Printable View
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. ~;)
Now lets get back on topic as if its really worth our time ~D It seems this whole thing like I imagined is nonsense.
Theres the truth I hope you can handle it. ~:handball:Quote:
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."
Interesting ... an article with no byline, from a web site promoting hard-right books ... can't find any other articles to back it up ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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:
Quote:
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.
How is that more balanced? As always lawyers disagree. I think the one that wrote the law knows better.Quote:
Here's a slightly more balanced take:
Try typing in the title and google it remember?Quote:
Interesting ... an article with no byline, from a web site promoting hard-right books ... can't find any other articles to back it up ...
At any rate how are you going to get passed all this
Basicly your article says the samething. They aint gonna tree this Bear.Quote:
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."
G, on the web site where the article was featured there is no byline, no attribution, nada. I was referring to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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 ...
Oh really? dont you know who this guy is Carl Limbacher?Quote:
G, on the web site where the article was featured there is no byline, no attribution, nada. I was referring to that.
Its all there in black and white.Quote:
Further, I fail to see how NewsMax justifies the claim that Plame was neither a covert operative nor active in the last five years.
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?Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemurmania
From the Washington PostQuote:
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.
Well, if the defense attorney says his client is innocent, then he must be, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
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.
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.
Yes, and we still don't know who gave Novak her name.
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.
Gawain, if Prole can tear down her Karl Rove poster, so can you. Keep the lunchbox, though. I hear they may be worth something.
You have to give me a good reason to. Besides I dont have 1
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.
I carefully, yet tearfully, took mine down- I couldnt bear the thought of tearing it. :jester:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemurmania
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
How has this red herring made it to four pages?
Quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
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.
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.
C.I.A. Expanding Terror Battle Under Guise of Charter FlightsQuote:
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.
High New York Times: Prisoner Transports Revealed
CIA Air Operation Details Exposed by New York Times
Yet its Rove who they call a traitor who should go to jail.
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.
Go girl ~DQuote:
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.
Undermined and embarrassed? In whose eyes?Quote:
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?
There is no outrage because your interpretation of events isnt the truth.
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.
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?"
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.Quote:
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.
She never claims to be unbiased unlike those reporters who constantly support the left.Quote:
Ahh, Ann Coulter. Always love to hear her unbiased opinions
This is the most tired remark at the org. Anytime her name comes up this is all you guys have to attack her. Lame.Quote:
Maybe she'll talk more about the Canadian army in Vietnam again, and we can all have another good laugh.
Yes, much like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I'll refrain from saying they caught McLellan with his pants down, as that would immediately bring up unwanted Clinton imagery. ~:cheers:
And your critiques of Wilson are fresh and exciting, I suppose?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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:
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 ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
But by all means, G, keep quoting her as an authority! It does wonders for anyone arguing against your positions.Quote:
"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
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?
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.
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?
You're overlooking two other possibilities:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
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.
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:Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Bash the NYT all you like, just try to be accurate, please.
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.
The critiques of Wilson are relevant to this story. The fact that Ann said Canada had troops in Nam is not.Quote:
And your critiques of Wilson are fresh and exciting, I suppose?
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 mineQuote:
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.
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?Quote:
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
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
As for Judith Miller, I have no idea.
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?Quote:
She's Gawain & PJ's girl, I've got more of a thing for Laura Ingraham.
Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
That's crap, Don. The Right shifted, not me.
~:handball:Quote:
The GOP has become the party of exclusion and you are the perfect example of that. Anyone disagrees, they are liberal, a lefty.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
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:
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.
Come, come to the Dark Side Red...
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.
In any case, believe it or not, I wasn't attacking you. I apologize for offending you, as you clearly thought I was.
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:Quote:
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.
My congressman weighs in
Quote:
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."
We can already grow them in test tubes cant we?Quote:
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
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.
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.Quote:
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
Its not religous but the humane thing to do. Do chickens eat their own eggs?Quote:
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.
So why can't they all become Amercian citizens then ?? :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
So no, I'm not betting on Rove getting sacked.
One thing is for certain: its a black eye for the administration.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
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.
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:Quote:
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,
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.Quote:
If it is to the practice of extraordinary rendition,
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
These are the 'facts' you want me to look at?
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
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.Quote:
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
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.Quote:
it's that there are inaccuracies in Wilson's book?
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.
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.
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?
Wow, never even thought of that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
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.
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.Quote:
I think you've got some good points there Don.
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.
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:
I was just kidding Hurin, and actually, that had all come out yesterday, which was when I shifted gears on this one.
Fair enough. I was a bit behind the pace on this one.
:bow:
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. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone