow laws meant for others. I'm a spoiled rich kid of no real talent, I was AWOL during Vietnam, did cocaine, beat women, got a DWI, am arrogant as hell, and don't have to answer to anyone. I'm annointed by God and am a righteous president who can do no wrong." That's the tone I've seen. My wife and I noticed it back when he was governor...and it was reinforced when she actually met him. After shaking his hand, she said to me, "That man has never done an honest day's work in his life."

Well Red, I'll give you credit. You and your wife definitely have the Howard Dean talking points down pat. You're right, we've all never done an honest day's work in our life. When I have a 65, 70 hour work week, that's not real work. It can't be, because I vote Republican. I must be playing Baldur's Gate or something.

Okay, if that's where this discussion has gone, I'm done. You and Khafir... you're right! Republicans, and anyone who votes for them... we're shiftless, we're lazy, we're dishonest, we hate women, the poor, minorities, gays and anybody who doesn't agree with us. You got us!!! Although bonus points for being at least a little subtle. Have fun with this argument. Personally, I thought you at least had better arguments then remolding Dean's screeds 'they've never done an honest day's work in their lives" indeed. :no:

Proletariat

07-12-2005, 13:33

I think it's unfair to compare Red with Kafir's lunacy. His comment seemed aimed at the President and I share some of his view.

Anyway, back on topic.

Looks like the left is going to get a trophy. Rove shouldn't have opened his mouth, and Bush should ease him out of the White House.

Of course, that won't be good enough. The press will go down and start hounding every personal conversation Rove has with anyone associated with the GOP; meanwhile the FBI will continue tracking down Al Qaeda sleeper cells and the Armed Forces will continue rehabillitating two countries that have been abused by various tyrants for the past three decades.

At least the media has its priorities straight though. If your beloved Democrats can't win an election on their ideas, trump up some charges against the Republicans' chief strategist.

It still wouldn't surprise me at all if Matt Cooper's "notes" are a complete fabrication.

Don Corleone

07-12-2005, 13:39

Prol, I don't think you realize. That comment on the surface was aimed at the President, but it was a subtle play on words that really was a replay of Howard Dean's slam on all of us.

When asked why Election Day should be made a national holiday, Dean answered "Our people need the day off cause they can't work a full day, then wait in line for 4 hours. It's easy for the Republicans to vote. They've never worked an honest day in their life".

Lemur

07-12-2005, 14:40

Talk about going too far with something! If Rove leaked a covert operative's name to the press, that's very, very bad, and he should be punished. But this is too much: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20050704/cm_ucru/karlroveworsethanosamabinladen/nc:742)

KARL ROVE: WORSE THAN OSAMA BIN LADEN

... As far as we know, no one on what passes for the "left" (which would be the center-right anywhere else) has betrayed the United States in the GWOT. No anti-Bush progressive has made common cause with Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan or any other officially designated "terrorist" group. No American liberal has handed over classified information or worked to undermine the CIA.

But it now appears that Karl Rove, GOP golden boy, has done exactly that.
Perhaps there should be a corollary to the old Internet rule that any discussion in which anyone is compared to Hitler or the Nazis has reached the end of its useful life. Certainly, any essay in which someone who isn't a member of Al Qaeda is compared to OBL is on the fast track to being complete junk.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-12-2005, 17:35

Are you looking for an award for the most naive poster around?

Just assume it was not happening in the US, and there is no party line going over there, would you really have the same opinion?
Don't you feel intellectually dishonest? Just a bit?

Are you looking for one as the best spinner around. My position isnt that Rove didnt do anythiing wrong its that their not going to ne able to pin anything on him. If you think they will I suggest your the naive one. If you look you will see I agreed with Ichi on this point a number of times.

Nope, he was only elected once. The first election was a sham.

Why because we went by the rules or because Gore acted like a cry baby when he lost.

He lost the popular vote,

Yup though he may not have if the networks didnt anounce florida for Gore before the polls even closed there. Besides that thats not how we elect a president.

and he lost Florida.

No he won Florida and won it in every recount by every news agency that dug into the matter. Im afraid your hatred of Bush is getting the better of you again here.

I have not, nor will I ever consider his first administration as being legitimate.

Well the rest of us and the world will have to get by without your support for them then suppose.

So was Nixon.

For the most part Nixon was a great president. In fact if not for watergate you would probably think he was one of the best republican presidents. He was very liberal in many ways.

Definitely TRUE. He can't produce a single witness to prove he served his last two years or so,

Im afraid he did but once again your hatred has blinded you. Its all been covered here to death.

I don't recall Clinton as a member of the armed services during war time doing drugs.

Of course not he planned to go to Canada if drated.

Clinton was 10 times the President Dubya has been.

Clinton was one of the most dispicable persons ever to hold the office.

Clinton's failings were of a personal nature

Yopu call sending missle technology to China a personal nature?

I can't recall,

So your making more unfounded accusations. I can link you to Clintons accusation of rape with no problem however.

It's more of a case of false advertising...passing oneself off as something you are not. Dubya is a fraud.

Most politicians are frauds as was Clinton. Why do you hold Bush to a higher standard?

Red Harvest

07-12-2005, 17:56

Well Red, I'll give you credit. You and your wife definitely have the Howard Dean talking points down pat.

Funny, I've never paid much attention to Dean. I try to work things out more on my own, rather than unquestioningly swallowing partisan propaganda from either side.

Xiahou

07-12-2005, 18:02

Funny, I've never paid much attention to Dean. I try to work things out more on my own, rather than unquestioningly swallowing partisan propaganda from either side.
Really, then why do you still think Bush lost Florida when no examination of the ballots showed that? I'd like to know how you worked it out on your own when there's no evidence to support it. Several large media organizations looked into it and couldn't find a way to say the vote should have came out for Gore. If you know different, lets see links.... I'm so tired of that myth. Yes, he lost the popular vote, and he won the electoral vote- the one that matters.

Red Harvest

07-12-2005, 18:50

Most politicians are frauds as was Clinton. Why do you hold Bush to a higher standard?

Higher standard? How about holding him to ANY standard? I can't find any he measures up to.

Proletariat

07-12-2005, 19:24

Really, then why do you still think Bush lost Florida when no examination of the ballots showed that? I'd like to know how you worked it out on your own when there's no evidence to support it.

Truly, this canard was laid to rest sometime ago.

Red, have you ever even read Bush v Gore? Do you have the faintest idea of what was decided?

Bush v Gore was an Equal Rights case, nothing more. The Court did not select Bush as President, it merely held that if any of the votes were to be recounted, all of the votes had to be recounted. Once they made their ruling, Gore threw in the towel.

(Bush v Gore is the perfect example of strict Constitutionalism.)

Red Harvest

07-12-2005, 19:58

Truly, this canard was laid to rest sometime ago.

Red, have you ever even read Bush v Gore? Do you have the faintest idea of what was decided?

Bush v Gore was an Equal Rights case, nothing more. The Court did not select Bush as President, it merely held that if any of the votes were to be recounted, all of the votes had to be recounted. Once they made their ruling, Gore threw in the towel.

(Bush v Gore is the perfect example of strict Constitutionalism.)

The Court voted 7-2 to end the recount on the grounds that differing standards in different counties constituted an equal protection violation, and 5-4 that no new recount with uniform standards could be conducted.

I never had a problem with the full recount--I always felt that was the appropriate thing to do. I dug through the actual vote counts and looked at things in detail. What I found is that the problem ballots in those key counties easily decided the election. The Buchanan numbers were an absolute clincher back when I looked at it. The difficulty was in establishing criteria for the recount. Clearly, had the ballot in certain areas not been so badly flawed, there would have been little controversy, and Dubya would be back in Crawford.

Considering the will of people who voted in the election was not done in Florida, or in the nation as a whole, the election was invalid. One can do legal wrangling to justify it, but it was wrong.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-12-2005, 20:13

I never had a problem with the full recount--I always felt that was the appropriate thing to do. I dug through the actual vote counts and looked at things in detail. What I found is that the problem ballots in those key counties easily decided the election. The Buchanan numbers were an absolute clincher back when I looked at it. The difficulty was in establishing criteria for the recount. Clearly, had the ballot in certain areas not been so badly flawed, there would have been little controversy, and Dubya would be back in Crawford.

Well then you must have access to things that all the proffesional reporters didnt then as none of them came to that conclusion. Again adress the fact that Florida was called for Gore an hour before the polls in the panhandle, a conservtive bastion there, had been closed and many conservatives didnt bother to vote thinking it was over.

Considering the will of people who voted in the election was not done in Florida, or in the nation as a whole, the election was invalid

Maybe you could use a session with Saturnus ~D Theres nothing to back up your claims. Please provide some proof other than its what you think.

Xiahou

07-12-2005, 20:18

Considering the will of people who voted in the election was not done in Florida, or in the nation as a whole, the election was invalid. One can do legal wrangling to justify it, but it was wrong.
At least if you were a Gore supporter. ~;)

Do you have any links to your "studies"? I'd like to review them. Standards on what is considered a valid ballot were established before the election. Just because your guy didn't win doesnt mean you can change the standards after the votes have been cast.

People pouring over pregnant and hanging chads trying to "interpret" voter intent or if they really meant to vote for Gore even if they marked Buchanan is absurd.

Redleg

07-12-2005, 20:25

At least if you were a Gore supporter. ~;)

Do you have any links to your "studies"? I'd like to review them. Standards on what is considered a valid ballot were established before the election. Just because your guy didn't win doesnt mean you can change the standards after the votes have been cast.

People pouring over pregnant and hanging chads trying to "interpret" voter intent or if they really meant to vote for Gore even if they marked Buchanan is absurd.

And that is one of the things the court struck down in their decision - a poll counter can not determine intent of the voter - the ballot must speak for itself.

Another one of the issues the "Gore" crowd had with the court's decision.

Red Harvest

07-12-2005, 20:32

Well then you must have access to things that all the proffesional reporters didnt then as none of them came to that conclusion. Again adress the fact that Florida was called for Gore an hour before the polls in the panhandle, a conservtive bastion there, had been closed and many conservatives didnt bother to vote thinking it was over.

Maybe you could use a session with Saturnus ~D Theres nothing to back up your claims. Please provide some proof other than its what you think.

Quite the opposite. I dug through the numbers county by county to reach a conclusion. There were quite a few vote counts done by reporters that gave different results with Gore winning. If you look at the spoiled ballot/double vote issue and demographics, Gore's lead was huge.

I don't have access to the numbers anymore--I can't find any of the old links open, but I do remember spending hours sifting through the numbers to test the various claims before reaching a conclusion. I haven't looked at this since shortly after the election.

I can't find the most recent poll on the issue, but I recall one from only a few months ago showing that something like 30+ percent of us still don't agree that the 2000 election was valid.

Don Corleone

07-12-2005, 20:38

Any vote that came back for a Republican, even if it had a wide margin, was going to be argued by 30+ percent of the population. You guys did it again in Ohio in 2004. The concept of graceful loser is unknown on your side.

Redleg

07-12-2005, 20:40

Quite the opposite. I dug through the numbers county by county to reach a conclusion. There were quite a few vote counts done by reporters that gave different results with Gore winning. If you look at the spoiled ballot/double vote issue and demographics, Gore's lead was huge. And that is what the supreme court ruled on in discounting the vote - the poll counter can not determine voter intent - regardless of how many times it is brought up. The voter invalidated his/her vote when they punched two names.

I don't have access to the numbers anymore--I can't find any of the old links open, but I do remember spending hours sifting through the numbers to test the various claims before reaching a conclusion. I haven't looked at this since shortly after the election.

Again if all you looked at eas spoiled or double voted ballots - the issue again is mote - since the voter spoiled their vote - not anyone or anything else.

I can't find the most recent poll on the issue, but I recall one from only a few months ago showing that something like 30+ percent of us still don't agree that the 2000 election was valid.

There were some that felt the 1992 election when Clinton was elected was not valid - and it didn't make them right either now did it?

Lemur

07-13-2005, 00:32

The concept of graceful loser is unknown on your side.
And as we all know, Republicans never sue over contested elections. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002144756_webrossi07m.html)

What does any of this have to do with Karl Rove?

Xiahou

07-13-2005, 00:41

What does any of this have to do with Karl Rove?Virtually nothing. Just alot of us are sick of still hearing the unelected presidency myth bandied about after 5 years. ~;)

Goofball

07-13-2005, 00:41

(Bush v Gore is the perfect example of strict Constitutionalism.)

Strict Constitutionalism: Any example of a court decision that pleases Republicans.

Judicial Activism: Any example of a court decision that angers Republicans.

~;)

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

Don Corleone

07-13-2005, 01:06

And as we all know, Republicans never sue over contested elections. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002144756_webrossi07m.html)

What does any of this have to do with Karl Rove?

Touche' :bow:

Proletariat

07-13-2005, 01:14

Strict Constitutionalism: Any example of a court decision that pleases Republicans.

Judicial Activism: Any example of a court decision that angers Republicans.

~;)

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

No apology necessary. I'm not a Republican, nor an offended one.

Saying the '00 election was the result of some sort of crime is like when people say the war in Iraq is illegal. It's baseless.

Red Harvest

07-13-2005, 05:15

Saying the '00 election was the result of some sort of crime

I'm not saying it was a crime. But Dubya didn't win the vote. He did win the court cases (by a single vote, meaning 1 person in effect decided the election.) You can try and dress it up all you want, but it was and is an outrage. Personally, I think the whole Florida electoral vote should have either been rejected or split. However, I don't know of a legal solution that would have allowed it. The all or nothing approach made no sense with such a badly flawed ballot.

However, I still look at the 2000 election as perfect illustration of the methods not mattering to GOP, as long as the result suits them. I remember some talk of Florida rigging the electors if the court ruling and recount went against them. Yah, democracy, they've heard of it.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-13-2005, 05:39

Strict Constitutionalism: Any example of a court decision that pleases Republicans.

Judicial Activism: Any example of a court decision that angers Republicans.

Talk about rehtoric. Of course this is all made up in your head. I defy you to give an example of conservative judicial activism by SCOTUS recently.

But Dubya didn't win the vote.

Yes he did. He won the electoral vote and thats the one that counts. I could more easily claim that Nixon won the 1960 election.

. He did win the court cases (by a single vote, meaning 1 person in effect decided the election.)

Considering the recent rulings of this court and their make up its a wonder any voted in Bushs favor. If we had real judges it would have been 9 - 0 no recount.

However, I still look at the 2000 election as perfect illustration of the methods not mattering to GOP, as long as the result suits them

I believe it was Gore who initiated the court battle.

PanzerJaeger

07-13-2005, 05:47

I havent been looking at this thread because I figured it would all be idle speculation as its way to early to say anything about Rove.. but now weve got people contesting the florida election, still!? ~:confused:

Give it a freaking rest. The country affirmed their support of Bush's leadership last election.. if he really was a fraudulent president, that was the time for the american people to show it - and they gave him support in huge numbers. Yah, democracy, they've heard of it. ~;)

Gawain of Orkeny

07-13-2005, 07:05

Now lets get back on topic as if its really worth our time ~D It seems this whole thing like I imagined is nonsense.

Tuesday, Feb. 22, 2005 12:06 a.m. EST

Ex-Prosecutor: Plame Leak Not Illegal

The former prosecutor who helped draft the law that Democrats say was violated when someone in the Bush administration leaked a CIA worker's name to columnist Robert Novak now says that no laws were broken in the case.

Writing with First Amendment lawyer Bruce Sanford in the Washington Post recently, former Assistant Deputy Attorney General Victoria Toensing explained that she helped draft the law in question, the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Story Continues Below

Says Toensing, "The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct."

For Plame's outing to have been illegal, the one-time deputy AG says, "her status as undercover must be classified." Also, Plame "must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years."

Since in neither case does Plame qualify, Toensing says: "There is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as 'covert.'"

The law also requires that the celebrated non-spy's outing take place by someone who knew the government had taken "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the U.S., a prospect Toensing says is unlikely.

Other signs that no laws were broken include the fact that after Plame was outted, the CIA's general counsel took no steps to prosecute Novak, as has been done to other reporters under similar circumstances.

Neither did then-CIA Director George Tenet or his deputy pick up the phone to tell Novak that the publication of her name would threaten national security and her safety, as is also routinely done when the CIA is serious about prohibiting publication.

In fact, the myth that laws were violated in the Plame case began to unravel in October 2003, in a column by New York Times scribe Nicholas Kristof, who explained that Valerie Plame had abandoned her covert role a full nine years before.

"The C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given [Plame's] name [along with those of other spies] to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons."

Kristof also noted that Plame had begun making the transition to CIA "management" even before she was outted, explaining that "she was moving away from 'noc' – which means non-official cover ... to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without having 'C.I.A.' stamped on her forehead."

Noted the Timesman: "All in all, I think the Democrats are engaging in hyperbole when they describe the White House as having put [Plame's] life in danger and destroyed her career; her days skulking along the back alleys of cities like Beirut and Algiers were already mostly over."

So why – with a special prosecutor now threatening to toss Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller in jail if they don't give up their sources in the Plame case – aren't their lawyers invoking the "no laws were broken" defense?

Explains the National Review's Rich Lowry: The Miller-Cooper defense hasn't made this argument because it would be too embarrassing to admit that the Bush administration's "crime of the century" wasn't really a crime at all, especially after a year and a half of media chest-beating to the contrary.

"It was just a Washington flap played for all it was worth by the same news organizations now about to watch their employees go to prison over it," says Lowry.

"That's the truth that the media will go to any length to avoid."

Theres the truth I hope you can handle it. ~:handball:

Lemur

07-13-2005, 07:12

Theres the truth I hope you can handle it. ~:handball:
Interesting ... an article with no byline, from a web site promoting hard-right books ... can't find any other articles to back it up ...

Huh. What's even stranger is that part of the argument in the NewsMax article is that Plame wasn't on any covert mission within the last five years ... so what was she doing on that trip looking for yellowcake? Was she doing that without directions from the CIA? And if so, why did she ask the CIA to send her under cover of her hubby? Strange strange strange.

Here's a slightly more balanced take: (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3263872)

Did Rove break the law? Experts far from certain
Whether Bush's aide knew about operative's covert status is key

By SHANNON MCCAFFREY
Knight Ridder Tribune News

WASHINGTON - Karl Rove talked. But did President Bush's deputy chief of staff break the law when he told a reporter that an administration critic's wife worked for the CIA?

Legal experts said the answer to that question is far from clear. It appears to hinge on whether Rove knew that Valerie Plame was a covert officer and blew her cover anyway.

It's a tough legal hurdle for Patrick Fitzgerald, the special federal prosecutor who has been investigating the Plame case for more than 18 months.

"He has to find somebody who would say Rove knew that she was covert, that he knew that the government was making an effort to hide her identity," said Philip Heymann, former deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration. "It would appear he is working very, very hard to prove that because without it, you don't have a crime."

Enacted in 1982 to protect undercover CIA officials, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act makes it a crime to intentionally identify a covert agent.

Former federal prosecutor Lawrence Barcella said one large problem for Fitzgerald was that the statute making it a crime to identify a covert operative was virtually untested.

"This (the leak case) is exceedingly complex and all new," Barcella said. "Understandable care is being taken to make sure you're not stretching the statute beyond what was intended."

The odyssey of the Plame case began with a trip to Africa in 2002 by her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, to investigate claims that Iraq had tried to buy yellowcake uranium for nuclear weapons. Wilson discounted the claim in an article published on The New York Times op-ed page on July 6, 2003.

A few days later, columnist Robert Novak outed Plame as an undercover operative, saying she had suggested Wilson make the trip to Africa.

The revelations about Rove came about after Time magazine turned over notes and e-mails from reporter Matthew Cooper when Fitzgerald threatened to jail the journalist for not disclosing names of the people he had talked with about Plame.

Cooper told his boss he had a telephone conversation with Rove five days after Wilson's article appeared. According to Cooper's e-mails, obtained by Newsweek, Rove told Cooper that Wilson's wife, whom he didn't name, "apparently works" for the CIA.

Even though Rove apparently didn't use Plame's name in talking to Cooper, legal experts said the criminal case against him wouldn't be hindered because he used enough information about her to make it clear whom he was talking about.

Former prosecutors speculate Fitzgerald could be putting together a conspiracy case.

More than a year ago, President Bush pledged to fire the person who leaked Plame's identity. On Tuesday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Rove continues to have Bush's confidence. But several prominent Democrats have suggested that Rove, the architect of Bush's 2004 re-election campaign, be fired.

Houston Chronicle news services contributed to this report.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-13-2005, 07:22

Here's a slightly more balanced take:

How is that more balanced? As always lawyers disagree. I think the one that wrote the law knows better.

Interesting ... an article with no byline, from a web site promoting hard-right books ... can't find any other articles to back it up ...

Try typing in the title and google it remember?

At any rate how are you going to get passed all this

Says Toensing, "The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct."

For Plame's outing to have been illegal, the one-time deputy AG says, "her status as undercover must be classified." Also, Plame "must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years."

Since in neither case does Plame qualify, Toensing says: "There is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as 'covert.'"

The law also requires that the celebrated non-spy's outing take place by someone who knew the government had taken "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the U.S., a prospect Toensing says is unlikely.

Other signs that no laws were broken include the fact that after Plame was outted, the CIA's general counsel took no steps to prosecute Novak, as has been done to other reporters under similar circumstances.

Neither did then-CIA Director George Tenet or his deputy pick up the phone to tell Novak that the publication of her name would threaten national security and her safety, as is also routinely done when the CIA is serious about prohibiting publication.

In fact, the myth that laws were violated in the Plame case began to unravel in October 2003, in a column by New York Times scribe Nicholas Kristof, who explained that Valerie Plame had abandoned her covert role a full nine years before.

"The C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given [Plame's] name [along with those of other spies] to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons."

Kristof also noted that Plame had begun making the transition to CIA "management" even before she was outted, explaining that "she was moving away from 'noc' – which means non-official cover ... to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without having 'C.I.A.' stamped on her forehead."

Basicly your article says the samething. They aint gonna tree this Bear.

Lemur

07-13-2005, 17:37

Try typing in the title and google it remember?
G, on the web site where the article was featured (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/2/22/120736.shtml) there is no byline, no attribution, nada. I was referring to that.

Further, I fail to see how NewsMax justifies the claim that Plame was neither a covert operative nor active in the last five years. I seem to recall a certain trip outside the country looking for yellowcake in 2002. For which she required cover. Sounds covert to this lemur. And it was less than five years ago. (Or is the Gregorian calendar another piece of MSM liberal spin?)

Oh, wait, I see, they have their attribution in blue at the top. The multiple ads for muscle-building techniques blinded me.

Anyway, G, NewsMax looks like a stright-up partisan web site; believers preaching to believers. Sort of the blog equivalent of Rush. If you can locate any backup to non-operative, non-covert, didn't-do-any-covert-work-for-five-years theory, and if you can find it from a non-militia-sponsored web site, please post it.

Why would this case have been allowed to get to the Special Prosecutor if there was no law broken? Answer me that one, 'cause it's got me scratching my head.

[edit]

For those who may be curious about who owns NewsMax ... (http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2002/nmstock.html)

Gawain of Orkeny

07-13-2005, 17:51

G, on the web site where the article was featured there is no byline, no attribution, nada. I was referring to that.

Oh really? dont you know who this guy is Carl Limbacher?

Further, I fail to see how NewsMax justifies the claim that Plame was neither a covert operative nor active in the last five years.

Its all there in black and white.

Why would this case have been allowed to get to the Special Prosecutor if there was no law broken? Answer me that one, 'cause it's got me scratching my head.

It wasnt directed ever at Rove. Explain that one to me? Maybe its the seriousness of the charge. How many times have we heard that one? The press once more thought they could get either Bush or Novak but instead one of their own went to jail. They were trying to report a false srory claiming that Cheney sent Wilson on that mission.In fact Rove is the wistle blower here. He had noo knowledge that she was an agent he only had heard rumors from reporters by the way that she got him the job. Thats all he said. The press has become another oposition party and is no longer interested in anything but their own power which is rapidly slipping. How is the times and post presented briefs in defence of their own reporters that no crime was committed here?

Xiahou

07-13-2005, 18:02

Why would this case have been allowed to get to the Special Prosecutor if there was no law broken? Answer me that one, 'cause it's got me scratching my head.
According to Rove's lawyer the special prosecutor has assured him that Rove is not and has not been the target of the investigation.

Rove's lawyer said Rove never identified Plame to Cooper in those conversations. More significantly, Robert Luskin said, Fitzgerald assured him in October and again last week that Rove is not a target of his investigation. From the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070201043.html)

Hurin_Rules

07-13-2005, 19:22

According to Rove's lawyer the special prosecutor has assured him that Rove is not and has not been the target of the investigation.
From the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070201043.html)

Well, if the defense attorney says his client is innocent, then he must be, right?

As to the claim that Rove never 'identified' Plame, both Rove and his lawyer are parsing here. All Rove said was that he did not know her name and thus never used her name. But to say someone was 'Wilson's wife' is definitely identifying her. Maybe not in Bushspeak, but certainly in reality.

sharrukin

07-13-2005, 23:15

When Novak contacted the CIA and asked about Plame, he was told that she did work for the Agency, and that the CIA "asked him not to use her name.

The fact that Novak contacted the CIA at all means he knew that his article would most likely be damaging to her career or embarassing to Plame and Wilson. It makes no logical sense for him to be cautious, unless he knew beforehand that Plames name was a sensitive issue. Whoever gave the information to Novak, knew full well that Plame was CIA, and that her name and employ were sensitive.

Xiahou

07-13-2005, 23:36

Yes, and we still don't know who gave Novak her name.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-14-2005, 00:19

Lemur

07-14-2005, 00:28

Gawain, if Prole can tear down her Karl Rove poster, so can you. Keep the lunchbox, though. I hear they may be worth something.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-14-2005, 00:30

You have to give me a good reason to. Besides I dont have 1

Xiahou

07-14-2005, 00:32

Of course it'll never be looked into, but there's something else that I think is suspicious here....

Plame recommends her husband, Wilson (both partisan democrats) to go on a mission to Niger to investigate allegations that Hussein was trying to buy uranium. Wilson goes there, returns and reports that there is some evidence to suggest such an attempt was made- this finding was made by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Later, Wilson writes a collumn in the NYT blasting Bush for ignoring his findings that proved there was no attempted deal with Niger.

Now to me, that is at least a little suspicious. Based on the huge disparity between his report and his public statements in the Times, I have to wonder if his objective all along was to attempt to embarrass the Bush administration- and if so, was his wife also in on it? Meh, we'll never know for sure. All we do know is that Wilson is demonstrably dishonest and partisan.

Xiahou

07-14-2005, 00:34

Gawain, if Prole can tear down her Karl Rove poster, so can you. Keep the lunchbox, though. I hear they may be worth something.
I carefully, yet tearfully, took mine down- I couldnt bear the thought of tearing it. :jester:

Don Corleone

07-14-2005, 00:41

This whole thing is a red herring. Wilson lied and Rove told the truth. She was not an agent within the 5 year limit of the law. On top of that she blew her cover on her third date with her future husnad. Wilson wrote in his book that on the third date after a heavy petting session she told him she was a secret agent for the CIA. Its a witch hunt and a lame one at that. The more that comes out the more ridiculous the left and the presss make themselves look.

