OT - Karl Rove Named as CIA Agent Leak

[TroyF]

Clinton was going after terrorists in Sudan. Apparently there was bad intelligence about the pharmaceutical factory, but he was going after Osama.

They wanted Kosovo to be a NATO project, but the other NATO countries wouldn't agree to use ground troops. I agree that it was a flawed strategy, but there were diplomatic reasons. I personally disagreed with them and still do, but it's not like Clinton just randomly decided to only strike through the air. The real truth is that it was an attempt to make NATO relevant again, since it has had little use since the USSR dissolved.

In any case, those are hardly examples of corruption at all. Mistakes to varying degrees? Yes. Corruption? Not so much.

That's interesting. . . because when Osama was captured and in custody, Clinton refused to take him, instead letting the Sudan send him to Afghanistan.

You can pass if off as minor, but Clinton lied to a grand jury. The Clinton presidency was filled with scandals. Non stop really. From start to finish.

Very similar to Bush as well. People threw a fit, called him a corrupt, lying jack ass. And voted him in for a second term.

Go figure.

[Klinglerware]

BAD INTELLIGENCE? There's no such thing. CLINTON LIED!



Hee hee, I wonder what the opinions of the more partisan members of this board would be on these international policy situations if a republican was in office instead of Clinton and a democrat instead of GW Bush...


whose wife Denise "donated" several hundred thousand dollars to the Clinton Library Foundation.

Not to mention wrote Mandy Moore's teeny-bopper hit, "Candy". Yeah yeah, yeah yeah!

[flere-imsaho]

That's interesting. . . because when Osama was captured and in custody, Clinton refused to take him, instead letting the Sudan send him to Afghanistan.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any proof for this outside of the ramblings of one Mansoor Ijaz, former "lobbyist for Pakistan" and more recently an investment banker in New York and commentator for Fox News?

[SFL Cat]

Just out of curiosity, do you have any proof for this outside of the ramblings of one Mansoor Ijaz, former "lobbyist for Pakistan" and more recently an investment banker in New York and commentator for Fox News?

I've heard the audio clip of Clinton himself talking about this during one of his post-presidential lectures. He refused to take Bin Ladin because he didn't think, at the time, that the U.S. had grounds to hold him.

[SFL Cat]

found the transcript, if you look, I'm sure you can find the actual audio file (it's poor quality, but you can understand what he's saying)

Ex-President Clinton's Remarks on Osama bin Laden
Delivered to the Long Island Association's Annual Luncheon
Crest Hollow Country Club, Woodbury, NY
Feb. 15, 2002

Question from LIA President Matthew Crosson:

CROSSON: In hindsight, would you have handled the issue of terrorism, and al-Qaeda specifically, in a different way during your administration?

CLINTON: Well, it's interesting now, you know, that I would be asked that question because, at the time, a lot of people thought I was too obsessed with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

And when I bombed his training camp and tried to kill him and his high command in 1998 after the African embassy bombings, some people criticized me for doing it. We just barely missed him by a couple of hours.

I think whoever told us he was going to be there told somebody who told him that our missiles might be there. I think we were ratted out.

We also bombed a chemical facility in Sudan where we were criticized, even in this country, for overreaching. But in the trial in New York City of the al-Qaeda people who bombed the African embassy, they testified in the trial that the Sudanese facility was, in fact, a part of their attempt to stockpile chemical weapons.

So we tried to be quite aggressive with them. We got - uh - well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.

And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.

We then put a lot of sanctions on the Afghan government and - but they inter-married, Mullah Omar and bin Laden. So that essentially the Taliban didn't care what we did to them.

Now, if you look back - in the hindsight of history, everybody's got 20/20 vision - the real issue is should we have attacked the al-Qaeda network in 1999 or in 2000 in Afghanistan.

Here's the problem. Before September 11 we would have had no support for it - no allied support and no basing rights. So we actually trained to do this. I actually trained people to do this. We trained people.

But in order to do it, we would have had to take them in on attack helicopters 900 miles from the nearest boat - maybe illegally violating the airspace of people if they wouldn't give us approval. And we would have had to do a refueling stop.

And we would have had to make the decision in advance that's the reverse of what President Bush made - and I agreed with what he did. They basically decided - this may be frustrating to you now that we don't have bin Laden. But the president had to decide after Sept. 11, which am I going to do first? Just go after bin Laden or get rid of the Taliban?

He decided to get rid of the Taliban. I personally agree with that decision, even though it may or may not have delayed the capture of bin Laden. Why?

Because, first of all the Taliban was the most reactionary government on earth and there was an inherent value in getting rid of them.

Secondly, they supported terrorism and we'd send a good signal to governments that if you support terrorism and they attack us in America, we will hold you responsible.

Thirdly, it enabled our soldiers and Marines and others to operate more safely in-country as they look for bin Laden and the other senior leadership, because if we'd have had to have gone in there to just sort of clean out one area, try to establish a base camp and operate.

So for all those reasons the military recommended against it. There was a high probability that it wouldn't succeed.

Now I had one other option. I could have bombed or sent more missiles in. As far as we knew he never went back to his training camp. So the only place bin Laden ever went that we knew was occasionally he went to Khandahar where he always spent the night in a compound that had 200 women and children.

So I could have, on any given night, ordered an attack that I knew would kill 200 women and children that had less than a 50 percent chance of getting him.

Now, after he murdered 3,100 of our people and others who came to our country seeking their livelihood you may say, "Well, Mr. President, you should have killed those 200 women and children."

But at the time we didn't think he had the capacity to do that. And no one thought that I should do that. Although I take full responsibility for it. You need to know that those are the two options I had. And there was less than a 50/50 chance that the intelligence was right that on this particular night he was in Afghanistan.

Now, we did do a lot of things. We tried to get the Pakistanis to go get him. They could have done it and they wouldn't. They changed governments at the time from Mr. Sharif to President Musharraf. And we tried to get others to do it. We had a standing contract between the CIA and some groups in Afghanistan authorizing them and paying them if they should be successful in arresting and/or killing him.

So I tried hard to - I always thought this guy was a big problem. And apparently the options I had were the options that the President and Vice President Cheney and Secretary Powell and all the people that were involved in the Gulf War thought that they had, too, during the first eight months that they were there - until Sept. 11 changed everything.

But I did the best I could with it and I do not believe, based on what options were available to me, that I could have done much more than I did. Obviously, I wish I'd been successful. I tried a lot of different ways to get bin Laden 'cause I always thought he was a very dangerous man. He's smart, he's bold and committed.

But I think it's very important that the Bush administration do what they're doing to keep the soldiers over there to keep chasing him. But I know - like I said - I know it might be frustrating to you. But it's still better for bin Laden to worry every day more about whether he's going to see the sun come up in the morning than whether he's going to drop a bomb, another bomb somewhere in the U.S. or in Europe or on some other innocent civilians. (END OF TRANSCRIPT)

[JW]

Clinton was right about one thing. The Bush administration did not take Al Qaeda seriously until 9/11.

And, about Rove, just my opinion, but the country would be better off if he resigned. Of course the NYT is after him now not in a search for truth but in an attempt to damage the Bush administration, in a purely political way, but Rove has done enough damage. Among other things he is the architect of our policy of ignoring the Mexican border problems, and he is the leading proponent of ignoring radical Islam in the US. He has always placed politics above the good of the country. JMO.

[SFL Cat]

I agree about the Mexican border thing. The lack of response regarding this problem from either party is going to wind up biting both of them in the a$$es imo.

[Blackadar]

Deleted message, inaccurate information. My apologies.

[SFL Cat]

The above seems to assume that Rowe acted on his own in this instance. I find it difficult to believe that a White House Press Secretary took it upon himself to do this with no advice or consent from any of his superiors. These guys are the "voice' of the administration and don't generally take a shit without a consensus.

Hell, for all you know, her hubby got drunk at a social gathering and bragged to buddies about how he was married to "Jane" Bond. DC is a small and incestuous town -- everyone is an insider, or thinks they are.

If the evidence is there, Rove will be prosecuted. If not, I'm sure the NYT will do its typical sandbag job hoping to cause as much political damage to the administration as possible. Either way, Rove is screwed, so rejoice!

[Blackadar]

Hell, for all you know, her hubby got drunk at a social gathering and bragged to buddies about how he was married to "Jane" Bond. DC is a small and incestuous town -- everyone is an insider, or thinks they are.

If the evidence is there, Rove will be prosecuted. If not, I'm sure the NYT will do its typical sandbag job hoping to cause as much political damage to the administration as possible. Either way, Rove is screwed, so rejoice!

Read my above retraction. Rowe isn't the Press Secretary.

[SFL Cat]

His name isn't Rowe, either. ;)

[Blackadar]

His name isn't Rowe, either. ;)

V, W...they look the same on 1 1/2 hours of sleep.

[Arles]

Good column in the NY Post on all this. It now appears that Plame had been listed in Wilson's public bio (available before the Novak column) and that Wilson lied about his wife's role in recommending him for the WMD trip:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/49903.htm


Scandal Implosion

July 12, 2005 -- I WROTE a column on Oct. 10, 2003, about the strange case of Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame.

Wilson was the former ambassador sent by the CIA to investigate whether Saddam Hussein had sought to purchase uranium in Africa; Plame, his CIA agent wife.

In that column, I offered my speculation of what an administration official might have said to a journalist to explain just how Wilson — a Clinton administration official — got the assignment in the first place: "Administration official: 'We didn't send him there. Cheney's office asked CIA to get more information. CIA picked Wilson . . . Look, I hear his wife's in the CIA. He's got nothing to do. She wanted to throw him a bone.' "

Hate to say I told you so, but . . .

According to this week's Newsweek, Karl Rove said something very similar indeed to Time magazine's Matthew Cooper:

In the Cooper e-mails just surrendered by Time to the prosecutor looking into the Plame case, "Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a 'big warning' not to 'get too far out on Wilson.' Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by . . . CIA Director George Tenet . . . or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, 'it was, [Rove] said, Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on WMD [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.' "

There's no mistaking the purpose of this conversation between Cooper and Rove. It wasn't intended to discredit, defame or injure Wilson's wife. It was intended to throw cold water on the import, seriousness and supposedly high level of Wilson's findings.

While some may differ on the fairness of discrediting Joseph Wilson, it sure isn't any kind of crime.

Rove was suggesting to Cooper that that folks lower down in the CIA than its own director commandeered the process so that the husband of one of their own could get the gig. And the husband in question then went and misrepresented his findings to various journalists (The Washington Post's Walter Pincus and The New York Times's Nicholas Kristof) and then in his own now-famous Times op-ed.

This Rove-Cooper conversation discredits Wilson, not Plame. In fact, nothing we know so far was done either with the purpose of exposing or even the knowledge that these remarks would be exposing an undercover CIA operative.

But Plame's undercover status at the time was and is a little questionable in any case. How undercover could she have been when her name was published at the time as part of Joseph Wilson's own biography online (see cpsag.com/our_team/wilson.html)?

So if the offense wasn't against Plame, what of the offense against Wilson? There was no offense. As many of Joe Wilson's own hottest defenders would no doubt argue in relation to President Bush, exposing a liar is not only not a crime, it's a public service.

And Wilson lied. Repeatedly.

First off, Wilson long denied he was recommended for the job by his wife: "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," he writes in his book. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."

But the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence actually found the memo in which Valerie Plame recommended her husband for the job.

There were other lies as well. Wilson's own report was far from definitive in any way on the question of whether Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger — thus giving the lie to his later bald claim that he came back insisting there was no link.

"The report on the former ambassador's [Wilson's] trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002," said the Senate Select Committee, "did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq."

Thus, Rove was telling Cooper the truth. According to one of Cooper's e-mails, "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. He [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate Iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger . . ."

A few days later, for reasons that remain unexplained, the United States said it could no longer stand by the claim in the 2003 State of the Union that Saddam was seeking uranium in Africa.

But that retraction of Bush's words remains hotly controversial. As a 2004 British inquiry chaired by Lord Butler put it: "We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded."

What isn't controversial is this: Karl Rove didn't "out" Valerie Plame as a CIA agent to intimidate Joe Wilson. He was dismissing Joe Wilson as a low-level has-been hack to whom nobody should pay attention. He was right then, and if he said it today, he'd still be right.

And if Valerie Plame wants to live a quiet spy life, she should stop having her picture taken by society photographers and stop getting stories written about her on the front page of the Times.

[Klinglerware]

But nowhere in that bio does it mention Plame's job title or status as an undercover employee of the CIA. "Undercover" doesn't mean "dead to the world", it just means that your public employment status is subterfuge--Wilson acknowledging the name of his wife doesn't violate that...

[Blackadar]

Lil' Scottie trying, and failing, at the old Potomac Two Step over Rove.

hxxp://movies.crooksandliars.com/Scotty_Rove.wmv

[flere-imsaho]

Tim Russert on this morning's "Today" show:

"As one Republican said to me last night, if this was a Democratic White House we'd have congressional hearings in a second."

[SFL Cat]

I'm curious.

I remember the NYT was really pushing for Robert Novak to give up his source when he named Plame in his column. In fact, the NYT has really been pushing for this investigation. Now, Time turned over Matt Cooper's notes and allowed Cooper to testify before the grand jury when his "source" (Rove, supposedly) released the reporter from maintaining his confidentiality.

Now if Rove is the source who gave up Plame's identity, and he gave Cooper "a personal, unambiguous, uncoerced waiver to speak to the grand jury"....and Time allowed their reporter to go before the grand jury, why is NYT reporter Judith Miller still sitting in jail, especially since NYT has been one news organization really pushing this story forward?

Did Rove give conditional waiver? Matt you can talk, Judith...sorry babe...you gotta keep your mouth shut and sit in jail. What gives? In fact, since Miller never wrote a story about Plame at all...why is she involved in this mess?

[NoMyths]

Another large question: if the investigation has been as intense and thorough as the government promised back when the leak happened, why has it taken this long for such a key figure like Rove to not either a) admit his involvement to pretty much everyone in the know or b) be found out by the investigators? This can't be new information to the President and in-the-know administration staffers.

[SFL Cat]

I would say it has been throrough if the grand jury wants to question a reporter who never actually wrote a published story on the Plame incident. They got her name from someone. And apparently since she says she is protecting a source, she does know something.

[Chubby]

That's interesting. . . because when Osama was captured and in custody, Clinton refused to take him, instead letting the Sudan send him to Afghanistan.

You can pass if off as minor, but Clinton lied to a grand jury. The Clinton presidency was filled with scandals. Non stop really. From start to finish.

Very similar to Bush as well. People threw a fit, called him a corrupt, lying jack ass. And voted him in for a second term.

Go figure.

Don't you think that some of the thinking was "If they voted Clinton in for a 2nd term when we thought he was the anti-christ then we're going to do the same with Bush"?

[Buccaneer]

Summary:

Those that hate this administration will find any reason to continue hating, pick any argument, grasp at any strawman and read what they want to read just because they want to.

Those that do not hate this administration will find any reason to give the benefit of the doubt, counter any argument, grasp at any positives and read what they want to read just because they want to.

There is at least a couple here that knows how to debate and analyze (Troy and JW). Most of the rest is just noise.

[NoMyths]

Summary:

Those that hate this administration will find any reason to continue hating, pick any argument, grasp at any strawman and read what they want to read just because they want to.

Those that do not hate this administration will find any reason to give the benefit of the doubt, counter any argument, grasp at any positives and read what they want to read just because they want to.

There is at least a couple here that knows how to debate and analyze (Troy and JW). Most of the rest is just noise.Man, with such a stellar example of debate and analyzation such as this, how could we possibly continue this discussion? Once again Buccaneer has humbled us with the majesty of his political mind. While some would choose to express the exact same feeling in the rolling eyes smiley, Buc is kind enough to grace us with an articulate exploration of each side's position. Clearly we are lucky to have his input on such matters.

[Chubby]

Summary:

Those that hate this administration will find any reason to continue hating, pick any argument, grasp at any strawman and read what they want to read just because they want to.

Those that do not hate this administration will find any reason to give the benefit of the doubt, counter any argument, grasp at any positives and read what they want to read just because they want to.

There is at least a couple here that knows how to debate and analyze (Troy and JW). Most of the rest is just noise.
Then there others who contribute nothing to the conversation...

[Buccaneer]

Never claimed it to be anything but an observation of internet bulletin board political drivel, including what I wrote. In that you clearly see yourself in my first example got you so blinded to an obvious attempt at sarcasm that you chose to write a reply that rings so stupid, much like what you and others have written here?

Hey, I like this game. Your turn. :)

[Buccaneer]

Then there others who contribute nothing to the conversation...
...by being defensive.

Do I win a kewpie doll?

[Chubby]

...by being defensive.

Do I win a kewpie doll?
How was I being defensive? I was merely making an observation of a blatant trolling post.

I just don't get the point of jumping in and saying "both sides are stupid"... oh wait, you were just trolling nevermind carry on...

[Buccaneer]

Being defensive in believing that anything you wrote in a political thread will persuade or change anyone's mind? :) I was merely making an observation that threads such as this plays exactly like a tennis match. It's actually fun to watch. Nothing wrong in saying that.

Edit: Shit, I forgot to put in a smiley thingy.

[timmynausea]

BAD INTELLIGENCE? There's no such thing. CLINTON LIED!

Going after Osama? Was he at the pharmaceutical company factory at the time?

It's funny that later in the day you posted an interview which showed not only that he was going after Osama (and missing by hours), but apparently it wasn't bad intelligence and the factory was part of the terrorists attempts to stockpile weapons, both of which make the post I've quoted look a bit silly.

[Flasch186]

i still have no grasp of whata troll is. I mean I know what you guys told me the definition is but, say me. I love politics so of course im going to get into most POL threads. So Im a troll? Thats just dubious because if you get in a thread and speak your mind on something you like to talk about youre trollin'. Thats just too broad a label IMO.

[JW]

Another view on the Karl Rove affair. And, as I've stated, I have no love for Rove and think he is the source of most of the problems of the Bush administration, but it is pretty clear that what we have here is just political mud wrestling. Bush knows this and will not fire Rove short of a crime having been committed, and all indications are that none were.

Valerie Plame was well known in DC circles at working at the CIA, and more and more people are confirming that she was not a covert agent and had not been one for some time, if at all. I would concede that there are some unanswered questions here, for example, who was Novak's source. But at the moment this appears to be typical DC attack politics.

It is humorously ironic that Rove is the target, since he elevated the art of attack politics during Bush's election campaigns, for example the trashing of John McCain, and in many ways, he deserves what he is getting right now. But let's not kid ourselves that this is some huge national security issue.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Karl Rove, Whistleblower
He told the truth about Joe Wilson.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying for Karl Rove's head over his role in exposing a case of CIA nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. On the contrary, we'd say the White House political guru deserves a prize--perhaps the next iteration of the "Truth-Telling" award that The Nation magazine bestowed upon Mr. Wilson before the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed him as a fraud.

