Printable View
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.