That's the problem with those women spies... if you know what you're doing, you can slide your hand into their knickers and they'll tell you anything. :smitten: This is why Beirut is one of Canada's primary anti-intelligence agents. Nobody even wastes time sending female spies to Canada anymore.

Pindar

07-14-2005, 00:41

How has this red herring made it to four pages?

sharrukin

07-14-2005, 00:50

Yes, and we still don't know who gave Novak her name.

Quote:
But Bush's spokesman wouldn't repeat any of those assertions Monday in the face of Rove's own lawyer saying his client spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified in a newspaper column.

Rove described the woman to a reporter as someone who "apparently works" at the CIA, according to an e-mail obtained by Newsweek magazine.

So you believe he didn't tell Novak but someone else?

Xiahou

07-14-2005, 01:22

So you believe he didn't tell Novak but someone else?
We don't know who told Judith Miller either. Rove waived his anonimity so Cooper wouldn't have to go to jail. Judith Miller is in jail because she won't reveal her source- doesn't make much sense that Rove would've told her too since he's already gave up anonimity.

sharrukin

07-14-2005, 01:25

Do the Republican's believe that President Bush knew all along that Karl Rove was the one who leaked Valerie Plame's name?

If not, I am mystified about the defence here of someone who lied to his own President for more than a year, when Bush was asking for anyone who had knowledge to come forth. Unless you believe President Bush is behind this entire affair, Karl Rove betrayed his own President as much as he did your nation. There seem to be few Republican calls for Rove to resign because he lied to your President. Why?

Rove refused to do the right thing, putting his own affairs before that of the country he claims to serve and the President he claims to serve. He remained silent, and left Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan to play the fool, and allowed the administration to be undermined and embarrassed. Why is there no outrage over this?

Valerie Plame was a CIA operative working to protect the US against weapons of mass destruction and this man, Karl Rove sabotaged that work. Whether you believe he knew her 'covert' status or not, he knew who she was and simply didn't care if his petty, and vicious attempt at revenge caused damage to the interests of your country. Legal technicalities aside, the man is a traitor. He may be a traitor who gets away with it, but a traitor he remains.

Xiahou

07-14-2005, 01:33

Whether you believe he knew her 'covert' status or not, he knew who she was and simply didn't care if his petty, and vicious attempt at revenge caused damage to the interests of your country. Legal technicalities aside, the man is a traitor. He may be a traitor who gets away with it, but a traitor he remains.That is far from assured. His contention is that he said Wilson's wife was a CIA agent in the process of explaining that it was her, not Cheney who recommended Wilson for the job. He was trying to deflect the attack that Cheney sent Wilson who then disputed administration beliefs- none of that was true. Cheney didn't send him and Wilson did not dispute the beliefs in his report.

There's still no evidence at all, besides the media feeding frenzy, that Rove is the target of the probe. If his story is true, it wasn't vicious and petty revenge... Im willing to at least wait until the grand jury completes its investigation before we start building the gallows.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-14-2005, 01:36

It doesnt amtter. Whats wrong with you people. She wasnt an active agent within the 5 yearperiod and even if she had been Rove didnt know it.The point is mute. Its nothing more than a smear campaign.

Meanwhile the same NY slimes thats attacking Rove and saying he should go to jail prints this.

May 31, 2005
The Times Versus The CIA

The Times causes jaws to drop with its front-pager about the CIA's secret airline. Winds of Change and The Word Unheard are outraged. From "Unheard":

Why publish the names of the contractors? Why publish a photograph of one of the planes complete with aviation ID markings? Why publish the home airport for the ‘flagship’ 737-based Boeing Business Jet(s)? Why attack the CIA’s use of these aircraft and the contractors that operate them?

When you read the NYT article full through, it becomes painfully obvious ‘why’:

Global War on Terror Bad, CIA Bad, America Bad.

This expose seems to have grown out of questions surrounding CIA "torture flights" - CBS has earlier reporting, and the Chicago Tribune also started down this road (the Chicago Tribune story is archived at Michael Moore's website - know your audience.)

Now, we are reasoning backwards, but... several of the companies cited by the Times already generate Google hits as probable CIA fronts (several, but not all!). For example, Premier Executive Transport Services Inc. was outed by the WaPo last December (and guess what - a Freeper led the way!).

Tepper Aviation, Inc. appears as an alleged CIA plane.

Well - one hopes the damage done by the Times in compiling all of this research into one executive summary does not represent a huge setback in our war on terror.

And that said, let's briefly revisit their handwringing over the leak of Valerie Plame's identity. Times editors and columnists wanted to string up Robert Novak and various Administration officials for callously endangering lives and jeopardizing our national security.

That was then.

C.I.A. Expanding Terror Battle Under Guise of Charter Flights (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/31/national/31planes.html?ex=1275192000&en=6087acc3480a296c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)

High New York Times: Prisoner Transports Revealed (http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006924.php)

CIA Air Operation Details Exposed by New York Times (http://wordunheard.com/archives/2005/05/new_york_times_1.php)

Yet its Rove who they call a traitor who should go to jail.

Don Corleone

07-14-2005, 01:37

Well, since you asked, the party line story is as follows. Plame and her flunky husband orchestrated a 'we can't lose' plot to get the President. Rove sensed it in the making and started working to thwart it. Is what he did particularly nice? Certainly not. But he knew better than anyone Valerie Plame had moved on from 'spy girl who tells her secrets with the right 'manipulation' ~D to DC insider who was using her contacts at the CIA to further her agenda.

You raise a valid point about whether Rove lied (by omission) to the President for the past 2 years. Something the Left seems to be unable to understand (because they have Clinton for a hero) is that the President is intensely loyal, even when it's not expedient for him to be. I think he's probably weighing options as we speak, and he's probably pretty pissed at Karl, but he's probably not warming up the poison pen just yet. I mean, he's not an idiot, despite what you guys want to think. He probably didn't know Rove was behind this (so he's not happy about the embarassment), but that's mitigated because at the same time, he finds out Rove was doing all this to spring a trap these two jokers were trying to set for the president.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-14-2005, 04:33

Mission Implausible
Ann Coulter (archive)

July 13, 2005 | printer friendly version Print | email to a friend Recommend to a friend

Karl Rove was right. The real story about Joseph C. Wilson IV was not that Bush lied about Saddam seeking uranium in Africa; the story was Clown Wilson and his paper-pusher wife, Valerie Plame. By foisting their fantasies of themselves on the country, these two have instigated a massive criminal investigation, the result of which is: The only person who has demonstrably lied and possibly broken the law is Joseph Wilson.

So the obvious solution is to fire Karl Rove.

Clown Wilson thrust himself on the nation in July 2003 when he wrote an op-ed for the New York Times claiming Bush had lied in his State of the Union address. He said Bush was referring to Wilson's own "report" when Bush said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

$30,281
10:59PM
Wednesday

But that is not what Wilson says he found! Thus, his column had the laughably hubristic title, "What I Didn't Find in Africa." (Once I couldn't find my car for hours after a Dead show. I call the experience: "What I Didn't Find in San Francisco.")

Driven by that weird obsession liberals have of pretending they are Republicans in order to attack Republicans, Wilson implied he had been sent to Niger by Vice President Dick Cheney. Among copious other references to Cheney in the op-ed, Wilson said that CIA "officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story" that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy uranium from Niger, "so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

Soon Clown Wilson was going around claiming: "The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked, and that response was based upon my trip out there."

Dick Cheney responded by saying: "I don't know Joe Wilson. I've never met Joe Wilson. I don't know who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back." Clown Wilson's allegation that Cheney had received his (unwritten) "report" was widely repeated as fact by, among others, the New York Times.

In a huffy editorial, the Times suggested there had been a "willful effort" by the Bush administration to slander the great and honorable statesman Saddam Hussein. As evidence, the Times cited Bush's claims about Saddam seeking uranium from Niger, which, the Times said, had been "pretty well discredited" – which, according to my copy of "The New York Times Stylebook" means "unequivocally corroborated" – "by Joseph Wilson 4th, a former American diplomat, after he was dispatched to Niger by the CIA to look into the issue."

So liberals were allowed to puff up Wilson's "report" by claiming Wilson was sent "by the CIA." But – in the traditional liberal definition of "criminal" – Republicans were not allowed to respond by pointing out Wilson was sent to Niger by his wife, not by the CIA and certainly not by Dick Cheney.

So important was Wilson's fact-finding mission to Niger that he wasn't paid and he produced no written report. It actually buttressed the case that Saddam had tried to buy uranium from Niger, though Wilson was too stupid to realize it. His conclusion is contradicted by the extensive findings of the British government. (I'm not sure, but I think that's what Bush may have been referring to when he said, "the British government.") One could write a book about what Joe Wilson doesn't know about Africa. In fact, I'm pretty sure someone did: Joe Wilson.

About a year later, a bipartisan Senate committee heard testimony from a CIA official that it was Wilson's wife who had "offered up" Wilson for the Niger trip. The committee also discovered a Feb. 12, 2002, memo from Wilson's wife gushing that her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines [not to mention lots of French contacts], both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."

Wilson's response to the production of his wife's memo was: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."

Wilson's report was a hoax. His government bureaucrat wife wanted to get him out of the house, so she sent him on a taxpayer-funded government boondoggle.

That was the information Karl Rove was trying to convey to the media by telling them, as described in the notes of Time reporter Matt Cooper: "big warning"! Don't "get too far out on Wilson."

Democrats believe that because Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, the White House should not have been allowed to mention that it was she who sent him to Niger. But meanwhile, Clown Wilson was free to puff up his apocryphal credentials by implying he had been sent to Niger on an important mission for the vice president by the CIA.

Despite the colloquialism being used on TV to describe the relevant criminal offense, the law does not criminalize "revealing the name" of a covert operative. If it did, every introduction of an operative at a cocktail party or a neighborhood picnic would constitute a felony. "Revealing the name of" is shorthand to describe what the law does criminalize: Intentionally revealing a covert operative as a covert operative, knowing it will blow the operative's cover.

Rove had simply said Wilson went to Niger because of his wife, not his skill, expertise or common sense. It was the clown himself who outed his wife as an alleged "covert" agent by saying he was not recommended by his wife, and thus the White House must have been retaliating against him by mentioning his wife.

Wilson intentionally blew his wife's "cover" in order to lie about how he ended up going to Niger. Far from a serious fact-finding mission, it was a "Take Your Daughters to Work Day" gone bad. Maybe liberals shouldn't have been so insistent about that special prosecutor.

Ann Coulter is host of AnnCoulter.org, a Townhall.com member group.

Go girl ~D

PanzerJaeger

07-14-2005, 14:34

Rove refused to do the right thing, putting his own affairs before that of the country he claims to serve and the President he claims to serve. He remained silent, and left Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan to play the fool, and allowed the administration to be undermined and embarrassed. Why is there no outrage over this?

Undermined and embarrassed? In whose eyes?

There is no outrage because your interpretation of events isnt the truth.

Hurin_Rules

07-14-2005, 14:50

Ahh, Ann Coulter. Always love to hear her unbiased opinions. Maybe she'll talk more about the Canadian army in Vietnam again, and we can all have another good laugh.

As to McLellan and the press conference: if you didn't think that was bad, then you really don't know what press conferences are like. C'mon guys, that was pretty much as rough as it gets for poor ol' Scott. It was the closest thing to a Dien Bien Phu that a spokesman has ever had to endure. When the press on both sides--left and right-- actually report about the press conference itself being brutal, I think we can all agree McLellan was hung out to dry.

Don Corleone

07-14-2005, 15:21

Gawain of Orkeny

07-14-2005, 15:49

As to McLellan and the press conference: if you didn't think that was bad, then you really don't know what press conferences are like. C'mon guys, that was pretty much as rough as it gets for poor ol' Scott.

Yup the press once more should be ashamed. Im telling you they are throwung away their last vestigaes of even appearing impartial. Theres no story here other than Wilson lied and the press has an agenda.

Ahh, Ann Coulter. Always love to hear her unbiased opinions

She never claims to be unbiased unlike those reporters who constantly support the left.

Maybe she'll talk more about the Canadian army in Vietnam again, and we can all have another good laugh.

This is the most tired remark at the org. Anytime her name comes up this is all you guys have to attack her. Lame.

Hurin_Rules

07-14-2005, 17:27

Kind of like "Gee, Mr McCurry, you've been telling us for years that the President barely knew Monica Lewinsky and certainly didn't have carnal knowledge of her. Based on the fact that much of their affair took place INSIDE the Oval Office, how could you, yourself, not have known this was in error, if not outright fabricated? Did you lie to us Mr. McCurry?"

Yes, much like that.

I'll refrain from saying they caught McLellan with his pants down, as that would immediately bring up unwanted Clinton imagery. ~:cheers:

Hurin_Rules

07-14-2005, 17:28

This is the most tired remark at the org. Anytime her name comes up this is all you guys have to attack her. Lame.

And your critiques of Wilson are fresh and exciting, I suppose?

Red Harvest

07-14-2005, 17:50

Reading through the right wing defenses of Rove's actions, one thing is clear: The GOP and its supporters have utterly lost the thread. As long as they disagree with someone, it is okay to use whatever means at their disposal to attack or discredit them. Let's just throw out all that morality, ethics, and righteousness stuff...it only applies to the other side. Hey, the GOP's in power, they can do it, so it is right...they'll find a defense later.

The GOP might want to go back to kindergarten and try relearning right from wrong. :no: I don't feel secure knowing such people are in control of our nation. :shame:

Ann Coulter... :dizzy2:

Lemur

07-14-2005, 17:59

This is the most tired remark at the org. Anytime [Ann Coulter's] name comes up this is all you guys have to attack her. Lame.
Ann Coulter -- now there's a poster and a lunchbox. Why would anybody say mean things about her? It's not like she's battier than a belfry ... (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0111.coulterwisdom.html)

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

"I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote."---Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01

"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97

"The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. "---Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00

"My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism."---MSNBC 2/8/97

But by all means, G, keep quoting her as an authority! It does wonders for anyone arguing against your positions.

Don Corleone

07-14-2005, 18:29

You guys on the Left are killing me with this one.. :laugh4: Sandy "Burglar" went into the national archives, stuffed a bunch of highly classified documents down his pants, altered some, destroyed others and fabricated some of his own, snuck back in and put them back and you're all on about 'this doesn't rise to the level of criminal proceedings' and you had a federal judge pardoning him before charges could even be filed.

Meanwhile, Karl Rove plays a cat mouse game with a couple of Democratic party animals, humiliates the hubby, and you're all screaming about how he ought to be fired. I love it. :laugh4:

By the way, question for you Lefties... if Karl Rove has already been 'outed' as the source of the leak, which we could (and I guess are) debating, to Matt Cooper, why, pray tell is Judith Miller still cooling her heels in a jail cell? Clearly, her source wasn't Rove. Could a Democrat have been leaking these things too? Perhaps Sen. Patrick Leaky Leahy, the guy that got the CIA to quit brieifing the Senate Intelligence Comittee?

Red Harvest

07-14-2005, 19:25

Those Ann Coulter quotes sum up the Right rather well, excellent collection.

She and Don believe there is no middle, and they are doing their best to make it that way too. The "Great Polarizer" continues to do his part.

Don Corleone

07-14-2005, 19:50

Hurin_Rules

07-14-2005, 20:01

You never did answer me why Judith Miller is on ice. Who is she protecting?

You're overlooking two other possibilities:

1. Rove said more to her (did he name the name, perhaps?) than to cooper, and so he cannot give her permission to speak.

2. She is making a stand on principle. There are some reporters who still believe in that sort of thing, you know.

PanzerJaeger

07-14-2005, 20:10

The GOP might want to go back to kindergarten and try relearning right from wrong. I don't feel secure knowing such people are in control of our nation.

LoL its too bad a majority feel very secure under GOP leadership. You could always move up north.. im sure they'd love to have you. ~:cheers:

Don Corleone

07-14-2005, 20:15

You're overlooking two other possibilities:

1. Rove said more to her (did he name the name, perhaps?) than to cooper, and so he cannot give her permission to speak.

2. She is making a stand on principle. There are some reporters who still believe in that sort of thing, you know.

No, I don't know. This is the same New York Times that kept it's Pulitzer for it's work debunking the Stalinist Purge myths in the late 1930's (i.e. they lied and said Stalin was a great guy and wouldn't hurt a fly), and the same New York Times that refused to apologize for all of the downright fabricated stories they printed by Jason Blair. I don't trust the editorial standards of that paper for anything. It's a propaganda rag that's in the business of acting as a partisan newsletter for the Democratic Party.

As far as option 1 goes, once Karl Rove gave permission to be outed as a source, he loses any ability to control his identity, because he might have said 'something more' to Judith Miller. And I think the odds of me winning 3 different state lotteries tonight are better than the NY Times editorial staff & Judith Miller, in parcticular, of going to the mat to protect Karl Rove. Trust me, there's a 2nd source and you guys won't even look for them. This is a witch hunt, that as it turns out is all smoke, no fire.

Lemur

07-14-2005, 20:19

The New York Times refused to apologize for all of the downright fabricated stories they printed by Jason Blair.
Sigh, another red herring. Don't know about the Stalin pulitzer, but if you were a local you'd know that the NYT not only apologized for Blair, they ran front-page articles containing corrections, as well as an exhaustive series of articles about how exactly they got duped. I mean, during the couple of weeks they ran those pieces, it was worth asking if anything else was happening in the world, since they dedicated two full pages at a time to their mea culpa.

Bash the NYT all you like, just try to be accurate, please.

Don Corleone

07-14-2005, 20:26

I stand corrected. I was aware that they acknowledged the errors & fabrications, printed corrected stories, and explained how the process allowed them to be duped & how they had made changes to ensure it wouldn't happen again. But I also thought they adamently refused to admit wrong doing as an editorial board themselves, that they took a 'we're victims too' stance. My apologies to you and to the NY Times. Doesn't change the fact that I wouldn't touch that paper to wrap fish.

As for the first reference, the year was 1932. A reporter named Walter Duranty received a Pultizer Prize for a series of articles detailing the miracle of the Soviet economy in the Ukraine, deliberately avoiding mention of the forced famine that killed 7 million Ukranians. To this day, the NY Times maintains that even though the stories were knowingly slanted and ignored critical facts, they are in no way responsible and have kept the Pulitzer.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-14-2005, 20:34

And your critiques of Wilson are fresh and exciting, I suppose?

The critiques of Wilson are relevant to this story. The fact that Ann said Canada had troops in Nam is not.

Reading through the right wing defenses of Rove's actions, one thing is clear: The GOP and its supporters have utterly lost the thread. As long as they disagree with someone, it is okay to use whatever means at their disposal to attack or discredit them. Let's just throw out all that morality, ethics, and righteousness stuff...it only applies to the other side. Hey, the GOP's in power, they can do it, so it is right...they'll find a defense later.

I think you have it all backwards its the left an you who are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Did Rove do something unethical? Quite possibly . Did he do something illegal.? No he didnt . Im not saying hes lily white in this case . By the way no one has addressed this post of mine

eny It doesnt amtter. Whats wrong with you people. She wasnt an active agent within the 5 yearperiod and even if she had been Rove didnt know it.The point is mute. Its nothing more than a smear campaign.

Meanwhile the same NY slimes thats attacking Rove and saying he should go to jail prints this.

Quote:
May 31, 2005
The Times Versus The CIA

The Times causes jaws to drop with its front-pager about the CIA's secret airline. Winds of Change and The Word Unheard are outraged. From "Unheard":

Why publish the names of the contractors? Why publish a photograph of one of the planes complete with aviation ID markings? Why publish the home airport for the ‘flagship’ 737-based Boeing Business Jet(s)? Why attack the CIA’s use of these aircraft and the contractors that operate them?

When you read the NYT article full through, it becomes painfully obvious ‘why’:

Global War on Terror Bad, CIA Bad, America Bad.

This expose seems to have grown out of questions surrounding CIA "torture flights" - CBS has earlier reporting, and the Chicago Tribune also started down this road (the Chicago Tribune story is archived at Michael Moore's website - know your audience.)

Now, we are reasoning backwards, but... several of the companies cited by the Times already generate Google hits as probable CIA fronts (several, but not all!). For example, Premier Executive Transport Services Inc. was outed by the WaPo last December (and guess what - a Freeper led the way!).

Tepper Aviation, Inc. appears as an alleged CIA plane.

Well - one hopes the damage done by the Times in compiling all of this research into one executive summary does not represent a huge setback in our war on terror.

And that said, let's briefly revisit their handwringing over the leak of Valerie Plame's identity. Times editors and columnists wanted to string up Robert Novak and various Administration officials for callously endangering lives and jeopardizing our national security.

That was then.

C.I.A. Expanding Terror Battle Under Guise of Charter Flights

High New York Times: Prisoner Transports Revealed

CIA Air Operation Details Exposed by New York Times

Since when dose the left care about the CIA. Its nothing more than politics. Why arent you all screamng at the times for really undermining a CIA project. And where are the Dems on this issue?

Don Corleone

07-14-2005, 20:42

Shhhhh, Gawain. Don't go messing up the 'truth' with silly things like facts. The truth is, this is all about what a bad guy Karl Rove is. Even if he didn't break the law, we should treat him as though he did because.... well, because. Just because. :dizzy2:

Red Harvest

07-14-2005, 20:53

I am no Ann Coulter disciple. Unless you want me to start attributing everything Al Franken's ever said as your personal gospel, don't lump her and I together, thank you very much. She's Gawain & PJ's girl, I've got more of a thing for Laura Ingraham.

You never did answer me why Judith Miller is on ice. Who is she protecting?

Nope, "You guys on the Left are killing me with this one.. " Everyone who isn't far right is on the left. It's a tired mantra but you do share that with Ann.

As for Judith Miller, I have no idea.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-14-2005, 21:04

She's Gawain & PJ's girl, I've got more of a thing for Laura Ingraham.

Ill take Lara also shes my favorite. But Annes no slouch ether., Many take her too seriously like they do Rush. Yes they both say outlandish things to tweek the opposition but when it comes down to real debate they usually have all their factsstraight. Would you like to compare her credentials to say Franken or Moores?

ANN COULTER

Ann CoulterAnn Coulter is the author of four books, three of which are New York Times best sellers -- Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (June 2003); Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (June 2002); and High Crimes and Misdemeanors:The Case Against Bill Clinton (August 1998). Her latest book, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), was released in Oct. 2004 and should climb the list just as quickly.

Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate. She is a frequent guest on many TV shows, including Hannity and Colmes, Wolf Blitzer Reports, At Large With Geraldo Rivera, Scarborough Country, HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, The O'Reilly Factor, and Good Morning America; and has been profiled in numerous publications, including TV Guide, the Guardian (UK), the New York Observer, National Journal, Harper's Bazaar, and Elle magazine, among others. She was named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner in 2001.

Coulter clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates.

After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, D.C., a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.

A Connecticut native, Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.

Nope, "You guys on the Left are killing me with this one.. " Everyone who isn't far right is on the left. It's a tired mantra but you do share that with Ann.

Yup when I say those on the left I mean those who are left of me. Yes that includes many people but less than half of Americans. Stilll waiting to see why no one on the LEFT is pissed at the Times for exposing real CIA agents and their operations. Talk about hypocracy.

Don Corleone

07-14-2005, 21:05

If you really view yourself in the middle Red, you've got self-awareness issues. There is a very large middle, but you ain't in it, sorry to break it to you.

The 'middle' doesn't get giddy at the idea of 'bagging a big one', during this little hunting expedition. I'm not going to argue that I'm not on the right, but you my friend are definitely on the Left. Need I remind you that in another thread you agreed that 9month old fetuses probably do qualify as human life, but you supported keeping their abortion legal anyway because you didn't trust the Right and didn't want them to score points?

What's more, while you may view me as 'far-right', I guarantee you the 'far-right' certainly doesn't. If a 1 was Michael Moore, and a 100 would be a Lamar Alexander, I'd put myself at about 70. I'd put you at about 20.

Red Harvest

07-14-2005, 21:18

That's crap, Don. The Right shifted, not me. I am finding myself very opposed to this concept of one party rule. That is what we have at the moment, partisan rule rejecting any dissent. At this point it is necessary to align myself more often with those on the Left in the opposition. The GOP is good about self policing, and has an almost gestapo like approach to it, something the Democrats haven't really had (at least not in the past few decades.)

The GOP has become the party of exclusion and you are the perfect example of that. Anyone disagrees, they are liberal, a lefty. The GOP is giddy with its own power, and the country is at great internal risk as a result. I would feel the same way if roles were reversed and the far Left had such power. Unlike you, I don't embrace either end's propaganda.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-14-2005, 21:22

That's crap, Don. The Right shifted, not me.

Oh please the right is far left of where it was when I was a growing up. You are ndeed a centerist when it comes to many things like the position of the US in the world but when it comes to politics your almst as far left as Jag.

The GOP has become the party of exclusion and you are the perfect example of that. Anyone disagrees, they are liberal, a lefty. ~:handball:

Whats this a joke? Is it the repbulicans who wont let anyone who dissagress with their ideas to speak at their conventions? Is it they who wouldnt let a pro abortion person speak there or is the dems who wont let a pro life person speak at theirs. Its the big tent that has brought them victory. Its a bit to big though for many of us conservatives.

Don Corleone

07-14-2005, 21:23

It might interest you to know that I'm not a Republican, and I don't toe the party line on a lot of issues. But you cannot call yourself a moderate with the stance you take on abortion. That's not because you disagree with me (I actually am a moderate on abortion, I believe in choice in the first trimester), but because you are taking an extreme position, absolutely no regulation whatsoever. And the only reason, as you yourself freely admitted, was because you didn't want the right to get even a minor victory. I don't oppose 3rd trimester abortions on 'religious grounds', as I don't know, and don't care what the official position of the United Methodist Church is w/ regard to abortion. "I" have made the determination that by week 20, it sure as hell is a living human, and once you make that determination, the only reason to terminate a pregnancy would be to save the life of the mother.

Sorry, I'm ending this here, I didn't mean to drag this so far off topic. But honestly, if you think I'm a Bush disciple running around forcing everyone to adopt the Republican party platform you're sadly mistaken. What's more, just because you believe yourself to be a moderate, that don't make it so.

Red Harvest

07-14-2005, 21:32

But you cannot call yourself a moderate with the stance you take on abortion. That's not because you disagree with me (I actually am a moderate on abortion, I believe in choice in the first trimester), but because you are taking an extreme position, absolutely no regulation whatsoever. And the only reason, as you yourself freely admitted, was because you didn't want the right to get even a minor victory. I don't oppose 3rd trimester abortions on 'religious grounds', as I don't know, and don't care what the official position of the United Methodist Church is w/ regard to abortion. "I" have made the determination that by week 20, it sure as hell is a living human, and once you make that determination, the only reason to terminate a pregnancy would be to save the life of the mother.

Well la de da de da... I'm not the one issue voter you are. I guess that makes me a lefty... sheesh. A little perspective would be good. I believe in personal freedoms and property. That doesn't make me left leaning.

I oppose the right on abortion because I don't believe anything they say on this matter. When it comes to reproductive issues and contraception, I smell rotten fish whenever they propose anything related to these matters.

It is tirades just like yours that actually make me less sympathetic to the anti-abortion cause. :furious3:

Gawain of Orkeny

07-14-2005, 21:36

Red you are a centerist on many matters but their is no doubt that you hate the right. That makes you a liberal in my book as do many of your stances. The one on abortion being the most obvious and your rant on Bush being Illegitamte.