For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real "whistleblower" in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He's the one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility. He's the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove.

Media chants aside, there's no evidence that Mr. Rove broke any laws in telling reporters that Ms. Plame may have played a role in her husband's selection for a 2002 mission to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking uranium ore in Niger. To be prosecuted under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Mr. Rove would had to have deliberately and maliciously exposed Ms. Plame knowing that she was an undercover agent and using information he'd obtained in an official capacity. But it appears Mr. Rove didn't even know Ms. Plame's name and had only heard about her work at Langley from other journalists.

On the "no underlying crime" point, moreover, no less than the New York Times and Washington Post now agree. So do the 36 major news organizations that filed a legal brief in March aimed at keeping Mr. Cooper and the New York Times's Judith Miller out of jail.

"While an investigation of the leak was justified, it is far from clear--at least on the public record--that a crime took place," the Post noted the other day. Granted the media have come a bit late to this understanding, and then only to protect their own, but the logic of their argument is that Mr. Rove did nothing wrong either.



The same can't be said for Mr. Wilson, who first "outed" himself as a CIA consultant in a melodramatic New York Times op-ed in July 2003. At the time he claimed to have thoroughly debunked the Iraq-Niger yellowcake uranium connection that President Bush had mentioned in his now famous "16 words" on the subject in that year's State of the Union address.
Mr. Wilson also vehemently denied it when columnist Robert Novak first reported that his wife had played a role in selecting him for the Niger mission. He promptly signed up as adviser to the Kerry campaign and was feted almost everywhere in the media, including repeat appearances on NBC's "Meet the Press" and a photo spread (with Valerie) in Vanity Fair.

But his day in the political sun was short-lived. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report last July cited the note that Ms. Plame had sent recommending her husband for the Niger mission. "Interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD [Counterproliferation Division] employee, suggested his name for the trip," said the report.

The same bipartisan report also pointed out that the forged documents Mr. Wilson claimed to have discredited hadn't even entered intelligence channels until eight months after his trip. And it said the CIA interpreted the information he provided in his debrief as mildly supportive of the suspicion that Iraq had been seeking uranium in Niger.

About the same time, another inquiry headed by Britain's Lord Butler delivered its own verdict on the 16 words: "We conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded."

In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know.

If there's any scandal at all here, it is that this entire episode has been allowed to waste so much government time and media attention, not to mention inspire a "special counsel" probe. The Bush Administration is also guilty on this count, since it went along with the appointment of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in an election year in order to punt the issue down the road. But now Mr. Fitzgerald has become an unguided missile, holding reporters in contempt for not disclosing their sources even as it becomes clearer all the time that no underlying crime was at issue.

As for the press corps, rather than calling for Mr. Rove to be fired, they ought to be grateful to him for telling the truth.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006955

[Flasch186]

my initial problem with the WHOLE thing, which Arles will say Im naive about, is the motivation behind revenge actions, taken by our White House. I just think its shameful for our admin. to act in this light. NOw, I know Arles will say thats politics and I have to say, "Oh well" to it...but when I see something that, IMO, is immoral I say "no" to it. Ill be disdainful towards anyone who acts immoral regardless of party affiliation and have done so on numerous threads on both sides.

[Blackadar]

JW, it's not just the federal crime of outing an undercover agent, but also of perjury and making false statements to Federal officials. Now he's not been proven guilty of any of the three, but there is the possibility of multiple charges.

[CamEdwards]

my initial problem with the WHOLE thing, which Arles will say Im naive about, is the motivation behind revenge actions, taken by our White House. I just think its shameful for our admin. to act in this light. NOw, I know Arles will say thats politics and I have to say, "Oh well" to it...but when I see something that, IMO, is immoral I say "no" to it. Ill be disdainful towards anyone who acts immoral regardless of party affiliation and have done so on numerous threads on both sides.

So Joseph Wilson, the guy who was lying through his teeth in that original column, bears no culpability... but someone who warns a reporter "on background" that the story is bogus is somehow out for revenge?

It wasn't revenge, Flasch. It was trying to get the truth to the press. If Rove broke a law while doing so, send him to jail. But as has been pointed out, most people don't believe he broke the law. Even Andrea Mitchell has said on MSNBC that it was no secret in DC that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.

[Flasch186]

if he broke the law he should go, if he didnt he shouldnt BUT you will never convince me, considering when the story broke compared to the initial statements made by Plame's husband dissenting with the pres., that it wasn't correlated. This admin. has a past history of rebuking and responding to dissent in a very aggressive manner.

EDIT: to add - but you righties keep parsing words like Clinton. "She wasn't undercover [enough]". That is a garbage and slimy way of trying to get around it....her bosses say she was, and thats good enough for me for that facet.

[flere-imsaho]

Found today in, of all places, the Billings Gazette:

"If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral," the CIA official said, insisting on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation."

Take your grains of salt, of course.

How long until Fitzgerald delivers his report?

[Barkeep49]

Found today in, of all places, the Billings Gazette:

"If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral," the CIA official said, insisting on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation."

Take your grains of salt, of course.

How long until Fitzgerald delivers his report?
Of course she was undercover. This is not in dispute really except perhaps among a few hardcore right wingers. The question is whether Rove knew it. I think he did, but it's a very hard charge to prove so I maintain that nothing will come of this investigation.

[HomerJSimpson]

I think he did, but it's a very hard charge to prove so I maintain that nothing will come of this investigation.


Yup.

[Flasch186]

then why didnt he just blatantly say her name instead of trying to be shadowy about it. "Its somebody's wife over there." when supposedly everyone knew who she was and who she was married too. Thats kind of contradictory to the idea of not needing to hide her due to her covert status, no?

[JW]

JW, it's not just the federal crime of outing an undercover agent, but also of perjury and making false statements to Federal officials. Now he's not been proven guilty of any of the three, but there is the possibility of multiple charges.

Those are big if's. If he committed any crime, he should be jailed, and it would not make me feel the least bit bad. But the outcry from the Democrats has nothing to do with whether a crime has been committed. They just see a chance to take Rove down.

[JW]

Found today in, of all places, the Billings Gazette:

"If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral," the CIA official said, insisting on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation."

Take your grains of salt, of course.

How long until Fitzgerald delivers his report?

Then why did the CIA tell Novak there was no problem with using her name? I guess the CIA needs to get its story together, too.

[Chubby]

Those are big if's. If he committed any crime, he should be jailed, and it would not make me feel the least bit bad. But the outcry from the Democrats has nothing to do with whether a crime has been committed. They just see a chance to take Rove down.
Then you think the same could be said if we substituted Clinton for Rove and Republicans for Democrats?

[JW]

Then you think the same could be said if we substituted Clinton for Rove and Republicans for Democrats?

Sure, and I've made that every clear. Don't try to paint me as a foaming-at-the-mouth partisan here. Let's remember what Novak himself said about Plame.

There is more to this by the way. We need to know who was the source for the female reporter who is now in jail, and who was Novak's source. This will all come out in time. But the Dems should stop trying to lynch Rove before the evidence is in, even if he perhaps deserves some of what he has been dishing out.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031001.shtml

The CIA leak
Robert Novak (archive)


October 1, 2003 |


WASHINGTON -- I had thought I never again would write about retired diplomat Joseph Wilson's CIA-employee wife, but feel constrained to do so now that repercussions of my July 14 column have reached the front pages of major newspapers and led off network news broadcasts. My role and the role of the Bush White House have been distorted and need explanation.

The leak now under Justice Department investigation is described by former Ambassador Wilson and critics of President Bush's Iraq policy as a reprehensible effort to silence them. To protect my own integrity and credibility, I would like to stress three points. First, I did not receive a planned leak. Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret.

The current Justice investigation stems from a routine, mandated probe of all CIA leaks, but follows weeks of agitation. Wilson, after telling me in July that he would say nothing about his wife, has made investigation of the leak his life's work -- aided by the relentless Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. These efforts cannot be separated from the massive political assault on President Bush.

This story began July 6 when Wilson went public and identified himself as the retired diplomat who had reported negatively to the CIA in 2002 on alleged Iraq efforts to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger. I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment. Wilson had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one.

During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.

How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry.

A big question is her duties at Langley. I regret that I referred to her in my column as an "operative," a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations.

The Justice Department investigation was not requested by CIA Director George Tenet. Any leak of classified information is routinely passed by the Agency to Justice, averaging one a week. This investigative request was made in July shortly after the column was published. Reported only last weekend, the request ignited anti-Bush furor.

[Barkeep49]

Then why did the CIA tell Novak there was no problem with using her name? I guess the CIA needs to get its story together, too.
Source for this?

[Chubby]

Sure, and I've made that every clear. Don't try to paint me as a foaming-at-the-mouth partisan here. Let's remember what Novak himself said about Plame.

There is more to this by the way. We need to know who was the source for the female reporter who is now in jail, and who was Novak's source. This will all come out in time. But the Dems should stop trying to lynch Rove before the evidence is in, even if he perhaps deserves some of what he has been dishing out.
Never painted you that way, you sure do like to try and put words in other people's mouth tho don't you?

You know as well as I do that this is the same thing (kinda) Clinton went through and is simply payback on the Dems part. Turnabout is fair play.

Where are all the press announcements saying "Rove had nothing to do with it. The President is sure." now?

[Mr. Wednesday]

Um....
At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.

[Barkeep49]

Here's my problem with this ordeal. Valarie Plame is a patriotic American. An american who was willing to put her life at risk. Unlike most CIA operatives who have diplomatic cover she had no such cover, meaning if caught in another country she could face serious harm, even death. In the war on terror many agree that we need more human intellegence, the kind that can be gathered by people working for the CIA who aren't hidng behind so called "black passports". Some have argued she was a pencil pusher/desk jockey. As was pointed out earlier there would be no investigation if this were true. The company she "worked" for was one which housed several other operatives as well. Who knows what the damage was from having those people's covers blown as well.

So let's put the BEST case scenerio on this. Karl Rove finds that someone who has been smearing his administration was given his position because of his wife. Nepotism can be a bad thing indeed and could cast Wilson's allegations in a whole new light. So he decides to leak this information to the press. The problem with this is that he did not take the time to find out what Plame's position was with-in the CIA. After all, in the best case scenerio he did not know she was undercover. This to me is still reckless. This man is trusted with many of our nation's most important pieces of information and so it is incumbant upon him, in my opinion, to be very careful with that information. Why not take the extra step, once he finds out that Plame might be repsonsible for Wilson's "lies", and find out who exactly she is. To me at the bare minimum Karl Rove made an oversight, which might have placed our ability to gather intellegence at risk. A mistake? Yes, but a mistake for which he should still resign. And this is to me the best case scenerio: Karl Rove was careless with confidential information.

[flere-imsaho]

Then why did the CIA tell Novak there was no problem with using her name? I guess the CIA needs to get its story together, too.

1. I've not seen this. Do you have a link?

2. From the Novak column you posted after this post:


At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad.

:confused:

[flere-imsaho]

At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered.

That's a pretty big leap there, Bob.

How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry.

Novak, who need Plame's status to be "common knowledge" to save his skin, and Republican activist and NRO contributor Clifford May are the two "credible" sources here saying that "everyone" knew of her status. :rolleyes:

Honestly, what a hack.

[JW]

Here's my problem with this ordeal. Valarie Plame is a patriotic American. An american who was willing to put her life at risk. Unlike most CIA operatives who have diplomatic cover she had no such cover, meaning if caught in another country she could face serious harm, even death. In the war on terror many agree that we need more human intellegence, the kind that can be gathered by people working for the CIA who aren't hidng behind so called "black passports". Some have argued she was a pencil pusher/desk jockey. As was pointed out earlier there would be no investigation if this were true. The company she "worked" for was one which housed several other operatives as well. Who knows what the damage was from having those people's covers blown as well.

So let's put the BEST case scenerio on this. Karl Rove finds that someone who has been smearing his administration was given his position because of his wife. Nepotism can be a bad thing indeed and could cast Wilson's allegations in a whole new light. So he decides to leak this information to the press. The problem with this is that he did not take the time to find out what Plame's position was with-in the CIA. After all, in the best case scenerio he did not know she was undercover. This to me is still reckless. This man is trusted with many of our nation's most important pieces of information and so it is incumbant upon him, in my opinion, to be very careful with that information. Why not take the extra step, once he finds out that Plame might be repsonsible for Wilson's "lies", and find out who exactly she is. To me at the bare minimum Karl Rove made an oversight, which might have placed our ability to gather intellegence at risk. A mistake? Yes, but a mistake for which he should still resign. And this is to me the best case scenerio: Karl Rove was careless with confidential information.

Despite the 'um' above from Mr. Wednesday, it sounds like the CIA was not too concerned with her name being released, since it was already common knowledge in DC, which means that our enemies and competitors most likely already knew about her. Had the CIA been concerned, you can bet the issue would have been raised and Novak would have had a call from a more senior CIA official with a more definitive and pointed request not to use the name. You do raise a valid point, but it has been engulfed in the partisan politics of the issue. There remains much none of us know. I'm still waiting on what the prosecutor has to say at the end. Few others are willing to do that. Some are ready with the rope right now. But that is business as usual in DC, and, as I've pointed out, Rove is one of the leading practitioners of attack politics.

[QuikSand]

At several points in this whole debate, I have seen references to the phrase "use her name" commingled with references to her as "Joseph Wilson's wife." (paraphrasing)

Is there anyone who would sincerely argue that making reference to a person as "______'s wife" actually is meaningfully different from actually using her name? I honestly can't tell whether there is anyone trying to make the argument that this is a meaningful difference. It sounds like it to me, but maybe I'm just to deeply cynical.

[Barkeep49]

JW do you have a link for that idea that the CIA gave mixed messages about revealing her name? If that is true I agree that it complicates the picture considerably.

[JW]

That's a pretty big leap there, Bob.



Novak, who need Plame's status to be "common knowledge" to save his skin, and Republican activist and NRO contributor Clifford May are the two "credible" sources here saying that "everyone" knew of her status. :rolleyes:

Honestly, what a hack.


Your logic remains consistent. Anyone who does not agree with your position is a hack or some other similar name. You are no better than those you criticize for rolling out so-called partisan commentaries. The truth is, no one knows the truth yet in this case, except you apparently.

[flere-imsaho]

Despite the 'um' above from Mr. Wednesday, it sounds like the CIA was not too concerned with her name being released, since it was already common knowledge in DC, which means that our enemies and competitors most likely already knew about her.

For the umpteenth time, I'd like to see some proof for this outside of the writings of right-wing columnists or bloggers.

[flere-imsaho]

Your logic remains consistent. Anyone who does not agree with your position is a hack or some other similar name. You are no better than those you criticize for rolling out so-called partisan commentaries. The truth is, no one knows the truth yet in this case, except you apparently.

Hey, how about you answer some of the questions posted above with some substance, instead of resorting to name-calling. Or have you just given up?

[JW]

JW do you have a link for that idea that the CIA gave mixed messages about revealing her name? If that is true I agree that it complicates the picture considerably.

Just two things. Novak's own words and the agreement by many (not just rightwing hacks as some here suggest; Cam says aven Andrea Mitchell has admitted as much) that her CIA connection was well known in DC circles. Note also what Novak wrote about a CIA probe of numerous leaks. Could I be wrong about this? Shockingly, yes. I could always be wrong, unlike most people on internet forums. I still think there is much more to this and who the sources for the leak were, and that it will all eventually come out. Among other things, we appear to possibly be looking at multiple sources for the leak, not just one. Why is the NYT reporter still in jail? Whose name is she hiding? And who was Novak's source(s)? Lots of questions here. But I honestly think that if the CIA thought disclosing Plame's name was a big problem, Novak would have gotten the word.

[Mr. Wednesday]

And yet, Novak himself said that the CIA asked him not to use her name, and justified disregarding their request by saying that they weren't "forceful" enough.

[flere-imsaho]

Just two things. Novak's own words and the agreement by many (not just rightwing hacks as some here suggest; Cam says aven Andrea Mitchell has admitted as much) that her CIA connection was well known in DC circles.

OK, to get up to date, we've got:

Bob Novak
Clifford May
"many"
and
CamEdwards says Andrea Mitchell

You're correct, that's a devastating argument you've got there.

[Flasch186]

....none of it matters, the CIA said her name should not be revelaed and that is that. Doesnt matter what people assume or assumed. Her name shouldnt have been dropped or INFERRED, according to the CIA and theyre the one's who decide.

[Blackadar]

Despite the 'um' above from Mr. Wednesday, it sounds like the CIA was not too concerned with her name being released, since it was already common knowledge in DC, which means that our enemies and competitors most likely already knew about her. Had the CIA been concerned, you can bet the issue would have been raised and Novak would have had a call from a more senior CIA official with a more definitive and pointed request not to use the name.

Have you ever worked for the CIA? Have a close family member who does? I'd dare say I know more about the workings of the CIA than perhaps any other member on this board. Since I worked there (non-covert) and since another family member worked there (covert).

No, senior CIA officials aren't in the habit of getting on the phone to reporters by the very nature of their jobs. Those requests would be sent to the State Department or other Administration officials. Of course, some of those same officials were taking orders from the people who wanted the leak.

As for the whole covert/non-covert thing, you can be a paper-pusher and still be covert. Your job can be non-covert and you still under covert rules because of who you work for or who your family members are. And except for a few very public officials, it's almost NEVER common knowledge that you work for the CIA. Even as a non-covert employee, they teach/ask you to generally say you work for the government (or perhaps the State Department or DOD) rather than the CIA.

[CamEdwards]

but how many people follow that rule, Blackie? I've got two neighbors that work the CIA, and several of my decently good friends have also let me know that they work for the CIA. Two of them are covert, yet I still know (and I'm not a blood relative).

[Barkeep49]

Speed limits save lives. Having covert operatives stay secret save lives.

People still speed, and people still might reveal that they are covert. Doesn't mean that when caught people shouldn't be punished Cam.

[HomerJSimpson]

Speed limits save lives. Having covert operatives stay secret save lives.

People still speed, and people still might reveal that they are covert. Doesn't mean that when caught people shouldn't be punished Cam.


Depends on whether they are a Republican or a Democrat.

[sterlingice]

Depends on whether they are a Republican or a Democrat.
And if the cop is the opposite ;)

SI

[Easy Mac]

So wait, who did Karl Rove leak on?

[JW]

Have you ever worked for the CIA? Have a close family member who does? I'd dare say I know more about the workings of the CIA than perhaps any other member on this board. Since I worked there (non-covert) and since another family member worked there (covert).

No, senior CIA officials aren't in the habit of getting on the phone to reporters by the very nature of their jobs. Those requests would be sent to the State Department or other Administration officials. Of course, some of those same officials were taking orders from the people who wanted the leak.

As for the whole covert/non-covert thing, you can be a paper-pusher and still be covert. Your job can be non-covert and you still under covert rules because of who you work for or who your family members are. And except for a few very public officials, it's almost NEVER common knowledge that you work for the CIA. Even as a non-covert employee, they teach/ask you to generally say you work for the government (or perhaps the State Department or DOD) rather than the CIA.

I know more than you might think, and a nationally known columnist like Novak, a DC insider, would've gotten a call. He is not just a reporter. Period. And Valerie must have been the exception, because a lot of people knew she worked for CIA, and it appears Wilson and wife did not mind that being so.

[JW]

OK, to get up to date, we've got:

Bob Novak
Clifford May
"many"
and
CamEdwards says Andrea Mitchell

You're correct, that's a devastating argument you've got there.

As I said, you are going to automatically dismiss anything that you don't agree with. You have made that clear over and over. Your opinion is just like mine, an opinion. If I named a dozen leftwing columnists, Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, and Michael Jackson, you would say that wasn't enough. Your mantra gets old.

[JPhillips]

Again, its a simple equation:

CIA says Plame was covert > any supporter of Rove says she wasn't

[Arles]

The main issue for me with Novak is the idea that he ran with the story without worry. While I don't agree with him as much as others and think his writing is dry at times, he is a seasoned vet of the national media. I have a hard time believing that the CIA was adament about him not naming Plame, yet he went ahead and did it anyway. He's spiked numerous stories for the Bush II, Clinton and Bush I CIAs over the past few decades and it seems odd that he would knowingly put himself (and his source) in this kind of a situation with the CIA for a statement made in the sixth paragraph of a story that could easily have been cut out or re-worded. For that reason, I have a hard time believeing the CIA was all that insistant on Novak not naming Plame.

[JPhillips]

So now the argument is that the CIA should very agressively inform reporters of who is a covert agent? By your reasoning the CIA should have said, "Good Lord! Valerie Plame is a covert agent. Don't ever use her name, its a national secret that she works for us. Do you have any other names you'd like to check for covert status?"

In this case what was the CIA to do? They shouldn't be in the business of making national security secrets clear to reporters.

[JPhillips]

Dola

Another simple equation. A is true, therefore, either B or C must also be true.

A) McClellan said that Rove told him he wasn't involved and told the President the same.

B) Rove lied to McClellan and the President.

C) Rove, McClellan and the President lied to the American public.

[Flasch186]

by default, if the CIA doesnt expressly say that someone is not covert, when they were covert in the past, their name should not be exposed. Until the CIA says she wasn't covert, I will believe them when they said she is and ASKED for the investigation. Its amazing that this is the avenue that the admins efenders have gone when it is completely immoral for our gov't. to exact retribution on voices of dissent. It reminds me of a communist country. You guys throw that word at me like it is disdainful if I say anything that sounds communal-like, yet now it's ok to have a heavy fist against dissent.

[Chubby]

Dola

Another simple equation. A is true, therefore, either B or C must also be true.

A) McClellan said that Rove told him he wasn't involved and told the President the same.

B) Rove lied to McClellan and the President.

C) Rove, McClellan and the President lied to the American public.
questions normally have question marks involved. they look like this -> ?

as in, what exactly is your question in there?

[timmynausea]

He said equation, not question?

[JPhillips]

Question?

Did you misread equation?

Otherwise I have no idea what this is about.

[Chubby]

well my eyes are tired from too much ncaa 2006 :(

[JW]

This thread is like the Al Qaeda thread, where contacts may or may not be connections, yada, yada, yada. There are still many unanswered questions here. The NYT reporter, whose identity is she protecting? If it is Rove, why did she go to jail? And who was Novak's source? Or sources, since he says there were at least two?

The general consensus of the media, including NYT, seems to be at this moment, based on the info available, that probably no crime was committed, because the law regarding this is very specific. I know that will disappoint some people if it turns out to be so, but that seems to be the direction this thing is going. Another clue is that Rove and his lawyer seem to be fully, totally cooperating with the prosecutor.

This thing may still take unexpected turns, and other people may be exposed as sources. At best, we will have to wait until the prosecutor announces his results and until we know all the facts.

As for Bush and Rove, I think that Rove will not be fired unless he is charged with a crime. Bush is loyal to his inner circle, loyal to a fault. And Rove played a major role in giving Bush the presidency.

Additionally, this has become a political circus, thanks to the hysterical hatred of Rove by the left, and Bush will see this as much as a political decision as anything else. He will be loathe to act short of a criminal charge because he will be loathe to cave to the howling from the left.

Which is unfortunate, because Rove is a bad guy who is bad for America imho, even though he most likely did not commit a crime here.

[oliegirl]

Which is unfortunate, because Rove is a bad guy who is bad for America imho, even though he most likely did not commit a crime here.

Just out of curiousity, why do you think Rove is a bad person, and why is he bad for America?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Which is unfortunate, because Rove is a bad guy who is bad for America imho, even though he most likely did not commit a crime here.
This is exactly my take on this. I really wish it was him that had done wrong and I wish there was clear evidence indicating such. Unfortunately there isn't and he will keep on keepin' on...

[Flasch186]

...im just not ok with immoral behavior by anyone. My friends, my parents, politicians, anyone. I think that a crime was committed because I think that Rove and the inner circle dont do much without knowing what theyre doing so, that MO.

[flere-imsaho]

And Valerie must have been the exception, because a lot of people knew she worked for CIA

I hate to sound like a broken record, but: proof?

So far your proof is:

Novak
May
"many people"
maybe Andrea Mitchell

[flere-imsaho]

As I said, you are going to automatically dismiss anything that you don't agree with.

Utter tripe. A cursory reading of my posting history indicates otherwise. However, you're not much for research, are you?

You have made that clear over and over.

The only thing that's been made clear over and over is your inability to substantiate your arguments with verifiable facts.

If I named a dozen leftwing columnists, Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, and Michael Jackson, you would say that wasn't enough. Your mantra gets old.

OK, O'Reilly.

[Flasch186]

arles is the same way....he wont accept any news, especially articles. He'll only accept as proof of something if the culprit admits to it, which is a very small window to believe anything IMO. In this case Rove admitted to a little of it, so I guess he'll believe a little of it too.

[JW]

Utter tripe. A cursory reading of my posting history indicates otherwise. However, you're not much for research, are you?



The only thing that's been made clear over and over is your inability to substantiate your arguments with verifiable facts.



OK, O'Reilly.

I will continue to disagree. IMHO you casually dismiss anything with which you disagree, and anyway most of the political discussions on internet forums just amount to dueling columnists.

[JW]

Just out of curiousity, why do you think Rove is a bad person, and why is he bad for America?


In my opinion, he is a political attack artist who has helped further poison the political atmosphere in America. The political trashing of McCain is a prime example. Of course the Democrats share an equal amount of the blame. Consider now the lynch mob after Rove.

It appears that Rove is one of the main architects of the open border with Mexico, in an attempt to garner more Hispanic votes for the Republicans. In that and other areas, it is my opinion that he places politics above our national security. I think he is the driving force behind a muddled domestic policy that is more about votes than anything else, and that he is the driving force behind foreign policy decisions that are often not well based in fact. Rove is not well liked, including by some, if not many, conservatives.

[JW]

arles is the same way....he wont accept any news, especially articles. He'll only accept as proof of something if the culprit admits to it, which is a very small window to believe anything IMO. In this case Rove admitted to a little of it, so I guess he'll believe a little of it too.

But this is essentially what we have here: My sources are right and yours are wrong, and no one will accept anyone else's 'proof'. I prefer to wait for what the prosecutor says, but based on what has happened so far, only the far left thinks this is a slam dunk on Rove. I would not put deliberately violating the law past Rove, but, as has been pointed out here, where is the proof, the evidence, that he violated the law in this case? It just isn't there. Not yet. What will be fun to watch will be the eruption of the left if the prosecutor says no crime was committed.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Of course the Democrats share an equal amount of the blame. Consider now the lynch mob after Rove.

You call what's going on now a lych mob? This is nothing. It's a quiet, polite murmuring compared to what Clinton suffered through back in the day. You give the Democrats too much credit. They are far too disorganized and ineffectual to form any sort of group or mob to lynch or otherwise.

[CamEdwards]

From today's USA Today.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-cia-wilson_x.htm

The alleged crime at the heart of a controversy that has consumed official Washington — the "outing" of a CIA officer — may not have been a crime at all under federal law, little-noticed details in a book by the agent's husband suggest.

In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins.

Six years later, in July 2003, the name of the CIA officer — Valerie Plame — was revealed by columnist Robert Novak.

The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a "covert agent" must have been on an overseas assignment "within the last five years." The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say. Wilson's book makes numerous references to the couple's life in Washington over the six years up to July 2003.

"Unless she was really stationed abroad sometime after their marriage," she wasn't a covert agent protected by the law, says Bruce Sanford, an attorney who helped write the 1982 act that protects covert agents' identities.

So, even if he did say "It's Valerie Plame, and she's covert!!!" (which I don't think was the case) chances are there was no crime committed.

[HomerJSimpson]

From today's USA Today.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-cia-wilson_x.htm

So, even if he did say "It's Valerie Plame, and she's covert!!!" (which I don't think was the case) chances are there was no crime committed.

So the CIA doesn't know the law since it was them who said she was a covert operative? Or maybe it is possible her husband didn't put in his book the things she might have done that would have covert because, I don't know, it was covert?

[CamEdwards]

I would say the guy who wrote the law probably knows it better than management at the CIA, yes. As to her status, I'm sure that's easily obtained information for Fitzgerald, but since Mr. Wilson (and at that point his wife as well) weren't concerned about further "outing" I see no reason why they wouldn't reference any overseas assignment in his book. In fact, he would be doing himself a favor by doing so.

[Arles]

arles is the same way....he wont accept any news, especially articles. He'll only accept as proof of something if the culprit admits to it, which is a very small window to believe anything IMO. In this case Rove admitted to a little of it, so I guess he'll believe a little of it too.
Actually, I'd accept it if the special prosecutor came out and said Plame was covert, Rove knew she was undercover and outted her anyway. I would have no issues with that and would hope Rove gets canned if that happened.

What I am not willing to do is leap to conclusions based on an admitted liar like Wilson or unclear comments by Novak and Cooper as to the leak.

[Mr. Wednesday]

I remember reading an excerpt of the law previously, and I don't remember anything about an overseas assignment. Can somebody post a link to the actual text of the law?

[Arles]

So the CIA doesn't know the law since it was them who said she was a covert operative?
I think there's a difference in classification. I remember reading in a different story that the CIA often considers any agent that ever was covert a "covert agent" until they retire - even if they no longer have cover assignments.

The 1982 act, on the other hands, requires that a CIA agent be active overseas at some point during the prior 5 years. So, it seems very plausible that the CIA (because she was covert a decade ago) still classifies her as "covert" but that she is no longer considered covert by the law for outing a CIA agent.

[HomerJSimpson]

I would say the guy who wrote the law probably knows it better than management at the CIA, yes. As to her status, I'm sure that's easily obtained information for Fitzgerald, but since Mr. Wilson (and at that point his wife as well) weren't concerned about further "outing" I see no reason why they wouldn't reference any overseas assignment in his book. In fact, he would be doing himself a favor by doing so.


Does the person who wrote the law have her classified file before him and know exactly whether she was performing in a covert ops during those years? I would say the CIA does, and the CIA knowledge > knowledge of any commentator.

[KWhit]

I've read this a lot in the few articles I have seen:

"The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration."
Does anyone have the exact quote from Bush (or his press secretary) that this references? I haven't been able to find it.

[Arles]

I remember reading an excerpt of the law previously, and I don't remember anything about an overseas assignment. Can somebody post a link to the actual text of the law?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/15/subchapters/iv/sections/section_421.html
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 15 > SUBCHAPTER IV > § 421 Prev | Next

§ 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

Release date: 2005-03-17

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

Here's the definition of Covert in the same document (applicable part in bold):
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/15/subchapters/iv/sections/section%5F426.html

(4) The term “covert agent” means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency
or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned
to duty with an intelligence agency—

(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member
is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within
the last five years served outside the United States;

or

(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the
United States is classified information, and—

(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent
of, or informant or source of operational assistance
to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent
of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence
or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation;

or

(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or
present intelligence relationship to the United States is
classified information and who is a present or former agent
of, or a present or former informant or source of operational
assistance to, an intelligence agency.

You need either A or B or C. Since Plame is a US citizen, (C) is thrown out. And since she does not appear to be an agent or informant to the foreign counterintelligence/terrorism part of the FBI or reside outside of the US, part (B) isn't applicable.

So, the only way to classify her as covert is the section in bold. And, since she isn't currently overseas, she needs to have served overseas within the last 5 years.

[Mr. Wednesday]

I'd presume, then, that the CIA might be going by definition (B)(ii).

Thanks! I had seen the first part previously, but not the legal definition of "covert".

[John Galt]

Arles beat me to it, but here is a link that is slightly better formatted for easier reading:

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000426----000-.html

[John Galt]

I'd presume, then, that the CIA might be going by definition (B)(ii).

Thanks! I had seen the first part previously, but not the legal definition of "covert".

I'm not sure how you are reading (B)(ii), but it doesn't apply in this case that I know of.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Well, she is a U.S. citizen, so the general heading of (B) would apply. If she was associated with WMD work, then I considered it possible that she might have been in contact with the FBI in that capacity. I don't know whether it's plausible, but it appears to be the only possible definition that would fit.

[Arles]

(B) section (i) doesn't apply as she is not overseas. And, I am not aware of any association Plame has with the FBI for section (ii) to be valid either. And, remember, for B (ii) to apply, Plame would have to be working for the FBI "at the time of the disclosure" - which is doubtful given where she was stationed and what we know now.

[John Galt]

Well, she is a U.S. citizen, so the general heading of (B) would apply. If she was associated with WMD work, then I considered it possible that she might have been in contact with the FBI in that capacity. I don't know whether it's plausible, but it appears to be the only possible definition that would fit.

Being an agent of the FBI is much narrower than being in contact with them. And the definition is even more limited given it restricts it to certain subcomponents of the FBI.

I have no idea if the "covert agent" label applies, but I would expect it would be under (A). We have no idea if Plame served abroad in the last 5 years preceding the outing. If she had, it would probably be classified. If she didn't, we wouldn't know for sure either way. As I read the definition, though, it does not require any minimum length of foreign service which means a few days abroad could count on a classified mission. Again, though, I have no idea if that is the case here.

[John Galt]

Either way, as Martha Stewart and Bill Clinton should have taught Rove, it is never about the original crime, it is ALL about the coverup. The more interesting criminal question is whether Rove lied to investigators or made false statements before a grand jury. Those are open questions whether or not the underlying act was a crime.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Being an agent of the FBI is much narrower than being in contact with them. And the definition is even more limited given it restricts it to certain subcomponents of the FBI.Yes, but there's also the "informant to" category, though I'm not sure how narrowly that's defined. I already stated why I thought those specific components of the FBI would be applicable.

[John Galt]

Yes, but there's also the "informant to" category, though I'm not sure how narrowly that's defined. I already stated why I thought those specific components of the FBI would be applicable.

You aren't going to get anything that way - "informant" means something very different than just providing information.

[Arles]

Either way, as Martha Stewart and Bill Clinton should have taught Rove, it is never about the original crime, it is ALL about the coverup. The more interesting criminal question is whether Rove lied to investigators or made false statements before a grand jury. Those are open questions whether or not the underlying act was a crime.
I agree this is the more likely area for the investigation to go. It's also a fairly simple case to prove if Rove did indeed lie to a Grand Jury given the statements and notes by Cooper we have now. So, we should get a clear verdict here and be able to move on. If Rove's convicted of perjury, he should be removed from the administration (at a minium). If he is found innocent, this will have ended up being "much ado about nothing".

[Ryche]

I've read this a lot in the few articles I have seen:


Does anyone have the exact quote from Bush (or his press secretary) that this references? I haven't been able to find it.

I'd like to see this too. If Bush did say that anyone in his administration found to have been involved with leaking this information would be removed, then I don't care whether or not a crime was committed here.

If Rove leaked the information & Bush said the leaker would be removed then Rove should be removed.

That said, I don't think there was any malicious intent in revealing this information. But I don't like changing the rules just because you like the person who broke the rule.

[KWhit]

Here's the quote.

"The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration."

[John Galt]

Here's the quote.

That's the quote from Reid. There are many quotes from Bush and the administration - the Daily Show ran a collage of them last night I think.

[KWhit]

That's the quote from Reid. There are many quotes from Bush and the administration - the Daily Show ran a collage of them last night I think.
Yes, I know. I was just posting the quote that I originally asked about. It was lost in Ryche's quoting of my earlier post.

[KWhit]

I heard this on NPR yesterday. And excellent piece, IMO, that gets to the crux of the matter that seems to be overlooked - no matter if it was technically illegal or not.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4752466

(4 minute audio clip)

[JPhillips]

KWhit: Check post 246 in this thread for all the relevant quotes from Bush and McClellan.

[Flasch186]

But this is essentially what we have here: My sources are right and yours are wrong, and no one will accept anyone else's 'proof'. I prefer to wait for what the prosecutor says, but based on what has happened so far, only the far left thinks this is a slam dunk on Rove. I would not put deliberately violating the law past Rove, but, as has been pointed out here, where is the proof, the evidence, that he violated the law in this case? It just isn't there. Not yet. What will be fun to watch will be the eruption of the left if the prosecutor says no crime was committed.


[i was away for the day]

Perjury will be easy, I should think.

FWIW, the architect of the actual CIA law in question was on CNN and said he did not think that Rove can be convicted of committing the actual crime re: Covert CIA agents (he sounded kind of partisan...I dont know who he was) but he said perjury or obstruction of justice are certainly in play.

[Flasch186]

Actually, I'd accept it if the special prosecutor came out and said Plame was covert, Rove knew she was undercover and outted her anyway. I would have no issues with that and would hope Rove gets canned if that happened.

What I am not willing to do is leap to conclusions based on an admitted liar like Wilson or unclear comments by Novak and Cooper as to the leak.

When did Wilson ever say, "Im a liar" ? Until he does, in an article written by him, I wont believe it. (sound familiar?)

[John Galt]

When did Wilson ever say, "Im a liar" ? Until he does, in an article written by him, I wont believe it. (sound familiar?)

Maybe I've missed it, but what were Wilson's lies? The only one I've read about that seems suspect is the role his wife had in sending him (although I don't think it is really a "lie"). Most of the rest of the alleged lies (he said Cheney sent him and lied about the memo) have been GOP talking points that are without substantiation. Maybe I'm missing something, though.

[Arles]

When did Wilson ever say, "Im a liar" ? Until he does, in an article written by him, I wont believe it. (sound familiar?)
Then don't believe it.