Hurin_Rules

07-14-2005, 21:46

Come, come to the Dark Side Red...

Don Corleone

07-14-2005, 21:59

Gawain of Orkeny

07-14-2005, 22:40

Actually, I don't stand with the right on abortion, as I'm pro-choice prior to viability. I just believe that once you hold that it's a human being in there, elective abortion has to be considered murder.

You have hit a snag here Don. Viablity has become possible at earlier and earlier stages. A baby now days is viable far sooner than in the past. At what point exactly does it become human? Isnt it possible that someday in the not to distant future we could take say a 1 month old fetus and artifically bring it to term or maybe even a 1 day old one. I say its human and alive from the moment of conception and thats all that counts. Im only willing to compromise to save those we can. Its better than what we have now. Wow isnt this thread about Karl Rove ~:confused:

Gawain of Orkeny

07-15-2005, 01:24

My congressman weighs in

Peter King, congressman from Long Island, was on Scarborough Country on Tuesday night, and I have a little transcript of it here. Scarborough says, "The last thing you want to do in a time of war is reveal the identity of undercover CIA agents," and King said, "No, Joe Wilson, she recommended, his wife recommended him for this job in Niger. He said the vice president recommended him. To me, she took it off the table. Once she allowed him to go ahead and say that and write his op-ed in the New York Times to have Tim Russert give him a full hour on Meet the Press saying he was sent there as a representative of the vice president, when she knew -- she knew herself -- that she was the one that recommended him for this job, she allowed that lie to go forward, involving the vice president of the United States, and the president. Then to me she should be the last one in the world who has any right to complain about anything, and Joe Wilson has no right to complain, and I think people like Tim Russert and the others who gave this guy such a free ride in all the media, they're the ones that ought to be shot, not Karl Rove. Look, maybe Rove wasn't perfect. We live in an imperfect world. I give him credit for having the guts, though, and I really tell you, Republicans are running for cover, they ought to be out there attacking Joe Wilson. We should throw this back at them with all the nonsense that's been said about George Bush and all the lies that have come out. Let's at least stand by the guy. He was trying to set the record straight for historical purposes, Rove was, to save American lives -- and if Joe Wilson's wife was that upset, she should have come out and said that her husband was a liar when he was."

PanzerJaeger

07-15-2005, 02:41

You have hit a snag here Don. Viablity has become possible at earlier and earlier stages. A baby now days is viable far sooner than in the past. At what point exactly does it become human? Isnt it possible that someday in the not to distant future we could take say a 1 month old fetus and artifically bring it to term or maybe even a 1 day old one. I say its human and alive from the moment of conception and thats all that counts. Im only willing to compromise to save those we can. Its better than what we have now. Wow isnt this thread about Karl Rove

We can already grow them in test tubes cant we?

Don Corleone

07-15-2005, 03:12

You can create a blastomere (is that the right word?) but they don't know how to get that to a fetus without implanting it into a human womb. What's more, a fetus isn't viable until a certain stage.

Look, guys, I'd be really hypocritcal if I jumped on Red for being uncompromising on one end, and didn't call you on it at the other. The fact of the matteris, there is no scientific evidence to support calling a 4 day old blastomere a human being. There just isn't. The same way you can't call an egg you buy at the grocery store a chicken. At some point, inside that eggshell, it will become a chicken, even before it breaks out of that shell.

Likewise, at some point, a fertilized human egg will become a human being. I have no idea at what point that is, exactly. But Red Harvest is actually right about the argument made against the morning after pill, and I'm going to have to eat some crow here. The only argument against it is religious (in the sense of it's what you believe on faith). There is no scientific basis for calling a 4 day old blastomere a human being.

Damn, this is twice, in the same thread. Oy vey, so off topic. Back on topic, all party politics aside: Hurin, Red, Lemur do you guys think (as an impartial observer) the odds are good of Rove getting fired? Just out of curiosity, not whether you think he should or not. How about the guys that are in here on the right? It'd be interesting to see once we take our personal desires out of it how it breaks down along sides (if it does at all...) I personally think he's got something up his sleeve, and whomever is the target of the Grand Jury (and it's not him) is going to get a nasty surprise, courtesy of big Karl.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-15-2005, 03:20

he fact of the matteris, there is no scientific evidence to support calling a 4 day old blastomere a human being. There just isn't. The same way you can't call an egg you buy at the grocery store a chicken. At some point, inside that eggshell, it will become a chicken, even before it breaks out of that shell.

Likewise, at some point, a fertilized human egg will become a human being. I have no idea at what point that is, exactl

If you have no idea if its human or not yet than how can you kill it is the thing. If it could be isnt that enough? Besides how can you compare chickens to humans. If fetuses tasted good should we eat them? The fact that its human potential or not is all I need to know.

The only argument against it is religious (in the sense of it's what you believe on faith). There is no scientific basis for calling a 4 day old blastomere a human being.
Its not religous but the humane thing to do. Do chickens eat their own eggs?

bmolsson

07-15-2005, 03:32

If you have no idea if its human or not yet than how can you kill it is the thing. If it could be isnt that enough? Besides how can you compare chickens to humans. If fetuses tasted good should we eat them? The fact that its human potential or not is all I need to know.
Its not religous but the humane thing to do. Do chickens eat their own eggs?

So why can't they all become Amercian citizens then ?? :book:

Don Corleone

07-15-2005, 03:43

I did not mean to drag this thread off topic into abortion. God knows we have enough threads on the subject we can go move to one and have the whole kit'n'kaboodle debate all over again. Or, shocker, we can start a new thread! This one is about whether or not big Karl is going down. So....

Let's take an informal poll: say whether you're on the left, the right or the center. Say whether your desired outcome is and what you think the likely outcome is.

I'll go first. I'm on the right. My desired outcome is that the Wilson clowns get taught a lesson or two about playing political games that are over their heads. My expected outcome is this is going to progress to a bad, but not terrible outcome for the White House, namely that Bush will be viewed as not in control of his people anymore.

Hurin_Rules

07-15-2005, 03:45

Back on topic, all party politics aside: Hurin, Red, Lemur do you guys think (as an impartial observer) the odds are good of Rove getting fired? Just out of curiosity, not whether you think he should or not.

I think its still really up in the air. I would say 50/50. I would say 75/25 in favour of him getting fired, if any other president were in office, but Bush has some odd notions about accountability. Rice overlooked intelligence reports and didn't know what her own staff were doing. For that, she got promoted to secretary of state. Cheney said that the Americans would be greeted in the streets of Baghdad with flowers and candy; he's still VP. Wolfowitz said that Iraq could 'finance its own reconstruction'; he got promoted to head of the World Bank. Rumsfeld said that the US would be able to reduce its troops in Iraq to 30,000 by the fall of 2003; he tried to submit his resignation to Bush twice, and was refused both times. Tenet oversaw the greatest intelligence failure in US history. For that, he got a medal of honour.

So no, I'm not betting on Rove getting sacked.

One thing is for certain: its a black eye for the administration.

Lemur

07-15-2005, 04:25

Hurin, Red, Lemur do you guys think (as an impartial observer) the odds are good of Rove getting fired? Just out of curiosity, not whether you think he should or not.
Honestly, I have no idea. The left and the right are spinning this issue so fast and furiously, somebody ought to harness the motion to a turbine. You could power half of Nevada with the energy.

The left, as several have said, are jumping up and down and acting as though they've won a victory, when in fact nothing seems certain at all. The right, on the other hand, are gearing up into full-on counterattack mode. Folks are generating a lot of heat, but precious little light.

This much I know: Anybody who speaks about this situation with certainty has a partisan dog in the fight. There's too little information to form a reasonable conclusion.

On a side note, to respond to the crazy lady's number one fan, Gawain:

(1) Bestsellers do not equal respectability, otherwise Stephen King would make all political calls for the cable channels.

(2) Comparing an insane right-winger with insane left-wingers is sort of reductionist. Do you want to compare the crazy lady with Al Franken? Go ahead! Demolish them both! Oooooh, what have we learned? Why, we've learned that partisan hacks are partisan hacks! Thrilling! But Ann C. is more fun, 'cause she's a loonbat.

(3) Dismissing insane things people have said in public forums as "tweaking" the other side, well, I trust you're going to extend that courtesy to every insane thing that comes out of a liberal's mouth as well. No?

(4) As for the NYT's expose on the rendition flights, that's pretty troubling. On the one hand, it's probably quite wrong for us to send people to Syria and Egypt to be tortured. And I don't mean "wrong" in some moral sense, but rather it's bad tactics and bad policy. People will say anything under torture. They'll make things up if they think it will make the pain stop. Read up on the issue (pay special attention to what worked against the IRA -- and what didn't). Furthermore, on those occasions when we use rendition to drop an innocent off to be tortured (and there's been one documented case) we lose credibility worldwide, as well as creating a HUGE legal problem for our nation down the road.

Now having said all of that, was the NYT right to expose the rendition flights? Probably not. It's a troubling conundrum, which I would sum up like this:

- The gov't policy of rendition is counter-productive.
- So the NYT expose of the airplanes was okay?
- No, they were dead wrong, because they aren't elected, and why should they decide policy?
- So the government was right?
- No, the government is still wrong in this case. Ask anybody with CT experience.
- So the NYT was acting in the classic free press mode, exposing gov't problems?
- No, the NYT is still wrong, since they may have endangered CIA operatives, and that's just wrong.
- So the gov't was mistreated and the NYT are villains?
- Ugh. Hard to say.

I can run in circles like that for a while, until I make myself dizzy. Ultimately, the rendition policy is bad, and the NYT expose was wrong. But because both sides are way out of bounds in this case, it's hard to work up much righteous wrath. It's a bit of a muddle.

Oh, but since I am not taking an ironclad position and declaring my allegiance for the right or left, I must have an IQ lower than a toaster. That's what the crazy lady told me.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-15-2005, 04:48

I think its still really up in the air. I would say 50/50. I would say 75/25 in favour of him getting fired,

Maybe where you live but not in the USA . You have it backwards. Please try to look at the facts. They were just trying to make a name for themselves and are deomcratic party hacks. She knew her husband was lying about the VP yet she let him blab it all over the place. And again how come your not screaming about te Slimes exposing an actual CIA operation and agents? ~:confused:

Don Corleone

07-15-2005, 04:57

Another point we've all missed so far... this grand jury is supposed to be secret, and all those who testify are under oath & threat of contempt proceedings to not mention a word. Anybody else find it interesting so much is being leaked by both sides, some of it so specific it could have only come from one source (not that I know who that source is, but those who play this game for real probably do)? Last time this much leaking was going on, Noah built himself a boat! ~:eek:

Hurin_Rules

07-15-2005, 05:00

And again how come your not screaming about te Slimes exposing an actual CIA operation and agents? ~:confused:

To what are you referring? If it is to the practice of extraordinary rendition, then that should be exposed for the crime it is in the fullest light of day, and the NYT is doing the American people a great service.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-15-2005, 05:16

If it is to the practice of extraordinary rendition,

The key word here being IF. Neither you nor the Times knows the truth here.How about addressing my other point that his wife knew he was lying and let him spread his lies in the press and on tv for a long period of time. Now the Democrats are saying well a crime may not have been comitted but fire him anyway. Again Wilson lies and the press goes to report these lies as fact. Rove tells the truth telling them dont go there as its a lie and hes the bad guy.

Red Harvest

07-15-2005, 06:04

I will actually be surprised if Dubya fires Rove without a substantial fight. A man with integrity would be compelled to act as soon as he confirmed that Rove had indeed revealed the name and surely he has known for a year or more, unless Rove lied to him which would be immediate grounds for summary dismissal. The time has already come and past. I'm not sure if this is slow reaction time by the President, or the original comment Dubya made was just convenient double speak that he figured he could avoid on a technicality.

If Rove does go, the normal way would not be to actually fire him, of course, but to convince him he must resign "for the good of the presidency and the country" and all that. That would also minimize the prejudicing effect (as compared to the President essentially telling the world *why* Rove had to go.) That would be the normal graceful/honorable way out. It's beginning to look a bit late for that to be done gracefully now.

Bush has a feeble record with respect to personal accountability extending back to Vietnam days. Mainly it is those who disagree with the admin, rather than those doing wrong who are shown the door. If I had some of the scandals floating around that Dubya has had to deal with, I would be looking to mount heads on stakes as a warning unto others and to show that I wanted to fix problems rather than sweep them under the rug. That's the way I work, but it is not the way many others do. However, it leads me to suspect that the reason Dubya doesn't react more forcefully in such matters is that the problem reaches all the way to the top. On the other hand Dubya didn't axe O'Keefe for the 2nd shuttle disaster, and I doubt that Dubya could have been responsible for that--it was a problem with NASA as best I can tell. That is relevant as it implies that Dubya is not much on accountability--and Dubya's business record with failed oil interests (including accounting irregularities with him as the head of the auditing committee) makes it plausible that he would be unwilling to crack the whip on others working for him.

Hurin_Rules

07-15-2005, 06:25

The key word here being IF. Neither you nor the Times knows the truth here.How about addressing my other point that his wife knew he was lying and let him spread his lies in the press and on tv for a long period of time. Now the Democrats are saying well a crime may not have been comitted but fire him anyway. Again Wilson lies and the press goes to report these lies as fact. Rove tells the truth telling them dont go there as its a lie and hes the bad guy.

So let me get this straight. You're saying the real crime here is not that a senior government official outed a CIA operative as political payback, it's that there are inaccuracies in Wilson's book?

These are the 'facts' you want me to look at?

Byzantine Prince

07-15-2005, 06:28

It shouldn't come as a surpise that the conservatives of this forum are supporting and defending this guy to no end. It's quite obvious really. Mr. Rove could have killed Wilson, they still would be like "he's great guy, wilson was just being a pain".

They love that fatass. ~D

Gawain of Orkeny

07-15-2005, 06:31

So let me get this straight. You're saying the real crime here is not that a senior government official outed a CIA operative as political payback

Thats your take on it. Mine is she woperative in the true sense of the word or he would be prosecuted. Theres no evidence that this was political payback but an attempt to put the record straight.

it's that there are inaccuracies in Wilson's book?

Inaccuracies ~D There outright lies and its not only in his book but in almost everything he says. Look up what the senate commitee had to say about him. They said all he did was lie. Then this guy has the balls to hold a press conference with Chucky boy , who I might add voted against this law even going into effect, saying Rove has no ethics and should resign or Bush should fire him. Give me a friggin break.

Don Corleone

07-15-2005, 12:01

The law that defines who's an operative and who isn't pegs it at 5 years. By all accounts, Ms. Plame had been out of covert ops for 6 years. That alone means no crime was committed.

What's more, Rove gave grand jury testimony that Cooper approached him, originally on welfare reform, and then shifted the story to Wilson. Specificially, Cooper said 'why did the VP pick Wilson for this mission' and Rove said "he didn't. His wife is a bigwig at the CIA and she got him the job".

Robert Novak called Rove a couple of weeks later and outlined pretty much the entire sad affair and Rove answered "Oh, you know about that?"

From what I can gather, Rove siezed an opportunity to expose Wilson as a liar, essentially turning the tables on him. Now that his claims have been debunked (Cheney didn't send him to Niger, his report did not conclude that Saddam Hussein wasn't looking for yellowcake, his wife was not a covert operative at the time all this came to light and hadn't been for 6 years) the Left (the professionals: Schumer, H. Clinton, Kennedy) is saying "well, the whole thing still looks bad. Fire Rove anyway".

Karl Rove is actually not one of my favorite people, and some of the stunts he's pulled (I still think he supplied those doctored service reports to Dan Rather last summer) should make Bush think long and hard about who he's dealing with. But as I see it, he hasn't committed any crimes.

Explain to me where I'm wrong on that and maybe I'll agree he should get jail time.

Hurin_Rules

07-15-2005, 16:58

I think you've got some good points there Don.

From the testimony we've heard about today--The reporter's comments to the grand jury, if true--it looks like someone other than Rove first outed Wilson's wife. Now, we don't know when exactly this happened--it could have been long before--but it certainly seems like Rove was not the first to do so. The interesting question is, who told Cooper? Because Novak said it was 'two senior white house officials' that confirmed it. Could the reporter have found out on her own? Was it someone else in the White House? That's the reason, I think, that Rove is not the target of the investigation. But we still haven't gotten to the bottom of it. Someone still outed her before Novak knew.

Don Corleone

07-15-2005, 17:01

Well, sadly, you're going in roughly the same direction I have been, mentally, and I'm sure with all the puzzle pieces we have, you've reached the same conclusion. What high level administration official at that time was 'not a partisan or political gunslinger at all', Novak describing his original source. That's right, Colin Powell looks like the culprit in this one. :embarassed:

WAIT!! I just thought of who it might be... high level official, non-partisan, worked in both Clinton & Bush's administrations. Mysteriously resigned a year ago when the Senate hearings really started getting up... could it be... George Tenet?

Hurin_Rules

07-15-2005, 17:05

That's right, Colin Powell looks like the culprit in this one. :embarassed:

Wow, never even thought of that one.

But would Novak describe Powell as a 'White House' official? I would think he'd call him an 'Administration' official, since he works in the State Dept., not the White House.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-15-2005, 17:07

I think you've got some good points there Don.

I made these same points over and over but not as clearly as Don I suppose. Wilson is just one big liar. Nice to see your coming to your sense now.

Don Corleone

07-15-2005, 17:19

G, That's because I tempered my remarks by disparaging Rove with those doctored service reports ~D (which I really do believe by the way).

We are so early on in all of this, it ain't funny. We don't even know that Novak, Rove &/or Cooper didn't lie to the Grand Jury. We don't know who their target is. And we don't know a hill of beans about what Judith Miller is sitting on other than it ain't Karl Rove. Sorry Hurin, I just can't buy Judith Miller cooling in a jail cell for a week so that Karl Rove wouldn't be further outed than he already is. I could be wrong, but that just doesn't seem likely.

In any case, the more I go around about all of this, the more I realize I know I don't know more than I know. :dizzy2:

By the way, administration/white house/executive branch are all interchangable describers. Yes, they wouldn't normally describe Powell as part of the White House, but if you're trying to cover your source... it's technically not a lie.

But I'm actually thinking more along the lines of Tenet now. Powell had no motive and Tenet did, as it was his department that Plame & Wilson were using as cover for their little 'John Kerry for President' scheme.

Hurin_Rules

07-15-2005, 17:40

Gawain and Don,

The reason for my current comments is not that Gawain made them in a more partisan manner than Don; it is the report that emerged last night and today about Novak's and the reporters' testimony before the Grand Jury. From their sworn statements, it seems like Novak told Rove that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, not vice versa. We didn't know that before this.

I'm going to wait before I muse any more about who it could be, but I will say that Tenet is a more likely candidate than Powell. Either way, we still don't know when it first happened and if Plame was a covert operative when it did. Hopefully, this will all come out soon.

~:cheers:

Don Corleone

07-15-2005, 17:55

I was just kidding Hurin, and actually, that had all come out yesterday, which was when I shifted gears on this one.

Hurin_Rules

07-15-2005, 18:03

Fair enough. I was a bit behind the pace on this one.

:bow:

Don Corleone

07-15-2005, 18:06

Well, it is Friday. Any bad news that the White House is going to have to dump... expect it late this afternoon. ~D

Hurin_Rules

07-15-2005, 18:55

Well, it is Friday. Any bad news that the White House is going to have to dump... expect it late this afternoon. ~D

If you change 'bad' to 'good' and 'expect' to 'eagerly welcome', we are in perfect agreement. ~:)

KafirChobee

07-15-2005, 21:25

To support Karl Rove, feel free to use the following link:

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2005/071205.asp

~D

Really enjoyed Jon Stewarts "expose" on the Daily, Wednesday. All the denials from 2003 from all the top Republican'ts about Rove's part in exposing an agent of the CIA were percious. The fact that they are now twisting it, is absolutely hillarious. Americans are dumb, but never stupid.
W's poll numbers are right around his Dads' btw.

:balloon2:

t1master

07-15-2005, 22:39

Gawain of Orkeny

07-16-2005, 02:28

Well I just saw Plames ex boss on tv. He says everyone who knew her knew she worked for the CIA including reporters for several years now. How could they miss her driving to work there everyday? He says she was not an agent for over 6 years before this article was printed. He also said her sending her husband on this mission was outragous.

Hurin_Rules

07-17-2005, 20:53

Cooper just dropped the A-bomb:

Reporter: Rove was first source on CIA leak
WASHINGTON - White House political aide Karl Rove was the first person to tell a Time magazine reporter that the wife of a prominent critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy was a CIA officer, the reporter said in an article Sunday.

Time correspondent Matthew Cooper said he told a grand jury last week that Rove told him the woman worked at the "agency," or CIA, on weapons of mass destruction issues, and ended the call by saying "I've already said too much."

He said Rove did not disclose the woman's name, Valerie Plame, but told him information would be declassified that would cast doubt on the credibility of her husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson, who had charged the Bush administration with exaggerating the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs in making its case for war.

"So did Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the 'agency' on 'WMD'? Yes," Cooper wrote in Time's current edition.

"When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know. Is any of this a crime? Beats me," Cooper wrote.

He also wrote that he was not certain what Rove meant by commenting he had already said too much.

A top Cheney aide was also among the sources, the Cooper said Sunday.

Earlier denials
Until last week, the White House had insisted for nearly two years that vice presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby and Rove were not involved in the leaks.

Cooper said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he spoke to Libby after first learning about Wilson's wife from Rove.

Republicans are responding to the revelations about Rove's role in the leak by saying that the deputy White House chief of staff first heard about Wilson's wife from a reporter.

The chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman, told NBC that the disclosure about getting the information from a reporter vindicates Rove and that Democrats who have called for Rove's dismissal should apologize.

But John Podesta, former White House chief of staff in the Clinton administration, said the White House's assurance in 2003 that Rove was not involved in the leak "was a lie." Rove's credibility "is in shreds," said Podesta, who appeared with Mehlman.

Wilson was the top U.S. diplomat in Iraq during the Persian Gulf War.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8605680/

Tribesman

07-17-2005, 23:39

Well since the administration said that anyone involved in the case would be dismissed , then surely Rove should go , also Libby Lewis should be ****** off out of it .
Come on be fair .....if you want to target Bushes favourites you may as well target Cheneys as well ~;)

Gawain of Orkeny

07-17-2005, 23:46

Well since the administration said that anyone involved in the case would be dismissed ,

They said no such thing. There you go again putting the words in pweoples mouths you wished they had said. There was no crime here and there should not have been an ivestigation either. Talk about wasting taxpayers money. Novak sent his story to the CIA before he printed it and they had no problem with him naming her.

Red Harvest

07-18-2005, 01:31

When is a lie not a lie? When a conservative is telling it.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-18-2005, 01:34

When is a lie not a lie? When a conservative is telling it.

I thought it was when Bill Clinton told it? May I ask what lie you are reffering to?

sharrukin

07-18-2005, 02:28

They said no such thing. There you go again putting the words in pweoples mouths you wished they had said. There was no crime here and there should not have been an ivestigation either. Talk about wasting taxpayers money. Novak sent his story to the CIA before he printed it and they had no problem with him naming her.

Apparently Novak doesn't agree with you.

"They asked me not to use her name"

Gawain of Orkeny

07-18-2005, 04:10

Apparently Novak doesn't agree with you.

"They asked me not to use her name"

If they really thought this would endanger her or any operation that she had been involved with dont you think they would have done a bit more than ASK him not to use her name? Dont you think redlights would go off and they would ask where did you get this top secret information from? Again everyone knew she worked for the CIA. It was no secret.

Hurin_Rules

07-18-2005, 04:50

Gawain:

You're missing the forest for the trees. Note this in particular:

Time correspondent Matthew Cooper said he told a grand jury last week that Rove told him the woman worked at the "agency," or CIA, on weapons of mass destruction issues, and ended the call by saying "I've already said too much."

He said Rove did not disclose the woman's name, Valerie Plame, but told him information would be declassified that would cast doubt on the credibility of her husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson, who had charged the Bush administration with exaggerating the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs in making its case for war.

Rove said information would be declassified, and that he'd already said too much. This doesn't suggest to you that he was revealing classified information and that he knew his conduct was wrong?

sharrukin

07-18-2005, 04:52

If they really thought this would endanger her or any operation that she had been involved with dont you think they would have done a bit more than ASK him not to use her name? Dont you think redlights would go off and they would ask where did you get this top secret information from?

Well they could have threatened to have him whacked, but not much else. He didn't break any laws by what he did. They AFAIK, cannot threaten to have him imprisoned as they have no such authority over the press. I am not 100% certain of that, but I believe it to be the case. Outside of asking him not to do it, what else could they do?

Again everyone knew she worked for the CIA. It was no secret.

It was classified, and legally a state secret. Anyone who reveals it, and has clearance has broken American Federal law.

I have yet to see any evidence that anyone lacking clearance might have known she worked for the CIA. It is rumoured that perhaps two or three people knew, but so far that to my knowledge, that hasn't been substantiated.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-18-2005, 04:57

Well they could have threatened to have him whacked, but not much else. He didn't break any laws by what he did.

Then whats the investigation about if this was known from the start? They could have threatened him or TOLD him not ASKED him not to print it. Clearly they didnt see much of a threat here.

It was classified, and legally a state secret. Anyone who reveals it, and has clearance has broken American Federal law.

Im afraid your wrong. She drove to work at the CIA everyday. It was no secret. It was common knowledge.

sharrukin

07-18-2005, 05:37

Then whats the investigation about if this was known from the start? They could have threatened him or TOLD him not ASKED him not to print it. Clearly they didnt see much of a threat here.

The investigation is about finding out who had clearance, and violated the law by revealing her identity. They could not threaten him, as they have nothing to threaten him with. He holds no security clearance, and has thus violated no law by his actions. They did see a threat, and did the only thing they legally can do, and that is to ask a loyal American not to go forward with publishing the material.

Im afraid your wrong. She drove to work at the CIA everyday. It was no secret. It was common knowledge.

Do you have any source, or proof that her identity was compromised? If it was as widely known as you suggest then finding such evidence should be no problem.

poirot

07-18-2005, 11:05

Karl Rove in a quagmire? Raise the roof! ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers:

Gawain of Orkeny

07-18-2005, 15:03

The investigation is about finding out who had clearance, and violated the law by revealing her identity.

Its already been pointed out that no law was violated. This thing is a sham.

They could not threaten him, as they have nothing to threaten him with.

Didnt you just say that revealing her identity was a crime and thats why their investigating ~:confused: Why didnt they stop him or arrest him as it certanly was he who revealed it to the public.

They did see a threat, and did the only thing they legally can do, and that is to ask a loyal American not to go forward with publishing the material.

They could have pointed out that this violated the law but the facts are it doesnt.

In the same Post piece, Novak asserts that the CIA urged him not to print Plame's name "for security reason[s]" but also said it was doubtful Plame would have another foreign assignment. The CIA and the military are very good at persuading mainstream journalists such as Novak to hold their fire when they're about to publish information that would damage an ongoing intelligence or military operation. But Novak tells the Post the CIA made only "a very weak request" not to name Plame. "If it was put on a stronger basis, I would have considered it," Novak said. As an experienced Washington journalist who frequently bumps up against intelligence sources, Novak surely knows how to read signals from the CIA. Had they wanted him to black out her name, they should have—and would have—told him to do so.