[Flasch186]

(B) section (i) doesn't apply as she is not overseas. And, I am not aware of any association Plame has with the FBI for section (ii) to be valid either. And, remember, for B (ii) to apply, Plame would have to be working for the FBI "at the time of the disclosure" - which is doubtful given where she was stationed and what we know now.

the way I read it she doesnt have to be overseas, just working with someone overseas or the FBI...






what chaps my hide is that, Ill agree with you :eek: It looks like, with the narrow scope of the law, he may not have broken this law (perjury and obstrcution of justice "It depends on the what your definition of 'is' is.) but it still is so ultra slimy to exact revenge on a voice of dissention that it sickens me and it would on either side of the aisle.

[Flasch186]

I agree this is the more likely area for the investigation to go. It's also a fairly simple case to prove if Rove did indeed lie to a Grand Jury given the statements and notes by Cooper we have now. So, we should get a clear verdict here and be able to move on. If Rove's convicted of perjury, he should be removed from the administration (at a minium). If he is found innocent, this will have ended up being "much ado about nothing".


agreed but I will not lower my moral standard and this behavior is not acceptable by our leadership (at least of what we know)

[Flasch186]

Then don't believe it.

so he never said that or wrote that?

[KWhit]

KWhit: Check post 246 in this thread for all the relevant quotes from Bush and McClellan.
Thanks.

[Arles]

Maybe I've missed it, but what were Wilson's lies? The only one I've read about that seems suspect is the role his wife had in sending him (although I don't think it is really a "lie"). Most of the rest of the alleged lies (he said Cheney sent him and lied about the memo) have been GOP talking points that are without substantiation. Maybe I'm missing something, though.
William Safire put it best back in 2004:


Two exhaustive government reports came out last week showing that it is the president's lionized accuser, and not Mr. Bush, who has been having trouble with the truth.

Contrary to his indignant claim that "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter" of selecting him for the African trip, the Senate published testimony that his C.I.A. wife had "offered up his name" and printed her memo to her boss that "my husband has good relations" with Niger officials and "lots of French contacts." Further destroying his credibility, Wilson now insists this strong pitch did not constitute a recommendation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/19/opinion/19SAFI.html

The Washington Post also ran an article on this:

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying 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." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.

"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."

Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday, saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle

[Arles]

so he never said that or wrote that?
No, it's a pretty established fact by nearly every major media organization, the bi-partisan senate committee and even Wilson himself (stating he may have "misspoke" to reporters about the report) that he has lied on this matter. If you choose not to believe this in the face of this information, I doubt I will be able to convince you. So, that's why I said "Don't believe it then". It doesn't make much of a difference to me.

[Flasch186]

No, it's a pretty established fact by nearly every major media organization, the bi-partisan senate committee and even Wilson himself (stating he may have "misspoke" to reporters about the report) that he has lied on this matter. If you choose not to believe this in the face of this information, I doubt I will be able to convince you. So, that's why I said "Don't believe it then". It doesn't make much of a difference to me.

ok. he misspoke. it happens. Rove didn't leak her "name" technically since he said "Wilson's wife". perhaps when he told the investigators that he had nothing to do with it, he misspoke too. it happens.

[John Galt]

William Safire put it best back in 2004:



http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/19/opinion/19SAFI.html

The Washington Post also ran an article on this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle

Safire isn't a source and is pretty much not an authority on this at all. However, that is the one lie I've heard alleged that is somewhat reliable. It is notable that he didn't say it until after his other allegations and I understand that he still believes it to be true. The memo that she wrote that contradicts it was allegedly ordered by her superiors and the fact is she had no final say so in the matter. Either way, I'm not sure it is the worse lie.

As for the WP article, do a little digging and you will say why it is all wrong about Wilson (and has been corrected).

None of this is particularly relevant though since Rove's actions are totally independent of Wilson's alleged lies. But I do think the idea that Wilson is a "liar" is more than a bit overstated.

[John Galt]

No, it's a pretty established fact by nearly every major media organization, the bi-partisan senate committee and even Wilson himself (stating he may have "misspoke" to reporters about the report) that he has lied on this matter. If you choose not to believe this in the face of this information, I doubt I will be able to convince you. So, that's why I said "Don't believe it then". It doesn't make much of a difference to me.

No, it's not. An admission of "misspeaking" is not an admission of lying. Try doing the original source research and you will see you are WAYYYY overstating things (and actually cite the part of Congress's report that is "bipartisan" and not the appendix that wasn't "bipartisan").

I don't give a shit one way or another whether Wilson lied (especially since it has NOTHING to do with Rove outing his wife), but you continue to push facts with absolute certainty when you rely on secondary sources only. That is weak.

[John Galt]

If anyone is curious, here is a good discussion of the issues I raised on a very good blog that I read:

http://crookedtimber.org/2005/07/14/another-bite-at-the-apple/

[Arles]

As for the WP article, do a little digging and you will say why it is all wrong about Wilson (and has been corrected).
The correction was in response to referrencing "Iraq" and not "Iran". Te statement I cited (repeated below) still stands by the WP and does show another lie by Wilson:


The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

None of this is particularly relevant though since Rove's actions are totally independent of Wilson's alleged lies. But I do think the idea that Wilson is a "liar" is more than a bit overstated.
Well, he did lie on two occasions to reporters and in text. One in stating that "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter" of selecting him for the African trip and the other in telling the WP that the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." I would say if someone lies in two separate instances and gets caught, they are a "liar".

[John Galt]

The correction was in response to referrencing "Iraq" and not "Iran". Te statement I cited (repeated below) still stands by the WP and does show another lie by Wilson:

Well, he did lie on two occasions to reporters and in text. One in stating that "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter" of selecting him for the African trip and the other in telling the WP that the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." I would say if someone lies in two separate instances and gets caught, they are a "liar".

You seem to be missing the point that he still says "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter" and that the evidence that contradicts that is a memo she wrote, but she says was ordered to be written in the chain of command. It is still in controversy. I'm willing to believe he lied, but stop trying to act like it is 100% certain and without question. As for the other "lie," he says he misspoke and the WP facts are reported quite differently in other sources. These are not absolute issues that "nearly every major media organization, the bi-partisan senate committee and even Wilson himself" agreed upon. Your assertion is the "lie" in this thread.

So Arles, when you cited a fabricator on this board and then pretty much made up shit to explain away two contradictory statements by you here, were those your two strikes? Or how about the dozens of times you made up what other people have said on this board to set up silly strawman arguments? Or how about your hero, GWB? Surely, you must agree his administration has lied far in excess of 2 times?

Your rose-colored glasses have become opaque.

[Arles]

You seem to be missing the point that he still says "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter" and that the evidence that contradicts that is a memo she wrote, but she says was ordered to be written in the chain of command. It is still in controversy. I'm willing to believe he lied, but stop trying to act like it is 100% certain and without question.
I am sure what you are getting at here, but OK. If it's compelling enough to convince a partisan lefty like yourself that Wilson lied, I think it's a safe claim to make with a high degree of certainty.

As for the other "lie," he says he misspoke and the WP facts are reported quite differently in other sources. These are not absolute issues that "nearly every major media organization, the bi-partisan senate committee and even Wilson himself" agreed upon. Your assertion is the "lie" in this thread.
The NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News and numerous others have all stated that Wilson either lied, misled or provided false information to the Senate committee and/or the Washington Post in his interview.

I would state that's "nearly every major media organization". The Senate committee called him out on his false comments to the WP, and his response was that he "misspoke". It's interesting, though, that he did not wish to clear the record with the WP shortly after the story ran. It was only once he was called out on the senate floor that he admitted he misspoke.

So Arles, when you cited a fabricator on this board and then pretty much made up shit to explain away two contradictory statements by you here, were those your two strikes?
Let's see:
"nearly every major media organization"
Wall Street Journal...check
NY Times...check
Washington Post...check
CNN....check
Fox News....check

That seems to be a correct statement.

"the bi-partisan senate committee"

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said.
Check

"Wilson himself"
Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.
Check.

Yeah, I'd say I stand by my earlier statements with confidence.

[John Galt]

I am sure what you are getting at here, but OK. If it's compelling enough to convince a partisan lefty like yourself that Wilson lied, I think it's a safe claim to make with a high degree of certainty.

I am not in anyway a "partisan" lefty. I just happen to be intellectually honest.

The NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News and numerous others have all stated that Wilson either lied, misled or provided false information to the Senate committee and/or the Washington Post in his interview.

I have no doubt that articles have appeared in almost every news source repeating allegations of falsehood. Repitition does not equate with truth.

"the bi-partisan senate committee"

Check.

Cite (the original material)?

"Wilson himself"

Check.

Yeah, I'd say I stand by my earlier statements with confidence.

Wilson himself is not even close to true. An admission of "misspeaking" does not equal an admission of "lying" except in Arles land and only when it fits your particular partisan hack job for that day.

[Mr. Wednesday]

the way I read it she doesnt have to be overseas, just working with someone overseas or the FBI...I tried on the FBI part [(B)(ii) from the law] and it didn't fly.

[Arles]

I am not in anyway a "partisan" lefty. I just happen to be intellectually honest.
OK, you got me here. Where's the smiley?

I am certainly willing to admit I am partisan to the right. I find it quite humerous that you feel you are non-partisan. But don't let me rain on your parade.

Cite (the original material)?
Here's the original senate report:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2-b.htm

Third, the former ambassador noted that his CIA contacts told him there were documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction and that the source of the information was the XXXX intelligence service. The DO reports officer told Committee staff that he did not provide the former ambassador with any information about the source or details of the original reporting as it would have required sharing classified information and, noted that there were no "documents" circulating in the IC at the time of the former ambassador's trip, only intelligence reports from XXXX intelligence regarding an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. Meeting notes and other correspondence show that details of the reporting were discussed at the February 19, 2002 meeting, but none of the meeting participants recall telling the former ambassador the source of the report

(U) The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12, 2003) which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because `the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged." He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents.

Wilson himself is not even close to true. An admission of "misspeaking" does not equal an admission of "lying" except in Arles land and only when it fits your particular partisan hack job for that day.
So, when someone states to a senate comittee that he told a Washington Post reporter that "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong" from a document he later admitted he never saw - what exactly was he trying to say if not trying to pull a fast one on the reporter to bolster his case? It's a pretty specific claim and he only recanted when he was caught red-handed by the committee.

[Flasch186]

So Rumsfeld has been caught lying on TV, 2 times that I Know of, so would you call him an "admitted" liar? How about Bush? Im sure I could find articles and the such showing he lied or "misspoke" more than 2 times. So is he a liar too? You accuse but aren't willing to apply the same standard to your team. why is that? I do.

your double standards and unwillingness to accept "Fact" that is a detriment to the right, but glee and hair trigger to accept any bit of info., no matter how partisan the source when attacking the left leaves you in the realm of partisan soapboxer. I am willing to equally attack both sides but you'll stand on said box and accuse me of being lefty....I am "honesty". whatever side shows more of that, I am a fan of. You, and all Americans should feel the same.

[JW]

It is becoming clearer that Rove did not violate the law on exposing covert CIA operatives. Two things tend to point that out.

First, the Democrats are now trying to pass a law (through an amendment to a bill before Congress) revoking the clearance on anyone who has ever been involved in revealing the identity of a covert agent (I don't know what the threshhold is in this particular bill.), and the primary author of the original bill is saying Rove did not violate the law as written. Link.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162485,00.html

Excerpts:

...Sens. Harry Reid or Nevada, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, Joe Biden of Delaware and Dick Durbin of Illinois were offering the amendment as an add-on to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill now being debated in the Senate.

"No federal employee who discloses, or has disclosed, classified information, including the identity of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, to a person not authorized to receive such information shall be permitted to hold a security clearance for access to such information," the amendment language reads....

Victoria Toensing, former counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee who helped write the law protecting the identities of intelligence agents, told FOX News on Thursday that "no, in a nutshell," Rove did not commit a crime. Plame's status at the time of the revelation is key to that conclusion, she said.

"That's a very big question," Toensing said, referring to exactly what status Plame had within the CIA at the time of the alleged "leak." "When did she leave her foreign assignment?"

If it was in 1997, as noted in Wilson's book, Toensing said, "she would not have even have to come to the definition of a 'covert agent' under the law how we wrote it."

BTW, the Dems better watch out on their proposed law. Lots of people in DC, Dem and Rep, violate those provisions routinely.

As some have pointed out, perjury is an entirely different question. Frankly, considering Rove's longterm cooperation with the prosecutor, I find that unlikely. He probably knows exactly what he is doing. But maybe I'll be wrong on that.

We also have some open question, like who is the source for the NYT reporter now in jail, and who were Novak's sources. So this is far from over, but it is looking more and more like Rove did not break the law currently in question.

This thing is far from over, but in true DC style, Rove is already presumed guilty. And, yes, the Republicans have done the same thing in the past.

[yabanci]

You seem to be missing the point that he still says "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter" and that the evidence that contradicts that is a memo she wrote, but she says was ordered to be written in the chain of command. It is still in controversy. I'm willing to believe he lied, but stop trying to act like it is 100% certain and without question. As for the other "lie," he says he misspoke and the WP facts are reported quite differently in other sources. These are not absolute issues that "nearly every major media organization, the bi-partisan senate committee and even Wilson himself" agreed upon. Your assertion is the "lie" in this thread.

So Arles, when you cited a fabricator on this board and then pretty much made up shit to explain away two contradictory statements by you here, were those your two strikes? Or how about the dozens of times you made up what other people have said on this board to set up silly strawman arguments? Or how about your hero, GWB? Surely, you must agree his administration has lied far in excess of 2 times?

Your rose-colored glasses have become opaque.

John, FYI - All of these right wing columnists that are now calling Wilson a liar and saying his wife sent him on the trip, etc., are basing it one what they call the report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. What they are actualling referring to, though, are "additional comments" submitted by three republican senators. This is explained by Wikipedia:

Several months after the scandal broke, Senator Pat Roberts, joined by Senators Christopher Bond and Orrin Hatch, made "additional comments" following the release of the Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq. In these comments they claimed, amongst other things, that Wilson's wife had "suggested her husband for the trip to Niger" and that Wilson had made statements which "were not only incorrect, but had no basis in fact." In particular, Senator Roberts criticized Wilson for allegedly informing reporters that he had personal knowledge of the Iraq-Niger uranium documents and allegedly informing reporters that he had personal knowledge that the Iraq-Niger uranium connection had been "completely debunked," when in fact Ambassador Wilson lacked personal knowledge regarding those issues.[1]

Although Senator Roberts was clear that he and the Panel's democratic members disagreed about the inclusion of the statements above in the official report, he alleged that the panel agreed on "the underlying facts" regarding those conclusions. The other members did not confirm this alleged agreement. Apparently ignoring this dispute, many media outlets reported them as established facts from the report itself. Wilson responded to Roberts claims, pointing to numerous statements by the CIA indicating that his wife did not recommend him for the mission but never addressed that his wife lobbied to send him on the mission to Niger. The CIA considered Wilson's findings regarding the Niger link as not conclusive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson

Joe Wilson's response to these "additonal comments," in the form of a letter to Sen. Roberts, is reprinted here: http://www.alternet.org/stories/19271

[Arles]

So Rumsfeld has been caught lying on TV, 2 times that I Know of, so would you call him an "admitted" liar?
Sure, I think Rumsfeld has lied a few times.

How about Bush? Im sure I could find articles and the such showing he lied or "misspoke" more than 2 times. So is he a liar too?
Yep. Plus, I'll do you one further and state I think most presidents lie. Bush has, Clinton has, Bush I did numerous times. Reagan lied, Carter lied and we don't even want to talk about Kennedy and Nixon. I'd be surprised if anyone could find a US president that hasn't lied over a 4 or 8-year term to be honest.

You accuse but aren't willing to apply the same standard to your team. why is that?
Seems like we have a little premature ejaculation on questions here.

your double standards and unwillingness to accept "Fact" that is a detriment to the right, but glee and hair trigger to accept any bit of info., no matter how partisan the source when attacking the left leaves you in the realm of partisan soapboxer. I am willing to equally attack both sides but you'll stand on said box and accuse me of being lefty....I am "honesty". whatever side shows more of that, I am a fan of. You, and all Americans should feel the same.
I am certainly partisan, but I think it's better to admit that than be dilusional and think my first instinct is always going to be "completely fair" to both sides. I was a partisan lefty for about 10 years of my life, so I have been on the other side as well. Just because someone is partisan does not mean they cannot be intellectually honest - it just means it's a little more difficult because of their inheirant bias. There are times where I will not be intellectually honest and that bothers me. But, by admitting I am a partisan I can atleast look out for those occasions and try to be fair to both sides.

[Arles]

John, FYI - All of these right wing columnists that are now calling Wilson a liar and saying his wife sent him on the trip, etc., are basing it one what they call the report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. What they are actualling referring to, though, are "additional comments" submitted by three republican senators. This is explained by Wikipedia:
Here's the physical report (Section II Niger, Part B):
Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, "my 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." This was just one day before CPD sent a cable DELETED requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him "there's this crazy report" on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.

The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA's behalf . The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region . Because the former ambassador did not uncover any information about DELETED during this visit to Niger, CPD did not distribute an intelligence report on the visit.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2-b.htm

That's what I've cited in regards to the report and isn't part of any "additional comments" section. It's smack in the middle of the main report.

[Arles]

BTW, here's the additional views section yabanci was talking about and it was NOT the same as what I cited above:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_pat-roberts.htm

[Arles]

There was a very odd interview between Wolf Blitzer and Joe Wilson today. You can read it in its entirety here:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/wbr.01.html

Here's the comment that puzzle me:
BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.

What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you.

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department.
Huh? If she wasn't a clandestine officer at the point of the leak, where's the danger? Am I missing something here? I thought the whole point of the investigation was that someone had outed a covert CIA agent and risked her life. Yet, now, her own husband admits she was not a clandestine officer at the time of the leak.

Ugh, what a waste of time this is becoming.

[Chubby]

There was a very odd interview between Wolf Blitzer and Joe Wilson today. You can read it in its entirety here:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/wbr.01.html

Here's the comment that puzzle me:

Huh? If she wasn't a clandestine officer at the point of the leak, where's the danger? Am I missing something here? I thought the whole point of the investigation was that someone had outed a covert CIA agent and risked her life. Yet, now, her own husband admits she was not a clandestine officer at the time of the leak.

Ugh, what a waste of time this is becoming.
You are missing something. he said once she was outed, she wasn't clandestine anymore now was she?

[JW]

Did Novak tell Rove about Plame instead of the other way around, which is what some have suspected? Maybe so. Maybe not. Interesting story, and, since it from the NYT, it must be true. Right?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/politics/15rove.html?ei=5094&en=15d2c0ff1133350b&hp=&ex=1121400000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

July 15, 2005
Rove Reportedly Held Phone Talk on C.I.A. Officer
By DAVID JOHNSTON and RICHARD W. STEVENSON

WASHINGTON, July 14 - Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified a C.I.A. officer who was undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said.

Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.

After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."

The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Mr. Novak, the person who has been briefed on the matter said.

Six days later, Mr. Novak's syndicated column reported that two senior administration officials had told him that Mr. Wilson's "wife had suggested sending him" to Africa. That column was the first instance in which Ms. Wilson was publicly identified as a C.I.A. operative.

The column provoked angry demands for an investigation into who disclosed Ms. Wilson's name to Mr. Novak. The Justice Department appointed Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a top federal prosecutor in Chicago, to lead the inquiry. Mr. Rove said in an interview with CNN last year that he did not know the C.I.A. officer's name and did not leak it.

The person who provided the information about Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak declined to be identified, citing requests by Mr. Fitzgerald that no one discuss the case. The person discussed the matter in the belief that Mr. Rove was truthful in saying that he had not disclosed Ms. Wilson's identity.

On Oct. 1, 2003, Mr. Novak wrote another column in which he described calling two officials who were his sources for the earlier column. The first source, whose identity has not been revealed, provided the outlines of the story and was described by Mr. Novak as "no partisan gunslinger." Mr. Novak wrote that when he called a second official for confirmation, the source said, "Oh, you know about it."

That second source was Mr. Rove, the person briefed on the matter said. Mr. Rove's account to investigators about what he told Mr. Novak was similar in its message although the White House adviser's recollection of the exact words was slightly different. Asked by investigators how he knew enough to leave Mr. Novak with the impression that his information was accurate, Mr. Rove said he had heard portions of the story from other journalists, but had not heard Ms. Wilson's name....

[Flasch186]

doesnt matter if Novak told Rove ....in the chain of discussion Rove should've been the end of the speculation not a link in the chain[the buck stops here] (morality wise). Seems like another source needs to come forward as the Original culprit.

[panerd]

I know this will probably piss a lot of people in this thread off and probably will even garner a few "Who the fuck is this guy?" posts, but here goes... I can't believe the amount of time you guys spend digging up articles and posting page long responses (on both the Democratic and Republican side) about people who don't give a shit about any of you. (On both the Democratic and Republican sides) Unless one of you guys is secretly a $20,000 a plate donor, both liberals and conservatives may appreicate your vote but you are pretty much expendible in thier minds if Walmart, the NRA, the NEA, the NAACP, etc offer up a more tantalizing offer.

Please realize that if Bush ends up winning in the end he isn't going to call on Arles, JoninmiddleGA, Bubbawheels etc to thank them

And if Rove gets fired the Democrats aren't going to call on Flasch or Nomyths or Flere to thank them.

They are both going to continue taking millions of dollars from Phillip Morris and act like they are enemies with each other so you guys will keep donating and supporting each side. It is like Hulk Hogan and Ric Flair putting on a dog and pony show in the ring and then going out for a drink at their hotel. They thank the incredible fans for buying their merchandise and then laugh at how big of losers some of the fans really are.

[JW]

I know this will probably piss a lot of people in this thread off and probably will even garner a few "Who the fuck is this guy?" posts, but here goes... I can't believe the amount of time you guys spend digging up articles and posting page long responses (on both the Democratic and Republican side) about people who don't give a shit about any of you. (On both the Democratic and Republican sides) Unless one of you guys is secretly a $20,000 a plate donor, both liberals and conservatives may appreicate your vote but you are pretty much expendible in thier minds if Walmart, the NRA, the NEA, the NAACP, etc offer up a more tantalizing offer.

Please realize that if Bush ends up winning in the end he isn't going to call on Arles, JoninmiddleGA, Bubbawheels etc to thank them

And if Rove gets fired the Democrats aren't going to call on Flasch or Nomyths or Flere to thank them.

They are both going to continue taking millions of dollars from Phillip Morris and act like they are enemies with each other so you guys will keep donating and supporting each side. It is like Hulk Hogan and Ric Flair putting on a dog and pony show in the ring and then going out for a drink at their hotel. They thank the incredible fans for buying their merchandise and then laugh at how big of losers some of the fans really are.

Actually there is a lot of truth to that. But this is just the sideshow leading up to the Supreme Court nomination.

[JW]

doesnt matter if Novak told Rove ....in the chain of discussion Rove should've been the end of the speculation not a link in the chain[the buck stops here] (morality wise). Seems like another source needs to come forward as the Original culprit.

It may not make a difference. But it is nonetheless interesting, just one more twist in a story that will likely have more twists. Indeed, who is the other source, and who is the NYT reporter protecting?

And an afterthought. Novak says he contacted the CIA and an official there confirmed her identity. So, if Rove violated the law, which seems unlikely now, but if he did, didn't this CIA official also violate the law? Shouldn't his proper response have been to say he couldn't comment?

[NoMyths]

I know this will probably piss a lot of people in this thread off and probably will even garner a few "Who the fuck is this guy?" posts, but here goes... I can't believe the amount of time you guys spend digging up articles and posting page long responses (on both the Democratic and Republican side) about people who don't give a shit about any of you. (On both the Democratic and Republican sides) Unless one of you guys is secretly a $20,000 a plate donor, both liberals and conservatives may appreicate your vote but you are pretty much expendible in thier minds if Walmart, the NRA, the NEA, the NAACP, etc offer up a more tantalizing offer.

Please realize that if Bush ends up winning in the end he isn't going to call on Arles, JoninmiddleGA, Bubbawheels etc to thank them

And if Rove gets fired the Democrats aren't going to call on Flasch or Nomyths or Flere to thank them.

They are both going to continue taking millions of dollars from Phillip Morris and act like they are enemies with each other so you guys will keep donating and supporting each side. It is like Hulk Hogan and Ric Flair putting on a dog and pony show in the ring and then going out for a drink at their hotel. They thank the incredible fans for buying their merchandise and then laugh at how big of losers some of the fans really are.In many ways you're right. Just one of the reasons I'm not a Democrat. Just trying to do my part to keep Americans informed about what's going on, so that hopefully we can make some progress. Eventually.

We may not get thanks from any particular side, but they're unnecessary. With a more educated populace, we'll eventually get better as a people and a country.

[Arles]

You are missing something. he said once she was outed, she wasn't clandestine anymore now was she?
OK, that's a good point. When I watched the interview, it seemed like he was saying she was not clandestine when she was named. But, after looking at the transcript, your explanation makes a lot more sense.

[Blackadar]

I know this will probably piss a lot of people in this thread off and probably will even garner a few "Who the fuck is this guy?" posts, but here goes... I can't believe the amount of time you guys spend digging up articles and posting page long responses (on both the Democratic and Republican side) about people who don't give a shit about any of you. (On both the Democratic and Republican sides) Unless one of you guys is secretly a $20,000 a plate donor, both liberals and conservatives may appreicate your vote but you are pretty much expendible in thier minds if Walmart, the NRA, the NEA, the NAACP, etc offer up a more tantalizing offer.

Please realize that if Bush ends up winning in the end he isn't going to call on Arles, JoninmiddleGA, Bubbawheels etc to thank them

And if Rove gets fired the Democrats aren't going to call on Flasch or Nomyths or Flere to thank them.

They are both going to continue taking millions of dollars from Phillip Morris and act like they are enemies with each other so you guys will keep donating and supporting each side. It is like Hulk Hogan and Ric Flair putting on a dog and pony show in the ring and then going out for a drink at their hotel. They thank the incredible fans for buying their merchandise and then laugh at how big of losers some of the fans really are.

Good point panerd. That's why I'm a registered independent.

[Flasch186]

I know this will probably piss a lot of people in this thread off and probably will even garner a few "Who the fuck is this guy?" posts, but here goes... I can't believe the amount of time you guys spend digging up articles and posting page long responses (on both the Democratic and Republican side) about people who don't give a shit about any of you. (On both the Democratic and Republican sides) Unless one of you guys is secretly a $20,000 a plate donor, both liberals and conservatives may appreicate your vote but you are pretty much expendible in thier minds if Walmart, the NRA, the NEA, the NAACP, etc offer up a more tantalizing offer.

Please realize that if Bush ends up winning in the end he isn't going to call on Arles, JoninmiddleGA, Bubbawheels etc to thank them

And if Rove gets fired the Democrats aren't going to call on Flasch or Nomyths or Flere to thank them.

They are both going to continue taking millions of dollars from Phillip Morris and act like they are enemies with each other so you guys will keep donating and supporting each side. It is like Hulk Hogan and Ric Flair putting on a dog and pony show in the ring and then going out for a drink at their hotel. They thank the incredible fans for buying their merchandise and then laugh at how big of losers some of the fans really are.



True.....but rarely in real life do you get the opportunity to have this type of dialogue with people who ave differing opinions. Usually at this point people are walking away angry, and usually cannot continue a friendship. On here however, the people that contribute to these POL threads, obviosly enjoy this stuff (perhaps in a train wreck sort of way). I know I do. So, in fact, here at the FOFC the POL are way more intelligent (usually) threads than you can get in real life....and I enjoy it and thank both the people on my side of the issue and those on the other side. :)

[flere-imsaho]

And if Rove gets fired the Democrats aren't going to call on Flasch or Nomyths or Flere to thank them.

That's not why I do this.

[JW]

That's not why I do this.

No, it is to shine the light of truth for poor dumb schmucks like me who have difficulty reading English. :)

[Buccaneer]

That's not why I do this.
You do this in thinking that you could change anyone's mind???

panerd is right, I believe. People love to play up to the extremes because it gives them an identity or more accurately, an enemy.

[Arles]

Dola, the more I read on this the more I wonder if there was any leak to begin with. One likely case is that Rove (and maybe other people) mentioned Wilson's wife using her government post to help get Wilson the trip and not Cheney or Tenet (as was rumored). Then Novak, the veteran of numerous parties and DC insider info, remembered that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and added it on his own accord into the article. Again, given all that I've read to this point, this seems to be the most plausible scenerio.


Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.

After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."

The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Mr. Novak, the person who has been briefed on the matter said.
It looks like my hypothesis regarding Rove's involvement may have been correct. So, now the question becomes who was the initial leaker to Novak (probably the same person Miller is protecting)? Again, since it's very doubtful Plame was covert I'm not sure it matters in the long run. But, it would be interesting to see who did the initial leak to Novak since it now seems that Novak was the one who told Rove about Plame (after speaking with someone else).

[gstelmack]

I've mostly stayed out of this, having missed much of the controversy last week, but now that I think I'm caught up, I have two points:

1) When Valerie Plame was initially exposed, my reaction then was "who the heck would do such a thing?" I don't care what the law says, you don't publically name CIA operatives to the press. I agree that there can be mitigating circumstances if it was public knowledge, but if it was then wouldn't reporters have known? If Rove had just said "Wilson's wife recommended him", I'd have nothing negative to say about Rove. But if he really did say something along the lines of "Wilson's wife, a CIA employee, recommended him", I really think he's in the wrong. You just don't expose these people, period. I think people in government are already loose with classified info, and they need to be much more careful. Rove isn't the first to let loose with something he shouldn't (who was the official that was taking classified stuff home to his personal computer a few years back?), and he won't be the last. But I don't like him (and whatever other source(s) were used for this) doing it here.

2) I'm still not sure how the Administration should have handled Wilson, however. His getting the job sure seems like typical Clinton-esque politics (I still think Clinton was slimier than Bush in these types of games, one of the best, although I know they all play them to a certain extent). You have a Clinton appointee being sent to gather intelligence on a controversial point being used for planning a war, getting that job through his wife and back channels, misrepresenting the data he gathered, slanting it towards Bush's opponents, and claiming the Administration itself sent him to gather the info to help bolster the credibility of his "reports". How is the Administration supposed to counter this, when a key aspect of his motiviation is how he got the job in the first place? I think the right answer here is that Rove should have just said "Wilson's wife got him the job, he was not our choice" and let the reporters follow her trail, especially given how public she seems to have been.

So I think Rove's mistake was being too open with classified info, and while that seems like he could have made a minor mistake, there is no such thing as a "minor mistake" with classified data. He's in a position of key responsibility, so he's supposed to be more careful.

Wilson and Plame are just as bad as Rove when it comes to the political games that everyone wants to hang Rove over. Getting a Bush opponent to go gather key intelligence, slanting that intelligences, and then lying about why he was sent to help bolster his credibility sure destroys all semblance of credibility in my eyes.

It's like an episode of Judge Judy or The Peoples' Court, where you think both sides are idiots.

[HerRealName]

I'm close to politically retarded but why is it important how Wilson got the job? If the administration requires that only a hand-picked person gather intelligence like this, doesn't that back up Wilson's original claim that the administration picked and chose among available intelligence to back their claim for war?

The entire issue along with the "Wilson is a liar" claim seems like little more than a Republican effort to confuse the issue.

[Flasch186]

I've mostly stayed out of this, having missed much of the controversy last week, but now that I think I'm caught up, I have two points:

1) When Valerie Plame was initially exposed, my reaction then was "who the heck would do such a thing?" I don't care what the law says, you don't publically name CIA operatives to the press. I agree that there can be mitigating circumstances if it was public knowledge, but if it was then wouldn't reporters have known? If Rove had just said "Wilson's wife recommended him", I'd have nothing negative to say about Rove. But if he really did say something along the lines of "Wilson's wife, a CIA employee, recommended him", I really think he's in the wrong. You just don't expose these people, period. I think people in government are already loose with classified info, and they need to be much more careful. Rove isn't the first to let loose with something he shouldn't (who was the official that was taking classified stuff home to his personal computer a few years back?), and he won't be the last. But I don't like him (and whatever other source(s) were used for this) doing it here.



thats been my point for awhile...we agree. Rove and the pols up there need to have a higher moral standard...and code of conduct.

[gstelmack]

I'm close to politically retarded but why is it important how Wilson got the job? If the administration requires that only a hand-picked person gather intelligence like this, doesn't that back up Wilson's original claim that the administration picked and chose among available intelligence to back their claim for war?

The entire issue along with the "Wilson is a liar" claim seems like little more than a Republican effort to confuse the issue.
To me it's because he exaggerated / lied about the claims in his report. I wouldn't care how he got it, had he just come out with the facts (i.e., done a good job). But right now it smacks of a setup, given how he handled things after he got back.

[JW]

thats been my point for awhile...we agree. Rove and the pols up there need to have a higher moral standard...and code of conduct.

All of them. Both parties. I agree. Things have been going downhill for quite some time.

[Flasch186]

All of them. Both parties. I agree. Things have been going downhill for quite some time.

yup, im an equal opportunity lambaster...and unlike Arles, I will and can say that.

[Arles]

yup, im an equal opportunity lambaster...and unlike Arles, I will and can say that.
Yeah, like when I refused to call Rumsfeld or Bush a liar above, correct? I didn't notice a response by you on your "assumption" of my opinions. Did you make one?

[Flasch186]

Yeah, like when I refused to call Rumsfeld or Bush a liar above, correct? I didn't notice a response by you on your "assumption" of my opinions. Did you make one?


no, i apologize. I completely undertsand your point of view. You feel that all politicians are liars, and anyone involved are rpobably too and so you accept some deception as being status quo. From there you stand by your right sided morals and will not accept any truisms unless they come from the horse's mouth, although recently you havn't applied that to both sides equally.

Is that about right?

[Arles]

no, i apologize. I completely undertsand your point of view. You feel that all politicians are liars, and anyone involved are rpobably too and so you accept some deception as being status quo.
That's pretty close. By its own nature, politics involves some level of salesmanship and deception.

From there you stand by your right sided morals
I certainly stand by a set of morals, but I don't know if they are lock-step with the right on social issues given I am pro-Choice and have no problem with gay marriage.

and will not accept any truisms unless they come from the horse's mouth, although recently you havn't applied that to both sides equally.
I am very skeptical on "political scandles" from either side. I didn't believe Clinton was involved with Monica until the blue dress (and defended him during the witch-hunt by the right). I think there's a lot of "gotcha politics" that goes on both sides and am leary of serious charges until things get sorted out. I also think that many "outrages" thrown out by both sides end up being molehills (not mountains) once everything is on the table.

Is that about right?
You're doing better. I would be interested to hear who your favorite politician is right now. Given your "truth requirements", I'd be amazed if one exists.

[Flasch186]

i respect Dean's candor, but think hes a quack. I like Lieberman's ideals and willingness to switch sides. I like Flip-flopping if its substantiated by "new" info.

When Its all said and done, I like (b)illary and McCain. I guess but Ill admit...I dont have much knowledge of the newer or smaller pols.

[Arles]

I can see Lieberman, but I think you are missing a lot on McCain. Read back on all the shady deals he's made with the telecommunications industry. He is no more "honest" than any other sentator. In fact, he's been caught on lies regarding bills more than once in public (read his Tim Russert script in 99 for the worst of them).

And that's not even looking into his action during the Charles Keating fiasco. For those of you unaware of this, here's a link:

http://slate.msn.com/id/1004633/

[JW]

More comes out on Rove. Link and excerpt:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050716/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_rove;_ylt=Ambv2w_Rfq.hezuWnFgk7R2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

WASHINGTON - After mentioning a CIA operative to a reporter, Bush confidant Karl Rove alerted the president's No. 2 security adviser about the interview and said he tried to steer the journalist away from allegations the operative's husband was making about faulty Iraq intelligence.

The July 11, 2003, e-mail between Rove and then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley is the first showing an intelligence official knew Rove had talked to Matthew Cooper just days before the Time magazine reporter wrote an article identifying Valerie Plame as a CIA officer.

"I didn't take the bait," Rove wrote in an e-mail obtained by The Associated Press, recounting how Cooper tried to question him about whether President Bush had been hurt by the new allegations.

The White House turned the e-mail over to prosecutors, and Rove testified to a grand jury about it last year.

This would imho tend to support Rove's claim that he was not trying to 'out' Plame. Of course there are still several questions here. Who were the other sources? Did Rove or anyone commit perjury. But I think when you start adding things up, it appears Rove and the White House have believed for some time that Rove will not be charged with a crime. Perhaps they have been keeping quiet because they knew the info that has come out today would surface. Of course another question would be who is leaking all this info.

[Flasch186]

Cooper Learned of CIA Wife From Rove Call

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer 6 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Time magazine's Matthew Cooper says a 2003 phone call with White House political adviser Karl Rove was the first he heard about the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson apparently working for the
CIA.
ADVERTISEMENT

Giving a first-person account of his role in a case that nearly landed him in jail, the reporter recalled that Rove told him, "I've already said too much" after revealing that the wife of the former ambassador apparently was with the CIA.

Cooper speculated in the piece, released Sunday, that Rove could have been "worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting or something else."

"I don't know, but that signoff has been in my memory for two years," Cooper wrote. The White House and Rove's lawyer have stressed that Rove never mentioned Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife, by name.

At issue in a federal grand jury investigation into whether someone in the Bush administration violated a federal statute by publicly disclosing the identity of Plame as a CIA operative.

Cooper said the 2003 phone call with Rove was the first time he had heard anything about Wilson's wife.

The White House had insisted for nearly two years that neither Rove nor Vice President
Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, had any connection with the leak of Plame's name. For the last two weeks, however, it has steadfastly declined to comment on the case, citing the ongoing Fitzgerald probe.

It took the same tack Sunday, as spokesman David Almacy declined specifically to comment about Libby, citing an independent counsel's ongoing investigation of the case.

Writing an account of a conversation he had with Libby, Cooper said, "Libby replied, 'Yeah, I've heard that too' or words to that effect" when he asked if Libby had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Africa to investigate the possible sale of uranium to
Iraq for nuclear weapons.

As part of special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's criminal probe of the identity leak, Cooper testified about his conversation with Libby in a deposition at his lawyer's office in August 2004. Libby, as Rove did this month, provided a specific waiver of confidentiality. In a grand jury appearance last Wednesday, Cooper gave his account of what Rove told him.

Cooper also said there may have been other government officials who were sources for his article. Time posted "A War on Wilson?" on its Web site on July 17, 2003.

In an effort to quell a chorus of calls to fire Rove, Republicans said Sunday that he first learned about Plame's identity from the news media.

"The information exonerates and vindicates, it does not implicate" Rove, Republican Party chairman Ken Mehlman said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "Folks involved in this, frankly, owe Karl Rove an apology."

There were no takers.

The White House's assurance in 2003 that Rove was not involved in the leak of the CIA officer's identity "was a lie" and Rove's credibility "is in shreds," said John Podesta, who was chief of staff in the Clinton White House.

It is unclear whether a journalist first revealed the information to Rove, as Mehlman said.

A lawyer familiar with Rove's grand jury testimony said Rove learned about the CIA officer either from the media or from someone in government who said the information came from a journalist. The lawyer spoke on condition of anonymity because the federal investigation is continuing.

Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," Wilson said, "I believe that using the West Wing of the White House to be engaged in a smear campaign is an outrageous abuse of power."

The CIA sent Wilson to check out intelligence that the government of Niger had a deal for the sale of yellowcake uranium to Iraq. Wilson did not find that such a deal took place.

Five days before Cooper's conversation with Rove, an op-ed piece by Wilson had appeared in The New York Times suggesting the Bush administration had manipulated prewar intelligence to justify an invasion of Iraq.

In 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the idea that Rove was involved in leaking information about Wilson's wife was "ridiculous."

"There's no evidence that (Rove has) done anything criminally wrong," Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., said on CBS. He said the American people are taking the controversy "for what it is — politics."

[JW]

And what Cooper actually said to Russert on Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: The piece that you finally ran in Time magazine on July 17th, it says, "And some government officials have noted to Time in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched to Niger..."

"Some government officials"--That is Rove and Libby?

MR. COOPER: Yes, those were among the sources for that, yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: Are there more?

MR. COOPER: I don't want to get into it, but it's possible.

MR. RUSSERT: Have you told the grand jury about that?

MR. COOPER: The grand jury knows what I know, yes.

MR. RUSSERT: That there may have been more sources?

MR. COOPER: Yes.

And speculation by one columnist that Rove may not be the target of the investigation at all. Link and excerpt:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05198/538809.stm

Liberals want Rove's scalp. But the revelation Friday (if true) that Rove learned of Plame's occupation from a journalist makes it most unlikely that he could prosecuted successfully under the Identities Act.

Maybe Rove -- or someone else -- lied to the grand jury. Or maybe Fitzgerald is investigating a different crime.

What if someone in the CIA was leaking classified information to influence the 2004 election? Uncovering a crime like that would be worthy of Inspector Javert's doggedness.

I suspect the biggest shoe in this case has yet to drop, and liberal journalists won't be happy when it does.

Of course it is all just speculation until the results of the investigation become public.

[SFL Cat]

I was doing some research on the Rove-Plame story and came across this little tidbit. I don't remember hearing about it when it happened and wonder if anyone has heard if an investigation was launched, what it concluded, or if it still ongoing?


Justice Asked to Probe Spy Satellite Leak (http://cshink.com/justice_asked_to_probe.htm)

Senators Slam Mystery Spy Project (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/09/politics/main660120.shtml)

[MrBigglesworth]

To me it's because he exaggerated / lied about the claims in his report. I wouldn't care how he got it, had he just come out with the facts (i.e., done a good job). But right now it smacks of a setup, given how he handled things after he got back.
Wait a minute -- wasn't his report accurate, that the Bush administration basically manufactured (whether through outright lies or intelligence cherry picking) the Niger allegations in order to sell the war?

[SFL Cat]

Wait a minute -- wasn't his report accurate, that the Bush administration basically manufactured (whether through outright lies or intelligence cherry picking) the Niger allegations in order to sell the war?

That's kind of like saying..."yes my story is true, but all the evidence I'm using to prove it's true is based on exaggerations or lies."

[Arles]

Here's a very interesting story explaining how briefs filed by the media (to keep reporters out of jail) explain how Plame was "outed" twice before Novak or Cooper ever entered the picture:

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JW]

Here's a very interesting story explaining how briefs filed by the media (to keep reporters out of jail) explain how Plame was "outed" twice before Novak or Cooper ever entered the picture:

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp

Lol. I was just getting ready to post that. Very interesting story. And I think it is a very interesting point that the very media that filed that brief has neglected to bring up those points in reporting on the controversy. Of course the left will now fall back onto their fallback positions:

1. Rove committed perjury. (Apparently not; he seems to have covered himself very well, like the wily and ruthless political hack he is.)
2. Someone else is the initial leaker, like VP chief of staff Libby. (Not nearly as interesting to the left since that will not lead to Rove's lynching, and, as more info comes out, it appears that the initial 'leak' from the White House apparently was not the initial leak at all.)
3. Bush said he would get rid of the leakers. (Good point. Bush has now qualified that, saying he will get rid of anyone who committed a crime. That of course makes Bush look really wishy-washy imo.)
4. Rove is a bad man even if he did nothing wrong here. (I will concede that point, lol.)

[JW]

Wait a minute -- wasn't his report accurate, that the Bush administration basically manufactured (whether through outright lies or intelligence cherry picking) the Niger allegations in order to sell the war?

Well, actually he has been discredited by multiple sources. And, no, I'm not going to provide those because I think this has been discussed over and over again, even in this thread.

[MrBigglesworth]

That's kind of like saying..."yes my story is true, but all the evidence I'm using to prove it's true is based on exaggerations or lies."
Well Wilson must be some kind of super genius to come to the right conclusions with lies and exaggerations when the Bush administration supposedly came to the wrong conclusions using facts.

[Arles]

Well Wilson must be some kind of super genius to come to the right conclusions with lies and exaggerations when the Bush administration supposedly came to the wrong conclusions using facts.
When you start with a "yeah or nah" hypothesis that you are married to from the bat, there's a 50% chance you will be right regardless of the data. Wilson was simply spiking any information that could lead others to pursue the matter further to help him have a 100% chance of being right. Remember, the British still hold that the information they received to make that claim on Niger was legit. Bush was the one that backed out without Blair.

[JW]

http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200507181123.asp

Here is another view on Wilson's lies. And one the real culprit in this whole matter.

[Flasch186]

4. Rove is a bad man even if he did nothing wrong here. (I will concede that point, lol.)


my point exactly....all of this stuff is garbage. Rove should've never been a link in the chain. People with that kind of power need to have a higher moral aptitude IMO.

[MrBigglesworth]

Here's a very interesting story explaining how briefs filed by the media (to keep reporters out of jail) explain how Plame was "outed" twice before Novak or Cooper ever entered the picture:

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp
You should warn people if you post something this partisan, so that people don't waste time on it. The tone of 'liberal media conspiracies' and the easily debunked rationales don't add anything to the debate.

[MrBigglesworth]

http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200507181123.asp

Here is another view on Wilson's lies. And one the real culprit in this whole matter.
Seriously, Mark Levin? Just post an article from Rove's lawyer. I can't believe you are putting the blame on Plame for being outed. Whether there was a crime or not committed, one thing is clear: the WH wanted to slime a political opponent, but not get their hands dirty. The moral depravity knows no bounds.

[Arles]

You should warn people if you post something this partisan, so that people don't waste time on it. The tone of 'liberal media conspiracies' and the easily debunked rationales don't add anything to the debate.
The article references all the information. But, since you didn't even click the link, here's the actual brief filed by the media:

http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s10News/FileUpload44/10159/Amici%20Brief%20032305%20(Final).PDF


Moreover, the government may have "publicly acknowledged or revealed" her intelligence relationship prior to publication of Novak's July 14, 2003 column. "The United States has 'revealed' an intelligence relationship if it has discolsed information which names, or leads directly to the identification of...a covert agent." S. Rep. 97-201, at 23. An article in The Washington Times indicated that Plame's identity was compromised twice prior to Novak's publication.

And here's the Times story the media referenced to show that Plame had already been outed:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040722-115439-4033r.htm


The identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame was compromised twice before her name appeared in a news column that triggered a federal illegal-disclosure investigation, U.S. officials say.
Mrs. Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a Moscow spy, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
In a second compromise, officials said a more recent inadvertent disclosure resulted in references to Mrs. Plame in confidential documents sent by the CIA to the U.S. Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Havana.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Well Wilson must be some kind of super genius to come to the right conclusions with lies and exaggerations when the Bush administration supposedly came to the wrong conclusions using facts.

Basically what Wilson reported to the CIA appears to have all been correct. However, he said things before the Senate Select Committee that appear to have been confused and/or wrong (in particular what he knew about the forged memo at the time of his trip), therefore the apparent line is that he has been discredited, whatever that means. Critically, nothing he said in his famous NYT "What I Didn't Find In Africa" op-ed has been refuted or appears to be subject to challenge.

[MrBigglesworth]

The article references all the information. But, since you didn't even click the link, here's the actual brief filed by the media:
I actually read the whole article. That's where I got pounded by the liberal media conspiracy vibe, in the first couple of paragraphs of the article that you did not quote. As for the information that the article 'references', it could all be true and not mean a thing. As they said, the government never publically admitted that she was a covert agent before this whole Niger mess, so all of that is irrelevant. Furthermore, Cooper's statement to the grand jury:
Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the "agency" on "WMD"? Yes.
hxxp://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1083899-4,00.html

Also, Rove himself is using the defense that he didn't know she was covert. The whole argument made by the article is inane. It tried to make the argument that Plame was already outted, when nobody seems to know she was outed. The two basic defenses for Rove are that 'everybody knew she was covert' and 'nobody knew she was covert'. Interesting doublethink.

[Arles]

Furthermore, Cooper's statement to the grand jury:

Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the "agency" on "WMD"? Yes.
What article did Cooper write to "out" Plame? Plus, just because Cooper first learned of it from Rove does not mean that other media members did (ie, Judith Miller and Robert Novak).

Also, Rove himself is using the defense that he didn't know she was covert.
Actually, no defense is needed as it has yet to be shown that Rove committed a crime. Do you have evidence that Rove committed a crime? If so, please cite which law he broke and how.

The whole argument made by the article is inane.
That there are two separate instances where the CIA let it slip that Plame worked for the CIA to international groups (Russia and Cuba)? Seems like a fairly important footnote. It was important enough that the media used this information as a cornerstone in their case to try and get Cooper and Miller out of jail.

It tried to make the argument that Plame was already outted, when nobody seems to know she was outed.
Just because it isn't common knowledge does not mean it isn't the case. If Russia and Cuba know who Plame is because of CIA information, then she's been outted. Even if you didn't read about it in the New York Times.

The two basic defenses for Rove are that 'everybody knew she was covert' and 'nobody knew she was covert'. Interesting doublethink.
Which is ironic since no defense is currently needed. Again, I have yet to see any information showing Rove committed a crime.

[MrBigglesworth]

What article did Cooper write to "out" Plame? Plus, just because Cooper first learned of it from Rove does not mean that other media members did (ie, Judith Miller and Robert Novak).
I fail to see the direction of your point here. I didn't that all of them heard it from Rove (although it is very possible).

Actually, no defense is needed as it has yet to be shown that Rove committed a crime. Do you have evidence that Rove committed a crime? If so, please cite which law he broke and how.
Actually, yes, a defense is needed because if Rove knew she was covert, then he was in violation of the Intelligence Identity Protection Act of 1982. He could also be guilty of perjury to the grand jury. I was highlighting the fact that Rove was not using the defense that she had been outted already, which is obviously false, but a defense that you are still pushing.

It was important enough that the media used this information as a cornerstone in their case to try and get Cooper and Miller out of jail.
And inconsequential enough to not allow them to avoid jail time.

Just because it isn't common knowledge does not mean it isn't the case. If Russia and Cuba know who Plame is because of CIA information, then she's been outted. Even if you didn't read about it in the New York Times.
First off, legally it matters because the Intelligence Identity Protection Act of 1982 says that the United States must disclose the covert status publically for someone to be considered outted. Secondly, practically it matters because Plame was working on the spread of WMD's in countries other than Russia and Cuba.

Arles, regardless of whether or not a crime has been committed, would you agree that what Rove did was grade A douchebaggery?

[Flasch186]

Which is ironic since no defense is currently needed. Again, I have yet to see any information showing Rove committed a crime.


For my sake, I just wanted to clarify....youre okay with Rove's behavior even if no law was broken?

[Arles]

For my sake, I just wanted to clarify....youre okay with Rove's behavior even if no law was broken?
Given what I've read, I'm not all that worked up over what the first leaker to Novak did. First, it seems that (according to Novak) Rove was not the initial leak Novak got. Second, it's obvious that Plame hadn't been covert in practice since 1997 - so she was in no real danger.

I would be much more upset with the initial leaker to Novak if:

A. Plame had not acted politically to get her husband his position by pulling strings in the CIA.
B. Plame was actually working as a covert operative when the comments were made.

As it is now, I don't see much meat to this story. Essentially, we are looking to get all worked up over some leaker (to Novak) that mentioned a CIA agent who used her position to get her husband a cushy job and who hadn't been covert in practice since 1997. I think a yawn is in order.

[JW]

Seriously, Mark Levin? Just post an article from Rove's lawyer. I can't believe you are putting the blame on Plame for being outed. Whether there was a crime or not committed, one thing is clear: the WH wanted to slime a political opponent, but not get their hands dirty. The moral depravity knows no bounds.

Well, first, I didn't put the blame on Plame. I just said this was another view on Wilson's lies. And Wilson did lie, several times. Sure the WH wanted to slime a political opponent. That is the way both parties work these days. Rove is an expert at it, but not moreso than many on the Democratic Party side. It is a shame. And it is becomng clear from the evidence that both Wilson and Plame were not above political motivation themselves.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Second, it's obvious that Plame hadn't been covert in practice since 1997 - so she was in no real danger.Which does not necessarily mean that leaking her status did not endanger anybody else.

[JW]

Which does not necessarily mean that leaking her status did not endanger anybody else.

I think the CIA already took care of that when they blew her cover, twice.

[MrBigglesworth]

Sure the WH wanted to slime a political opponent. That is the way both parties work these days.
Can you name some recent legitimate Dem slime tactics, on the same level as the push polling done against McCain in SC, the Swift Boat Vets, and burning an undercover CIA agent?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Sure the WH wanted to slime a political opponent. That is the way both parties work these days. Rove is an expert at it, but not moreso than many on the Democratic Party side. It is a shame.
Wow. Again, dude, you give the Democratic Party waaaay too much credit. They couldn't hold Rove's jock when it comes to sliming. They aren't even playing the same freakin' sport. I really wish the Democratic Party was half as competent and effective as you seem to believe they are. I really, really do.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Tme to fry FAT BOY!!!

[CamEdwards]

Tme to fry FAT BOY!!!

I have been a little hot latel...

oh. you meant Rove.

Yeah, I'd be shocked if he's committed a crime. As for Democratic asshattery, or sliminess (in response to HB)... you're right. The Democrats are pretty amateur. Instead of using anonymous sourcing to get the truth about a story into the press (and in the process perhaps criminally "out" a CIA employee), they'll just compare American troops at Gitmo to Nazis.

Amateurs.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I have been a little hot latel...

oh. you meant Rove.

Yeah, I'd be shocked if he's committed a crime. As for Democratic asshattery, or sliminess (in response to HB)... you're right. The Democrats are pretty amateur. Instead of using anonymous sourcing to get the truth about a story into the press (and in the process perhaps criminally "out" a CIA employee), they'll just compare American troops at Gitmo to Nazis.

Amateurs.
I thought this thread needed a little humor. :) As for Rove let's just wait till all the facts are out.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I have been a little hot latel...

oh. you meant Rove.

Yeah, I'd be shocked if he's committed a crime. As for Democratic asshattery, or sliminess (in response to HB)... you're right. The Democrats are pretty amateur. Instead of using anonymous sourcing to get the truth about a story into the press (and in the process perhaps criminally "out" a CIA employee), they'll just compare American troops at Gitmo to Nazis.

Amateurs.
Very amature. It's so pathetic and clumsy. Hell, even people on the internet know that bringing out Hitler or Nazis is just stupid and pretty much ends whatever point you're trying to make. They lack any organization and skills besides ineffectual whining.

[MrBigglesworth]

...they'll just compare American troops at Gitmo to Nazis.
Even that was a non-issue that was blown out of proportion by the right wing media. Durbin was absolutely right in his comments.

[JW]

Can you name some recent legitimate Dem slime tactics, on the same level as the push polling done against McCain in SC, the Swift Boat Vets, and burning an undercover CIA agent?

Well, Rove may be the master of attack politics, but the Clinton administration was superb at it. James Carville might rival Rove at the art of sliming. Paul Begala is still at it. Link and excerpt:

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200507\POL20050715a.html

(CNSNews.com) - Young liberals this week flocked to the nation's capital to hear, among other things, liberal television pundit and Democrat political strategist Paul Begala accuse Republicans of wanting to kill him and his children to preserve tax cuts for the rich.

Begala was featured at the first-ever Campus Progress National Student Conference, which was designed to provide campus liberals with the tools necessary to fight the conservative movement. The event also drew former President Bill Clinton, for whom Begala once worked as an advisor.

A panel discussion entitled "Winning the War of Ideas" centered on topics discussed in the book "What's the Matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank and detailed the challenges that Democrats face in persuading voters in the American heartland and elsewhere to embrace their agenda and support their candidates.

Begala's presence on the panel created a stir when he declared that Republicans had "done a p***-poor job of defending" the U.S.

Republicans, he said, "want to kill us.

"I was driving past the Pentagon when that plane hit" on Sept. 11, 2001. "I had friends on that plane; this is deadly serious to me," Begala said.

"They want to kill me and my children if they can. But if they just kill me and not my children, they want my children to be comforted -- that while they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit," Begala said. "That is bulls*** national defense, and we should say that."....

[JW]

Even that was a non-issue that was blown out of proportion by the right wing media. Durbin was absolutely right in his comments.

I'm sorry to hear you believe that. I have a particular affinity for the young American soldiers fighting for our country and often placed in difficult situations. It is my belief that they are not Nazis and that the comparison was one of the most odious and dishonorable things -- speaking of sliming -- spoken by an American Congressman in recent history.

[JW]

Wow. Again, dude, you give the Democratic Party waaaay too much credit. They couldn't hold Rove's jock when it comes to sliming. They aren't even playing the same freakin' sport. I really wish the Democratic Party was half as competent and effective as you seem to believe they are. I really, really do.

The Clinton administration was very good at attack politics. Don't kid yourself. Carville from Louisiana is a master. Rove may be better. It is really sad. I'm just happy to say I didn't vote for Bush or Gore or Bush or Kerry. I wasted my vote, but I chose not to affirm either major party, because I believe both parties are more interested in partisan political gain than in America's security and future.

[sterlingice]

I'm sorry to hear you believe that. I have a particular affinity to the young American soldiers fighting for our country and often placed in difficult situations. It is my belief that they are not Nazis. "Won't someone please think of the children"
http://www.rinconpepe.com/Simpsons/images/otros7.gif

I'm sure what he really meant is that all soldiers fighting for America are Nazis and not that a few might have displayed personality traits that we associate with Nazis at some point. http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

SI

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm sorry to hear you believe that. I have a particular affinity for the young American soldiers fighting for our country and often placed in difficult situations. It is my belief that they are not Nazis and that the comparison was one of the most odious and dishonorable things -- speaking of sliming -- spoken by an American Congressman in recent history.
Anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the English language could see that he was not calling American soldiers Nazi's, and I'm insulted that that point is even up for debate. Reasonable people can disagree on some points, but misconstruing Durbin's words is just a partisan attack.

[MrBigglesworth]

Well, Rove may be the master of attack politics, but the Clinton administration was superb at it. James Carville might rival Rove at the art of sliming. Paul Begala is still at it. Link and excerpt:

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200507\POL20050715a.html

(CNSNews.com) - Young liberals this week flocked to the nation's capital to hear, among other things, liberal television pundit and Democrat political strategist Paul Begala accuse Republicans of wanting to kill him and his children to preserve tax cuts for the rich.

Begala was featured at the first-ever Campus Progress National Student Conference, which was designed to provide campus liberals with the tools necessary to fight the conservative movement. The event also drew former President Bill Clinton, for whom Begala once worked as an advisor.

A panel discussion entitled "Winning the War of Ideas" centered on topics discussed in the book "What's the Matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank and detailed the challenges that Democrats face in persuading voters in the American heartland and elsewhere to embrace their agenda and support their candidates.

Begala's presence on the panel created a stir when he declared that Republicans had "done a p***-poor job of defending" the U.S.

Republicans, he said, "want to kill us.

"I was driving past the Pentagon when that plane hit" on Sept. 11, 2001. "I had friends on that plane; this is deadly serious to me," Begala said.

"They want to kill me and my children if they can. But if they just kill me and not my children, they want my children to be comforted -- that while they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit," Begala said. "That is bulls*** national defense, and we should say that."....
Where is the slime job? That's just a dumbass spouting off dumb rhetoric. I could give you two Ann Coulter's for every Paul Begala.

[Buccaneer]

Where is the slime job? That's just a dumbass spouting off dumb rhetoric. I could give you two Ann Coulter's for every Paul Begala.
So you don't think that's extremism at its best? Why the double standard?

[MrBigglesworth]

So you don't think that's extremism at its best? Why the double standard?
I'm confused by the question. I called it 'dumb rhetoric', need I introduce every adjective that could describe it, lest you accuse me of not thinking it? It's not a slime job. Slime job's are specific personal attacks that are lies or have no relevance to the merit of the argument. The article you quoted was just a mass generalization, and like I said you could find two of those from Ann ("We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity", "Liberals hate America", etc) for every one from Begala.

[Arles]

How about the 45 people that either accused Bill of sexual harrasment or were witnesses for the prosecution in the Whitewater, harrassment or other cases that just happened to get audited by the IRS?

Or perhaps you forgot the 25 people indicted and 19 convicted because of the 1996 Clinton-Gore fundraising scandals (per justice dept, year 2000)?

James Riady, Johnny Chung, John Huang, and Charlie Trie. Read up on the interactions between the Clinton-Gore administrations and these "savory" fellows.

I don't think either side can take the morale high ground on political slime tactics and shady dealings.

[Buccaneer]

I'm confused by the question. I called it 'dumb rhetoric', need I introduce every adjective that could describe it, lest you accuse me of not thinking it? It's not a slime job. Slime job's are specific personal attacks that are lies or have no relevance to the merit of the argument. The article you quoted was just a mass generalization, and like I said you could find two of those from Ann ("We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity", "Liberals hate America", etc) for every one from Begala.
Only if you want to hear it a certain way. Imagine if Rove or someone like said the same thing, it would be blasted as the most extremist statement ever made. If you think Coulter is spouting anything else but dumb rhetoric just like Begala, then you just don't want to hear it. Besides, I think if you were add up all of the rhetoric and noise, it would come out even. It all stinks.

[MrBigglesworth]

How about the 45 people that either accused Bill of sexual harrasment or were witnesses for the prosecution in the Whitewater, harrassment or other cases that just happened to get audited by the IRS?

Or perhaps you forgot the 25 people indicted and 19 convicted because of the 1996 Clinton-Gore fundraising scandals (per justice dept, year 2000)?

James Riady, Johnny Chung, John Huang, and Charlie Trie. Read up on the interactions between the Clinton-Gore administrations and these "savory" fellows.

I don't think either side can take the morale high ground on political slime tactics and shady dealings.
Not one slime job in that whole post.

[MrBigglesworth]

Only if you want to hear it a certain way. Imagine if Rove or someone like said the same thing, it would be blasted as the most extremist statement ever made.
You mean, if Rove said something like:
Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.
:rolleyes:

If you think Coulter is spouting anything else but dumb rhetoric just like Begala, then you just don't want to hear it.
This sentence doesn't make sense.

[Flasch186]

How about the 45 people that either accused Bill of sexual harrasment or were witnesses for the prosecution in the Whitewater, harrassment or other cases that just happened to get audited by the IRS?

Or perhaps you forgot the 25 people indicted and 19 convicted because of the 1996 Clinton-Gore fundraising scandals (per justice dept, year 2000)?

James Riady, Johnny Chung, John Huang, and Charlie Trie. Read up on the interactions between the Clinton-Gore administrations and these "savory" fellows.

I don't think either side can take the morale high ground on political slime tactics and shady dealings.


you and America must require more!! dont stand for mediocrity or lowered standards!!!

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I can't believe this thread is still going.

[JW]

Anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the English language could see that he was not calling American soldiers Nazi's, and I'm insulted that that point is even up for debate. Reasonable people can disagree on some points, but misconstruing Durbin's words is just a partisan attack.

Well, though I know you will find it incomprehensible, there are indeed some people with more than a rudimentary grasp of the English language who can and do disagree with your position on Durbin. I did not misconstrue his words, and he apologized for them in Congress. He could have made his point without those unfortunate comparisons. This, too, is a point reasonable people can disagree on.

[JW]

I'm confused by the question. I called it 'dumb rhetoric', need I introduce every adjective that could describe it, lest you accuse me of not thinking it? It's not a slime job. Slime job's are specific personal attacks that are lies or have no relevance to the merit of the argument. The article you quoted was just a mass generalization, and like I said you could find two of those from Ann ("We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity", "Liberals hate America", etc) for every one from Begala.

This slime job debate is quite amusing. And I really have no heart for it, since I think both the Clinton and Bush administrations and both sides in Congress have engaged in 'slime jobs' quite relentlessly over the past dozen years or so. It seems to be the way things are done in DC now. So you will get no more argument from me over whether Clinton-Carville was worse than Bush-Rove. A plague on both their houses.

[flere-imsaho]

Yeah, I'd be shocked if he's committed a crime. As for Democratic asshattery, or sliminess (in response to HB)... you're right. The Democrats are pretty amateur. Instead of using anonymous sourcing to get the truth about a story into the press (and in the process perhaps criminally "out" a CIA employee), they'll just compare American troops at Gitmo to Nazis.

Amateurs.

Quite. As Karl Rove himself told us, professionals compare Democrats to terrorists.

[flere-imsaho]

My conclusions as of today:

1. We will find out that technically, no crime was committed.

2. The press & democratic partisans (myself included - the latter) who jumped on this have been seriously undermined by Wilson & Plame misrepresenting themselves & their story.

3. It should be clear that those who leaked the information did so to discredit the messenger (Wilson) in order to discredit the message (no Iraq-Niger connection). It would be refreshing to see Prosecutor Fitzgerald rebuke everyone involved, on both sides, for being so cavalier with things like the truth, our country's intelligence apparatus, etc... for the sake of political gain.

4. On the "I will fire anyone involved" issue (see below), Bush will continue to stall until he names a SC nominee, after which the story will die under that avalanche.

Yes, I wanted Rove to be caught red-handed and sent to jail. But now that more actual information has come out in the past two weeks, I'm forced to conclude that the evidence that he or Libby committed an actual crime is just too weak. As someone who feels this Administration is filled with very misguided and dangerous individuals, this is very frustrating.


As for Bush The Flip-Flopper:

9/29/03: McClellan: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration."

9/30/03: Bush: "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."

7/18/05: Bush: "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

[JW]

My conclusions as of today:

1. We will find out that technically, no crime was committed.

2. The press & democratic partisans (myself included - the latter) who jumped on this have been seriously undermined by Wilson & Plame misrepresenting themselves & their story.

3. It should be clear that those who leaked the information did so to discredit the messenger (Wilson) in order to discredit the message (no Iraq-Niger connection). It would be refreshing to see Prosecutor Fitzgerald rebuke everyone involved, on both sides, for being so cavalier with things like the truth, our country's intelligence apparatus, etc... for the sake of political gain.

4. On the "I will fire anyone involved" issue (see below), Bush will continue to stall until he names a SC nominee, after which the story will die under that avalanche.

Yes, I wanted Rove to be caught red-handed and sent to jail. But now that more actual information has come out in the past two weeks, I'm forced to conclude that the evidence that he or Libby committed an actual crime is just too weak. As someone who feels this Administration is filled with very misguided and dangerous individuals, this is very frustrating.


As for Bush The Flip-Flopper:

9/29/03: McClellan: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration."

9/30/03: Bush: "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."

7/18/05: Bush: "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

I think you are right on all counts. However, I still think the investigation might hold some surprises. I am of the opinion, for example, that the CIA is full of leaks and leakers, both pro and anti-administration.

BTW, here is a succinct* summary of the whole affair as it stands today from Slate magazine.

http://www.slate.com/id/2122963/

*I use the word 'succinct' with trepidation, since both you and Mr. Bigglesworth have pointed out that my command of the English language is substandard.

[flere-imsaho]

I think you are right on all counts. However, I still think the investigation might hold some surprises.

I agree with you that this is a possibility. It will be interesting to see the final report, especially as I have a pretty high regard for Fitzgerald (who is also in the process of dismantling Daley's administration in Chicago).

*I use the word 'succinct' with trepidation, since both you and Mr. Bigglesworth have pointed out that my command of the English language is substandard.

I usually take "succinct" to mean "short and to the point". While the article is short, it's more just a rehashing of various commentary which is, at this point, being beaten to death. But that's OK, I'm not going to beat you up over it. :)

One angle I haven't seen anyone take is the idea that the CIA has been trying to be difficult in this, and other, cases, for the Bush Admin. There is some evidence to indicate that the rank-and-file at the CIA have been unhappy with the administration and were downright livid over the appointment of Porter Goss, for instance. I can't say it makes me happy to see that agency so politicized.

Having said that, and on yet another point, I'm more and more of the opinion that we have too many disparate intelligence agencies, from the CIA to the FBI to the NSA to the intelligence parts of the various Armed Forces. It would be nice if this was addressed by some Administration at some point.

[MrBigglesworth]

Well, Rove may be the master of attack politics, but the Clinton administration was superb at it. James Carville might rival Rove at the art of sliming. Paul Begala is still at it. Link and excerpt:

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200507\POL20050715a.html

(CNSNews.com) - Young liberals this week flocked to the nation's capital to hear, among other things, liberal television pundit and Democrat political strategist Paul Begala accuse Republicans of wanting to kill him and his children to preserve tax cuts for the rich.

Begala was featured at the first-ever Campus Progress National Student Conference, which was designed to provide campus liberals with the tools necessary to fight the conservative movement. The event also drew former President Bill Clinton, for whom Begala once worked as an advisor.

A panel discussion entitled "Winning the War of Ideas" centered on topics discussed in the book "What's the Matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank and detailed the challenges that Democrats face in persuading voters in the American heartland and elsewhere to embrace their agenda and support their candidates.

Begala's presence on the panel created a stir when he declared that Republicans had "done a p***-poor job of defending" the U.S.

Republicans, he said, "want to kill us.

"I was driving past the Pentagon when that plane hit" on Sept. 11, 2001. "I had friends on that plane; this is deadly serious to me," Begala said.

"They want to kill me and my children if they can. But if they just kill me and not my children, they want my children to be comforted -- that while they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit," Begala said. "That is bulls*** national defense, and we should say that."....
I'm such and idiot, I took a Republican source at face value. Serves me right for giving them some credit. Here is the full quote:

BEGALA: ...we sit back and allow George W. Bush and our Republican friends to pull out 9/11 like a cheap handgun in a bar fight. Okay? "9/11." There's a drought in the Midwest. "9/11." The deficit's up. "9/11" You know? But, I think we need to fight them on that. I think, frankly they did a piss-poor job of defending us, and their strategy was always "we'll fight them over there so we don't fight them here." Well guess what, bin Laden didn't get the memo. He wants to fight us here as well as we saw in London last week. And so, the- their theory is, "we can't really do everything to protect our country because we have to cut taxes for the rich." And so, it... they want to kill us- particularly this city and New York and some other places. I was driving past the pentagon when that plane hit. I had friends on that plane, this is deadly serious to me- they want to kill me and my children if they can. But if they just kill me and not my children, they want my children to be comforted that while they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit. You know, that is bullshit national defense and we should say that.
To anyone with a fundamental grasp of the English language, it is clear that he is saying that terrorists want to kill us. Which really isn't an outrageous statement.

So, in summary, not only could nobody provide any recent Dem slime jobs, but the rhetoric provided was, like the Durbin quote, completely made up. This is why it is impossible to have any kind of decent conversation. The right lies, plain and simple, whether it be Schiavo, SS, Iraq, or even a speech by Paul Begala. It's impossible to wade through the bullshit.

[JW]

I'm such and idiot, I took a Republican source at face value. Serves me right for giving them some credit. Here is the full quote:


To anyone with a fundamental grasp of the English language, it is clear that he is saying that terrorists want to kill us. Which really isn't an outrageous statement.

So, in summary, not only could nobody provide any recent Dem slime jobs, but the rhetoric provided was, like the Durbin quote, completely made up. This is why it is impossible to have any kind of decent conversation. The right lies, plain and simple, whether it be Schiavo, SS, Iraq, or even a speech by Paul Begala. It's impossible to wade through the bullshit.

I am glad to know that you are the only one here with a fundamental grasp of the English language.

However, I think you need to take a close look at Begala's use of the personal pronoun "they" in the context of his remarks. The antecedent of "they" is not nearly so clear as you argue. There is a clear trail from "they want to kill us" straight to the Republicans. Let's follow the pronoun, starting with "they want to kill us".

"they want to kill us"
"they want to kill me and my children"
"they want my children to be comforted that while they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit"

Nowhere does Mr. Begala indicate that the antecedent of "they" has changed. He just asserts that "they" want to kill him and comfort his children with a lower death tax.

Note also that in your citation, Mr. Begala refers to Bin Laden initially in the singular, and Republicans initially in the plural.

So I might ask this: Where precisely does the antecedent of "they" change? Show it where I can see it, not where you assume it is.

But perhaps Mr. Begala was foaming at the mouth by this time and in a fit of Democratic fervor, so maybe his wording was unclear.

[BrianD]

I think you have to go with fervor and unclear wording. In this sentence:
But if they just kill me and not my children, they want my children to be comforted that while they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit.
It seems pretty clear that the meaning of 'they' has changed. It doesn't make sense that 'they' would try to kill his children and then want to comfort the children if 'they' fail. It sounds like 'they' is supposed to be the terrorists until 'they' (republicans) want his children comforted.

The wording was terrible since the ideas don't make sense if the meaning of 'they' doesn't change.

[JW]

I think you have to go with fervor and unclear wording. In this sentence:

It seems pretty clear that the meaning of 'they' has changed. It doesn't make sense that 'they' would try to kill his children and then want to comfort the children if 'they' fail. It sounds like 'they' is supposed to be the terrorists until 'they' (republicans) want his children comforted.

The wording was terrible since the ideas don't make sense if the meaning of 'they' doesn't change.

Lol, but I think you have to look at the conditional "if" here. He says THEY want to kill his children. But then he says IF THEY don't kill his children, then THEY will comfort his children with tax breaks. After all, earlier, he said THEY did a poor job of defending him. So I think it can be argued either way. If he is arguing that Republicans actions in the war on terror place him and his children in danger, then it does make sense. ;)

[BrianD]

Lol, but I think you have to look at the conditional "if" here. He says THEY want to kill his children. But then he says IF THEY don't kill his children, then THEY will comfort his children with tax breaks. After all, earlier, he said THEY did a poor job of defending him. So I think it can be argued either way. If he is arguing that Republicans actions in the war on terror place him and his children in danger, then it does make sense. ;)

I don't think you can argue conditional logic here. He was on a roll with his speech, and he sounds like he wasn't being that careful in his word choice.

[MrBigglesworth]

I am glad to know that you are the only one here with a fundamental grasp of the English language.

However, I think you need to take a close look at Begala's use of the personal pronoun "they" in the context of his remarks. The antecedent of "they" is not nearly so clear as you argue. There is a clear trail from "they want to kill us" straight to the Republicans. Let's follow the pronoun, starting with "they want to kill us".

"they want to kill us"
"they want to kill me and my children"
"they want my children to be comforted that while they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit"

Nowhere does Mr. Begala indicate that the antecedent of "they" has changed. He just asserts that "they" want to kill him and comfort his children with a lower death tax.

Note also that in your citation, Mr. Begala refers to Bin Laden initially in the singular, and Republicans initially in the plural.

So I might ask this: Where precisely does the antecedent of "they" change? Show it where I can see it, not where you assume it is.

But perhaps Mr. Begala was foaming at the mouth by this time and in a fit of Democratic fervor, so maybe his wording was unclear.
Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. It says that the simplest explanation is the best. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. For example, a charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.

Here, JW is attempting to prove that the charred tree is the result of an alien landing. He expects me to believe that Begala was accusing the Republicans of trying to kill him and fly planes into buildings, and not terrorists, even though Begala, while having a partisan history, has no record of incendiary comments. It would be much more respectable to just admit that he fell for the right wing ruse the same as I did, and admit that he was as wrong as I was.

[JW]

Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. It says that the simplest explanation is the best. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. For example, a charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.

Here, JW is attempting to prove that the charred tree is the result of an alien landing. He expects me to believe that Begala was accusing the Republicans of trying to kill him and fly planes into buildings, and not terrorists, even though Begala, while having a partisan history, has no record of incendiary comments. It would be much more respectable to just admit that he fell for the right wing ruse the same as I did, and admit that he was as wrong as I was.

To use one of Mr. Bigglesworth's tactics and include a condescending insult in my post: Here is Mr. Bigglesworth trying to twist Begala's very clear words to put a square peg into a round hole. I'm just using Begala's own words. Occam's Razor is on my side here. You are the one having to interpret his words. I am giving the simplest explanation, which is that he meant exactly what he said. With your explanation, we have to rely as a matter of faith that WHAT HE REALLY MEANT was what you are saying. Let's take a look at what he actually said again.

"But if THEY just kill me and not my children, THEY want my children to be comforted that while THEY didn't protect me because THEY cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money THEY inherit."

Let's see. He uses THEY five times in the same sentence. It is clear that the last four uses refer to Republicans. Yet you want us to believe that the first use refers to the terrorists, even though Begala gives us no clue at all in the sentence that this is what he meant.

I am very surprised that someone with such wonderous command of the English language as compared to, for example, mine, has such a hard time understanding such a simple idea. THEY are evil. Who is evil? The Republicans.

And look at the very next sentence: "You know, that is bullshit national defense and we should say that."

I think he is clearly saying Republican policy might get him and his children killed. Certainly you don't disagree with that?

[BrianD]

To use one of Mr. Bigglesworth's tactics and include a condescending insult in my post: Here is Mr. Bigglesworth trying to twist Begala's very clear words to put a square peg into a round hole. I'm just using Begala's own words. Occam's Razor is on my side here. You are the one having to interpret his words. I am giving the simplest explanation, which is that he meant exactly what he said. With your explanation, we have to rely as a matter of faith that WHAT HE REALLY MEANT was what you are saying. Let's take a look at what he actually said again.

"But if THEY just kill me and not my children, THEY want my children to be comforted that while THEY didn't protect me because THEY cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money THEY inherit."

Let's see. He uses THEY five times in the same sentence. It is clear that the last four uses refer to Republicans. Yet you want us to believe that the first use refers to the terrorists, even though Begala gives us no clue at all in the sentence that this is what he meant.

I am very surprised that someone with such wonderous command of the English language as compared to, for example, mine, has such a hard time understanding such a simple idea. THEY are evil. Who is evil? The Republicans.

And look at the very next sentence: "You know, that is bullshit national defense and we should say that."

I think he is clearly saying Republican policy might get him and his children killed. Certainly you don't disagree with that?

I have to ask....do you really believe everything you just wrote?

[JW]

I have to ask....do you really believe everything you just wrote?

Okay, I will cease and desist. I'm just responding to Bigglesworth's barbs, since he likes to play that silly game. I believe Begala mispoke in the heat of the moment. I do, however, think it could be argued that perhaps this was a Freudian slip, that he said what he really feels, but that he didn't really mean to say it that way.

I also believe anyone hearing what he said or reading it later could have reasonably come to the conclusion that he was saying Republicans want to kill him. The wording is that unclear. And I believe Bigglesworth is wrong in that respect, that this is not an attempt to put words into his mouth, but an example of him speaking so unclearly that his meaning is unclear and open to various interpretations. This is apparent because of the immediate reaction from several sources after his speech.

I think it would be interesting to hear Begala clarify his words. I haven't heard of a clarification yet, though that doesn't mean he hasn't done so.

[MrBigglesworth]

I think he is clearly saying Republican policy might get him and his children killed. Certainly you don't disagree with that?
That is a completely different statement. I agree that GOP policy is more likely to get me killed, that doesn't mean that I think they are trying to kill me.

Okay, I will cease and desist. I'm just responding to Bigglesworth's barbs, since he likes to play that silly game.
You posted something obviously false, pointing out that it was a lie is not playing any kind of game, it's telling the truth, and I don't think there should be disdain for the truth.

This is apparent because of the immediate reaction from several sources after his speech.
Drudge and the Washington Times, no agendas there. :rolleyes:

[JW]

That is a completely different statement. I agree that GOP policy is more likely to get me killed, that doesn't mean that I think they are trying to kill me.


You posted something obviously false, pointing out that it was a lie is not playing any kind of game, it's telling the truth, and I don't think there should be disdain for the truth.


Drudge and the Washington Times, no agendas there. :rolleyes:

Goodness, chill. This is an internet forum, and you like to play games on it. And I didn't post a lie. Begala said what he said, and what he said is open to interpretation. I think his muddled words revealed his heart. You pointed out no lie, just that your interpretation of his confused words is different from other interpretations by people who apparently don't understand English as well as you do. I would like to hear his clarification of his remarks.

[MrBigglesworth]

George W Bush said that Democrats are holding terrorists, and that if they don't give them up he will kill them all!!!
They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.
hxxp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

JW, please don't play any games and deny that he said that.

[JW]

George W Bush said that Democrats are holding terrorists, and that if they don't give them up he will kill them all!!!

hxxp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

JW, please don't play any games and deny that he said that.

Tit, tat, tit, tat. Begala's "they" is still unclear. Show me again, based on his words, how we can be absolutely certain that your interpretation of his words is correct. Show me how you arrive at an antecedent of the first "they" (in the sentence with five "they's") that is not "Republicans". Diagram that sentence for me.

BTW, I don't deny that Bush said what you quote him as saying. Happy?

Finally, I did a thorough internet search on Begala's speech, and all I can come up with are people arguing over what Begal meant. I found a very good discussion of his vague pronoun antecedents at one site that basically paralleled mine. The best that can be said is that his words were confusing. You are 100% wrong in supposing that it is perfectly clear what he meant. Nevertheless, I just think he went off the deep end for a minute and just spluttered, which comes out very poorly when you read it or hear it. During my own days of speaking to the media, I sometimes had to go back and look at the tape to see if I actually said what I meant to say, lol.

We can keep at this all night. (Well, no, because I have other things to do, like sleep.) But if you can agree that Begala's words were terribly unclear and can be interpreted by reasonable people in several ways as spoken, then I will agree that he doesn't really think Republicans want to kill him.

[MrBigglesworth]

He mentioned that 'they' were flying planes into buildings, intent on attacking NY and DC, and wanting to kill us. That sounds more like terrorists to me than GOP, but according to you reasonable people may differ. Perhaps you hold the GOP in that low esteem, but I don't think Begala is that insane.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by John Galt
I am not in anyway a "partisan" lefty. I just happen to be intellectually honest.

OK, you got me here. Where's the smiley?

I am certainly willing to admit I am partisan to the right. I find it quite humerous that you feel you are non-partisan. But don't let me rain on your parade.

Unlike you, Arles, I actually have some knowledge and appreciation of history. I opposed ridiculous foreign interventions when they were the democrats pipe dream for changing the world. I supported free trade and engagement as strategies for dealing with "rogue" regimes when it used to be the GOP strategy. I have voted for the GOP, libertarian party, and the Dems for President. I generally support a split government because I believe government functions best when it is not run by ideologues (like you and Bush).

I know your narrow worldview requires you to pigeonhole me in a little box, but I am no "lefty" and many views I have do not belong in your silly categorization system.

You, on the other hand, are indefensibly a partisan hack with no semblance of intellectual honesty.

[KWhit]

Ouch.

[JW]

He mentioned that 'they' were flying planes into buildings, intent on attacking NY and DC, and wanting to kill us. That sounds more like terrorists to me than GOP, but according to you reasonable people may differ. Perhaps you hold the GOP in that low esteem, but I don't think Begala is that insane.

I think Begala got so worked up with hatred for the right that he became nearly incomprehensible, leaving others on the left to explain what he apparently really meant.

[Arles]

Unlike you, Arles, I actually have some knowledge and appreciation of history. I opposed ridiculous foreign interventions when they were the democrats pipe dream for changing the world. I supported free trade and engagement as strategies for dealing with "rogue" regimes when it used to be the GOP strategy. I have voted for the GOP, libertarian party, and the Dems for President.
I have voted for both Clinton and George W. Bush. In fact, I served on the Clinton campaign in 1996. Not sure how that makes me any less conservative now or partisan on certain issues. People change, John, and it's obvious to anyone caring to read these threads that a vast majority of anything stated by this administration or justices like Thomas and Scalia will be subject to criticism by yourself. I know it upsets you to think that you may not be completely non-partisan on every issue, but the reality is that you are not. And, quite honestly, neither am I.

The difference is I openly admit it and try to take that inheirant bias into account when making decisions, whereas you completely ignore it hoping if you don't acknowledge it that it will not exist.

I know your narrow worldview requires you to pigeonhole me in a little box, but I am no "lefty" and many views I have do not belong in your silly categorization system.
John, I think your comments and first response of slinging personal insults show that you do, in fact, belong in a "silly categorization system" - despite how much you wish it was not the case.

You, on the other hand, are indefensibly a partisan hack with no semblance of intellectual honesty.
Yeah, John, you are nothing like I explained above :rolleyes:

[John Galt]

I have voted for both Clinton and George W. Bush. In fact, I served on the Clinton campaign in 1996. Not sure how that makes me any less conservative now or partisan on certain issues. People change, John, and it's obvious to anyone caring to read these threads that a vast majority of anything stated by this administration or justices like Thomas and Scalia will be subject to criticism by yourself. I know it upsets you to think that you may not be completely non-partisan on every issue, but the reality is that you are not. And, quite honestly, neither am I.

The difference is I openly admit it and try to take that inheirant bias into account when making decisions, whereas you completely ignore it hoping if you don't acknowledge it that it will not exist.


John, I think your comments and first response of slinging personal insults show that you do, in fact, belong in a "silly categorization system" - despite how much you wish it was not the case.


Yeah, John, you are nothing like I explained above :rolleyes:

And yet again, you don't get it. I oppose ideologues with power. If Chubby ran the USA, I would be horribly opposed to him. It has nothing to do with "left" or "right." It has to do with power and those who exercise it without wisdom. My "party" is anti-ideology. Your "party" is blindly parroting whatever the day's right-wing talking points are. If JoninmiddleGA is fascist (of which there can be little doubt), then you are proto-fascist (even though you disagree with Jon). You make evil possible by having no ability to differentiate "truth" from "falsehood." You and Jon are just two variations on what is ruining this country and I oppose you both for it.

[Arles]

For someone who disdains being placed in a "silly categorization system", you certainly have no problem doing the same to others. John, if you want to think you are some crusading "anti-idealogue" who is able to look at all situations with a completely open mind, then far be it for me to burst your bubble.

Just remember, your actions dictate how people view you much more than any statements you make regarding how you would like people to view you. But, then again, for a sell-professed anti-ideologue, anyone who doesn't view you in the above terms you setup for yourself must be blindly partisan, right?

[Glengoyne]

I'm surprised this thread is still around, It was a number of pages back when I left for vacation. I haven't read it all, but I'm hoping the last five pages aren't just filled the type of bickering at the top of this page.

As for my position on Rove and the "leaking" of a CIA operative's name. I think the ship has pretty well sailed on any realistic thoughts of that particular charge being brought.

As for the motivation behind the leak. It seems to me that the details that have been released indicate he was connecting the dots for the reporter. The wife's CIA affiliation was only used to show how she was part of the chain of events that sent Wilson to Africa. It certainly doesn't seem to have been done in retribution.

I still don't think it is clear exactly how covert Plame/Wilson was. There have been some reports that those who knew her knew where she went to work, and others that maintain that she was covert. As for the CIA's request for an investigation, that is apparently their standard procedure when one of their employee's affiliation is revealed. I read one article indicatint that those requests come at the rate of about one a week. I don't think that is quite as damning as some have suggested.

As for this last page. I think JW was one of the more cogent posters earlier in the thread, but he is hurting himself by holding Begala's comments to his narrow interpretation.

Oh and John. Face it, you are a partisan lefty. You wear it on your sleeve. You aren't helping your intellectual integrity rating by maintaining otherwise. You might be an independent thinker, and sometimes disagree with the left or agree with the right, but that doesn't make you independent. If we held a poll on your left/right/center affiliation, the trout would get more votes than the center, and the right column would be extraneous. Being partisan isn't necessarily a bad thing, I'm considered quite partisan to the right here on this board, eventhough I often take positions contrary to the Republican party in general. My family considers me a right wing whacko, my wife's family think I'm a closet liberal. Go figure. The thing that shouldn't really be in dispute is that your image here is one of a raging liberal.

[Chubby]

If Chubby ran the USA, I would be horribly opposed to him.
What do you mean "if"? I did for 8 years, you voted for me. Traitor...

[JW]

As for this last page. I think JW was one of the more cogent posters earlier in the thread, but he is hurting himself by holding Begala's comments to his narrow interpretation.

Well, if you read the thread you will see I was only holding Begala to the narrow interpretation for Mr. Bigglesworth, and not for everyone else. I just decided since Mr. B chose to question my command of the English language, that he and I could have some fun on unclear pronoun antecedents. I do feel Begala's comments were so muddled that reasonable people can (and still are, if you do a google search) arguing about what he really meant. But I will give him the benefit of the doubt, except where Mr. B is concerned.

[SFL Cat]

Okay, I will cease and desist. I'm just responding to Bigglesworth's barbs, since he likes to play that silly game. I believe Begala mispoke in the heat of the moment. I do, however, think it could be argued that perhaps this was a Freudian slip, that he said what he really feels, but that he didn't really mean to say it that way.

I also believe anyone hearing what he said or reading it later could have reasonably come to the conclusion that he was saying Republicans want to kill him. The wording is that unclear. And I believe Bigglesworth is wrong in that respect, that this is not an attempt to put words into his mouth, but an example of him speaking so unclearly that his meaning is unclear and open to various interpretations. This is apparent because of the immediate reaction from several sources after his speech.

I think it would be interesting to hear Begala clarify his words. I haven't heard of a clarification yet, though that doesn't mean he hasn't done so.

Considering the Dems liked to say the Republicans wanted to "starve our kids" during budget debates over school lunch programs, I don't think it is such a reach to conclude that Begala wants people to think that the GOP wants to kill him.

Of course, we are talking about DC and DC insiders. Only in DC is a budget cut considered a cut in the rate of growth from one year to the next.

[John Galt]

Oh and John. Face it, you are a partisan lefty. You wear it on your sleeve. You aren't helping your intellectual integrity rating by maintaining otherwise. You might be an independent thinker, and sometimes disagree with the left or agree with the right, but that doesn't make you independent. If we held a poll on your left/right/center affiliation, the trout would get more votes than the center, and the right column would be extraneous. Being partisan isn't necessarily a bad thing, I'm considered quite partisan to the right here on this board, eventhough I often take positions contrary to the Republican party in general. My family considers me a right wing whacko, my wife's family think I'm a closet liberal. Go figure. The thing that shouldn't really be in dispute is that your image here is one of a raging liberal.

The simple test for me is that while I am heavily critical of the GOP (mostly because they have become the party of idealogues), I would be equally afraid if Ted Kennedy were running this country. Bill Clinton was far from a "good" president in my mind and I think he is roughly the equivalent of Bush I in terms of ideologue-ness. Dubya, on the other hand, is the most ideological president the U.S. has had since F.D.R. (maybe Kennedy).

I hold many views (tolerance, valuing diversity, respect for individualism) that have become part of what people consider "leftist." However, I am in way committed to the values of a "partisan left." I don't believe anything the Dems talking points say. I don't hold any leftist politician in particularly high regard. And I don't really care for any left-wing organization. So, how I am a "partisan" lefty is really beyond me. It conflates someone with values on the left with someone who is committed to a party and its politicians. There is a BIG difference.

[Glengoyne]

The simple test for me is that while I am heavily critical of the GOP (mostly because they have become the party of idealogues), I would be equally afraid if Ted Kennedy were running this country. Bill Clinton was far from a "good" president in my mind and I think he is roughly the equivalent of Bush I in terms of ideologue-ness. Dubya, on the other hand, is the most ideological president the U.S. has had since F.D.R. (maybe Kennedy).

I hold many views (tolerance, valuing diversity, respect for individualism) that have become part of what people consider "leftist." However, I am in way committed to the values of a "partisan left." I don't believe anything the Dems talking points say. I don't hold any leftist politician in particularly high regard. And I don't really care for any left-wing organization. So, how I am a "partisan" lefty is really beyond me. It conflates someone with values on the left with someone who is committed to a party and its politicians. There is a BIG difference.
Fair enough. I see where you are coming from, and understand that. I was just stating that perception is reality, and that your perception of yourself differs from the perception I believe most here have of you.

[flere-imsaho]

The problem, JW, is that you're talking about a transcript, which mean's Begala's words have been stripped of any non-word communication (i.e. inflection, body language, etc...). While I can see your point based on a very narrow reading of the actual words, it looks to me to be too big of a leap to make when, in hearing, it may have sounded (and been meant), very, very differently.

[John Galt]

Fair enough. I see where you are coming from, and understand that. I was just stating that perception is reality, and that your perception of yourself differs from the perception I believe most here have of you.

I'm not going to disagree with you on this. You are 100% right.

[JW]

The problem, JW, is that you're talking about a transcript, which mean's Begala's words have been stripped of any non-word communication (i.e. inflection, body language, etc...). While I can see your point based on a very narrow reading of the actual words, it looks to me to be too big of a leap to make when, in hearing, it may have sounded (and been meant), very, very differently.

I agree.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

After reading the last couple of pages: JW and credibility, never the twain shall meet.

[JW]

After reading the last couple of pages: JW and credibility, never the twain shall meet.

If you say so, and I have no fundamental grasp of the English language either.

[Blackadar]

You, on the other hand, are indefensibly a partisan hack with no semblance of intellectual honesty.

I'd have to tend to agree. Arles has turned into the Bubba Wheels Republican on this board.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Hmm....that 'S' could stand for anything!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002517_pf.html


Plame's Identity Marked As Secret
Memo Central to Probe Of Leak Was Written By State Dept. Analyst

By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 21, 2005; A01

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.

The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.

[Flasch186]

ouch...that S stands for scandalous behavior regardless of whether Rove broke the "law". He needs to have a higher moral set.

[MrBigglesworth]

He needs to have a higher moral set.
Not in the Bush White House, who's 'bringing dignity back' campaign is now a strict 'no felons'* policy.

*Does not apply to incidents related to Watergate, Iran-Contra