Do you have any source, or proof that her identity was compromised?

Well I saw her fomer boss on tv and that what he said.

Spetulhu

07-18-2005, 15:28

Wasn't GW Bush himself stating the leak will be found after the thing happened? And why would the CIA want an investigation if no crime has been committed?

But when the investigation suddenly points out an important cog of the President's staff, there was no crime! In fact, it's just someone attempting to make the Prez look bad! A fine example of how political parties mobilize their respective media and try to clobber each other.

Hurin_Rules

07-18-2005, 15:52

Red Harvest

07-18-2005, 16:23

Do none on the right find it disturbing that the president's spokesman lied when he said Rove had nothing to do with the leak of this information? I believe he called it ridiculous. Turns out it was reality. This is not a problem at all for you?

To be fair here, I think quite a few on the right are not to pleased about this. Gawain is the only one still blindly defending Rove.

Don Corleone

07-18-2005, 16:27

Gawain of Orkeny

07-18-2005, 16:36

To be fair here, I think quite a few on the right are not to pleased about this. Gawain is the only one still blindly defending Rove.

Ive said from the begging that Rove is probably guilty of unethical behavior. Im not nor have I ever been blindly defending him. My point is this is just politics and in reality has nothing to do with the law. Its down and dirty as usual. Neither side is clean in this respect.

Xiahou

07-18-2005, 17:19

I found something that makes this even more absurd. According to media organizations own lawyers there is "ample evidence . . . to doubt that a crime has been committed". Of course, there's blood in the water and they're after Rove, so they won't let their own statements get in the way of a good lynching.

LINK (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61388-2005Mar23.html)

Basically, their reporters shouldn't have to testify until it's proven an actual crim was committed, but, on the other hand, Rove should immediately resign based on nothing more than their own allegations.

Red Harvest

07-18-2005, 17:28

Somebody lied to McLellan. Generally speaking, you don't tell the press secretary about these things. It's called plausible deniability (McLellan will tell the best lie when he himself believes it to be true). Yes, I find it disturbing, and I would expect you'll see his resignation as soon as this calms down, but at least by Halloween.

Again, I find the whole thing pretty shady, and again, as I've said, Karl Rove isn't somebody I trust as far as I can throw him. Nicolo Machiavelli would come to him for advice. BUT, it seems he was very careful to tiptoe along the fine line of legality.

The president said if it turned out somebody had broken the law and outed a covert agent, regardless of the legal decision, he would fire them. Thus far, it hasn't risen to that level, for Karl Rove anyway. I don't know enough about what Louis Libby said when.

I agree with much of what you said here about the messenger side. The White House spokesman is a mouthpiece--the messenger and whipping boy. He does give the President some "deniability" and "lost in retelling/transmission/translation" type excuses. However, ultimately, remember this message is coming directly from Dubya. He has made denials that were in fact lies. And he's made claims about how he would deal with any of those caught in this...but he had no intention of honoring this. Now he is trying to change the spin to claim he meant only if one was found guilty of a crime. Not only has the message been changed, but trying to weasel out on a technicality suggests that the he knew about the sources of the leaks much earlier and he was just fine with them. The wording was chosen as a fallback.

This is an example of an administration clearly abusing its power. They are unapologetic, and still fighting tooth and nail.

Red Harvest

07-18-2005, 17:50

Basically, their reporters shouldn't have to testify until it's proven an actual crim was committed, but, on the other hand, Rove should immediately resign based on nothing more than their own allegations.

Their argument has some merit. However, your assertion that it has to be "proven" before testimony is an absurd interpretation, so I assume it is a matter of incorrect terminology. A hearing would be used to determine if there was reasonable basis to suggest a crime had been committed. "Proven" is what you have after an actual successful prosecution. In other words, a hearing is still a judgement call. There is still an open question as to whether a prosecutable crime has been committed with regards to the original issue. Part of this is that this law apparently has never been tested in the courts.

More importantly, as in other such matters, it is not necessarily the original concern that might require testimony, but the actions used in trying to cover it up. That's what got Clinton in trouble with Monica--it wasn't his act that was illegal, it was the cover up. Nothing Starr was doing really should have brought him into that. Even the Supreme Court rule gave the courts broad leeway to investigate matters. Secret service agents were being compelled to testify.

In the end, there is certainly ample reason to believe crimes might have been committed in attempting to cover up this Rove embarassment. Whether or not such a specific hearing should be required is a very good question.

Xiahou

07-18-2005, 18:00

In the end, there is certainly ample reason to believe crimes might have been committed in attempting to cover up this Rove embarassment. Whether or not such a specific hearing should be required is a very good question.Do me the favor of outlining what laws you think have ample reason to believe have been broken and how- I'm not aware of them.

Don Corleone

07-18-2005, 18:34

However, ultimately, remember this message is coming directly from Dubya. He has made denials that were in fact lies. What makes you think the President knew? Even if Cheney was invovled, and Libby being named as a second source seems to imply that, there's a good chance Rove & Cheney kept the President out of it.

And he's made claims about how he would deal with any of those caught in this...but he had no intention of honoring this. Now he is trying to change the spin to claim he meant only if one was found guilty of a crime. Okay, I've been pretty honest with you guys on this regarding an unflattering opinion I have of certain members of an administration that I support and you don't. Essentially, I've trusted you to be frank with you and quit wriggling around. I would appreciate if you you could either 1) produce some quotes showing where Bush said he would fire anyone even remotely connected to any hint of impropriety or 2) stop putting words in his mouth. I might be wrong, he might have said all that, and I would be happy to be corrected. But until you provide me with some evidence of the President doing a U-turn, it's just your say-so, and I'm not going to fly off the handle on that.

sharrukin

07-18-2005, 18:52

Its already been pointed out that no law was violated. This thing is a sham.
The purpose of the investigation is to investigate if there was a violation of law. If they knew all the details of what happened they wouldn't need to investigate.

Didnt you just say that revealing her identity was a crime and thats why their investigating ~:confused: Why didnt they stop him or arrest him as it certanly was he who revealed it to the public.

NO!

Karl Rove has a security clearance, and if he revealed Plame's identity (not her name, her identity) he is in violation of the law. Novak does NOT have a security clearance, so if he reveals Plame's identity he is NOT in violation of the law.

Well I saw her fomer boss on tv and that what he said.

Given the way in which Bill Clinton's ghost has now possessed George Bush and we are back to the 'denials that aren't really denials' and little verbal tricks as to what the truth might be, could I ask what Exactly he said?

sharrukin

07-18-2005, 19:00

1) produce some quotes showing where Bush said he would fire anyone even remotely connected to any hint of impropriety

September 29, 2003, White House press briefing:

McCLELLAN: The president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.

Press Conference of the President After G8 Summit

President George W. Bush
International Media Center
Savannah, Georgia
June 10, 2004

http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/33463.htm

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, exactly, Roberts. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --

QUESTION: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

Xiahou

07-18-2005, 19:05

The purpose of the investigation is to investigate if there was a violation of law. If they knew all the details of what happened they wouldn't need to investigate. Indeed, it has yet to be determined if a crime was even committed, yet in the media there are constant calls for Rove to resign or be fired- he's already been deemed guilty before its even been determined a law was broken. For what? For being political? He's a political advisor- it's his job.

Until proven otherwise, I tend to think he said what he did to Cooper to refute Wilson's implication that Cheney sent him to Niger. As the Senate Intelligence Committee found, Plame did indeed recommend Wilson. It makes sense to me- everyone agrees that Rove is a smart person, so why would he be so stupid as to commit a crime by intentionally blowing a covert agent's cover and then give Cooper a specific waiver to identify him instead of going to jail? Cooper has said that he didn't believe in the validity of "blanket" waivers and wouldn't have testified based on one. Which, to me, raises another question- who was Judith Miller's source? Apparently not Rove.

If people believe that Rove did it out of cruelty or vengeance, just because "he's evil and it sounds like something he'd do", they are free to believe so. But, until shown otherwise, it's still nothing more than an opinion. Until more facts come out, it basically boils down to people demanding Rove resign because they don't like him.

Hurin_Rules

07-18-2005, 22:15

But, until shown otherwise, it's still nothing more than an opinion. Until more facts come out, it basically boils down to people demanding Rove resign because they don't like him.

Actually, people are simply demanding that the president live up to his word and fire anyone involved in it.

But, as expected, Bush is now changing his tune and going back on what he said earlier:

Bush says he will fire anyone who breaks law
President appears to qualify standard for firing in CIA-leak case

Updated: 12:49 p.m. ET July 18, 2005
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Monday that if anyone on his staff committed a crime in the CIA-leak case, that person will "no longer work in my administration." His statement represented a shift from a previous comment, when he said that he would fire anyone shown to have leaked information that exposed the identity of a CIA officer.

At the same time, Bush yet again sidestepped a question on the role of his top political adviser, Karl Rove, in the matter.

"We have a serious ongoing investigation here and it's being played out in the press," Bush said at an East Room news conference.

Bush, appearing with visiting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India, spoke a day after Time magazine's Matthew Cooper said that a 2003 phone call with Rove was the first he heard about the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson apparently working for the CIA.

Bush said in June 2004 that he would fire anyone in his administration shown to have leaked information that exposed the identity of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. On Monday, however, he added the qualifier that it would have to be shown that a crime was committed.

Asked at a June 10, 2004 news conference if he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked Plame's name, Bush answered, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8605680/

One simple question: do you expect Bush to keep his word or not?

Or does it depend on what the meaning of the word 'is' is? ~:)

Red Harvest

07-18-2005, 22:18

Do me the favor of outlining what laws you think have ample reason to believe have been broken and how- I'm not aware of them.

Since statements were made under oath, the most likely ones are related perjury. Since I'm not part of the team investigating this, I can only guess. However, if they have contradictory testimony then perjury becomes likely.

Red Harvest

07-18-2005, 22:49

What makes you think the President knew? Even if Cheney was invovled, and Libby being named as a second source seems to imply that, there's a good chance Rove & Cheney kept the President out of it.
Okay, I've been pretty honest with you guys on this regarding an unflattering opinion I have of certain members of an administration that I support and you don't. Essentially, I've trusted you to be frank with you and quit wriggling around. I would appreciate if you you could either 1) produce some quotes showing where Bush said he would fire anyone even remotely connected to any hint of impropriety or 2) stop putting words in his mouth. I might be wrong, he might have said all that, and I would be happy to be corrected. But until you provide me with some evidence of the President doing a U-turn, it's just your say-so, and I'm not going to fly off the handle on that.

This link is interesting... White House comments per LA Times (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0712-01.htm)

Some of the denials, other comments, at media briefings by White House spokesman Scott McClellan when asked by reporters whether President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, was involved in the leak of a CIA officer's identity:
Sept. 29, 2003

Q: You said this morning, quote, "The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved." How does he know that?

A: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. ... I've said that it's not true. ... And I have spoken with Karl Rove.

Q: It doesn't take much for the president to ask a senior official working for him, to just lay the question out for a few people and end this controversy today.

A: Do you have specific information to bring to our attention? ... Are we supposed to chase down every anonymous report in the newspaper? We'd spend all our time doing that."

Q: When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, "Did you ever have this information?"

A: I've made it very clear, he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was.

* __

Oct. 7, 2003

Q: You have said that you personally went to Scooter Libby (Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff), Karl Rove and Elliott Abrams (National Security Council official) to ask them if they were the leakers. Is that what happened? Why did you do that? And can you describe the conversations you had with them? What was the question you asked?

A: Unfortunately, in Washington, D.C., at a time like this there are a lot of rumors and innuendo. There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made. And that's exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals. They are good individuals. They are important members of our White House team. And that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt with that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.

* __

Oct. 10, 2003

Q: Earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

A: I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands.

Q: So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

A: They assured me that they were not involved in this.

Q: They were not involved in what?

A: The leaking of classified information.

* __

July 11, 2005:

Q: Do you want to retract your statement that Rove, Karl Rove, was not involved in the Valerie Plame expose?

A: I appreciate the question. This is an ongoing investigation at this point. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, that means we're not going to be commenting on it while it is ongoing.

Q: But Rove has apparently commented, through his lawyer, that he was definitely involved.

A: You're asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation.

Q: I'm saying, why did you stand there and say he was not involved?

A: Again, while there is an ongoing investigation, I'm not going to be commenting on it nor is ... .

Q: Any remorse?

A: Nor is the White House, because the president wanted us to cooperate fully with the investigation, and that's what we're doing.

This is his spokesman saying that, denying any involvement by those individuals...and slipping in classified information as a disclaimer later...

Here is one that came direct from the horses'...mouth.

I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." --George W. Bush, September 30, 2003

Another convenient statement that indeed looks like a deliberate effort to evade the truth. Pretty standard stuff for Dubya.

If as you hypothesize he instead used Rove & Cheney as a shield, never asking them directly so that he could maintain "deniability," then that reveals alot about his character as well.

This one is rather simple:

What was the president trying to get us to believe?

He was trying to get us to believe that nobody in his circle of power leaked such information. (And now we know for certain that they did, just not the full cast yet.) He attempted to assure us by leading us to believe that if a leak was found they would be fired.

Now he's back tracking. Sure, he planted some "escape clauses" in there, but in retrospect that is one of the clearest indications of intentional deception.

You know, this is a lot like his whole WMD defense. Analysts and various folks have come forward to say that they were told to make the case, and information counter to this were intentionally ignored. Yet, Dubya maintains deniability, since a paper trail in such a case is almost always non-existent. So he blames it on the intelligence community...for telling him what he wanted.

Xiahou

07-18-2005, 22:49

Since statements were made under oath, the most likely ones are related perjury. Since I'm not part of the team investigating this, I can only guess. However, if they have contradictory testimony then perjury becomes likely.
It's possible someone may have perjured themselves... I guess. But I certainly haven't seen "ample" evidence for it as you've claimed- or any at all for that matter.

Red Harvest

07-18-2005, 22:52

It's possible someone may have perjured themselves... I guess. But I certainly haven't seen "ample" evidence for it as you've claimed- or any at all for that matter.

Here is one piece of speculation I found:

Speaking of perjury, Cooper also reports that the grand jury was intensely interested in whether he spoke with Rove about welfare reform. Cooper notes that he may have left a message with Rove's office a few days before their July 11 conversation asking if he could talk to Rove about welfare reform. He writes, "But I can't find any record of talking about it with him on July 11, and I don't recall doing so." Why is the grand jury so interested in welfare reform? Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has told reporters that Cooper called Rove on that July day to discuss welfare reform. Is this the story--or cover story--that Rove told the grand jury?"

sharrukin

07-19-2005, 01:18

Do me the favor of outlining what laws you think have ample reason to believe have been broken and how- I'm not aware of them.

http://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy_documents/executive_order_12958_amendment.html

"SF-312 Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement" required by all White House officials and governed by Executive Order 12958. This requires the individual to not divulge classified information to anyone who is not authorized to receive it.

The executive order further states: "Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information."

This means that Karl Rove is not at liberty to repeat classified information he may have learned from someone else (Novak). He has a duty to affirm that the information had been declassified before repeating it. The White House briefing booklet is explicit on this point: "before disseminating the information elsewhere ... the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(HR 3162) PATRIOT Act
Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52)

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331
§ 2331. Definitions

As used in this chapter—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

Karl Rove was trying to silence members of the civilian population through intimidation by attacking Wilson's wife AND to influence the policies of the government through this same intimidation. ~D

------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 19 > § 372
CHAPTER 19 - CONSPIRACY
Sec. 372. Conspiracy to impede or injure officer
If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(IIPA)
Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.)
(governing disclosures that could expose confidential Government agents)

SUBCHAPTER IV--PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

Sec. 421.

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had
access to classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses
any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be
fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both.
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of
covert agents as result of having access to classified
information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
information, learns the identify of a covert agent and
intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert
agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified
information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies
such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative
measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship
to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned
not more than five years, or both.
(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of
activities intended to identify and expose covert agents
Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to
identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that
such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence
activities of the United States, discloses any information that
identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such
individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United
States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than
three years, or both.
(d) Imposition of consecutive sentences
A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be
consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.

This is the out Karl Rove is attempting to use "that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such
individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United
States"

Time will tell if it works or not.

Xiahou

07-19-2005, 01:45

sharrukin

07-19-2005, 02:07

So, you're saying he's a terrorist because he broke the law (unproven) with the intention of silencing civillians, guilty of conspiracy (apparently he's 2 or more persons) and in violation of the act that we've already been discussing to death? I assume you were trying to be humorous. ~D

I couldn't resist putting the Patriot act in there. As to being 2 or more people, I imagine he spoke to others regarding what he was doing so you never know!

IMO, he will never be charged with anything.

Perhaps he will be nominated for the Supreme Court. That way Bush can keep his word about the leaker not working at the White House.

Hurin_Rules

07-19-2005, 02:11

Gawain of Orkeny

07-19-2005, 05:13

The purpose of the investigation is to investigate if there was a violation of law. If they knew all the details of what happened they wouldn't need to investigate.

But not that Rove had commited one. So who are they looking at as it was clear from the start that Rove had not committed any crime. The persom who most likely be charged with a crime is Wilson for filling a false intelligence report.

Did the CIA “Out” Valerie Plame?
What the mainstream media tells the court ... but won’t tell you.

With each passing day, the manufactured "scandal" over the publication of Valerie Plame's relationship with the CIA establishes new depths of mainstream-media hypocrisy. A highly capable special prosecutor is probing the underlying facts, and it is appropriate to withhold legal judgments until he completes the investigation over which speculation runs so rampant. But it is not too early to assess the performance of the press. It's been appalling.

Is that hyperbole? You be the judge. Have you heard that the CIA is actually the source responsible for exposing Plame's covert status? Not Karl Rove, not Bob Novak, not the sinister administration cabal du jour of Fourth Estate fantasy, but the CIA itself? Had you heard that Plame's cover has actually been blown for a decade — i.e., since about seven years before Novak ever wrote a syllable about her? Had you heard not only that no crime was committed in the communication of information between Bush administration officials and Novak, but that no crime could have been committed because the governing law gives a person a complete defense if an agent's status has already been compromised by the government?

No, you say, you hadn't heard any of that. You heard that this was the crime of the century. A sort of Robert-Hanssen-meets-Watergate in which Rove is already cooked and we're all just waiting for the other shoe — or shoes — to drop on the den of corruption we know as the Bush administration. That, after all, is the inescapable impression from all the media coverage. So who is saying different?

The organized media, that's who. How come you haven't heard? Because they've decided not to tell you. Because they say one thing — one dark, transparently partisan thing — when they're talking to you in their news coverage, but they say something completely different when they think you're not listening.

You see, if you really want to know what the media think of the Plame case — if you want to discover what a comparative trifle they actually believe it to be — you need to close the paper and turn off the TV. You need, instead, to have a peek at what they write when they're talking to a court. It's a mind-bendingly different tale.

SPUN FROM THE START
My colleague Cliff May has already demonstrated the bankruptcy of the narrative the media relentlessly spouts for Bush-bashing public consumption: to wit, that Valerie Wilson, nee Plame, was identified as a covert CIA agent by the columnist Robert Novak, to whom she was compromised by an administration official. In fact, it appears Plame was first outed to the general public as a result of a consciously loaded and slyly hypothetical piece by the journalist David Corn. Corn's source appears to have been none other than Plame's own husband, former ambassador and current Democratic-party operative Joseph Wilson — that same pillar of national security rectitude whose notion of discretion, upon being dispatched by the CIA for a sensitive mission to Niger, was to write a highly public op-ed about his trip in the New York Times. This isn't news to the media; they have simply chosen not to report it.

The hypocrisy, though, only starts there. It turns out that the media believe Plame was outed long before either Novak or Corn took pen to paper. And not by an ambiguous confirmation from Rove or a nod-and-a-wink from Ambassador Hubby. No, the media think Plame was previously compromised by a disclosure from the intelligence community itself — although it may be questionable whether there was anything of her covert status left to salvage at that point, for reasons that will become clear momentarily.

This CIA disclosure, moreover, is said to have been made not to Americans at large but to Fidel Castro's anti-American regime in Cuba, whose palpable incentive would have been to "compromise[] every operation, every relationship, every network with which [Plame] had been associated in her entire career" — to borrow from the diatribe in which Wilson risibly compared his wife's straits to the national security catastrophes wrought by Aldrich Ames and Kim Philby.

THE MEDIA GOES TO COURT ... AND SINGS A DIFFERENT TUNE
Just four months ago, 36 news organizations confederated to file a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington. At the time, Bush-bashing was (no doubt reluctantly) confined to an unusual backseat. The press had no choice — it was time to close ranks around two of its own, namely, the Times's Judith Miller and Time's Matthew Cooper, who were threatened with jail for defying grand jury subpoenas from the special prosecutor.

The media's brief, fairly short and extremely illuminating, is available here. The Times, which is currently spearheading the campaign against Rove and the Bush administration, encouraged its submission. It was joined by a "who's who" of the current Plame stokers, including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP, Newsweek, Reuters America, the Washington Post, the Tribune Company (which publishes the Los Angeles Times and the Baltimore Sun, among other papers), and the White House Correspondents (the organization which represents the White House press corps in its dealings with the executive branch).

The thrust of the brief was that reporters should not be held in contempt or forced to reveal their sources in the Plame investigation. Why? Because, the media organizations confidently asserted, no crime had been committed. Now, that is stunning enough given the baleful shroud the press has consciously cast over this story. Even more remarkable, though, were the key details these self-styled guardians of the public's right to know stressed as being of the utmost importance for the court to grasp — details those same guardians have assiduously suppressed from the coverage actually presented to the public.

Though you would not know it from watching the news, you learn from reading the news agencies' brief that the 1982 law prohibiting disclosure of undercover agents' identities explicitly sets forth a complete defense to this crime. It is contained in Section 422 (of Title 50, U.S. Code), and it provides that an accused leaker is in the clear if, sometime before the leak, "the United States ha[s] publicly acknowledged or revealed" the covert agent's "intelligence relationship to the United States[.]"

As it happens, the media organizations informed the court that long before the Novak revelation (which, as noted above, did not disclose Plame's classified relationship with the CIA), Plame's cover was blown not once but twice. The media based this contention on reporting by the indefatigable Bill Gertz — an old-school, "let's find out what really happened" kind of journalist. Gertz's relevant article, published a year ago in the Washington Times, can be found here.

THE MEDIA TELLS THE COURT: PLAME'S COVER WAS BLOWN IN THE MID-1990s
As the media alleged to the judges (in Footnote 7, page 8, of their brief), Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a spy in Moscow. Of course, the press and its attorneys were smart enough not to argue that such a disclosure would trigger the defense prescribed in Section 422 because it was evidently made by a foreign-intelligence operative, not by a U.S. agency as the statute literally requires.

But neither did they mention the incident idly. For if, as he has famously suggested, President Bush has peered into the soul of Vladimir Putin, what he has no doubt seen is the thriving spirit of the KGB, of which the Russian president was a hardcore agent. The Kremlin still spies on the United States. It remains in the business of compromising U.S. intelligence operations.

Thus, the media's purpose in highlighting this incident is blatant: If Plame was outed to the former Soviet Union a decade ago, there can have been little, if anything, left of actual intelligence value in her "every operation, every relationship, every network" by the time anyone spoke with Novak (or, of course, Corn).

THE CIA OUTS PLAME TO FIDEL CASTRO
Of greater moment to the criminal investigation is the second disclosure urged by the media organizations on the court. They don't place a precise date on this one, but inform the judges that it was "more recent" than the Russian outing but "prior to Novak's publication."

And it is priceless. The press informs the judges that the CIA itself "inadvertently" compromised Plame by not taking appropriate measures to safeguard classified documents that the Agency routed to the Swiss embassy in Havana. In the Washington Times article — you remember, the one the press hypes when it reports to the federal court but not when it reports to consumers of its news coverage — Gertz elaborates that "[t]he documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but [unidentified U.S.] intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them."

Thus, the same media now stampeding on Rove has told a federal court that, to the contrary, they believe the CIA itself blew Plame's cover before Rove or anyone else in the Bush administration ever spoke to Novak about her. Of course, they don't contend the CIA did it on purpose or with malice. But neither did Rove — who, unlike the CIA, appears neither to have known about nor disclosed Plame's classified status. Yet, although the Times and its cohort have a bull's eye on Rove's back, they are breathtakingly silent about an apparent CIA embarrassment — one that seems to be just the type of juicy story they routinely covet.

A COMPLETE DEFENSE?
The defense in Section 422 requires that the revelation by the United States have been done "publicly." At least one U.S. official who spoke to Gertz speculated that because the Havana snafu was not "publicized" — i.e., because the classified information about Plame was mistakenly communicated to Cuba rather than broadcast to the general public — it would not available as a defense to whomever spoke with Novak. But that seems clearly wrong.

First, the theory under which the media have gleefully pursued Rove, among other Bush officials, holds that if a disclosure offense was committed here it was complete at the moment the leak was made to Novak. Whether Novak then proceeded to report the leak to the general public is beside the point — the violation supposedly lies in identifying Plame to Novak. (Indeed, it has frequently been observed that Judy Miller of the Times is in contempt for protecting one or more sources even though she never wrote an article about Plame.)

Perhaps more significantly, the whole point of discouraging public disclosure of covert agents is to prevent America's enemies from degrading our national security. It is not, after all, the public we are worried about. Rather, it is the likes of Fidel Castro and his regime who pose a threat to Valerie Plame and her network of U.S. intelligence relationships. The government must still be said to have "publicized" the classified relationship — i.e., to have blown the cover of an intelligence agent — if it leaves out the middleman by communicating directly with an enemy government rather than indirectly through a media outlet.

LINGERING QUESTIONS
All this raises several readily apparent questions. We know that at the time of the Novak and Corn articles, Plame was not serving as an intelligence agent outside the United States. Instead, she had for years been working, for all to see, at CIA headquarters in Langley. Did her assignment to headquarters have anything to do with her effectiveness as a covert agent having already been nullified by disclosure to the Russians and the Cubans — and to whomever else the Russians and Cubans could be expected to tell if they thought it harmful to American interests or advantageous to their own?

If Plame's cover was blown, as Gertz reports, how much did Plame know about that? It's likely that she would have been fully apprised — after all, as we have been told repeatedly in recent weeks, the personal security of a covert agent and her family can be a major concern when secrecy is pierced. Assuming she knew, did her husband, Wilson, also know? At the time he was ludicrously comparing the Novak article to the Ames and Philby debacles, did he actually have reason to believe his wife had been compromised years earlier?

And could the possibility that Plame's cover has long been blown explain why the CIA was unconcerned about assigning a one-time covert agent to a job that had her walking in and out of CIA headquarters every day? Could it explain why the Wilsons were sufficiently indiscrete to pose in Vanity Fair, and, indeed, to permit Joseph Wilson to pen a highly public op-ed regarding a sensitive mission to which his wife — the covert agent — energetically advocated his assignment? Did they fail to take commonsense precautions because they knew there really was nothing left to protect?

We'd probably know the answers to these and other questions by now if the media had given a tenth of the effort spent manufacturing a scandal to reporting professionally on the underlying facts. And if they deigned to share with their readers and viewers all the news that's fit to print ... in a brief to a federal court.

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

* * *
LINK (http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp)