OT - Karl Rove Named as CIA Agent Leak

[NoMyths]

We'll see if this proves to be the case, but after the Cooper documents were turned over, an analyst stated that Karl Rove was the source who revealed the name of the undercover CIA agent.

Link: MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case (http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972839)

Full Text:
MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case
By E&P Staff

NEW YORK Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Tonight, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.

Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's remarks:

"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury, the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.

"And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."

Other panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper.

Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller, held in contempt for refusing to name sources, tried Friday to stay out of jail by arguing for home detention instead after Time Inc. surrendered its reporter's notes to a prosecutor.

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said Friday that several unidentified Senate Republicans had placed a hold on a proposed resolution declaring support for Miller and Cooper.

``Cowards!'' Lautenberg said of the Republicans. ``Under the rules, they have a right to refuse to reveal who they are. Sound familiar?''

Lautenberg's resolution is co-sponsored by Sens. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) It says no purpose is served by imprisoning Miller and Cooper and that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press.

[terpkristin]

I'm quite depressed that they turned over their source. That is just bad for journalism in general.

Would be interesting, though, if Rove really was the leak. Nobody else seems to have that story, yet, I'll be keeping an eye on things...

/tk

[clintl]

On the one hand, I wish they had stood their ground. On the other hand, seeing Karl Rove and Bob Novak in prison jump suits would be very, very satisfying.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

On the one hand, I wish they had stood their ground. On the other hand, seeing Karl Rove and Bob Novak in prison jump suits would be very, very satisfying.
Couldn't the big boss pardon them?

[clintl]

Couldn't the big boss pardon them?

He could, of course. Would he? Who knows? An action like that might spiral rather quickly into a Watergate-style scandal. My guess is that if does, he'll do it on the last day of his presidency.

[DaddyTorgo]

whoa. shit. that'd be huge. and ya know, that's just the kinda thing that could start some kinda spiraling scandel

[timmynausea]

I don't really see how Bush could pardon them without looking really bad.

[Flasch186]

if this comes out to be true, I hope Rove gets jail time for it. IMO, He risked that agent's life, it is an Federal Crime and he should be punished. If it's not him that did it than I continue to hope that they look for who did, and they get equal punishment.

[KWhit]

I admit to not knowing all of the details of this story, but if true (and if it can be proven), this has the makings of a huge scandal.

But so far, this is just one guy who is stating that he knows what the documents say, so we'll see what happens.

[Greyroofoo]

If I know someone who is linked to a crime, couldn't the police force me to tell who it is?

Why should the press be different?

[flere-imsaho]

If true (and I'd say, given all the other lies and half-truths told in connection with this whole affair, that's not a foregone conclusion), this would be very big.

Given the number of agents who were compromised by this leak (through their association with Plame, and her being outed), whoever did leak this information should be punished highly. I also think Bob Novak should serve some time, given that it was his article that put all of those agents in hot water. I mean really, he's supposed to know a lot about Washington, did he not know what the consequences of his actions would be?

[Flasch186]

I disagree...Novak should not be punished outside of the not revealing his source if/when a court forced him to. Rove (or whoever leaked it), as I said when this first came out months/years ago, should be punished to the highest extent of the law. If he/she is not the example set would be terrible.

[SackAttack]

If I know someone who is linked to a crime, couldn't the police force me to tell who it is?

Why should the press be different?

The idea is that if somebody who has information relating to a story with potentially criminal implications cannot trust that what they say to the press will be held in confidence, then they simply won't say it. It's what's called a "chilling effect."

Let's say something like this had happened 35 years ago - do you think Mark Felt would have gone to Woodward and Bernstein about Watergate, knowing that they could have been forced to reveal the source, allowing the government to basically prosecute a whistle-blower?

[sterlingice]

I'll be curious to see if this turns out to be true and not just net rumor...

SI

[terpkristin]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/003556;_ylt=AvVVru1yLGXHeZCt3zv.TFMDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl


Lawrence O'Donnell: Rove Blew CIA Agent's Cover

<!-- END HEADLINE --> <!-- BEGIN STORY BODY --> Lawrence O'Donnell Sat Jul 2,11:51 AM ET


I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.

McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis.

Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow.

/tk

[QuikSand]

I admit to not knowing all of the details of this story, but if true (and if it can be proven), this has the makings of a huge scandal.

I disagree. I think the political climate is such that this will dissolve into the partisan ether like anything else someone says critical of a political figure. "It's just mean-spiritied talk from the [insert liberal left/religious right as appropriate] and is not to bee taken seriously." I think this is essentially where we are now with politics.

People believe what they want to believe about the politicians they support. Anything bad about those politicians -- and they can surely find some news channel that will reaffirm their suspicions that it's all trumped-up stuff generated by "the other media" who have an axe to grind.

I hope I'm wrong... but I don't feel too uncomfortable making this prediction. Minor tremor, move along.

[NoMyths]

I disagree. I think the political climate is such that this will dissolve into the partisan ether like anything else someone says critical of a political figure. "It's just mean-spiritied talk from the [insert liberal left/religious right as appropriate] and is not to bee taken seriously." I think this is essentially where we are now with politics.

People believe what they want to believe about the politicians they support. Anything bad about those politicians -- and they can surely find some news channel that will reaffirm their suspicions that it's all trumped-up stuff generated by "the other media" who have an axe to grind.

I hope I'm wrong... but I don't feel too uncomfortable making this prediction. Minor tremor, move along.Is this to say that you personally are unbothered to discover that one of the key members of the President's braintrust is responsible for compromising one of our CIA agent's identities out of spite, if the allegations are proven true?

[QuikSand]

Is this to say that you personally are unbothered to discover that one of the key members of the President's braintrust is responsible for compromising one of our CIA agent's identities out of spite, if the allegations are proven true?

Not at all. I personally thinkg this is a big deal.

My observation is just that I think the country, on balance (excluding the people who shreik on things political for a living) will basically shrug it off. The left will add this to the reasons they hate Bush, the right will find numerous ways to defend or explain it away, and the many who don't follow this stuff will see it just another political mudslinging event, the sort of thing they generally don't care about since they basically believe that nobody has any credibility (and therefore, you can't trust anything you hear or read).

Again, I hope I'm wrong. But I doubt I am.

[sterlingice]

I disagree. I think the political climate is such that this will dissolve into the partisan ether like anything else someone says critical of a political figure. "It's just mean-spiritied talk from the [insert liberal left/religious right as appropriate] and is not to bee taken seriously." I think this is essentially where we are now with politics.

People believe what they want to believe about the politicians they support. Anything bad about those politicians -- and they can surely find some news channel that will reaffirm their suspicions that it's all trumped-up stuff generated by "the other media" who have an axe to grind.

I hope I'm wrong... but I don't feel too uncomfortable making this prediction. Minor tremor, move along.
Really scary to think about when it comes right down to it. Unless you're in a tabloid-esque scandal that morons and degenerates from both sides can decry (what's the saying about getting caught having sex with a dead woman or a live boy?), having a little R or D next to your name protects you from criticism from half the country.

SI

[QuikSand]

And by the way -- is there anyone who has followed this story at all who is actually surprised that Rove was the leak? (Assuming this turns out to be true) I thought this was the prevailing opinion all along.

[HomerJSimpson]

Not at all. I personally thinkg this is a big deal.

My observation is just that I think the country, on balance (excluding the people who shreik on things political for a living) will basically shrug it off. The left will add this to the reasons they hate Bush, the right will find numerous ways to defend or explain it away, and the many who don't follow this stuff will see it just another political mudslinging event, the sort of thing they generally don't care about since they basically believe that nobody has any credibility (and therefore, you can't trust anything you hear or read).

Again, I hope I'm wrong. But I doubt I am.


I doubt you are, too.

[QuikSand]

... having a little R or D next to your name protects you from criticism from half the country.

Actually, in a manner of speaking, even more than that. If you are a D, and you do something shitty and get caught... the entire country that follows this stuff closely can be expected to line up predictably into two camps. The D people will say "it's not such a big deal, it happens all the time, lots of R people are guilty too... or whatever." And the R people will all scream bloody murder that this indicts all D people, that this is representative of the party or of liberals in general... and will make absurd claims that essentially invalidate the proper criticism of the guilty individual. Reverse every bit of that if it's an R person who gets into trouble.

In effect -- when someone involved in partisan politics deserves criticism, he receives none from his side, double from the other side, and in the end it washes out as just another mud-slinging exercise from that criminal class of politicians (whom we all generally say we hate, and then re-elect to office by landslide margins).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Quik, I believe you're dead on target here.

And rightfully so IMO -- the woman worked at a Langley desk, she wasn't "covert" by any stretch of the imagination at that point.

This will be largely resigned to the dustbin of "partisan politics" because that's exactly what it is.

[sterlingice]

And by the way -- is there anyone who has followed this story at all who is actually surprised that Rove was the leak? (Assuming this turns out to be true) I thought this was the prevailing opinion all along. Actually, I am really surprised. I always figured he had minions to do this type of stuff. I never figured him to be one to dirty his hands with it personally. Uncharacteristically sloppy for him.

SI

[Glengoyne]

And by the way -- is there anyone who has followed this story at all who is actually surprised that Rove was the leak? (Assuming this turns out to be true) I thought this was the prevailing opinion all along.

I don't guess I followed it all that well, but color me surprised anyway. I had heard the Rove bit all along, but I figured it was just about as likely that he did this that it was that he orchestrated all of the absurd machinations that the left has accused him of doing.

I'm personally hoping that the one thing this accomplishes is to bring out the facts in this case. Just how outed was she? What was her actual job at the CIA? I know on the TV show, "The Agency"(which sucked, I know) all of the people working there had cover "jobs". I got the idea that one just didn't casually say "I work at the CIA" over dinner. That was how I originally pictured her role, and the degree of her "covertness". Later there was at least one ex-CIA guy who said she was an active player, and significantly covert. Was it a common knowledge thing that Plame worked at the CIA? I don't know. I'm hoping that we do find out.

If Rove or someone else, actually maliciously outed her, then I expect them to be punished for it. If this was an incidental type thing, then I will find it a bit more acceptable.

[KWhit]

Quik, I believe you're dead on target here.

And rightfully so IMO -- the woman worked at a Langley desk, she wasn't "covert" by any stretch of the imagination at that point.

This will be largely resigned to the dustbin of "partisan politics" because that's exactly what it is.
Sigh.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Well, I had Dutch in the "this is really all partisan politics" pool. Dang.

[Flasch186]

Glen:

I dont think that a "leaker" lets call him or her should be able to determine, "Well....they're not really under cover so its no biggie." I mean shouldnt htat be decided by perhaps HR. Im just saying, I dont think that you should allow that 'out'. almost, bipartisanly everyone has said whomever leaked it should be punished mightily. I hope when it comes out you and all the others stand behind what you stated before and dont start cracking a window to let out the stink.

[kcchief19]

And rightfully so IMO -- the woman worked at a Langley desk, she wasn't "covert" by any stretch of the imagination at that point. That sounds nice, but there are several things wrong with that. She was a covert agent; she may have been working a Langley at the time, but she was a covert agent and had a cover as an employee for a CIA front. By revealing Plame's identity, the source not only blew the cover of a CIA agent but perhaps other agents as well. Oh yeah, and it's against the law. Oh, and if it was Rove then he committed perjury by lying to a grand jury.

Sound familiar? Republicans wanted to run Clinton out on a rail for getting a blow job (legal) and lying about it to a grand jury (illegal), but think nothing should happen to someone who who outted a cover officer (illegal) and lied to a grand jury about it (illegal). If that's the case, something is clearly wrong with 51 percent of the country.

If Rove is revealed as the source, I think it's fascinating on multiple levels. First, it has generally been liberals who have opposed forcing the reporters to reveal their source. Ironic that liberals were inadvertently supporting Rove. Second, it's a Republican appointed special prosecutor who has been pushing to reveal the source, thus outing the architect of the Republican agenda.

Fitzgerald has already said he probably won't pursue the charge of outing a covert officer, but will pursue the perjury charge. The on thing Rove will have going for him is that Fitzgerald is not a Bush-hating special prosecutor looking to win at all costs. Regardless, you Democrats in Congress will apply pressure for hearings and an expanded investigation.

Quik, I think you're right that it will be small deal but only if it's dealt with correctly, which is that Rover resigns, pleads guilty to perjury and disappears from politics for a few years. If he tries to ride this out -- during a SC confirmation fight -- it will be another anchor around Bush and his approval ratings. You'll hear about this right through the midterms because Democrats won't stop screaming about it.

[Buccaneer]

and disappears from politics for a few years.
I was agreeing with what you said right up until you tried to sneak a blatant partisan quip in there. ;)

[Dutch]

Well, I had Dutch in the "this is really all partisan politics" pool. Dang.

To be honest with you, I'm not up to speed on this whole story. I haven't been following it. But yes, it looks like the squeaky clean Democrats have busted the slimy Republicans red-handed at something. Like always. :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

That sounds nice, but there are several things wrong with that. She was a covert agent; she may have been working a Langley at the time, but she was a covert agent and had a cover as an employee for a CIA front. By revealing Plame's identity, the source not only blew the cover of a CIA agent but perhaps other agents as well. Oh yeah, and it's against the law. Oh, and if it was Rove then he committed perjury by lying to a grand jury.

There's only illegal activity under fairly specific circumstances ... circumstances that do not appear, based on what has been revealed so far, to have existed.

No one ... repeat ... no one who is engaged in a covert operation is hanging out at a Langley desk job -- that simply flies in the face of logic, reason, and most of all, reality.

She has no "cover" to blow at that point -- she's going to work there for crying out loud, how is she supposed to be "undercover"? That's just asinine.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

It's just allegations for now. Im sure all will be clear in a matter of days.

[Buccaneer]

The number of times I have read that something will be "as big or bigger than Watergate" in the past 25 years have been extraordinary. It will only accelerate because that's the game that has been and will always be played inside the Beltway.

[Honolulu_Blue]

What Rove did is tantamount to treason and should be considered as such. Not to mention a direct threat to national security. This man needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

For fuck's sake, Clinton gets a blow-job in the Oval Office and we get investigations upon investigations, million dollar hearings. And if Quiksand is right, which I sadly feel he will be, it's mindboggling and the United States will take one more step to becoming nothing more than a banana republic.

[Buccaneer]

HBlue, you mean this has never happened before??? And this is "one more step"? I take it that you don't believe that much of what the Executive and Legislative branches have done in the past decades have been illegal? Many "one more steps" are taken every day, one just have to find that magic silver bullet and hope that it hits its target.

[Flasch186]

There's only illegal activity under fairly specific circumstances ... circumstances that do not appear, based on what has been revealed so far, to have existed.

No one ... repeat ... no one who is engaged in a covert operation is hanging out at a Langley desk job -- that simply flies in the face of logic, reason, and most of all, reality.

She has no "cover" to blow at that point -- she's going to work there for crying out loud, how is she supposed to be "undercover"? That's just asinine.

JON:

Rove or anyone else at the White House should not be able to pick and choose who they expose or not.

Why was she exposed in the first place? As revenge against her husband? You defend that, Jon?

I repeat, whether she is behind a desk or working with Al Qaeda in the field, Rove nor anyone outside of anyone should be able to decide, on the fly, "well she's game too." and expose her.

Jon, you are completely partisan on this....I dont care who it is Dem. Rep. Indy. NO ONE has the right to expose someone, who is officially designated as "covert", because they feel it serves their political gain, especially.

And someone called me unpatriotic and railed me? HA, whomever that was back then I hope sends equal opportunity blasting at Jon...but somehow I doubt it.

[Maple Leafs]

I'm quite depressed that they turned over their source. That is just bad for journalism in general.Unless I've misunderstood, I think it's worth pointing out that the journalists never revealed their source, even when it appeared they would be going to jail as a result. Their employer handed over their notes, so in some sense you could say the reporters allowed the source to be named, but they never did so themselves. I'd argue that they held up their end of the deal.

[Flasch186]

from Glengoyne on 9/30/2003:

I could be wrong, but that is the way the evidence that is "out there" really looks to me. IF it does turn out that someone/anyone told Novak that Plame worked for the CIA, and that information wasn't common knowledge...then string that someone up.


this should tell you how you stood.

[Flasch186]

and Grantdawg had this to say:

Zook must have really messed up recruiting. I just heard the White House was investigating Leak

[JPhillips]

My understanding is that the CIA requested the initial investigation which led to the special prosecutor. As I remember they requested an investigation into the leaking of the identity of a covert agent.

When it comes to knowing who is covert and who isn't are you going to believe the CIA or JIMG?

[timmynausea]

My understanding is that the CIA requested the initial investigation which led to the special prosecutor. As I remember they requested an investigation into the leaking of the identity of a covert agent.

When it comes to knowing who is covert and who isn't are you going to believe the CIA or JIMG?
I'd personally like to see Bubba Wheels weigh in on this.... Ok not really.

[SirFozzie]

I'd personally like to see Bubba Wheels weigh in on this.... Ok not really.

if he shows up now, I'm blaming you.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Why was she exposed in the first place? As revenge against her husband? You defend that, Jon?

Lemme see here ... considering her husband ... yeah, I don't have much problem with it.

I repeat, whether she is behind a desk or working with Al Qaeda in the field, Rove nor anyone outside of anyone should be able to decide, on the fly, "well she's game too." and expose her.

Again, what "exposure"? She worked in the freakin' building Flasch, anybody that cared to know already knew.

NO ONE has the right to expose someone, who is officially designated as "covert", because they feel it serves their political gain, especially.

We'll quibble that to some degree too I guess ... there are methods I would have preferred to this one, but if it neutralizes someone doing harm to a greater cause ... well, we'll just disagree there as usual too I guess.

I've said it before & this is probably a situation where it bears repeating --
I resolutely believe that this nation faces greater threats from within than from without, and you aren't likely to see me losing much sleep nor expending much energy worrying about what happens to those who damage our best interests regardless of where they happen to call have been born.

[Flasch186]

Lemme see here ... considering her husband ... yeah, I don't have much problem with it.



Again, what "exposure"? She worked in the freakin' building Flasch, anybody that cared to know already knew.



We'll quibble that to some degree too I guess ... there are methods I would have preferred to this one, but if it neutralizes someone doing harm to a greater cause ... well, we'll just disagree there as usual too I guess.

I've said it before & this is probably a situation where it bears repeating --
I resolutely believe that this nation faces greater threats from within than from without, and you aren't likely to see me losing much sleep nor expending much energy worrying about what happens to those who damage our best interests regardless of where they happen to call have been born.



I am glad that you exposed yourself long ago and you hang way over on the right edge just left of BW. No one agrees with you :) I hope it's not too lonely over there...but perhaps you'll see the err of your ways. You should try to be a bit more open minded. Its ok to disagree with your own side once in a while...if it's the right thing to do.

[flere-imsaho]

Again, what "exposure"? She worked in the freakin' building Flasch, anybody that cared to know already knew.

I am unable to find proof that Valerie Plame worked at Langley. Do you have proof?

[ISiddiqui]

Even with all this partisan back and forth, it's going to be ultra hard to deny Rove didn't lie to the grand jury if he was the source of the leak.

[Radii]

i'm pretty sure my head just exploded.

[Arles]

Here's a good recap on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

I have no problem with the leaker (if it is Rove or whomever) being investigated - seems like a reasonable course of action. But, I think when you look at the fact that many people in the beltway knew about Plame long before Novak outted her, the fact that she was not involved in any covert action and working in Washington, and the fact that the "leaker" asked Novak twice not to use her name in the story (advice he completely disregarded), this story loses a little steam.

In the end, there wasn't any real damage done unless I am missing something. I agree with what James Taranto said a year ago in the WSJ:
In order for the alleged leakers to have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, they would have to have known that [Plame] was covert and that the government was "taking affirmative measures to conceal" her relationship to the CIA. Novak's statement that the CIA made only "a very weak request" that he not use her name suggests the absence of such "affirmative measures," which would put the leakers in the clear legally if not politically.

In addition, the Novak column did not describe Plame as covert, only as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."

If indeed Plame was a covert agent, why wouldn't the CIA take "affirmative measures to conceal" her identity? The answer may turn on the legal definition of covert. As we also noted in October, an employee is a "covert agent" for the purposes of the statute if and only if he "is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States."

But, like I said, if people want to investigate the leaker and potentially file charges, I say have at it. But I would warn those outraged over all this not to be surprised if the charges fell apart like a cheap suit upon closer examination.

[Arles]

I am unable to find proof that Valerie Plame worked at Langley. Do you have proof?
I don't know if she was working in Langley, but she had been living in DC since 1997 (from Vanity Fair):
In 1997, Plame moved back to the Washington area, partly because (as was recently reported in The New York Times) the C.I.A. suspected that her name may have been on a list given to the Russians by the double agent Aldrich Ames in 1994.
So, in essence, the CIA felt her cover had already been blown back in 1997 and gave her a desk job. She had "private cover" in Boston, but even the Globe mentioned it was pretty weak and involved an address without the physical company having a presence in the office building:

That's a good thing, considering how little work seems to have gone in to establishing the company's presence in Boston, intelligence observers said. While the renovated building houses legal and investment firms, current and former building managers said they've never heard of Brewster Jennings. Nor did the firm file the state and local records expected of most businesses.

Both factors would have aroused the suspicions of anyone who tried to check up on Brewster Jennings, said David Armstrong, an Andover researcher for the Public Education Center, a liberal Washington think tank.

At the least, a dummy company ought to create the appearance of activity, with an office and a valid mailing address, he said. "A cover that falls apart on first inspection isn't very good. What you want is a cover that actually holds up . . . and this one certainly doesn't."
http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2003/10/10/apparent_cia_front_didnt_offer_much_cover/

This certainly doesn't sound like an agent actively involved in covert activities. I would think the CIA would give an actual legitimate business address as a cover to a covert agent who could be in danger. Even Inspector Clueso could figure out something was up when the address for the agent didn't even exist. If that's "deep cover", I think all of our agents are in big trouble.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

if this comes out to be true, I hope Rove gets jail time for it. IMO, He risked that agent's life, it is an Federal Crime and he should be punished. If it's not him that did it than I continue to hope that they look for who did, and they get equal punishment.

Lighten up. It's not like the life of a communist left wing radical agent is worth anything anyway. If Rove is the source he should get a medal. Hell, maybe he should expose a few more pinkos!

[ThunderingHERD]

I hate America as much as the next guy*, but I simply don't see the logic** of "informant is heinous for informing and should be hanged" while "reporter of information (who gave potency to information in the first place) is a saint and should be granted immunity.)"

Which is not to say that Karl Rove shouldn't be hanged*** for other reasons... or this reason, for that matter.

*I am very liberal
**but also logical
***sentenced to life in prison

[sterlingice]

Doesn't it bother anyone that the whole thing that started this, whether she was covert or not, was that to get back at a diplomat they disagreed with was to go screw over his wife? Not go after the guy and god forbid just go after his position, but go after his wife. That was what always scared me about this case. And now, it turns out it was Rove, and not even his minions, the man himself.

SI

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Doesn't it bother anyone that the whole thing that started this, whether she was covert or not, was that to get back at a diplomat they disagreed with was to go screw over his wife? Not go after the guy and god forbid just go after his position, but go after his wife. That was what always scared me about this case. And now, it turns out it was Rove, and not even his minions, the man himself.

SI

But she was the wife of a leftist! I do agree that they should have gone after him directly and left a few dead prostitutes in his tool shed or something, but by marrying one of those obnoxious, bloated, disgusting anti-american socialists she has opend herself up for any red-blooded, god-fearing american to expose her for what she is.

[timmynausea]

Doesn't it bother anyone that the whole thing that started this, whether she was covert or not, was that to get back at a diplomat they disagreed with was to go screw over his wife? Not go after the guy and god forbid just go after his position, but go after his wife. That was what always scared me about this case. And now, it turns out it was Rove, and not even his minions, the man himself.

SI

Yeah it bothers me. Here's the thing I've been trying to figure out: Is this how they were restoring the honor of the white house? Or are they trying to change the tone in Washington with this one?

[SirFozzie]

My thoughts are that while Plame's "outing" may or may not be a major issue, as said earlier (it's really unknown if it was anything more then a curosry "Never heard of her from the CIA), the part that bothers me more is about him (if true) lying to a grand jury on the issue. That part I have more problems with.

That's what they hung on Clinton, and it led a bit down the road on the way to impeachment. If he did lie to the grand jury and said he had nothing to do with it, I predict that he will resign.. Rove gives the Demos a nice big fat juicy target to ram down everyone's throat in the midterm elections, or for SJC fights.. especially since the liberal 9/11 comment he made.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Doesn't it bother anyone that the whole thing that started this, whether she was covert or not, was that to get back at a diplomat they disagreed with was to go screw over his wife? Not go after the guy and god forbid just go after his position, but go after his wife. That was what always scared me about this case. And now, it turns out it was Rove, and not even his minions, the man himself.

SI
It bothers me immensely. It was part of my earlier "banana republic" remark. This is the way we play politics in the US now? Someone disagrees with the party in charge so we go after their family? It's shameful. If this comes out as being true, the White House has lost all dignity. Lying about getting a hummer is one thing, lying about stuff that actually matters? Wow. Yet, some people seem to have no problem with this. Of course, if things were reversed, ie a democrat president outing a right-wing CIA agent (covert or not), they would be HOWLING bloody murder. Howling.

Such things make me sad and unhappy. :(

[Chubby]

Here's a good recap on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

I have no problem with the leaker (if it is Rove or whomever) being investigated - seems like a reasonable course of action. But, I think when you look at the fact that many people in the beltway knew about Plame long before Novak outted her, the fact that she was not involved in any covert action and working in Washington, and the fact that the "leaker" asked Novak twice not to use her name in the story (advice he completely disregarded), this story loses a little steam.

In the end, there wasn't any real damage done unless I am missing something. I agree with what James Taranto said a year ago in the WSJ:


But, like I said, if people want to investigate the leaker and potentially file charges, I say have at it. But I would warn those outraged over all this not to be surprised if the charges fell apart like a chief suit upon closer examination.
even if the outting a CIA agent charges are hard to get, it should be pretty easy to nail Rove on perjury charges if it's him... you know... those charges "you" tried to impeach Clinton on.

[MalcPow]

Most of what is coming out now (from Rove's lawyer) is that he spoke with the reporters the week before the story broke, but that he did not reveal any secrets and that he did not name Plame. Within this context I doubt he perjured himself.

[Flasch186]

what;s his lawyer going to say LOL

[MalcPow]

The article from the LA Times...

Rove spoke to Time but didn't name CIA agent, lawyer says
Karl Rove, one of President Bush's closest advisers, spoke with a Time magazine reporter days before the name of a CIA operative surfaced in the media, but did not leak the confidential information, a lawyer for Rove said Saturday in a new admission in the case.

Rove spoke to Time reporter Matthew Cooper in July 2003, during the week before published reports revealed the identity of operative Valerie Plame, the wife of Bush administration critic and former U.S. envoy Joseph Wilson.

Cooper is one of two reporters who have been held in contempt of court for not cooperating with a federal investigation into who revealed Plame's identity. Although Wilson once said he suspected Rove played a role in destroying his wife's CIA cover, the White House has dismissed questions about Rove's actions as "totally ridiculous."

In confirming the conversation between Rove and Cooper, Rove attorney Robert Luskin stressed that the presidential adviser did not reveal any secrets.

But the disclosure raised new questions about Rove and the precise role of the White House in the apparent national security breach as Cooper and another reporter, Judith Miller of the New York Times, face imminent jail terms.

Time Inc., under pressure from a federal judge and over Cooper's objections, turned over e-mail records and other internal documents to a special prosecutor Friday, identifying sources Cooper used to report and write on the politically charged case. A Time spokeswoman on Saturday declined to say whether Rove was among the sources that were revealed.

Cooper and Miller could be jailed as soon as Wednesday for refusing to cooperate in the investigation. Time, which was separately held in contempt in the case, has said that it hopes its cooperation will mean Cooper will not be incarcerated. Miller and the New York Times have refused to disclose her sources; she conducted interviews, but never wrote a story on the Plame matter.

Rove, Bush's deputy chief of staff and longtime political strategist, has testified before a grand jury investigating the Plame case on three occasions. His latest appearance was in October 2004, which is about the same time the prosecutor investigating the case has said his investigation was complete with the exception of the testimony of Cooper and Miller.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is investigating the alleged outing of Plame by syndicated columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. Some suspect that the White House leaked her name in retaliation for a July 6, 2003, article in the New York Times written by Wilson, her husband, accusing the administration of using bogus intelligence to justify the war in Iraq.

[clintl]

We'll see when the Time documents are made public. A statement from Rove's lawyer is completely meaningless. Lawyers almost always deny publicly that their clients had any culpability at this stage of an investigation.

[Chubby]

Most of what is coming out now (from Rove's lawyer) is that he spoke with the reporters the week before the story broke, but that he did not reveal any secrets and that he did not name Plame. Within this context I doubt he perjured himself.
no, the lawyer was going to say he did it :rolleyes: :p

[flere-imsaho]

Here's a good recap on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

Finally! You post a link with which I don't have to quibble! :p

But I would warn those outraged over all this not to be surprised if the charges fell apart like a chief suit upon closer examination.

Cheap suit, surely. ;)

[Arles]

even if the outting a CIA agent charges are hard to get, it should be pretty easy to nail Rove on perjury charges if it's him... you know... those charges "you" tried to impeach Clinton on.
Like I said, I have no problem with going after Rove for perjury - but since he's simply an advisor I don't know of the political impact for this type of an investigation. As to the Clinton comment, I was one of Clinton's biggest defenders while it was going on in the mid-90s. You can check out some of my editorials on the Arizona Daily Wildcat for evidence of that.

Cheap suit, surely. ;)
That's what I get for writing replies at 1 AM ;)

[flere-imsaho]

I don't know if she was working in Langley, but she had been living in DC since 1997....

So, in essence, the CIA felt her cover had already been blown back in 1997 and gave her a desk job. She had "private cover" in Boston, but even the Globe mentioned it was pretty weak and involved an address without the physical company having a presence in the office building....

This certainly doesn't sound like an agent actively involved in covert activities. I would think the CIA would give an actual legitimate business address as a cover to a covert agent who could be in danger. Even Inspector Clueso could figure out something was up when the address for the agent didn't even exist. If that's "deep cover", I think all of our agents are in big trouble.

I think you, and others here, need to step back for a second and take a hard look at all the assumptions you're making about CIA standard operating procedures.

A lot of you seem to be operating from assumptions based in the world of Alias or James Bond, where every criminal & terrorist is a mastermind who can sift through webs of associations to make direct links between people. Is this really realistic?

Given that she's mentioned as potentially compromised due to Aldrich Ames in 1994, maybe the state of her "cover" in the beginning of this decade was deemed acceptable for the remaining former associations she had. The Vanity Fair article also notes that at the time of her outing she was getting ready to go back to a State Department cover which indicates to me, at least, that there was more going on here than meets the eye.

Bottom Line: The basis for the attacks on Plame's "cover" or lack thereof seems to rest on the idea that if she had direct and current contacts with undercover field agents her "cover" was clearly insufficient, thus we must conclude from her "lack of cover" that she in fact had no such connections to jeopardize.

I think that's far too simplistic and full of weak assumptions.

[Arles]

Flere,

I was responding from a legal standpoint. If people are going to file charges against "the leak" then his comments need to have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. And that act is pretty specific on the items needed to have an agent's identity qualify. So, given she was not working abroad at the time (one potential qualifier) and that the CIA did not appear to be "taking affirmative measures to conceal" her identity given the fact she was stationed in Washington and had a very weak alias in Boston makes the case for these type of charges very weak.

Now, I will certainly agree that the leaker and Novak should have used a little more sense and not released her name to the public if there was even a question about her status. But, that does not mean that their actions equate a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

[JonInMiddleGA]

A lot of you seem to be operating from assumptions based in the world of Alias or James Bond, where every criminal & terrorist is a mastermind who can sift through webs of associations to make direct links between people. Is this really realistic?

No matter how often nor how dramatically we disagree, sometimes you say something that actually makes at least a tiny bit of sense ;)

What I'd answer on that point is that, minus any Bond contrivances, that there's still a long history of thorough tracking of those who go in & out of places such as Langley. Now, I'd say that the level of surveillance is lower now than during the Cold War, but that shouldn't be confused with it being non-existent either.

I like seeing that you're thinking about this aspect of the whole situation though, seriously. I just strongly believe that you're underestimating what is/isn't common knowledge inside the global intelligence community (basically the opposite of what you wondered if some others are doing, i.e. overestimating it). It's actually a relatively small universe in some ways.

[flere-imsaho]

I was responding from a legal standpoint.

Ah, gotcha. I wasn't, really. I'm more concerned with the lack of circumspection shown by Novak & "the leaker", as well as the political goal of the action than trying to prove the technicalities of the case either way. By and large this is because I think Peter Fitzgerald will do what he can do vis-a-vis the law which, as you point out, may not be a lot.

[Desnudo]

Sound familiar? Republicans wanted to run Clinton out on a rail for getting a blow job (legal) and lying about it to a grand jury (illegal), but think nothing should happen to someone who who outted a cover officer (illegal) and lied to a grand jury about it (illegal). If that's the case, something is clearly wrong with 51 percent of the country.

I think something is wrong with people who draw generalities from assumptions based on frustration and anger. An attitude like yours makes it difficult to keep an open mind and have a dialogue. Of course something is obviously wrong with me, so take it all with a grain of salt. :p

[flere-imsaho]

What I'd answer on that point is that, minus any Bond contrivances, that there's still a long history of thorough tracking of those who go in & out of places such as Langley. Now, I'd say that the level of surveillance is lower now than during the Cold War, but that shouldn't be confused with it being non-existent either.

A valid point. However, I think you're still neglecting two (at least) things:

1. I can't find any actual evidence that she was physically at Langley outside of what amounts to Washington gossip columns.

2. We have no idea what Plame did for the CIA. I see a lot of people suggesting that, given her "lack of cover" (a subjective measure at best, see above), she couldn't have been tied to anything very important. That's a silly assumption. We have no idea what she did. We have no idea to whom she was connected (if at all). We have no idea to what extent she needed cover. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that her level of cover was deemed sufficient to not arouse suspicion amongst those who may come across her name & her associates.

I like seeing that you're thinking about this aspect of the whole situation though, seriously. I just strongly believe that you're underestimating what is/isn't common knowledge inside the global intelligence community (basically the opposite of what you wondered if some others are doing, i.e. overestimating it). It's actually a relatively small universe in some ways.

You're assuming that the significant actors in her CIA realm were all states and thus members of the global intelligence community. What if her work involved non-state actors? What if her work involved predominantly regional or even local actors?

There are a lot of assumptions floating around, but the bottom line is that Novak & "the leaker" had the opportunity to err on the side of circumspection in an area where the intelligence community was involved, and they decided instead to forgo circumspection in the pursuit of political and, in Novak's case, career expediency.

[JonInMiddleGA]

1. I can't find any actual evidence that she was physically at Langley outside of what amounts to Washington gossip columns.


I'd have to dig around for something beyond that, but it seems to have been a generally accepted stipulation AFAIK. If not, I'll withdraw it.

We have no idea what Plame did for the CIA.

Agreed. But in order for any crime to exist here, it's a must that a need for cover to have existed. And that's the very core of any defense of the mention of her association with the CIA. And as I understand it, the burden of proof of that need lies within the government, not with Novak, Rove, or either of us.

[Bubba Wheels]

I'd personally like to see Bubba Wheels weigh in on this.... Ok not really.

Well, since you insist: Pure partisan politics. How many even remember when Bill and Hillary had all those FBI files on the congressmen? Illegally? And then they 'suddenly' turned up on Hillary's nightstand after a few months of 'looking' for them? And how much did we then hear about that? I think only the 'partisan' news network Fox was even talking about it. Same old, same old. If a Liberal commits a felony they let him or her walk with a slap on the wrist, if its a Conservative committing a misdemenor its suddenly a federal case and all hell breaks loose.

[NoMyths]

Well, since you insist: Pure partisan politics. How many even remember when Bill and Hillary had all those FBI files on the congressmen? Illegally? And then they 'suddenly' turned up on Hillary's nightstand after a few months of 'looking' for them? And how much did we then hear about that? I think only the 'partisan' news network Fox was even talking about it. Same old, same old. If a Liberal commits a felony they let him or her walk with a slap on the wrist, if its a Conservative committing a misdemenor its suddenly a federal case and all hell breaks loose. :eek:

[Chubby]

Well, since you insist: Pure partisan politics. How many even remember when Bill and Hillary had all those FBI files on the congressmen? Illegally? And then they 'suddenly' turned up on Hillary's nightstand after a few months of 'looking' for them? And how much did we then hear about that? I think only the 'partisan' news network Fox was even talking about it. Same old, same old. If a Liberal commits a felony they let him or her walk with a slap on the wrist, if its a Conservative committing a misdemenor its suddenly a federal case and all hell breaks loose.

hahaha uh huh. so impeachment proceedings is a slap on the wrist?

[Bubba Wheels]

hahaha uh huh. so impeachment proceedings is a slap on the wrist?

Yeah, the Senate made sure it was. They could have called witnesses to testify and that would have made it less the sham than it turned out to be. Clinton got lucky by the 'Gentlemen's Club' not wanting to deal with voter fallout and the Senate wanting to sweep the whole thing under the rug.

[Flasch186]

again I stand my point that no one at the White House ahs the right to simply decide someone isn't "under cover" enough thus we can release her name, which only served a political purpose of retaliation AND NOTHING ELSE!! It was not their right and it is a crime, hence the special investigation. If it is Rove that was responsible OR whomever else they deserve to pay the piper for this crime.

"OH, she wasn't THAT under cover." It's not their right to determine that and not under the designation of powers...it cannot be argued.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Well, since you insist: Pure partisan politics. How many even remember when Bill and Hillary had all those FBI files on the congressmen? Illegally? And then they 'suddenly' turned up on Hillary's nightstand after a few months of 'looking' for them? And how much did we then hear about that? I think only the 'partisan' news network Fox was even talking about it. Same old, same old. If a Liberal commits a felony they let him or her walk with a slap on the wrist, if its a Conservative committing a misdemenor its suddenly a federal case and all hell breaks loose.

I'd point out Hillary and Bill were cleared of any wrongdoing in that case, along with the other 5,436 things right wingers think Clinton should be in jail for, but the truth doesn't seem to mean much to ole' Bubba.

[JonInMiddleGA]

again I stand my point that no one at the White House ahs the right to simply decide someone isn't "under cover" enough thus we can release her name, which only served a political purpose of retaliation AND NOTHING ELSE!! It was not their right and it is a crime, hence the special investigation. If it is Rove that was responsible OR whomever else they deserve to pay the piper for this crime.

"OH, she wasn't THAT under cover." It's not their right to determine that and not under the designation of powers...it cannot be argued.

What you're missing here, it appears at least, is that the degree of "cover" is a neccessary component of any "crime" -- no cover, or no cover that was subject to "affirmative measures to conceal" then there's no crime at all.

[Flasch186]

every single report EVER that came form any independent news source as that she was Covert. It doesnt have to be today, it would in essence mean FOREVER since now she could never be covert again. Its not the White house's right to just decide this on a whim because they dont like her husband. Cover was already stated, and has been impressed upon at every corner of this entire story. Rove cannot decide today, since she is writing a report behind a desk, to "out" her. It is treasonous and Im surprised since you're so militant at heart, in regards to intelligence and armed forces that all of a sudden you're ok with this.

Perhaps it falls under your war against the left in this country...that you yourself have outlined as your heart and soul...so I guess IN THAT WAR its ok....but not in real life, there Jon.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... but not in real life, there Jon.
A) That's about as "real" as anything in the world gets Flasch.
and
B) You really need to go read the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

You really seem to be drifting into "how you wish things were" instead of "how things really are".

I'll stipulate that if Rove or anybody else violated it, then they should be prosecuted persuant to the terms of the Act.

What I think is far more likely to occur, however, is that it will be clear to those who are paying attention that no law was violated ... but that the left will once again attempt to rely on volume rather than substance to create a prosecution (or persecution) where none is justified nor can one be sustained.

[Flasch186]

I think most people except those on the fringe would be appalled and shocked, LAW OR NO LAW, that our administration and its "advisors" would "out/blow cover" on ANYONE that works for the government based SOLELY on retaliation. THAT IS SLIMY AS HELL!!

The fact that there is a law wirtten to protect these people is bonus, BUT if you need that law to have some ethics than that is your weakness to begin with.

[ScottVib]

Newsweek's released it and CNN.com has picked it up.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/03/cooper.rove/index.html

[Buccaneer]

I think most people except those on the fringe would be appalled and shocked, LAW OR NO LAW, that our administration and its "advisors" would "out/blow cover" on ANYONE that works for the government based SOLELY on retaliation. THAT IS SLIMY AS HELL!!

The fact that there is a law wirtten to protect these people is bonus, BUT if you need that law to have some ethics than that is your weakness to begin with.
That's funny, not only do you need to read the Act but also read several books on how the federal govt really works (p.s., I think you would be appalled in reading a book like ""Master of the Senate" - LBJ years). You may want things were different but you would be wishing for something that never have been, nor will ever be. I would venture to say that we don't know (or more accurately, don't care to know) 90% of what goes on inside the Beltway and the numerous laws that are broken, gross ethical lapses and the blackmail/back-biting/extortion that goes on every single day. It's no different now than it was 10 years ago, or 40 years ago (and actually a lot better now than it was 100-140 yrs ago) - nor will it be any different 10 or 40 yrs from now. One can always chose to prosecute or censure or something- it's just a matter of blindly throwing a dart and see who it hits.

[panerd]

That's funny, not only do you need to read the Act but also read several books on how the federal govt really works (p.s., I think you would be appalled in reading a book like ""Master of the Senate" - LBJ years). You may want things were different but you would be wishing for something that never have been, nor will ever be. I would venture to say that we don't know (or more accurately, don't care to know) 90% of what goes on inside the Beltway and the numerous laws that are broken, gross ethical lapses and the blackmail/back-biting/extortion that goes on every single day. It's no different now than it was 10 years ago, or 40 years ago (and actually a lot better now than it was 100-140 yrs ago) - nor will it be any different 10 or 40 yrs from now. One can always chose to prosecute or censure or something- it's just a matter of blindly throwing a dart and see who it hits.

Along those same lines is what I find funny also. People talk about how Clinton's blowjob and Bush's speaking skills have ruined the great history of the White House, the political parties are divided worse than they ever have been in the history of the country, Dick Chaney should be charged with murder...
Our fucking first vice president murdered a political opponenet in a duel! Our country was involved in a civil war! (The Republican/Democrat name calling is the worst point in history? Worse than a civil war?) Slaves.

Face it, the past is not nearly as pretty as any of us ever remember. So everyone needs to quit talking about a return to those values. They aren't really there.

[Dutch]

I agree. Senators/Politicians/Beltway Boys are basically proffessional cock-blockers nowadays, but at least they aren't talking about civil war every 15-minutes like they did in the 1850's and 1860's (and finally had to have one to get everybody to shut up about it).

[Arles]

Newsweek's released it and CNN.com has picked it up.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/03/cooper.rove/index.html

Newsweek magazine is reporting that e-mails between Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and his editors show that Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, spoke to Cooper in the days before a CIA operative's identity was revealed in the media, but it wasn't clear what Cooper and Rove discussed.

:confused: Wondering what exactly the story is here? So, Rove talked with a Time reporter before the Plame identity was revealed... but it wasn't clear what they discussed.

This is looking more and more like "much ado about nothing". Not it only is it extremely doubtful that leaker violated any CIA identity laws, but now it seems that we are no closer in finding the source of the leak.

What I think is far more likely to occur, however, is that it will be clear to those who are paying attention that no law was violated ... but that the left will once again attempt to rely on volume rather than substance to create a prosecution (or persecution) where none is justified nor can one be sustained.
This is easily the best post in the thread. Sums up my opinions on this issue to a tee.

[sterlingice]

I agree. Senators/Politicians/Beltway Boys are basically proffessional cock-blockers nowadays, but at least they aren't talking about civil war every 15-minutes like they did in the 1850's and 1860's (and finally had to have one to get everybody to shut up about it).
Is this really a good standard to hold ourselves to? "Well, we aren't starting a civil war so things must be good"

SI

[MrBigglesworth]

This thread begs the question: what will the Bush apologists get outraged by? Karl Rove and others in the White House exposed an undercover CIA agent in order to cover up their lies about Iraq. 'It's just politics!' 'Just those crazy liberals blowing up charges!' 'He's only an advisor.' Whatever. At least the American people are finally paying attention.

[MrBigglesworth]

What I think is far more likely to occur, however, is that it will be clear to those who are paying attention that no law was violated ... but that the left will once again attempt to rely on volume rather than substance to create a prosecution (or persecution) where none is justified nor can one be sustained.
Thou shall not bear false witness.
Jon, shouldn't you be outraged? Does politics trump religion?

[MrBigglesworth]

This is looking more and more like "much ado about nothing". Not it only is it extremely doubtful that leaker violated any CIA identity laws, but now it seems that we are no closer in finding the source of the leak.

hxxp://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/featuredposts.html#a003556
Rove Blew CIA Agent's Cover

I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.

McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis.

Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow.

[Arles]

Lawrence O'Donnell isn't exactly the best source given his numerous partisan meltdowns over the past 2 years. Plus, it appears the newsweek story does NOT say "It's Rove!" based on the CNN story posted by Scott above.

But, let's say Looney Lawrence is right and the article names Rove. Then, if the information provided the Grand Jury shows that Rove was the leak, his actions will need to be investigated.

But, again, I still fail to see how the facts as they have been presented to this point show a violation of the "Intelligence Identities Protection Act" - which is what counts here. The issue has been skirted around by everyone from CNN to the NY Times to the Washington Post to even Fox News. Now, I don't necessarily agree with Novak and the leaker making this type of a statement about a CIA agent, but that doesn't make it illegal.

[Barkeep49]

While I am not a fan generally of Arles analysis, I happen to agree here. I know that DOJ guidelines say that reporters aren't supposed to be pressured to compromise sources unless there is a good case to be made, but frankly I think this is much ado about nothing.

[MrBigglesworth]

But, again, I still fail to see how the facts as they have been presented to this point show a violation of the "Intelligence Identities Protection Act" - which is what counts here. The issue has been skirted around by everyone from CNN to the NY Times to the Washington Post to even Fox News...
You also don't see CNN, the NYT, Fox News, or the Washington Post discussing how the Earth is round. Maybe the issue is so obvious that it doesn't merit discussion?

[SelzShoes]

He Could Be Right! On election night, when Democrats started to worry that the exit polls indicating a Kerry victory might not hold up, someone at a party I attended called up Lawrence O'Donnell for reassurance. Don't worry, we were told--O'Donnell says it's all under control because Kerry will win the key swing states! That's when I knew Bush had been reelected. ... O'Donnell is a brilliant pundit because he picks a clear, intriguing, contrarian position and sticks to it. But he's almost always wrong. Which is why I'll believe his report that "Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source"--headlined "Rove Blew CIA Agent's Cover"--when it's confirmed elsewhere. ... Which it pointedly isn't, quite, in Newsweek. ... 5:00 P.M.

While I'd love Karl Rove to be implicated in this, I think what we have is some wishful thinking.

[Arles]

You also don't see CNN, the NYT, Fox News, or the Washington Post discussing how the Earth is round. Maybe the issue is so obvious that it doesn't merit discussion?
I would think if people were going to cover a story on the seriousness of the leaker's actions, atleast one would bother to mention how it clearly violated Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Yet, to this point, no one has.

[Flasch186]

:confused: Wondering what exactly the story is here? So, Rove talked with a Time reporter before the Plame identity was revealed... but it wasn't clear what they discussed.

This is looking more and more like "much ado about nothing". Not it only is it extremely doubtful that leaker violated any CIA identity laws, but now it seems that we are no closer in finding the source of the leak.


This is easily the best post in the thread. Sums up my opinions on this issue to a tee.


and once again Arles falls on the "If Rove doesn't write something admitting to it, it isn't true?" camp. Unreal, what the ehll do you think they were talking about Arles? Where to go get sushi!! Unreal, you do this on EVERY single topic. If you add them all up you still get nothing!? Unbelievable, how much stuff do you have to have!! Ill tell you what...since it's the way you think anyways, 6 years from now when everything comes out, WRITTEN by people other than the horse themself, and the entire world believes its true....you can still go on thinking we didnt walk on the moon.


Arles, for our gov't. to retaliate against a dissenter is undemocratic. doncha think? That is the reason she was outed....sounds a lot like Castro to me. Whoeever released her name commited a crime, obviously, but I love how you are digging for a loophole...for shame.



and to respond back to the people speaking on lack of morals...I say:

That is not okay. Just because people have been slimy in the past should not give carte blanche so that we accept it now. Every 4 years while voting people always say, "It doesnt matter who I vote for, theyre all crooks anyways." Inferring that things should be different....but now youre saying thats just the way it is, so it's ok.

[Flasch186]

Act:

(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
not more than $50,000 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
not more than $25,000 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 not more
than $15,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

[Flasch186]

welp, seems pretty easy to me, pick one, she had the access, the CIA said she was covert, and someone "disclosed any info. id'ing her"....

even on (c) whomever spoke to the reporter couldve worked the old fumblerooski and been guilty, "There's a girl, she works 8-430 on the 5th floor at cubicle 19. She also happens to be involved in communications with Al Qaeda operatives in the wabash region. Perhaps it would be interesting if you did some research to find out who she is." thats a illegal action too but, Arles, that horse didn't say much either so I guess it didnt happen....maybe I should use the your daughter example again, since you wont believe something until it Comes from the actual person who did it....so many criminals running around free in your world, Id venture to guess. A child molester denies it and only the child is there to accuse, welp, sorry son guy is going free eventhough 13 other children claim something too....darn now if only one of you kids would video tape it while it were happening (didnt work with arles when Rumsfeld got caught lying on mett the press).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Jon, shouldn't you be outraged? Does politics trump religion?

Umm ... I'm confused with your post, for several reasons.
1) I'm not a big politics & religion guy. That's more BW's gig than mine.

2) The most obvious bit of "false witness" I've seen related to this case are those who insist that a law has been broken when it seems pretty clear to this point that none has been.

3) What have you got right now? A story from some member of the Loony Left claiming Rove said x,y, and/or z? And I'm supposed to get bent about that? Sorry Biggles, but it's going to take more than that for me to get even perturbed, much less "outraged". So far, this doesn't even merit a sneeze, much less an explosion.

[Bubba Wheels]

I'd point out Hillary and Bill were cleared of any wrongdoing in that case, along with the other 5,436 things right wingers think Clinton should be in jail for, but the truth doesn't seem to mean much to ole' Bubba.

Right, and your the same kind of guy that then turns around 180-style and calls Bush a liar for getting us into the Iraq War even though all evidence has proven that the intelligence from numerous countries including the U.S. showed WMD's did exist. Bush was cleared from this, you ever state that one? You just prove my point once again.

Note: Here's the reason you liberals are taking it on the chin so much these days and going down with the ship...you still haven't figured out that the American people are on to you and your methods. By that I mean that for years liberals got away with having a double-standard, one for them and one for conservatives.

But like it or not that has been exposed so now when the typical liberal commentator/news reporter/professor, ect..., trots out the next in the never-ending line of charges against conservatives they really just throw another stone inside of their own glass house and the rest of America sees that.

[Flasch186]

2) The most obvious bit of "false witness" I've seen related to this case are those who insist that a law has been broken when it seems pretty clear to this point that none has been.




someone broke the law now we ALL should be working hard to find out who it was....whats funny is in the original thread on this both the right and left agreed that the person should be punished but now that it might be Rove the Right is squirming...halarious. Shall I pull out some posts again from other threads?

[JonInMiddleGA]

welp, seems pretty easy to me, pick one, she had the access, the CIA said she was covert, and someone "disclosed any info. id'ing her"....

from sections A & B
... and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States

from section C
... and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States

The key word in each of those is the "and".

[Flasch186]

Right, and your the same kind of guy that then turns around 180-style and calls Bush a liar for getting us into the Iraq War even though all evidence has proven that the intelligence from numerous countries including the U.S. showed WMD's did exist. Bush was cleared from this, you ever state that one? You just prove my point once again.

Note: Here's the reason you liberals are taking it on the chin so much these days and going down with the ship...you still haven't figured out that the American people are on to you and your methods. By that I mean that for years liberals got away with having a double-standard, one for them and one for conservatives.

But like it or not that has been exposed so now when the typical liberal commentator/news reporter/professor, ect..., trots out the next in the never-ending line of charges against conservatives they really just throw another stone inside of their own glass house and the rest of America sees that.


LOL, Double standards!!! HAHAHAHA, youre bubba wheels right!? hahahaha, how's that freedom of religion thing coming and seperation of church and state. Double standards!!1hahahah

[Flasch186]

from sections A & B
... and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States

from section C
... and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States

The key word in each of those is the "and".


...and a blowjob isn't sex.

The CIA called her COVERT, that could be on the phone, it could be in the mail, it could simply be a ddossier. It doesnt have to be James Bond. The CIA used the term to call her covert, that is open and shut.

and its tough to take affirmative actioons to protect her identity when someone close to the cuff is telling reporters stuff to what!? not report!?

[JonInMiddleGA]

someone broke the law now we ALL should be working hard to find out who it was....whats funny is in the original thread on this both the right and left agreed that the person should be punished but now that it might be Rove the Right is squirming...halarious. Shall I pull out some posts again from other threads?

Damn Flasch, are you being obtuse on purpose, or are you just not following what you read?

Insisting that "someone broke the law" on this one is like the old McCarthy example of "say something wrong long enough & loud enough & people will believe it". What's next, going to convince the world that Rove was a member of HUAC?

[Flasch186]

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
not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

[Bubba Wheels]

someone broke the law now we ALL should be working hard to find out who it was....whats funny is in the original thread on this both the right and left agreed that the person should be punished but now that it might be Rove the Right is squirming...halarious. Shall I pull out some posts again from other threads?

So by your own logic, should Ted Kennedy by investigated for murder? After all, there is no statute of limitations on murder, and the whole Chappiquiddic thing has never been investigated as one. So, since the law is paramount you have no problem with this?

After that, we can get a new investigation and criminal charges into Clinton's alleged rape of Juanita Broderick. You with us on that one, too?

[Arles]

and once again Arles falls on the "If Rove doesn't write something admitting to it, it isn't true?" camp. Unreal, what the ehll do you think they were talking about Arles? Where to go get sushi!! Unreal, you do this on EVERY single topic. If you add them all up you still get nothing!? Unbelievable, how much stuff do you have to have!!
Rove is a presidential advisor. He talks to media people on a daily basis. So, the fact that he happened to talk to a Washington-based Time Magazine reporter before the story was released doesn't mean a whole lot on its own. Your acting like this is the first time Rove ever talked with this reporter and the only possible subject could be outing this CIA agent.

Arles, for our gov't. to retaliate against a dissenter is undemocratic. doncha think? That is the reason she was outed....sounds a lot like Castro to me.
Come on, Flasch. Take a look back at all the people involved with Bill's "sex scandles" and "Whitewater" and see how many just happened to be audited in the mid to late 90s. Check out Bush I's sandbagging of some ex-military people that tried to sabotage Desert Storm I. And both Reagan and Carter had numerous "questionable activities" involving making life very difficult for political opponents. You are being extremely nieve here. And, let's not forget, even Novak has stated the person that did the leaking asked him twice not to mention Plame's name. Novak could have very well mentioned Plame as a "government worker" instead of CIA agent and avoided this entire debacle.

Whoeever released her name commited a crime, obviously
This is not obvious. Again, if you read the actual law on this issue, there's a very good chance no crime was committed. No one has been able to show "the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States". Given her sloppy "cover job" in Boston, it seems a reach to make that claim. Plus, given she was not involved in any foreign missions at the time that used her cover, it's hard to state the outing of Plame "would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activitiesof the United States". Just the CIA stating she was classified as a "covert agent" is not enough for a violation of the act - otherwise the act would have simply stated "an agent classified as covert" and left it at that.

That is not okay. Just because people have been slimy in the past should not give carte blanche so that we accept it now. Every 4 years while voting people always say, "It doesnt matter who I vote for, theyre all crooks anyways." Inferring that things should be different....but now youre saying thats just the way it is, so it's ok.
Flasch, I appreciate the way you view the world in the way you "wish" it would be. It's a very romantic take on life - and I agree that it would be nice if everyone would act with the utmost morality on every issue. But this is the real world and there's a lot of slimy people on both sides and to act "shocked and appauled" at every discretion that occurs is going to give you nothing but high blood pressure. If it can be shown that the leaker broke the law and he can be identified - then he should be punished accordingly. But if he isn't, I'm not going to lose any sleep over the fact that some operative (who's probably done much worse than this in the past) didn't get thrown in jail for playing politics - even if the morality on it was questionable.

[Flasch186]

Damn Flasch, are you being obtuse on purpose, or are you just not following what you read?

Insisting that "someone broke the law" on this one is like the old McCarthy example of "say something wrong long enough & loud enough & people will believe it". What's next, going to convince the world that Rove was a member of HUAC?

to me this is obvious. Most on the right agreed 6 months ago, I would like to know why the change? Why are they now wiggling into "She was behind a desk" camps eventhough thats not applicable. To me this is a straightforward case of someone broke the law and should be punished, regardless of camp. When that Clinton Cronie took those papers I felt that he should be punished too....

I guess it upsets me that, unlike what BW says, Im an equal opportunity punisher. I dont even know the party for that rep. out in Cal. in all that trouble but whichever shouldnt matter. Do something wrong...get punished.

[Flasch186]

So by your own logic, should Ted Kennedy by investigated for murder? After all, there is no statute of limitations on murder, and the whole Chappiquiddic thing has never been investigated as one. So, since the law is paramount you have no problem with this?

After that, we can get a new investigation and criminal charges into Clinton's alleged rape of Juanita Broderick. You with us on that one, too?

yes, now list some republican scandals and we'll be getting closer to agreeing on stuff.

Ill help Bush's ties to the Bin Laden's in Saudi Arabia....His ties to the Taliban when he needed some land they controlled...

maybe Im being too broad there but Im sure you know some republican scandals too since you even handed right? list some.

[JonInMiddleGA]

C'mon Flasch, I know you're smarter than this -- the word "and" in a legal sense is what is sometimes referred to as a "restricting word", meaning that more than one condition has to be met in order for a violation to occur. (There's another/better phrase used to describe this but I haven't had enough coffee yet to remember what it is. One of our legal eagles will be along at some point to fill in the blank I'm sure).

The disclosure alone isn't a violation without the presence of "affirmative measures to conceal".

[Flasch186]

The disclosure alone isn't a violation without the presence of "affirmative measures to conceal".


how can you say there wasn't when the CIA called her "Covert".....what do you think that means? She wasn't getting people coffee :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Flasch, I believe you're grossly underestimating how things work in the world of covert operations. No, it isn't like Bond, but it isn't quite as simple as you're trying to make it either. For once, trust me on something, I do understand this subject a little better than you're giving me credit for. I could explain that cryptic comment ... but then you know what I'd have to do next ;)

[Flasch186]

:)

...but then since it doesnt have to be as extreme as bond to be considered covert, then its even more likely that she was and easier to commit crime when exposing her....it simply couldve been the CIA designating her as covert...thats where the responsibility lies NOT in the white house when determining this.

[Bubba Wheels]

yes, now list some republican scandals and we'll be getting closer to agreeing on stuff.

Ill help Bush's ties to the Bin Laden's in Saudi Arabia....His ties to the Taliban when he needed some land they controlled...

maybe Im being too broad there but Im sure you know some republican scandals too since you even handed right? list some.

You mean like Trent Lott's comments at Strom Thurmond's birthday party?

Or Newt Gingrich's 'ethical lapse' in taking the book money?

Or Richard Nixon's resigning before being impeached to spare the country from the ordeal? (Nixon wasn't conservative, but his being GOP was enough for some.)

Sorry, my point still stands. Republicans do something 'questionable' and get screwed to the wall for it, or in Nixon's case resign before things become a spectacle and get out of hand.

Nixon in particular, one of the most reviled figures in American political history. Compare his conduct after Watergate to what Clinton put the country through by insisting on fighting his impeachment.

Nixon again, after getting cheated out of the 1960 Presidential elections was originally going to contest the outcome (LBJ and Daily conspired to steal Illinois and Texas for JFK/LBJ along with mob help in West Virginia) but was told not to because it would set off a whole round of recounts and expose rampant voter fraud in other areas, some admittedly helping Republicans.

Compare his conduct to that of Gore, who wanted not only a recount in Florida but wanted the rules changed after the election to count only those counties in Florida Gore thought he might have won. Florida election law clearly stated that a recount must involve ALL counties, and the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the Florida Democratic Supreme Court from allowing this rule change after the fact. Every recount since has also shown Bush the clear winner in vote totals but this makes no difference to the left.

[Buccaneer]

Along those same lines is what I find funny also. People talk about how Clinton's blowjob and Bush's speaking skills have ruined the great history of the White House, the political parties are divided worse than they ever have been in the history of the country, Dick Chaney should be charged with murder...
Our fucking first vice president murdered a political opponenet in a duel! Our country was involved in a civil war! (The Republican/Democrat name calling is the worst point in history? Worse than a civil war?) Slaves.

Face it, the past is not nearly as pretty as any of us ever remember. So everyone needs to quit talking about a return to those values. They aren't really there.
Absolutely! I had been doing some reading on the Andrew Johnson years and I would suspect many would be shocked as to how far from a representative Congress we had, esp. when one person (Thad Stevens) had more power than any single person in the US (including the President). Also, I get a kick out of those recently bringing up the 14th Amendment as if it was some holy writ. If they only knew as to how incredibly and mind-boggling dirty, corrupt and illegal that whole business was!

I guess the ends do justify the means, which is why I don't get riled about ANY details of inter-governmental actions - just a general contempt on the power they increasingly harbor.

[Flasch186]

You mean like Trent Lott's comments at Strom Thurmond's birthday party?

Or Newt Gingrich's 'ethical lapse' in taking the book money?

Or Richard Nixon's resigning before being impeached to spare the country from the ordeal? (Nixon wasn't conservative, but his being GOP was enough for some.)

Sorry, my point still stands. Republicans do something 'questionable' and get screwed to the wall for it, or in Nixon's case resign before things become a spectacle and get out of hand.

Nixon in particular, one of the most reviled figures in American political history. Compare his conduct after Watergate to what Clinton put the country through by insisting on fighting his impeachment.

Nixon again, after getting cheated out of the 1960 Presidential elections was originally going to contest the outcome (LBJ and Daily conspired to steal Illinois and Texas for JFK/LBJ along with mob help in West Virginia) but was told not to because it would set off a whole round of recounts and expose rampant voter fraud in other areas, some admittedly helping Republicans.

Compare his conduct to that of Gore, who wanted not only a recount in Florida but wanted the rules changed after the election to count only those counties in Florida Gore thought he might have won. Florida election law clearly stated that a recount must involve ALL counties, and the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the Florida Democratic Supreme Court from allowing this rule change after the fact. Every recount since has also shown Bush the clear winner in vote totals but this makes no difference to the left.


Well I grossly disagree and feel that no matter who is in office the opposition tries to attack them, for many many different reasons that span a wide spectrum from job displacement to spectacle. Clinton's crap started over something that was not a crime...go figure that that is the example made. Im sure you'll jump to the perjury stuff, but that only came about as a result of a BJ. Both sides do scandalous stuff and neitrher side should be let off for it...including this time.

[Buccaneer]

Nixon again, after getting cheated out of the 1960 Presidential elections was originally going to contest the outcome (LBJ and Daily conspired to steal Illinois and Texas for JFK/LBJ along with mob help in West Virginia)
Close but not quite. The 1960 election, by the way, makes the 2000 seems non-controversal - except that much of its corruptness was behind the scenes and not played in the press.

In 1960, both JFK and Nixon were in the mob's pocket and there was an internal battle as to who to "support". JFK got the support because of the deal with Joe Kennedy to ease up (or call off) the pressure from DoJ on the mob hearings and trials. The mob absolutely got West Virginia in JFK's column and then Illinois become the deciding state. It was through Giancanna's "influence" with the County Board of Electors (with support from Daly) that "found" the 75,000 votes (I believe that was the number) enough to get JFK the electoral votes from Illinois. I don't think LBJ had much role in this, just like in Nov 1963 after 2 1/2 years of Joe Kennedy welshing on the deal that brought his son to power.

[Flasch186]

You mean like Trent Lott's comments at Strom Thurmond's birthday party?

Or Newt Gingrich's 'ethical lapse' in taking the book money?

Or Richard Nixon's resigning before being impeached to spare the country from the ordeal? (Nixon wasn't conservative, but his being GOP was enough for some.)

Sorry, my point still stands. Republicans do something 'questionable' and get screwed to the wall for it, or in Nixon's case resign before things become a spectacle and get out of hand.

Nixon in particular, one of the most reviled figures in American political history. Compare his conduct after Watergate to what Clinton put the country through by insisting on fighting his impeachment.

Nixon again, after getting cheated out of the 1960 Presidential elections was originally going to contest the outcome (LBJ and Daily conspired to steal Illinois and Texas for JFK/LBJ along with mob help in West Virginia) but was told not to because it would set off a whole round of recounts and expose rampant voter fraud in other areas, some admittedly helping Republicans.

Compare his conduct to that of Gore, who wanted not only a recount in Florida but wanted the rules changed after the election to count only those counties in Florida Gore thought he might have won. Florida election law clearly stated that a recount must involve ALL counties, and the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the Florida Democratic Supreme Court from allowing this rule change after the fact. Every recount since has also shown Bush the clear winner in vote totals but this makes no difference to the left.

well we can open a can of worms here like Katherine HArris allowing absentee votes from military personnell that was expired beyond the deadline for post marking...so depending on what's important to you, you can find your ammo all over the florida election. Its a shame it ended up in Florida too cuz almost every tate has the errs in the voting, the way its done today.

[JPhillips]

Nixon in particular, one of the most reviled figures in American political history. Compare his conduct after Watergate to what Clinton put the country through by insisting on fighting his impeachment.

Please read some of the tape transcripts of the Nixon White House. Nixon didn't resign because he wanted to save the country from the ordeal as you suggest. He only resigned when it became clear that Republicans would overwhelmingly vote for impeachment and removal from office because Nixon's crimes were so clear. He fought tooth and nail against impeachement and only threw in the towel when there was no chance of winning.

[Flasch186]

isnt it funny how BW's history lessons always turn out to be somewhat off or slanted....but I guarantee he will ignore the retorts...he always does.

[larrymcg421]

Compare his conduct to that of Gore, who wanted not only a recount in Florida but wanted the rules changed after the election to count only those counties in Florida Gore thought he might have won. Florida election law clearly stated that a recount must involve ALL counties, and the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the Florida Democratic Supreme Court from allowing this rule change after the fact. Every recount since has also shown Bush the clear winner in vote totals but this makes no difference to the left.
I wouldn't expect you to know or understand the facts. He did not want any rules changed. The automatic recount is triggered for every county, but after that the recounts must be requested on a county by county basis. The fact is, they WERE doing recounts on a county by county basis, so he wasn't changing the rules, he was simply using them to his advantage.

[JPhillips]

And Bubba you also got the Florida recount law wrong. There was a statewide recount and also a hand recount in some counties, but that hand recount was in accordance with Florida law at the time.

Due to the narrow margin of the original vote count, Florida law mandated a statewide recount. In addition, the Gore campaign requested that the votes in three counties be recounted by hand. Florida state law (F.S. Ch. 102.166) at the time allowed the candidate to request a manual recount by protesting the results of at least three precincts. The county canvassing board then decides whether or not to recount (F.S. Ch. 102.166 Part 4) as well as the method of the recount in those three precincts. If the board discovers an error, they are then authorized to recount the ballots (F.S. Ch. 102.166 Part 5). The canvassing board did not discover any errors in the tabulation process in the initial mandated recount. The Bush campaign sued to prevent additional recounts on the basis that no errors were found in the tabulation method until subjective measures were applied in manual recounts. This case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 to stop the vote count, which allowed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to certify the election results. This allowed Florida's electoral votes to be cast for Bush, making him the winner. Seven of the nine Justices agreed that the lack of unified standards in counting votes violated the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection, but five agreed that there was insufficient time to impose a unified standard and that the recounts should therefore be stopped.

[Flasch186]

Where is Bubba when he gets shot down!! MIA

[JPhillips]

And one last kick to Bubba's sack.

Look up these Dems and find out how their ethical lapses/scandals got ignored.

Rostenkowski, Wright, Espy, Cisneros, McGreevey, Durbin, Clinton, Gore, Brown, Davis.

You are either shockingly misinformed or willingly blinded by your hatred.

[Barkeep49]

Sorry to go off topic, but here's a collection of quotes from Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin. They further my belief that there is, sadly, nothing to this story:

* Luskin told the LA Times, "The folks in Fitzgerald's office have asked us not to talk about what Karl has had to say" — Really? Because that doesn't sound quite right. As MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell noted, "Prosecutors have absolutely no control over what witnesses say when they leave the grand jury room. Rove can tell us word-for-word what he said to the grand jury and would if he thought it would help him."

* Luskin said Rove had been assured by prosecutors that he is not a target of the investigation — That may or may not be true, but it hardly seems significant. I've never worked in the criminal justice system, but it doesn't seem like a stretch to me that maybe, just maybe, prosecutors wouldn't actually tell a target that he's a target.

* Luskin told the LAT, "It is certainly my understanding that Karl has testified absolutely truthfully about all his conversations about everybody that he has been asked about during that week" — The interesting thing about that quote is the first five words. It's Luskin's "understanding" that Rove is the salt of the earth, but Luskin wasn't actually in the room when Rove testified before the grand jury. Luskin, in other words, doesn't actually know anything beyond what Rove has told him.

* Luskin told Newsweek that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information." — That's not a terribly persuasive defense. The law makes it a crime to deliberately reveal the identity of an undercover CIA agent, as Plame was, but Luskin's comment to Newsweek emphasizes "knowingly." It might make it tough to prosecute Rove on an Intelligence Identities Protection Act violation, but if they're pursuing a perjury charge, this defense won't help.

* On a related note, Luskin has told reporters Rove never "identified" Plame. But as Digby noted in an excellent post, even this is open to some interpretation. "Did he not identify her by name? Or did he not identify her as a CIA operative? In other words, did Karl Rove call up Matt Cooper and say, 'Joe Wilson's wife is a CIA operative and she got him the job,' which technically means that he didn't "identify" her, but he sure put old Matt on the trail."

[Arles]

Sheesh - that post by barkeep is quite amusing. Here's a summary:

"Well, it looks like we might not be able to pin Rove as the leaker, and even if we could it seems that his comments didn't violate the IIPA. So, I wonder if we can get him for perjury. I mean, even if he didn't 'identify' Plame by name, maybe the tone of his voice and time of day he called helped Cooper determine that Plame was a CIA agent. That should be enough for perjury, right?"

[Flasch186]

Sorry to go off topic, but here's a collection of quotes from Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin. They further my belief that there is, sadly, nothing to this story:

* Luskin told the LA Times, "The folks in Fitzgerald's office have asked us not to talk about what Karl has had to say" — Really? Because that doesn't sound quite right. As MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell noted, "Prosecutors have absolutely no control over what witnesses say when they leave the grand jury room. Rove can tell us word-for-word what he said to the grand jury and would if he thought it would help him."

* Luskin said Rove had been assured by prosecutors that he is not a target of the investigation — That may or may not be true, but it hardly seems significant. I've never worked in the criminal justice system, but it doesn't seem like a stretch to me that maybe, just maybe, prosecutors wouldn't actually tell a target that he's a target.

* Luskin told the LAT, "It is certainly my understanding that Karl has testified absolutely truthfully about all his conversations about everybody that he has been asked about during that week" — The interesting thing about that quote is the first five words. It's Luskin's "understanding" that Rove is the salt of the earth, but Luskin wasn't actually in the room when Rove testified before the grand jury. Luskin, in other words, doesn't actually know anything beyond what Rove has told him.

* Luskin told Newsweek that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information." — That's not a terribly persuasive defense. The law makes it a crime to deliberately reveal the identity of an undercover CIA agent, as Plame was, but Luskin's comment to Newsweek emphasizes "knowingly." It might make it tough to prosecute Rove on an Intelligence Identities Protection Act violation, but if they're pursuing a perjury charge, this defense won't help.

* On a related note, Luskin has told reporters Rove never "identified" Plame. But as Digby noted in an excellent post, even this is open to some interpretation. "Did he not identify her by name? Or did he not identify her as a CIA operative? In other words, did Karl Rove call up Matt Cooper and say, 'Joe Wilson's wife is a CIA operative and she got him the job,' which technically means that he didn't "identify" her, but he sure put old Matt on the trail."


as opposed to his anti-lawyer who says, "yeah he did it." again, to quote Arles, I think I'll wait for an unbiased source, thanks.

[Barkeep49]

as opposed to his anti-lawyer who says, "yeah he did it." again, to quote Arles, I think I'll wait for an unbiased source, thanks.
Well there are denials and then there are denials. There is enough specifics here that that if he did something his lawyer will have walked the line of "depends what the meaning of is is"

[clintl]

Nixon's case resign before things become a spectacle and get out of hand.


You weren't around at the time, were you? By the time Nixon resigned, Watergate had been a spectacle for at least a year and a half.

[Glengoyne]

from Glengoyne on 9/30/2003:




this should tell you how you stood.
My position stands the same. IF Rove actually "outed" her, meaning that the fact that she worked for the CIA wasn't common knowledge, then he should be punished. If it was widely known then there really was no harm done. I'm hoping the facts come out to bring this more clearly to light.

[flere-imsaho]

My position stands the same. IF Rove actually "outed" her, meaning that the fact that she worked for the CIA wasn't common knowledge, then he should be punished. If it was widely known then there really was no harm done. I'm hoping the facts come out to bring this more clearly to light.

Are you, however, completely OK with the practice of attempting to undermine one's credibility by making accusations regarding the profession of one's wife?

[Flasch186]

Are you, however, completely OK with the practice of attempting to undermine one's credibility by making accusations regarding the profession of one's wife?


certinaly the motivation behind it is shameful but I repsect Glen's answer...as opposed to Jim's or Arles, who seem on one hand to allow anything that attacks anyone non-republican and on the other hand refuses to acknowledge any disparraging evidence if it didn't come from an administration official.

[Bubba Wheels]

well we can open a can of worms here like Katherine HArris allowing absentee votes from military personnell that was expired beyond the deadline for post marking...so depending on what's important to you, you can find your ammo all over the florida election. Its a shame it ended up in Florida too cuz almost every tate has the errs in the voting, the way its done today.

Glad you brought this one up. More partisan politics by the democrats. Military personel aboard ship and some others on military installations overseas followed procedure with their absentee ballots and they were forwarded to the proper polling places.

Democrats then found a technicallity that the absentee ballots had to have 'proper postmarking,' in effect nullifying servicemen's ballots aboard ship and overseas because those ballots were not sent thru the regular post office. All the hypocritical howling from the democrats about others being denied the 'right to vote' like felons and they themselves attempted to deny voting to active service men and women because of the postal procedure.

All Harris did was the same that all before her did without comment, allowed the military votes to count. Wasn't an issue before because the absentee votes were not enough to influence to election.

[Flasch186]

Glad you brought this one up. More partisan politics by the democrats. Military personel aboard ship and some others on military installations overseas followed procedure with their absentee ballots and they were forwarded to the proper polling places.

Democrats then found a technicallity that the absentee ballots had to have 'proper postmarking,' in effect nullifying servicemen's ballots aboard ship and overseas because those ballots were not sent thru the regular post office. All the hypocritical howling from the democrats about others being denied the 'right to vote' like felons and they themselves attempted to deny voting to active service men and women because of the postal procedure.

All Harris did was the same that all before her did without comment, allowed the military votes to count. Wasn't an issue before because the absentee votes were not enough to influence to election.

BTW, California just up and threw out millions of absentee ballots because they were 'too hard to count' and deemed as not enough to influence the election results in that state.


BW, Im done with you. You ignored everyone else pointdly showing you how wrong you are and jump in to snipe with inaccurate garbage that you only vomit out in order to try and get people to buy in. At least some of the people on the right have minds to think for themselves and some of them even leave the door open that people might've done wrong. But you, simply regurgitate inaccuracies all over the place and then when corrected you ignore those points and continue on your path of darkness.

[Bubba Wheels]

BW, Im done with you. You ignored everyone else pointdly showing you how wrong you are and jump in to snipe with inaccurate garbage that you only vomit out in order to try and get people to buy in. At least some of the people on the right have minds to think for themselves and some of them even leave the door open that people might've done wrong. But you, simply regurgitate inaccuracies all over the place and then when corrected you ignore those points and continue on your path of darkness.

Well, if you need to create an issue to 'save face' and run for cover go right ahead. You're the only one not seeing these things as partisan politics. Everybody just brings in different facts and phrases it differently.

As for Buccaneer's correction on the JFK/Nixon election, he basically affirmed what I said was right with a couple of minor corrections I am more than willing to conceed to him because he sounds like he has studied the subject.

So what we really have here is you completely losing your argument and then attempting to blow up some minor points to make them sound like major corrections. Good luck putting that one over your other critics.

[Glengoyne]

Are you, however, completely OK with the practice of attempting to undermine one's credibility by making accusations regarding the profession of one's wife?
Well no, I'm not. IF this "outing" was done in a malicious manner, Rove, or whoever, should be dealt with harshly. IF pretty much anyone who knew anything in Washington knew she worked for the CIA, and Rove(or whoever) noted that while connecting the dots to a reporter, then nothing much has happened here. The maliciousness of this act is just as much in question as the seriousness of it.

[Flasch186]

Well, if you need to create an issue to 'save face' and run for cover go right ahead. You're the only one not seeing these things as partisan politics. Everybody just brings in different facts and phrases it differently.

As for Buccaneer's correction on the JFK/Nixon election, he basically affirmed what I said was right with a couple of minor corrections I am more than willing to conceed to him because he sounds like he has studied the subject.

So what we really have here is you completely losing your argument and then attempting to blow up some minor points to make them sound like major corrections. Good luck putting that one over your other critics.

Pot meet kettle...It has more to do with the fact that Im watching movies. If you havnt learned yet, while you are stuck in your ignorant, blinded, fanatical thoughts I am still here, consistent in my ways AND willing to listen to all, including those I disagree with, learn from corrections and agree with the opposition sometimes. I am open minded, try to respond to everyone and debate.

you snipe, and ignore corrections...it is your modus operandi and everyone, including your religious right wing mates think your a fool.

this may be the most abrasive Ive been but Im tired tonight and youre partisanship and most importantly, most importantly, the falsehoods you vomit out and then refuse to retract or correct have worn thin....tonight. Maybe tomrrow Ill be better at dealing with them, as Im sure you'll continue your unenlightened ways, as usual. Luckily most people here are educated enough to see through your lies, innuendo, and spin.

[Flasch186]

Well no, I'm not. IF this "outing" was done in a malicious manner, Rove, or whoever, should be dealt with harshly. IF pretty much anyone who knew anything in Washington knew she worked for the CIA, and Rove(or whoever) noted that while connecting the dots to a reporter, then nothing much has happened here. The maliciousness of this act is just as much in question as the seriousness of it.


I respect this of you a great deal....except for allowing the WH to determine what or whom can be "outed". Thats the CIA's job, not the WH's.

[MrBigglesworth]

Sorry to go off topic, but here's a collection of quotes from Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin. They further my belief that there is, sadly, nothing to this story:

* Luskin told the LA Times, "The folks in Fitzgerald's office have asked us not to talk about what Karl has had to say" — Really? Because that doesn't sound quite right. As MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell noted, "Prosecutors have absolutely no control over what witnesses say when they leave the grand jury room. Rove can tell us word-for-word what he said to the grand jury and would if he thought it would help him."

* Luskin said Rove had been assured by prosecutors that he is not a target of the investigation — That may or may not be true, but it hardly seems significant. I've never worked in the criminal justice system, but it doesn't seem like a stretch to me that maybe, just maybe, prosecutors wouldn't actually tell a target that he's a target.

* Luskin told the LAT, "It is certainly my understanding that Karl has testified absolutely truthfully about all his conversations about everybody that he has been asked about during that week" — The interesting thing about that quote is the first five words. It's Luskin's "understanding" that Rove is the salt of the earth, but Luskin wasn't actually in the room when Rove testified before the grand jury. Luskin, in other words, doesn't actually know anything beyond what Rove has told him.

* Luskin told Newsweek that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information." — That's not a terribly persuasive defense. The law makes it a crime to deliberately reveal the identity of an undercover CIA agent, as Plame was, but Luskin's comment to Newsweek emphasizes "knowingly." It might make it tough to prosecute Rove on an Intelligence Identities Protection Act violation, but if they're pursuing a perjury charge, this defense won't help.

* On a related note, Luskin has told reporters Rove never "identified" Plame. But as Digby noted in an excellent post, even this is open to some interpretation. "Did he not identify her by name? Or did he not identify her as a CIA operative? In other words, did Karl Rove call up Matt Cooper and say, 'Joe Wilson's wife is a CIA operative and she got him the job,' which technically means that he didn't "identify" her, but he sure put old Matt on the trail."
Wait, this is a collection of quotes showing that the lawyer is parsing his words in a Clinton 'sexual relations', 'is' way. How does this go to show anything in the way of there being nothing to the story?

[yabanci]

Wait, this is a collection of quotes showing that the lawyer is parsing his words in a Clinton 'sexual relations', 'is' way. How does this go to show anything in the way of there being nothing to the story?

It's like Michael Jackson's lawyer saying, "It's my understanding that Michael had some young boys sleeping in his bed, but he never knowingly did anything with them that he would consider inappropriate."

[MrBigglesworth]

It's almost impossible to have decent discussion here sometimes with some people, because you have to spend half of your time correcting factual errors that are everywhere. For instance, the Grand Jury is not looking into whether or not Plame was covert, they are looking into whether the leaker knew she was covert:
hxxp://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,581456,00.html

This recent story in the NYT goes further in discussing the obviousness of how she was covert:
hxxp://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/politics/05wilson.html?ei=5094&en=df481fba22d3d077&hp=&ex=1120536000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

[MrBigglesworth]

1) I'm not a big politics & religion guy. That's more BW's gig than mine.
Your prior posts have given me reason to think that you were a Christian. I apologize if that is incorrect.

2) The most obvious bit of "false witness" I've seen related to this case are those who insist that a law has been broken when it seems pretty clear to this point that none has been.
Assuming Karl Rove is the one, that is obviously false witness because he told the FBI and the grand jury that he had nothing to do with the leak.

3) What have you got right now? A story from some member of the Loony Left claiming Rove said x,y, and/or z? And I'm supposed to get bent about that? Sorry Biggles, but it's going to take more than that for me to get even perturbed, much less "outraged". So far, this doesn't even merit a sneeze, much less an explosion.
So, if it is Rove, you will be outraged, correct?

[Flasch186]

whether or not JonG is Christian is irrelevant. Being so is not what makes someone distatsteful.

[flere-imsaho]

Well no, I'm not. IF this "outing" was done in a malicious manner, Rove, or whoever, should be dealt with harshly. IF pretty much anyone who knew anything in Washington knew she worked for the CIA, and Rove(or whoever) noted that while connecting the dots to a reporter, then nothing much has happened here. The maliciousness of this act is just as much in question as the seriousness of it.

Fair enough, good to hear.

[Bubba Wheels]

Pot meet kettle...It has more to do with the fact that Im watching movies. If you havnt learned yet, while you are stuck in your ignorant, blinded, fanatical thoughts I am still here, consistent in my ways AND willing to listen to all, including those I disagree with, learn from corrections and agree with the opposition sometimes. I am open minded, try to respond to everyone and debate.

you snipe, and ignore corrections...it is your modus operandi and everyone, including your religious right wing mates think your a fool.

this may be the most abrasive Ive been but Im tired tonight and youre partisanship and most importantly, most importantly, the falsehoods you vomit out and then refuse to retract or correct have worn thin....tonight. Maybe tomrrow Ill be better at dealing with them, as Im sure you'll continue your unenlightened ways, as usual. Luckily most people here are educated enough to see through your lies, innuendo, and spin.

Well, first off I wish I had a dollar for everytime someone uses that kettle/pot thing on me...almost always done when the user has run out of argument and feels the need to start name-calling.

Don't see where I have made one reference to Christian beliefs here, Biblical principles or any of the like. You I truly believe show your bigotry full tilt in using that as a reason to attack any and all arguments made by any Christian on any subject. Would be like finding out someone is gay and then attacking anything that person posted on any subject whatsoever because you dislike what the person is, not what he or she says.

So stick to your original plan, use the argument you can't refute as your excuse to duck and run. You show yourself as nothing but a bigot. Fanatical, even.

[vyshka]

There's only illegal activity under fairly specific circumstances ... circumstances that do not appear, based on what has been revealed so far, to have existed.

No one ... repeat ... no one who is engaged in a covert operation is hanging out at a Langley desk job -- that simply flies in the face of logic, reason, and most of all, reality.

She has no "cover" to blow at that point -- she's going to work there for crying out loud, how is she supposed to be "undercover"? That's just asinine.

It doesn't matter if she was jockeying a desk at the time she got outed. If she was at any time in her career working covert ops, those people she dealt with get put at risk by her being outed for as long as they are alive. Is it clear now, or do we need to take the logic down to elementary school level for you?

[MrBigglesworth]

Well, first off I wish I had a dollar for everytime someone uses that kettle/pot thing on me...almost always done when the user has run out of argument and feels the need to start name-calling.

Don't see where I have made one reference to Christian beliefs here, Biblical principles or any of the like. You I truly believe show your bigotry full tilt in using that as a reason to attack any and all arguments made by any Christian on any subject. Would be like finding out someone is gay and then attacking anything that person posted on any subject whatsoever because you dislike what the person is, not what he or she says.

So stick to your original plan, use the argument you can't refute as your excuse to duck and run. You show yourself as nothing but a bigot. Fanatical, even.
Shorter BW: "Name calling is the last resort for those with no rational argument. You're a fanatical bigot."

[Bubba Wheels]

Shorter BW: "Name calling is the last resort for those with no rational argument. You're a fanatical bigot."

Well, not to beat the dead horse, but I was just attempting to understand why the personal attacks came into play. And the fact that those personal attacks were then 'justified' by said attacker on the basis of previous posted beliefs by myself just bears out what I've said. Kinda like "I can no longer argue with you based on facts, so you are a complete (fill in the blank) and everybody else thinks so nah nah nah so I don't have to listen to you anymore." Genius.

[NoMyths]

Well, not to beat the dead horse, but I was just attempting to understand why the personal attacks came into play. And the fact that those personal attacks were then 'justified' by said attacker on the basis of previous posted beliefs by myself just bears out what I've said. Kinda like "I can no longer argue with you based on facts, so you are a complete (fill in the blank) and everybody else thinks so nah nah nah so I don't have to listen to you anymore." Genius.What do you expect? Your arguments are poorly supported, and when confronted with the facts you refuse to acknowledge your errors. There's not a whole lot left for people to say to you.

Frankly, you'd be a lot more interesting if you actually learned from your mistakes, rather than trusting shady sources of information and believing in your own infallibility.

It shouldn't be a surprise people respond to you as they do. Try taking a step back, put yourself in the shoes of those who are responding negatively to you, and try to figure out whether or not there is any merit to their position. Then, please, grow accordingly.

[Flasch186]

Well, first off I wish I had a dollar for everytime someone uses that kettle/pot thing on me...almost always done when the user has run out of argument and feels the need to start name-calling.

Don't see where I have made one reference to Christian beliefs here, Biblical principles or any of the like. You I truly believe show your bigotry full tilt in using that as a reason to attack any and all arguments made by any Christian on any subject. Would be like finding out someone is gay and then attacking anything that person posted on any subject whatsoever because you dislike what the person is, not what he or she says.

So stick to your original plan, use the argument you can't refute as your excuse to duck and run. You show yourself as nothing but a bigot. Fanatical, even.

I would bet most on here would disagree...would you care to do a poll on it? You wont like the outcome.

I dont proclaim that your religion is a bad thing...in essence it can be good, except when it causes you to be blinded and intolerant. It does effect your stances outside of religious thread...

If youre not a sniper Id like you to go back to all the historical references you made which were subsequently contradicted and either cite where/why you stated your "fact" or acquiesce that you were wrong. I will bet that you wont because what you do is lay out land mines of falsehood and then ignore the rebuttal and move on to placing your next one.

[Bubba Wheels]

What do you expect? Your arguments are poorly supported, and when confronted with the facts you refuse to acknowledge your errors. There's not a whole lot left for people to say to you.

Frankly, you'd be a lot more interesting if you actually learned from your mistakes, rather than trusting shady sources of information and believing in your own infallibility.

It shouldn't be a surprise people respond to you as they do. Try taking a step back, put yourself in the shoes of those who are responding negatively to you, and try to figure out whether or not there is any merit to their position. Then, please, grow accordingly.

How are my arguments poorly supported? The general gist is always right, again someone like yourself finds a minor error and thinks the whole argument is bad. The JFK/Nixon thing is well documented and has been for years. The fact that I myself don't get every detail right does not make the analogy less valid, because it does work. But it just continues to prove the overall point, you see what you want to see regardless of postion. Name one unbiased observer you think has every detail right and doesn't take sides. I'll hold my breath on that one.

[Flasch186]

Well, not to beat the dead horse, but I was just attempting to understand why the personal attacks came into play. And the fact that those personal attacks were then 'justified' by said attacker on the basis of previous posted beliefs by myself just bears out what I've said. Kinda like "I can no longer argue with you based on facts, so you are a complete (fill in the blank) and everybody else thinks so nah nah nah so I don't have to listen to you anymore." Genius.

I refer you to my above post...if your not blinded than please reply to the posts in which you are wrong historically...it would definitely go against your nature.

[NoMyths]

How are my arguments poorly supported? The general gist is always right, again someone like yourself finds a minor error and thinks the whole argument is bad. The JFK/Nixon thing is well documented and has been for years. The fact that I myself don't get every detail right does not make the analogy less valid, because it does work. But it just continues to prove the overall point, you see what you want to see regardless of postion. Name one unbiased observer you think has every detail right and doesn't take sides. I'll hold my breath on that one.*sigh*

[Flasch186]

How are my arguments poorly supported? The general gist is always right, again someone like yourself finds a minor error and thinks the whole argument is bad. The JFK/Nixon thing is well documented and has been for years. The fact that I myself don't get every detail right does not make the analogy less valid, because it does work. But it just continues to prove the overall point, you see what you want to see regardless of postion. Name one unbiased observer you think has every detail right and doesn't take sides. I'll hold my breath on that one.

when you mix in fallacy into even an accurate argument you poison the entire argument...it simply cannot be trusted. Stick with fact and the argument should stick, mix in opinion and assumption or falsehood and you will be called to respond when corrected...

perhaps you could respond to them by first saying, "Jeez, im sorry, I was wrong." Then try to rework the argument to be accurate, otherwise it is simply spinning and propoganda.

[MrBigglesworth]

BW, here are the factual errors in your first post in this thread:
Pure partisan politics. How many even remember when Bill and Hillary had all those FBI files on the congressmen? Illegally? And then they 'suddenly' turned up on Hillary's nightstand after a few months of 'looking' for them? And how much did we then hear about that? I think only the 'partisan' news network Fox was even talking about it.
CNN covered the story, perhaps even more than Fox which might explain why you don't know the facts surrounding the case. An easy google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&biw=991&q=%22fbi+files%22+hillary+site%3Acnn.com&btnG=Search) brings up 102 articles from CNN. A similar search of FoxNews.com brings up zero, but that could be a database issue.

If a Liberal commits a felony they let him or her walk with a slap on the wrist...
According to one of the afore-mentioned CNN articles, Ms. Clinton was cleared by an independent counsel, who noted that there was absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing. In other words, there was no felony committed, in fact not even a crime, in the case that you use as an example of a liberal figure getting off easy.

hxxp://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/07/28/clinton.filegate/

...if its a Conservative committing a misdemenor its suddenly a federal case and all hell breaks loose.
Outing a covert operative is a felony, not a misdemeanor. It's treason.

That is three factual errors in one short paragraph. They are easily shot down, but you don't admit to them or even respond to your critics. That is why people say it is maddening trying to have a conversation with you.

[Bubba Wheels]

Believing that the Clinton's and/or their operatives did not access those FBI files is as believable as the old cannard about "I don't look at the pictures, I just read the articles" in Playboy magazine.http://www.trettel.com/ccrc/essays/essay10.html

Treason? Kind of like selling our ICBM secrets to the Chinese, who now have 13 ICBMs pointed at us?

And how hard a punishment did that guy get for smuggling documents in his pants out of the Library of Congress? Was that a crime?

You just refuse to see how biased your own sources of information are.

[Bubba Wheels]

when you mix in fallacy into even an accurate argument you poison the entire argument...it simply cannot be trusted. Stick with fact and the argument should stick, mix in opinion and assumption or falsehood and you will be called to respond when corrected...

perhaps you could respond to them by first saying, "Jeez, im sorry, I was wrong." Then try to rework the argument to be accurate, otherwise it is simply spinning and propoganda.

Wha...? Right! Just go back over every post I ever made and determine the error of my ways. Kind of like going to Pol Pot's re-education camp and finding the 'shining path?" Good luck on that one. Unless you can point out specific errors rather than continue to use broad generalized personal opinions like "mix fallacy into ...an accurate argument..." then your just talking out of your rear orifice.

[NoMyths]

Bubba, you obviously don't believe this, but some of us are trying to help you. Well, sometimes we're fed up and get irritated with you. But the other times we're trying to help you.

When I said your arguments were poorly supported, I meant that you use sites like The Conservative Christian Resource Center as a primary source. "But the writer of the article," you might argue, "published it in the Washington Post!" We'll overlook the fact that your link doesn't work (yes, as you can infer, I actually went searching to find out what you were trying to show us, and was able to). Its author, Gary W. Aldrich, is the founder of the Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty (http://www.patrickhenrycenter.org/), and the author of "Thunder on the Left: An Insider's Report on the Hijacking of the Democratic Party." He is quoted on the site as saying, "We can now reveal the little known fact that in the fall of 1997 I met with Congressman Bob Barr and a few other concerned Americans in Charleston, South Carolina, where we discussed and planned for an impeachment of a corrupted and abusive president." More recently he assisted one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth with legal and financial help. Are you starting to see where adding a less biased source could help bolster your argument? We're not saying you have to completely toss that source (though I'd strongly consider it), we're saying use more independent verification to support your position.

[Bubba Wheels]

Bubba, you obviously don't believe this, but some of us are trying to help you. Well, sometimes we're fed up and get irritated with you. But the other times we're trying to help you.

When I said your arguments were poorly supported, I meant that you use sites like The Conservative Christian Resource Center as a primary source. "But the writer of the article," you might argue, "published it in the Washington Post!" We'll overlook the fact that your link doesn't work (yes, as you can infer, I actually went searching to find out what you were trying to show us, and was able to). Its author, Gary W. Aldrich, is the founder of the Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty (http://www.patrickhenrycenter.org/), and the author of "Thunder on the Left: An Insider's Report on the Hijacking of the Democratic Party." He is quoted on the site as saying, "We can now reveal the little known fact that in the fall of 1997 I met with Congressman Bob Barr and a few other concerned Americans in Charleston, South Carolina, where we discussed and planned for an impeachment of a corrupted and abusive president." More recently he assisted one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth with legal and financial help. Are you starting to see where adding a less biased source could help bolster your argument? We're not saying you have to completely toss that source (though I'd strongly consider it), we're saying use more independent verification to support your position.

Nomyths, I see what your saying, but your not seeing what I'm saying. There are no unbiased sources of information. You (or anyone) basically pick out the sources that support their arguments in the first place. Some sources may be 'less biased', but even that is open to debate. And it makes sense in that individuals are biased. Like the old saying 'everyone has an opinion."

The one difference that I continue to see is that conservatives and their sources will be open about their point of view at the get-go, whereas liberals and their sources tend to play this game of pretending to be 'unbiased' until they are eventual 'outed' by conservative sources like Limbaugh. And the list of these 'outed' liberals is endless, beginning with Walter Cronkite during the Vietnam War thru Dan Rather, the New York Times, ect....

CNN, the very source you cite in your post, was 'outed' for having made a deal with Saddam before the war broke out 'not to expose' his torture, ect..., in order to remain inside Iraq for their own 'exclusives." Now just how 'unbiased' could CNN have been on Iraq after having made that deal?

[NoMyths]

Wow.

Nevermind, Bubba. Obviously there's nothing that any of us could say that would encourage you to be a little more critical in your thinking.

With that, I'm taking my leave of conversing with you.

[NoMyths]

dola...

Except to say:
CNN, the very source you cite in your post, was 'outed' for having made a deal with Saddam before the war broke out 'not to expose' his torture, ect..., in order to remain inside Iraq for their own 'exclusives." Now just how 'unbiased' could CNN have been on Iraq after having made that deal?I don't see where I've cited CNN in any of my posts in this thread. But please continue to either a) get facts wrong or b) lie to support your position as much as you wish...I'm through with you.

[Swaggs]

Try this: This message is hidden because Bubba Wheels is on your ignore list.
It does wonders.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Yep. Man, I gave up conversing with BW a year or ago or so. What a complete waste of time that was.

[MrBigglesworth]

Believing that the Clinton's and/or their operatives did not access those FBI files is as believable as the old cannard about "I don't look at the pictures, I just read the articles" in Playboy magazine.http://www.trettel.com/ccrc/essays/essay10.html...You just refuse to see how biased your own sources of information are.
BW, the CNN article that I gave you stated that the independent counsel found no evidence of wrongdoing. For that to be biased, you have to come up with a source that says that the independent counsel did come up with information that it used to indict Hillary. Instead, you show an essay by a GOP operative named Gary Aldrich (http://www.google.com/search?q=Gary+W.+Aldrich&sourceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) as a counterbalance, as if that is just as reliable as an independent counsel of the federal government, appointed by a panel of three judges. And then you see fit to lecture others on their biased sources.

And how hard a punishment did that guy get for smuggling documents in his pants out of the Library of Congress? Was that a crime?
Since you asked, he got fined $10k and lost his security clearance for 3 years. Whether that is getting off easy or not, I don't know, but I don't see how it could be argued that he got off easy because he was a Democrat, being as he was tried by the US Justice Department under Bush. That's kind of counter-intuitive and totally undercuts your point that liberals let other liberals off.

Treason? Kind of like selling our ICBM secrets to the Chinese, who now have 13 ICBMs pointed at us?
This is an asinine attempt to avoid the question by attacking something else completely unrelated. But you are short on specifics. Are you talking about Wen Ho Lee? He was released when no evidence was found against him, and I don't even know if he was a liberal or not, and I doubt you do either. If you are talking about the Hughes Space and Communications Company, I don't know if they are liberal either, but being a large defense contractor, I kind of doubt it.

This is another example of your arguments being 'poorly supported'.

[Flasch186]

BW - Im not going to go back and parse all of the times people have pointed out you are wrong, with support. You could do that yourself but Id be willing to bet you wont and youll just continue to lay these falsehood out there, have them blow up on you, and then ignore the fact that you are wrong by ducking your head in the sand. Yes, it is frustrating to see the same thing play out over and over.

Story comes out indicting a republican
BW, denies first, then slithers to a loophole, and eventually compares it to liberals
Story continues to grow
BW, ignores all of the supporting evidence that perhaps something is rotten in denmark
Story is finally published as fact
BW, says publishing agent is biased and begins to list Liberal's wrongdoing(s)..there are plenty.

All throughout you seem blind and unwilling to accept the fact that there could be wrong doing...many of your right wing buddies at least can admit that.

[Arles]

I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.

Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow.
4 days later and all I hear is .....

cricket, cricket, cricket

Maybe O'Donnell got his information on this story mixed up with his script for the West Wing.

[flere-imsaho]

Well, technically Rove was Cooper's source for something....

Anyway, things could get moving again today given that the judge will rule today on whether or not the journalists will go to jail for contempt. Although I think it's possible the journalists will elect to serve time on principle, I wouldn't blame them for caving at this point and agreeing to testify. We won't really know more until they testify.

[flere-imsaho]

Try this: This message is hidden because Bubba Wheels is on your ignore list.
It does wonders.

Word.

[flere-imsaho]

From today's NYT:


Last week, Time magazine provided Mr. Cooper's notes and other documents to the special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, after the United States Supreme Court refused to hear appeals filed by the magazine and the two reporters. In yesterday's filing, Mr. Fitzgerald said he had reviewed the documents and determined that Mr. Cooper's testimony "remains necessary."

The best thing to speculate on, right now, is what Fitzgerald expects to find when questioning Cooper & Miller that he hasn't found in Cooper's notes.

[stevew]

For the Lazy

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=3337

Now quit quoting him.

[MalcPow]

Well, technically Rove was Cooper's source for something....

Anyway, things could get moving again today given that the judge will rule today on whether or not the journalists will go to jail for contempt. Although I think it's possible the journalists will elect to serve time on principle, I wouldn't blame them for caving at this point and agreeing to testify. We won't really know more until they testify.

That's really all we know. I'm interested to see what happens with the journalists as well. Unfortunately, no matter what happens this is going to get swept under the rug of the Supreme Court fight.

[Blackadar]

There's only illegal activity under fairly specific circumstances ... circumstances that do not appear, based on what has been revealed so far, to have existed.

No one ... repeat ... no one who is engaged in a covert operation is hanging out at a Langley desk job -- that simply flies in the face of logic, reason, and most of all, reality.

She has no "cover" to blow at that point -- she's going to work there for crying out loud, how is she supposed to be "undercover"? That's just asinine.

Sorry Jon, you're bluntly wrong. I know plenty of covert personnel who never left Langley during their entire careers. Next time, try actually learning about a subject before passing an opinion off as fact.

Thanks for playing, please try again!

[Glengoyne]

For the Lazy

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=3337 (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=3337)

Now quit quoting him.
You underestimate my laziness.

Cutt and paste for goodness sake!

[timmynausea]

If I add Bubba Wheels to my ignore list, how will I know what is going on with the anti-faith based crowd?

[CamEdwards]

This is an interesting twist:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/05/AR2005070500788.html


Sources close to the investigation say there is evidence in some instances that some reporters may have told government officials -- not the other way around -- that Wilson was married to Plame, a CIA employee.

So maybe O'Donnell had his story backwards?

[MrBigglesworth]

From today's NYT:



The best thing to speculate on, right now, is what Fitzgerald expects to find when questioning Cooper & Miller that he hasn't found in Cooper's notes.
According to common law, you need two eyewitnesses for a perjury conviction. Documents do not count.

[Bubba Wheels]

Well, glad to see some have discovered the ignore button. But personally, kind of demonstrates the weak-mindedness of those who feel compelled to use it. Seems to me anyone with even a little bit of self-control would just choose not to respond to something. Heck, I don't even have Chubby on ignore, just not that lacking in personal confidence to need to I guess. :D

[flere-imsaho]

This just in from the NYT:

WASHINGTON -- Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper agreed Wednesday to testify about his sources in a government leak of a CIA agent's identity, a dramatic about-face which came as he faced going to jail.

"I am prepared to testify. I will comply" with the court's order, Cooper told U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan.

Cooper's turnaround came at a hearing at which Hogan was to consider whether to jail Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller for defying his order to testify about their confidential sources in the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity.

Cooper took the podium in the court and told the judge, "Last night I hugged my son good-bye and told him it might be a long time before I see him again."

"I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions" for not testifying, Cooper said. But he told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance, he had received "in somewhat dramatic fashion" a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret.


Well, we're going to find out who the source was. I'd have to assume the source believes they won't be prosecuted.

[flere-imsaho]

Another update from the Times:


Fitzgerald had disclosed Tuesday that a source of Cooper and Miller had waived confidentiality, giving the reporters permission to reveal where they got their information. The prosecutor did not identify the source, nor did he specify whether the source for each reporter was the same person.

This is not the first time I've heard that basically Fitzgerald already knows everything, but basically wants extra testimonial confirmation. I'm not sure what that suggests about "the leaker", but it does seem to indicate that either a) Novak told all or b) Fitzgerald is really, really good at what he does.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Sorry Jon, you're bluntly wrong. I know plenty of covert personnel who never left Langley during their entire careers. Next time, try actually learning about a subject before passing an opinion off as fact.

Thanks for playing, please try again!

As a follow up to this. If it is so obvious she wasn't covert as Jon claims, why in the heck would Fitzgerald even be investigating this anymore. Determining if she was covert would be pretty easy for him after talking with the CIA. If she wasn't covert, then no need for an investigation. The investigation continues, so obviously Fitzgerald believes she fit the legal definition as covert. I agree, Jon was all wet on this one.

[timmynausea]

If Vinatieri was President, this bullshit would've been taken care of a long time ago.

[Peregrine]

If Vinatieri was President, this bullshit would've been taken care of a long time ago.

Amen to that.

[JPhillips]

Vinatieri: Its more than that. The CIA only requested an investigation because they believed the name of a covert agent had been released maliciously. Both the DOJ and Fitzgerald investigations are based on the original CIA request.

It seems to me that the CIA would have a very good idea of who is/is not a covert agent, but I guess JIMG knows better.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

If Vinatieri was President, this bullshit would've been taken care of a long time ago.

Damn straight!!

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Vinatieri: Its more than that. The CIA only requested an investigation because they believed the name of a covert agent had been released maliciously. Both the DOJ and Fitzgerald investigations are based on the original CIA request.

It seems to me that the CIA would have a very good idea of who is/is not a covert agent, but I guess JIMG knows better.

Even better. Another example of the Bushies attempts to protect all that is Bush. If they would just give in on some obvious things it would add a lot to their credibility when they defend others. As it stands, it is hypocrisy at its best.

[HomerJSimpson]

Newsweek article out, and states the email says specifically that Rove was the leak. Here is the linky: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/


Matt Cooper's Source
What Karl Rove told Time magazine's reporter.

By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek


July 18 issue - It was 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003, and Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. "Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation ..." Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, "please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]" and suggested another reporter check with the CIA.

Last week, after Time turned over that e-mail, among other notes and e-mails, Cooper agreed to testify before a grand jury in the Valerie Plame case. Explaining that he had obtained last-minute "personal consent" from his source, Cooper was able to avoid a jail sentence for contempt of court. Another reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, refused to identify her source and chose to go to jail instead.

For two years, a federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been investigating the leak of Plame's identity as an undercover CIA agent. The leak was first reported by columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. Novak apparently made some arrangement with the prosecutor, but Fitzgerald continued to press other reporters for their sources, possibly to show a pattern (to prove intent) or to make a perjury case. (It is illegal to knowingly identify an undercover CIA officer.) Rove's words on the Plame case have always been carefully chosen. "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," Rove told CNN last year when asked if he had anything to do with the Plame leak. Rove has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. But last week, his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Rove did—and that Rove was the secret source who, at the request of both Cooper's lawyer and the prosecutor, gave Cooper permission to testify.

The controversy arose when Wilson wrote an op-ed column in The New York Times saying that he had been sent by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate charges that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from the African country of Niger. Wilson said he had found no evidence to support the claim. Wilson's column was an early attack on the evidence used by the Bush administration to justify going to war in Iraq. The White House wished to discredit Wilson and his attacks. The question for the prosecutor is whether someone in the administration, in an effort to undermine Wilson's credibility, intentionally revealed the covert identity of his wife.


In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson's criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine's corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) 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 "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "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 ... "

Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative. Nonetheless, it is significant that Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak's column appeared; in other words, before Plame's identity had been published. Fitzgerald has been looking for evidence that Rove spoke to other reporters as well. "Karl Rove has shared with Fitzgerald all the information he has about any potentially relevant contacts he has had with any reporters, including Matt Cooper," Luskin told NEWSWEEK.

A source close to Rove, who declined to be identified because he did not wish to run afoul of the prosecutor or government investigators, added that there was "absolutely no inconsistency" between Cooper's e-mail and what Rove has testified to during his three grand-jury appearances in the case. "A fair reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame's identity, but was an effort to discourage Time from publishing things that turned out to be false," the source said, referring to claims in circulation at the time that Cheney and high-level CIA officials arranged for Wilson's trip to Africa.

Fitzgerald is known as a tenacious, thorough prosecutor. He refused to comment, and it is not clear whether he is pursuing evidence that will result in indictments, or just tying up loose ends in a messy case. But the Cooper e-mail offers one new clue to the mystery of what Fitzgerald is probing—and provides a glimpse of what was unfolding at the highest levels as the administration defended a part of its case for going to war in Iraq.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels
Well, not to beat the dead horse, but I was just attempting to understand why the personal attacks came into play. And the fact that those personal attacks were then 'justified' by said attacker on the basis of previous posted beliefs by myself just bears out what I've said. Kinda like "I can no longer argue with you based on facts, so you are a complete (fill in the blank) and everybody else thinks so nah nah nah so I don't have to listen to you anymore." Genius.

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels
Well, first off I wish I had a dollar for everytime someone uses that kettle/pot thing on me...almost always done when the user has run out of argument and feels the need to start name-calling.

Don't see where I have made one reference to Christian beliefs here, Biblical principles or any of the like. You I truly believe show your bigotry full tilt in using that as a reason to attack any and all arguments made by any Christian on any subject. Would be like finding out someone is gay and then attacking anything that person posted on any subject whatsoever because you dislike what the person is, not what he or she says.

So stick to your original plan, use the argument you can't refute as your excuse to duck and run. You show yourself as nothing but a bigot. Fanatical, even.


Can't even make this stuff up, too classic...
[/i]

[Arles]

Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative. Nonetheless, it is significant that Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak's column appeared; in other words, before Plame's identity had been published. Fitzgerald has been looking for evidence that Rove spoke to other reporters as well. "Karl Rove has shared with Fitzgerald all the information he has about any potentially relevant contacts he has had with any reporters, including Matt Cooper," Luskin told NEWSWEEK.

A source close to Rove, who declined to be identified because he did not wish to run afoul of the prosecutor or government investigators, added that there was "absolutely no inconsistency" between Cooper's e-mail and what Rove has testified to during his three grand-jury appearances in the case. "A fair reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame's identity, but was an effort to discourage Time from publishing things that turned out to be false," the source said, referring to claims in circulation at the time that Cheney and high-level CIA officials arranged for Wilson's trip to Africa.
Seems like we are right back where we began. Again, just because Rove spoke with Cooper does not mean that he revealed the identity of a CIA agent. This appears to be the meat of the conversation based on the articles I've seen:

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 "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip."
Not sure how that equals "outing a CIA agent". But maybe I am missing something.

[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.

[Flasch186]

Seems like we are right back where we began. Again, just because Rove spoke with Cooper does not mean that he revealed the identity of a CIA agent. This appears to be the meat of the conversation based on the articles I've seen:


Not sure how that equals "outing a CIA agent". But maybe I am missing something.


right and until Rove writes an article stating the following:

"I outed Plame as a CIA operative in an attempt to get her husband to shut the fuck up."

Arles wont believe he did anything wrong....


Im sorry arles, just feels like dejavu every single time we go down this path. at least your friends on the right are open minded enough to see the wall before they hit it.

your willingness to duck and dive even when the youre in the crosshairs is noble at best, slimy at worst.

[Flasch186]

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.



you crack me up....the entire country knows its a "leak" and you say, "I wonder if there even is a leak"....maybe it should be called something else?? Regardless Arles, OH NO, one of your boys might've done something wrong!! pray that Rove NEVER writes an admission because then you might have to accept it, but until then you just stay with that ship there pardner.

[Arles]

Hey, Flasch, I know you don't require any evidence to convict someone, but what has been presented to show Rove did anything wrong?

All we have is a conversation between him and Cooper where Cooper's notes show he did not out Plame as a CIA agent. Seems like a rock-solid case there :rolleyes:

Again, there's been nothing presented (Cooper or Novak's comments, Cooper's notes, other witnesses) to show that Rove ever outed Plame. Until that happens, there's really no case here.

[Flasch186]

A - Plame was "outed" as a CIA operative - a crime

B - The journalists wouldnt release the name of the source

C - Rove is admitetd to being the source

A+B+C = Rove is the source of plame's outing. See if you remember FROM THE BEGINNING, someone outed her. Remember the big brouhaha over it. and see then the journalists wouldnt give up their source. remember how they were threatened with jail time. You can remember that, it wasnt too long ago. Then remember when Rove's Lawyer admitted it was Rove that did it? That was earlier today I think. See if your memory allows you to hold thoughts for awhile you can start to correlate these things. Perhaps thats your problem...you forget what happened int he past so every day you start fresh. I applaud you for that but it still doesnt absolve someone from perjury...remember about 10 years ago. you liked Perjury then, but not now, eh? hmmm, convenient.

[Flasch186]

Hey, Flasch, I know you don't require any evidence to convict someone, but what has been presented to show Rove did anything wrong?

All we have is a conversation between him and Cooper where Cooper's notes show he did not out Plame as a CIA agent. Seems like a rock-solid case there :rolleyes:

Again, there's been nothing presented (Cooper or Novak's comments, Cooper's notes, other witnesses) to show that Rove ever outed Plame. Until that happens, there's really no case here.

DOLA



well then, I stand by my thoughts on how biased you are. until the culprit admits it, in writing, on this and SOOOOOOOOOO many other things you refuse to believe it. Okay, at least youre consistent. Ill bet there are people behind bars that havnt admitted to their crimes either, wanna let them out?

[Chubby]

Hey, Flasch, I know you don't require any evidence to convict someone, but what has been presented to show Rove did anything wrong?

All we have is a conversation between him and Cooper where Cooper's notes show he did not out Plame as a CIA agent. Seems like a rock-solid case there :rolleyes:

Again, there's been nothing presented (Cooper or Novak's comments, Cooper's notes, other witnesses) to show that Rove ever outed Plame. Until that happens, there's really no case here.
oh i see, so it takes a master thief to figure out that "Wilson's wife" = Plame. Just because he didn't specifically say "Plame" doesn't mean he didn't out her by saying "Wilson's wife with the agency"

[sterlingice]

Rove's words on the Plame case have always been carefully chosen. "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," Rove told CNN last year when asked if he had anything to do with the Plame leak. Rove has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. But last week, his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Rove did—and that Rove was the secret source who, at the request of both Cooper's lawyer and the prosecutor, gave Cooper permission to testify.
Regardless of the content of the rest of this, isn't the wording of this part just shoddy journalism. How can he say Rove has chosen his words carefully; I don't see much wiggle room in "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name"- it sounds a lot like a denial. But "his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed to Newsweek that Rove did"- doesn't that mean he flat out lied? Where are the "carefully chosen" words? Doesn't this mean he flat out lied and has since contradicted his previous statement?

SI

[SFL Cat]

:rolleyes:

Personally, I think the Clinton administration letting China gain 20+ years of progress in their ICBM technology was a lot more "ominous" than this non-event.

I think the Dems are making the same mistakes with Bush that the Repubs made with Clinton. They are just flinging mud at in the hopes that something, anything sticks. But people are so tired of the petty politics that surround the efforts of both sides that even if some legitimate ethical lapses are revealed, the public is desensitized to it. They figure it all boils down to partisan politics.

[JPhillips]

Yeah thank goodness we have a guy that's tough on China. I bet they're still quivering in fear after Bush apologized for their holding our aircrew prisoners.

[SunDevil]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/10/AR2005071001000.html

Rove Told Reporter About Plame But Didn't Name Her, Attorney Says

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 11, 2005; A01

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified as a covert agent in a newspaper column two years ago, but Rove's lawyer said yesterday that his client did not identify her by name.

Rove had a short conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper on July 11, 2003, three days before Robert D. Novak publicly exposed Plame in a column about her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV. Wilson had come under attack from the White House for his assertions that he found no evidence Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger and that he reported those findings to top administration officials. Wilson publicly accused the administration of leaking his wife's identity as a means of retaliation.

The leak of Plame's name to the news media spawned a federal grand jury investigation that has been seeking to find the origin of the disclosure. Cooper avoided jail time last week by agreeing to testify before the grand jury about conversations with his sources, while New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for refusing to discuss her confidential sources.

To be considered a violation of the law, a disclosure by a government official must have been deliberate, the person doing it must have known that the CIA officer was a covert agent, and he or she must have known that the government was actively concealing the covert agent's identity.

Cooper, according to an internal Time e-mail obtained by Newsweek magazine, spoke with Rove before Novak's column was published. In the conversation, Rove gave Cooper a "big warning" that Wilson's assertions might not be entirely accurate and that it was not the director of the CIA or the vice president who sent Wilson on his trip. Rove apparently told Cooper that it was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip," according to a story in Newsweek's July 18 issue.

Rove's conversation with Cooper could be significant because it indicates a White House official was discussing Plame prior to her being publicly named and could lead to evidence of how Novak learned her name.

Although the information is revelatory, it is still unknown whether Rove is a focus of the investigation. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has said that Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has told him that Rove is not a target of the probe. Luskin said yesterday that Rove did not know Plame's name and was not actively trying to push the information into the public realm.

Instead, Luskin said, Rove discussed the matter -- under the cloak of secrecy -- with Cooper at the tail end of a conversation about a different issue. Cooper had called Rove to discuss other matters on a Friday before deadline, and the topic of Wilson came up briefly. Luskin said Cooper raised the question.

"Rove did not mention her name to Cooper," Luskin said. "This was not an effort to encourage Time to disclose her identity. What he was doing was discouraging Time from perpetuating some statements that had been made publicly and weren't true."

In particular, Rove was urging caution because then-CIA Director George J. Tenet was about to issue a statement regarding Iraq's alleged interest in African uranium and its inaccurate inclusion in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. Tenet took the blame for allowing a misleading paragraph into the speech, but Tenet also said that the president, vice president and other senior officials were never briefed on Wilson's report.

After the investigation into the leak began, Luskin said, Rove signed a waiver in December 2003 or January 2004 authorizing prosecutors to speak to any reporters Rove had previously engaged in discussion, which included Cooper.

"His written waiver included the world," Luskin said. "It was intended to be a global waiver. . . . He wants to make sure that the special prosecutor has everyone's evidence. That reflects someone who has nothing to hide."

Cooper had indicated he would go to jail rather than expose a confidential source, but he agreed last week to cooperate with the grand jury after getting clearance from his source to testify. Luskin said Cooper had been clear to testify all along -- because of the waiver signed 18 months ago -- but that the waiver was "reaffirmed" on Wednesday, the day of a hearing to decide whether he and Miller would go to jail.

[TroyF]

A - Plame was "outed" as a CIA operative - a crime

B - The journalists wouldnt release the name of the source

C - Rove is admitetd to being the source

A+B+C = Rove is the source of plame's outing. See if you remember FROM THE BEGINNING, someone outed her. Remember the big brouhaha over it. and see then the journalists wouldnt give up their source. remember how they were threatened with jail time. You can remember that, it wasnt too long ago. Then remember when Rove's Lawyer admitted it was Rove that did it? That was earlier today I think. See if your memory allows you to hold thoughts for awhile you can start to correlate these things. Perhaps thats your problem...you forget what happened int he past so every day you start fresh. I applaud you for that but it still doesnt absolve someone from perjury...remember about 10 years ago. you liked Perjury then, but not now, eh? hmmm, convenient.

In the Newsweek article YOU posted and Arles highlighted, it doesn't give any direct proof of wrong doing. THE key line from that article is: Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative.

Unless it can be proven Rove DID know she was a covert operative and that he intentionally outed her, this story is about to die.

Personally, I think Rove is a slimeball and it wouldn't bother me in the least if he went away. But in this country, you need more proof than "I think the guy is a dirtbag, he's therefore guilty of high treason" to lay a conviction on someone.

Again, the key line there is in Newsweek's own article. The key will be if the prosecution can prove that Rove really did know she was an undercover operative before he leaked the name. (and there is no doubt he leaked the name, intentionally or not) If he did know she was undercover and it was an intentional move on his part, he should fry.

[Arles]

Again, if Rove would have mentioned to Cooper that Plame was a CIA agent, you would think atleast one reference to Plame being a CIA agent would have been in Cooper's notes regarding his conversation with Rove. As it stands now, there is no mention of Plame being associated with the CIA in any of Cooper's notes.

If I am a reporter and a key White House aide tells me that the wife of a guy sent to investigate WMD is an agent in the CIA, I sure as heck would have written that down in my notes. So, either Cooper decided to write everything down from the conversation except the fact that Rove stated Plame was in the CIA (certainly the most newsworthy item), or Rove didn't state that. Those are the two conclusions one can take from the Newsweek article.

[yabanci]

Again, if Rove would have mentioned to Cooper that Plame was a CIA agent, you would think atleast one reference to Plame being a CIA agent would have been in Cooper's notes regarding his conversation with Rove. As it stands now, there is no mention of Plame being associated with the CIA in any of Cooper's notes......

The Newsweek article quotes Cooper's email as saying, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip."

Then again, in the eyes of a dedicated apologist that probably doesn't qualify as a mention of Plame being associated with the CIA.

[Arles]

The Newsweek article quotes Cooper's email as saying, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip."

Then again, in the eyes of a dedicated apologist that probably doesn't qualify as a mention of Plame being associated with the CIA.
But the article also states "Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative." So, stating she "works at the agency" isn't akin to knowingly outing a covert CIA agent (the crime being insinuated). Not everyone that works at the CIA is a covert agent (I know this is a tough concept for people to grasp). The key here, once again, is did Rove willfully outed Plame as a covert CIA agent? And, if you believe Newsweek, the answer to that is "No". The article stated as much in two separate areas.

Both Rove and Cooper are on the record as saying the above. So, if I am wrong and what Rove stated is a crime - then he will be easily convicted given the record above.

[Cringer]

how about everyone wait until the grand jury is done and see who has charges filed against them...... 5 pages about speculation, gees.

[yabanci]

But the article also states "Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative. So, stating she "works at the agency" isn't akin to knowingly outing a covert CIA agent (the crime being insinuated)."

First, that's not the issue I was addressing. I was addressing your patently false statement that "[a]s it stands now, there is no mention of Plame being associated with the CIA in any of Cooper's notes." To the contrary, that's exactly what Cooper's email says and you are spreading misinformation by stating otherwise.

Second, it doesn't matter whether or not he used her name. Joe Wilson's marriage to Valerie Plame wasn't a secret. Consequently, saying that Joe Wilson's wife is a CIA agent is the same thing as saying Valarie Plame is a CIA agent. This game of "he didn't identify her by name" is intellectually dishonest.

Third, you assume that because Cooper didn't say in his email that Rove knew she was a covert op, Rove must not have known. That's a false assumption and does not logically follow. Maybe he knew or maybe he didn't know. We (the public) don't have enough facts to make any kind of determination on that issue. That's what the investigation is for. As someone else pointed out, it's all speculation at this point.

[Flasch186]

:rolleyes:

Personally, I think the Clinton administration letting China gain 20+ years of progress in their ICBM technology was a lot more "ominous" than this non-event.

I think the Dems are making the same mistakes with Bush that the Repubs made with Clinton. They are just flinging mud at in the hopes that something, anything sticks. But people are so tired of the petty politics that surround the efforts of both sides that even if some legitimate ethical lapses are revealed, the public is desensitized to it. They figure it all boils down to partisan politics.

Woah, I had to duck that curveball since it came out of left field. Lets stick on point and try not to start diverting attention to things that are completely irrelevent. Rove gave up Plame. His defense, according to Arles, is that he didnt know she was covert. Perhaps he was just outing, and "out" Cia Agent...well done sir. Well worth your time in an effort to shut her husband up...wouldnt work if she was not undercover but apparently some of the right believe there might be some frut there.

Im now going to out my 4th grade teacher as a 4th grade teacher because I didnt like her...Mrs. Cebeck, you are out!!


ROve is a genius and a mastermind. Is eriously doubt at any point Rove didn't know exactly what he was doing.

[TroyF]

Woah, I had to duck that curveball since it came out of left field. Lets stick on point and try not to start diverting attention to things that are completely irrelevent. Rove gave up Plame. His defense, according to Arles, is that he didnt know she was covert. Perhaps he was just outing, and "out" Cia Agent...well done sir. Well worth your time in an effort to shut her husband up...wouldnt work if she was not undercover but apparently some of the right believe there might be some frut there.

Im now going to out my 4th grade teacher as a 4th grade teacher because I didnt like her...Mrs. Cebeck, you are out!!


ROve is a genius and a mastermind. Is eriously doubt at any point Rove didn't know exactly what he was doing.


Look, I lean right, but the above is a bunch of BS.

It would still work if she wasn't an undercover agent. The reason being is that it's Rove's insinuation that she authorized the trip. That has nothing to do with her being an undercover operative.

There are many faces at the CIA who make critical decisions. Not all of them are undercover operatives. I'm someone from the right who despises Karl Rove. That doesn't mean I get to avoid looking at the facts to convinct and fry him before he has the right to a fair trial. If he did know (and if it's so easy to prove, it shoud be a slam dunk case), he should fry.

My guess is that it isn't as slam dunk as you are making it out to be Flasch. The first indication of that is how Rove apparently has been the one allowing Cooper to give his notes up and in the final case, letting him testify.

Cooper, like any journalist worth his salt, would go to jail before he'd allow a court to view his notes or before he'd give up his source. Most of the time the court throws the reporter into jail and lets him sit for about three months before giving up. Even WITH the notes, there is nothing fully damning without the actual testimony of the reporter.

Were this case to be so open and shut, there is no way in hell Rove gives the OK for Cooper to testify. Rove would either:

1) Wait until he testified and then slam Coopers credibility and go on the offensive.

or more likely

2) Keep his mouth shut and wait until people got sick of Cooper not talking and then moved on. As has been said in this thread from the start, the American public would probably move away from this story in a few weeks anyway. There is surely a new celebrity crime about to happen. There are a lot more "important" things to think about.

Instead he gives the OK for both the notes and the testimony. Why?

The left will say it's because he's a devious bastard who is pulling strings as usual.

The right will say it's because he's innocent of all wrong doing.

And most of the middle won't give a damn or will wait until there is an actual trial that convicts/acquits Rove.

As of now, in this specific case, I want to see some proof Rove knew she was an undercover operative. We know where the leak came from, now we need to know if it was an intentional outing of a CIA undercover operative. As of now, there is none of that information available. When you find it, please let me know. That's the point I'll join you in screaming that Karl Rove be put in prison.

[Chubby]

I don't see how it matters if he knew she was undercover or not, he still outed an undercover CIA person which is a crime. Saying "whoops I didn't know she was undercover" isn't going to fly.

[flere-imsaho]

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 "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip."

Not sure how that equals "outing a CIA agent". But maybe I am missing something.

Here's the crux of the matter, above. You assume Cooper (& Novak, et. al.) already knew that Plame was CIA, and thus Rove wasn't telling them any information (about her status) that they didn't already know.

I'd like to point out that your assumption hasn't been proven.

Furthermore, if the CIA classified her as "undercover & confidential" and Prosecutor Fitzgerald feels they did enough to support that status, then Cooper & Novak publishing such info, and Rove talking to whomever (whomever didn't have clearance) about such info, are both crimes.

At this point, anything else continues to be pure speculation until Fitzgerald makes his report.

[flere-imsaho]

I don't see how it matters if he knew she was undercover or not, he still outed an undercover CIA person which is a crime. Saying "whoops I didn't know she was undercover" isn't going to fly.

Agreed. Although it may save Rove's bacon in a technically legal manner, the "I didn't know she was undercover" defense strategy is not, in my opinion, a comfortable precedent to set.

[Chubby]

Agreed. Although it may save Rove's bacon in a technically legal manner, the "I didn't know she was undercover" defense strategy is not, in my opinion, a comfortable precedent to set.
I doubt it will do that, does saying "oh I didn't know the speed limit was 35" work? :)

[flere-imsaho]

As of now, in this specific case, I want to see some proof Rove knew she was an undercover operative. We know where the leak came from, now we need to know if it was an intentional outing of a CIA undercover operative. As of now, there is none of that information available. When you find it, please let me know. That's the point I'll join you in screaming that Karl Rove be put in prison.

Again, I have a real problem with this "intentions" argument.

"The Leaker", who we can now assume to be Rove, gave Plame's name to reporters, notably Novak, in order to discredit Wilson.

What was the "intention" there?

Now, that's not criminal, technically. Slimy, and smeary, but certainly consistent with Presidential campaign tactics.

Whether or not it's criminal rests on Fitzgerald's assessment of whether or not Plame was a "true" undercover agent with the CIA supporting her undercover status. We'll have to wait and see on that.

However, back to the subject of "intention". If it's only a crime to reveal the name of an undercover CIA operative when revelation is your intent, then it's presumably not a crime to reveal the name of an undercover CIA operative for any other reason (mentioned in passing, mentioned in praise, mentioned by mistake, etc...). Do people really think that's a good precedent to set when we're talking about the safety of our CIA operatives?

Look, you can go to jail for doing something wrong by accident (some instances of manslaughter spring to mind). If Fitzgerald concludes that Plame was "undercover and confidential" and that the CIA was supporting that status, then "The Leaker" committed a crime, even if it was by accident (though still with an undercurrent of malicious political intent).

Which leads me to my final point:

Let's take two assumptions:

1. "The Leaker" leaked the information out of malicious political intent.

This is pretty well supported by the events surrounding Iraq-Niger-Yellowcake-etc....

2. "The Leaker" didn't know of the confidential nature of Plame, and so made a mistake this way.

Question (rhetorical): How do we feel, as Americans, to have someone in a position of such power and influence acting in such a cavalier manner for political gain?

Let's see some of you step up to the plate and answer that.

[Mr. Wednesday]

I don't see how it matters if he knew she was undercover or not, he still outed an undercover CIA person which is a crime. Saying "whoops I didn't know she was undercover" isn't going to fly.Read the act again, which I think was posted on page four or page five. There is a degree of knowledge about her status required in order for it to be a crime under the act.

Edit: And to address something raised in the preceding post, it does not appear to matter what the intent is in terms of whether a disclosure is legal under the act.

[Chubby]

Read the act again, which I think was posted on page four or page five. There is a degree of knowledge about her status required in order for it to be a crime under the act.

Edit: And to address something raised in the preceding post, it does not appear to matter what the intent is in terms of whether a disclosure is legal under the act.
which would then be exactly why he's saying "I didn't know she was undercover" not because he actually didn't know but because he doesn't want to go to jail.

If he truly didn't know, why the drawn out stupidness about not revealing the source? Obviously he didn't know so he should have allowed them to talk long ago, right? :rolleyes:

[Arles]

Which leads me to my final point:

Let's take two assumptions:

1. "The Leaker" leaked the information out of malicious political intent.

This is pretty well supported by the events surrounding Iraq-Niger-Yellowcake-etc....
If you read every story on this (including Cooper's notes), the reason for "the leak" was to refute a false claim made in the media that Tenet and Cheney were behind sending Wilson to investigate WMD. Rove's comments were specifically made to refute that idea. His comments had nothing to do with Plame or her identity. He was simply stating that "Wilson's wife" may have had more to do with the assignment than Tenet or Cheney since she worked for the agency.

2. "The Leaker" didn't know of the confidential nature of Plame, and so made a mistake this way.

Question (rhetorical): How do we feel, as Americans, to have someone in a position of such power and influence acting in such a cavalier manner for political gain?
Welcome to US politics. It's been the same under Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Kennedy,... It's a dirty game and I think the public has enough skepticism for the entire process by now to understand that. Rove probably should have done more homework and not mentioned even a reference to Plame. But, until some evidence comes out that he knowingly outed a covert agent, there's not a whole lot that can be done on the situation.

If you really are upset that someone in a position of power in the US government acted "in such a cavalier manner for political gain", then my advice is to stay clear of US politics - regardless of the party in power. All you will end up with is an ulcer and a great deal of frustration.

[flere-imsaho]

Welcome to US politics. It's been the same under Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Kennedy,... It's a dirty game and I think the public has enough skepticism for the entire process by now to understand that.

So that makes it OK? Besides, I don't think the Bush I, Clinton or Carter administrations approach the level of dirty politics found in the Nixon, Reagan or Bush II administrations.

If you really are upset that someone in a position of power in the US government acted "in such a cavalier manner for political gain", then my advice is to stay clear of US politics - regardless of the party in power. All you will end up with is an ulcer and a great deal of frustration.

You sound tired and world-weary, Arles. Is the provision of apologies for every action of this Administration starting to wear you out?

[Arles]

So that makes it OK? Besides, I don't think the Bush I, Clinton or Carter administrations approach the level of dirty politics found in the Nixon, Reagan or Bush II administrations.
Then you are being extremely nieve. As to whether it "makes it OK", it all depends on what Rove knew. If he willingly outted a covert CIA agent for political gain then he will get just punishment. I just don't know if that is the case given what I have read to this point.

You sound tired and world-weary, Arles. Is the provision of apologies for every action of this Administration starting to wear you out?
Nah, I'm just a realistic and don't get my blood pressure up everytime one of these claims comes out. Plus, I'm not the one screaming outrage every time someone in the Bush administration forgets to put the toilet seat down. If anyone should be weary, I would think it is you. All that outrage has to be downright depressing and exhausting to keep up.

[KWhit]

If he willingly outted a covert CIA agent for political gain then he will get just punishment.
Not exactly. It should read "If it can be proven that he willingly outted a covert CIA agent for political gain then he might get just punishment."

I'm not taking a stand on this issue either way, because I have no idea whether or not he outed her. But even if he did, he may very well get away with it.

[Arles]

Not exactly. It should read "If it can be proven that he willingly outted a covert CIA agent for political gain then he might get just punishment."

I'm not taking a stand on this issue either way, because I have no idea whether or not he outed her. But even if he did, he may very well get away with it.
If comments from Cooper and other journalists, along with Cooper's full set of notes on the Rove conversation are not enough to prove a violation of the law, then Rove certainly didn't do a very good job of willingly outting her. The prosecutor will have access to all the information on this issue, so we will see if what Rove did is indeed a violation of the law.

[flere-imsaho]

Then you are being extremely nieve. As to whether it "makes it OK", it all depends on what Rove knew. If he willingly outted a covert CIA agent for political gain then he will get just punishment. I just don't know if that is the case given what I have read to this point.

Naive? :rolleyes:

In the realm of "Abuses of Position & Power":

Kennedy: Bay of Pigs, probably "stole" the election (well, Daley stole it for him)
Johnson: Plenty of Congressional arm-twisting
Nixon: Watergate
Ford: Pardons for Watergate
Carter: I'm sure you Right-Wingers have something here
Reagan: Iran-Contra
Bush I: Pardons for Iran-Contra (hmm, see a pattern?)
Clinton: Sex with an intern
Bush II: No need to rehash this

See what you want to see, Arles.

Nah, I'm just a realistic and don't get my blood pressure up everytime one of these claims comes out. Plus, I'm not the one screaming outrage every time someone in the Bush administration forgets to put the toilet seat down. If anyone should be weary, I would think it is you. All that outrage has to be downright depressing and exhausting to keep up.

I gotta say, though, your delusions clearly serve you well.

[JW]

Clinton: Sex with an intern


An example of your lack of objectivity. You forgot Sudan. You forgot Kosovo. And we haven't even gone into Janet Reno's abuses of power on Clinton's watch. Bill Clinton was no saint who simply had a momentary lapse with an intern.

And, btw, lest you lump me in as a conservative Bush-lover, I'm a Democrat who did not vote for Bush in 2000 or 04. Nor did I vote for the weak-ass candidates the Democrats ran against Bush and gave us possibly the worst two choices for president we have ever had in America. I voted third party as a protest in each case.

I have little love for Bush but do believe his actions in the war against radical Islamic terrorism are more in keeping with the nature of this war to the death than what his opponents would have us do.

[TroyF]

I don't see how it matters if he knew she was undercover or not, he still outed an undercover CIA person which is a crime. Saying "whoops I didn't know she was undercover" isn't going to fly.

No, it is not a crime to accidently out an undercover agent. Rove knew she worked in the CIA. Thousands of people work at the CIA and are not undercover agents. In fact, as JIMG pointed out, the fact everyone knew she worked at the CIA in a desk position makes her position as an "undercover operative" pretty difficult to stomach.

If Rove assumed she was just a desk jockey who had the authority to make decisions, what he did isn't a crime. If he knew she was undercover, it is. Again though. . . if it is a crime as you guys are all saying, this will be the easiest court case in the history of juries. He's admitted what he said. The reporter has given up his notes and will testify.

If you guys are right, a Rove conviction is a certainty. (the question is if Bush would pardon him before he left office)

[timmynausea]

An example of your lack of objectivity. You forgot Sudan. You forgot Kosovo. And we haven't even gone into Janet Reno's abuses of power on Clinton's watch. Bill Clinton was no saint who simply had a momentary lapse with an intern.

And, btw, lest you lump me in as a conservative Bush-lover, I'm a Democrat who did not vote for Bush in 2000 or 04. Nor did I vote for the weak-ass candidates the Democrats ran against Bush and gave us possibly the worst two choices for president we have ever had in America. I voted third party as a protest in each case.

I have little love for Bush but do believe his actions in the war against radical Islamic terrorism are more in keeping with the nature of this war to the death than what his opponents would have us do.

I was critical of Sudan at the time, but wasn't he going after Osama Bin Laden and his people? I know that mistakes were made there (like blowing up the medical building), but it doesn't strike me as a terrible idea to have gone after Bin Laden.

[flere-imsaho]

In fact, as JIMG pointed out, the fact everyone knew she worked at the CIA in a desk position makes her position as an "undercover operative" pretty difficult to stomach.

JIMG has failed to produce actual evidence of this "fact", which he admits. Perhaps you have some? Don't waste my time with links to right-wing blogs.

[flere-imsaho]

An example of your lack of objectivity. You forgot Sudan. You forgot Kosovo. And we haven't even gone into Janet Reno's abuses of power on Clinton's watch. Bill Clinton was no saint who simply had a momentary lapse with an intern.

Attempts to stop genocidal massacres in Sudan & Kosovo were abuses of power? That's a new one to me.

[kcchief19]

The defense that Rove didn't identify Plame by name because he referred to her as "Wilson's wife" is akin to President Clinton responding, "That depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

[Flasch186]

All you will end up with is an ulcer and a great deal of frustration.



...and so it is because Im not willing to stand aside when things are sour and say, "Oh well. thats just the way it is." Perhaps Im swimming upstream but when something is wrong i cannot abide.

[Arles]

I find it humorous that we are now arguing the "relative corruption" in US administrations over the past 30-40 years. The only thing that changed in regards to corruption in administrations over the past few decades is the level of media coverage.

As to your assertion that Clinton, Carter and Bush I were much better than others, that's certainly debatable - at a minimum. JW covered Clinton pretty well (add in China for good measure). Bush I was certainly tame compared to Carter, Reagan and Clinton, but he only had one term and did many things involving the Desert Storm war, Contras and others that have been discussed ad-nauseum. Now, to Carter..

In addition to Carter beginning the somewhat troubling practice of sustaining dicators and legitimizing fraudulent elections in his post-presidentcy, he had plenty of very questionable activities during his short reign as president. First, look at the way he handled Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza in the late 70s (privately supported him while feigning public outcry). More importantly, Carter (not Reagan) began the process of supporting Islamic Fundamentalists in Afghanistan against the Soviets. Carter originally armed the "Bin Ladens" and started the organization, financing and training of the Islamic uprising (with CIA help) that helped put Islamic terrorism on the map.
Just read some recent quotes by Carter's National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski:
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
Carter had to make some tough decisions and I don't know that I fault him a great deal in deciding between Islamic fundamentalists and the Russians. Still, Reagan has been tarred and feathered over this when it was Carter that instigated the process.

Each administration has a large number of skeletons in their closet. It just comes down to how many skeletons the media wants to spend time on revealing.

[Flasch186]

An example of your lack of objectivity. You forgot Sudan. You forgot Kosovo. And we haven't even gone into Janet Reno's abuses of power on Clinton's watch. Bill Clinton was no saint who simply had a momentary lapse with an intern.

And, btw, lest you lump me in as a conservative Bush-lover, I'm a Democrat who did not vote for Bush in 2000 or 04. Nor did I vote for the weak-ass candidates the Democrats ran against Bush and gave us possibly the worst two choices for president we have ever had in America. I voted third party as a protest in each case.

I have little love for Bush but do believe his actions in the war against radical Islamic terrorism are more in keeping with the nature of this war to the death than what his opponents would have us do.


Puhlease dont mention Kosovo r Sudan....that was a great thing and I hope we will continue to intercede in genocides that are occurring.

[sterlingice]

I find it humorous that we are now arguing the "relative corruption" in US administrations over the past 30-40 years. The only thing that changed in regards to corruption in administrations over the past few decades is the level of media coverage.
People are now arguing the relative corrupting in US administrations because YOU brought it up. Remember, 30 posts ago when you used it as your defense for this action? "Oh, it's just the way things are and have always been so accept it"

SI

[Flasch186]

White House won't comment on Rove and leak investigation

Monday, July 11, 2005; Posted: 2:28 p.m. EDT (18:28 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- For two years, the White House has insisted that presidential adviser Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak of a CIA officer's identity. And President Bush said the leaker would be fired.

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

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

White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to discuss the matter at two news briefings Monday. He said he would not comment because the leak is the focus of a federal criminal investigation.

"The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium," McClellan said in response to a barrage of questions about Rove and the previous White House denials.

"I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said," McClellan said. "And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time." He said the appropriate time would be when the investigation is completed.

[flere-imsaho]

From this morning (I've bolded my favorite bit):


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

McCLELLAN: This is -- no, I appreciate the question. This is an ongoing investigation at this point. The President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, that means we're not going to be commenting on it while it is ongoing.

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: -- any remorse?

McCLELLAN: -- nor is the White House, because the President wanted us to cooperate fully with the investigation, and that's what we're doing.

QUESTION: That's not an answer.

QUESTION: It's not an answer. And you were perfectly willing to comment from that podium while the investigation was going on, and try to clear Karl Rove. Why the double standard? Why were you willing to say Karl Rove was not involved when -- and talk at length about it, when the investigation was going on, and now that he's been caught red-handed, all of a sudden you've got a new line?

McCLELLAN: No, I don't think it is the way you characterize it, as new, because I have said for quite some time that this is an ongoing investigation, and we're not going to get into discussing it while it's an ongoing investigation. I've really said all I'm going to say on it.

QUESTION: But you did -- you did discuss it while it was an ongoing investigation. You stood there and told the American people Karl Rove wasn't involved.

McCLELLAN: I've said all I'm going to say on it.
Go ahead, April.


[...]


QUESTION: Scott, is the President aware of Karl Rove's role in leaking information about Joe Wilson's wife?

McCLELLAN: Again, this is a Question relating to an ongoing investigation, and you have my response.

QUESTION: Scott, without commenting on the investigation, you said in September of '03, if anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration. Does that standard still hold?

McCLELLAN: Again, I appreciate all these questions. They are questions relating to an ongoing investigation, and the President directed us to cooperate fully with that investigation. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than he does and --

QUESTION: -- the standard then still apply?

McCLELLAN: The investigation is ongoing, Peter, and we're just not going to -- we're not going to --

QUESTION: Did the President set a timetable --

QUESTION: It's not about the investigation, it's about the White House decision --

McCLELLAN: We're not going to talk about it further from this podium.

[Flasch186]

scott mclellan has the worst job in the country.

[Arles]

People are now arguing the relative corrupting in US administrations because YOU brought it up. Remember, 30 posts ago when you used it as your defense for this action? "Oh, it's just the way things are and have always been so accept it"
Which was quickly chased with a "but Clinton and Carter were never that bad" - a laughable and completely untrue assertion. At any rate, it looks like the feeding frenzy has begun so we will see how it all ends up.

[HomerJSimpson]

The defense that Rove didn't identify Plame by name because he referred to her as "Wilson's wife" is akin to President Clinton responding, "That depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

Yup. Both defenses are asinine.

[JW]

Attempts to stop genocidal massacres in Sudan & Kosovo were abuses of power? That's a new one to me.

I am heartened to see that you support attempts to stop 'genocidal massacres'. I would think then that you and others are glad we stopped Saddam before he had an opportunity to commit more 'genocidal massacres' than he did. Or is that different?

Sudan was the bombing of a pharmaceutical factory that was supposedly doubling as a chemical weapons plant. The consensus of current opinion is that it was just a pharmaceutical factory. And many believe that Clinton ordered it to divert attention away from Monica. The Sudan operation had nothing to do with the genocide being committed by the Muslim government against Christian and traditional tribal groups in the south of Sudan.

As for Kosovo, this was a remarkably botched operation, with Clinton ruling out the use of ground troops from the start and attempting to conduct a surgical bombing campaign at high altitude so no one would actually get killed, thus providing ample time for those committing 'genocidal massacres' to finish what they were doing. Clinton's decisions probably resulted in more deaths than would otherwise have occurred.

[Buccaneer]

I find it funny those that are bringing up the past as if they knew anything that went on more than 5 years ago. Flere's list of "corruptions" shows no understanding of history or events that went on at the time - just a rehash of recent blogs or chat rooms. Folks like JW should be listented to because more than me, he had lived through and understood events as they were happening in the past 30 years.

[timmynausea]

I am heartened to see that you support attempts to stop 'genocidal massacres'. I would think then that you and others are glad we stopped Saddam before he had an opportunity to commit more 'genocidal massacres' than he did. Or is that different?

Sudan was the bombing of a pharmaceutical factory that was supposedly doubling as a chemical weapons plant. The consensus of current opinion is that it was just a pharmaceutical factory. And many believe that Clinton ordered it to divert attention away from Monica. The Sudan operation had nothing to do with the genocide being committed by the Muslim government against Christian and traditional tribal groups in the south of Sudan.

As for Kosovo, this was a remarkably botched operation, with Clinton ruling out the use of ground troops from the start and attempting to conduct a surgical bombing campaign at high altitude so no one would actually get killed, thus providing ample time for those committing 'genocidal massacres' to finish what they were doing. Clinton's decisions probably resulted in more deaths than would otherwise have occurred.


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.

[Flasch186]

I am heartened to see that you support attempts to stop 'genocidal massacres'. I would think then that you and others are glad we stopped Saddam before he had an opportunity to commit more 'genocidal massacres' than he did. Or is that different?

Sudan was the bombing of a pharmaceutical factory that was supposedly doubling as a chemical weapons plant. The consensus of current opinion is that it was just a pharmaceutical factory. And many believe that Clinton ordered it to divert attention away from Monica. The Sudan operation had nothing to do with the genocide being committed by the Muslim government against Christian and traditional tribal groups in the south of Sudan.

As for Kosovo, this was a remarkably botched operation, with Clinton ruling out the use of ground troops from the start and attempting to conduct a surgical bombing campaign at high altitude so no one would actually get killed, thus providing ample time for those committing 'genocidal massacres' to finish what they were doing. Clinton's decisions probably resulted in more deaths than would otherwise have occurred.

Action in all cases is better than none. Yes, some of us on the left were and are for the actions in Iraq and will continue to be in times where genocides are occurring or on the cusp of occurring. I wish we would do more to stop ALL genocidal leaders, or rebels.

[TroyF]

2. "The Leaker" didn't know of the confidential nature of Plame, and so made a mistake this way.

Question (rhetorical): How do we feel, as Americans, to have someone in a position of such power and influence acting in such a cavalier manner for political gain?

Let's see some of you step up to the plate and answer that.


How do I feel about it? Pissed off. It's ridiculous for a man in his position to do some of the things he's done. But I'm not willing to support frying the guy until I see he knew. For me there is a major difference between knowingly outing an undercover operative and not knowing all of the facts.

As has been said earlier, this is a darned easy prosecution. They have everything they need. The reporters notes. The reporter. Rove giving the reporter the OK to do both of those things.

The thing I'm more worried about isn't a conviction of Rove, it would be Bush pardoning Rove on his last day. . . as Clinton did to Susan McDougal (his Whitewater partner), Henry Cisneros (who lied to the FBI), John Deutch (who was convicted of mishandling secret information at the CIA, the same charge I would guess Rove would be convicted of) and Fife Symington (who was convicted of bank fraud).

If you guys are correct and this is so open and shut, we'll find out when it gets to the courtroom. My guess is you are wrong, but that's only my opinion, nothing more/nothing less. As I've said before, I wouldn't shed a tear for Rove if he goes down. On the other hand, I think you'd have to be blind not to see some flaws with the record here. Based on the information given at this time, I fail to see how a charge of treason would stick. I'm doubtful that there could even be a charge of mishandled information unless it can be proven he knew she was undercover.

[JW]

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.

I think the topic was abuse of position and power rather than corruption.

Clinton failed to go after Osama on several occasions when he had good opportunities to do so. Sudan was about the supposed production of WMDs. The missile strike on the factory was not directed at Osama personally.

The motives for the Kosovo intervention were multi-fold. One reason is that Clinton wanted to appear strong. What you say is also correct.

[JW]

Action in all cases is better than none. Yes, some of us on the left were and are for the actions in Iraq and will continue to be in times where genocides are occurring or on the cusp of occurring. I wish we would do more to stop ALL genocidal leaders, or rebels.

And I can agree with that. However, military actions are rarely if ever done for purely altruistic reasons. There is always a political motivation, both a domestic and foreign motivation. I assume you would then criticize Clinton as well as Bush for not intervening in the sub-Saharan African genocide de jeur.

[Flasch186]

And I can agree with that. However, military actions are rarely if ever done for purely altruistic reasons. There is always a political motivation, both a domestic and foreign motivation. I assume you would then criticize Clinton as well as Bush for not intervening in the sub-Saharan African genocide de jeur.


yup, damn skippy. For standing aside and not intervening I criticize all able countries.

[JPhillips]

QUESTION: The Robert Novak column last week . . . has now given rise to accusations that the administration deliberatively blew the cover of an undercover CIA operative, and in so doing, violated a federal law that prohibits revealing the identity of undercover CIA operatives. Can you respond to that?
McCLELLAN: Thank you for bringing that up. That is not the way this President or this White House operates. And there is absolutely no information that has come to my attention or that I have seen that suggests that there is any truth to that suggestion. And, certainly, no one in this White House would have given authority to take such a step.

Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
July 22, 2003

QUESTION: Scott, has there ever been an attempt or effort on the part of anyone here at the White House to discredit the reputations or reporting of former Ambassador Joe Wilson, his wife, or ABC correspondent Jeffrey Kofman?
McCLELLAN: John, I think I answered that yesterday. That is not the way that this White House operates. That's not the way the President operates . . . No one would be authorized to do that within this White House. That is simply not the way we operate, and that's simply not the way the President operates.

QUESTION: In all of those cases?

McCLELLAN: Well, go down -- which two?

QUESTION: Joe Wilson and his wife?

McCLELLAN: No.

Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
July 23, 2003

QUESTION: Wilson now believes that the person who did this was Karl Rove . . . Did Karl Rove tell that . . .
McCLELLAN: I haven't heard that. That's just totally ridiculous. But we've already addressed this issue. If I could find out who anonymous people were, I would. I just said, it's totally ridiculous.

QUESTION: But did Karl Rove do it?

McCLELLAN: I said, it's totally ridiculous.

Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
September 16, 2003

This morning, ABC News producer Andrea Owen happened to find herself near Karl Rove (who was walking to his car), and an ABC camera.
Owen: "Did you have any knowledge or did you leak the name of the CIA agent to the press?"

Rove: "No."

At which point, Mr. Rove shut his car door as Ms. Owen asked, "What is your response to the fact that Justice is looking into the matter?"

ABC News
The Note
September 29, 2003
(courtesy of Think Progress)

QUESTION: Has the President either asked Karl Rove to assure him that he had nothing to do with this; or did Karl Rove go to the President to assure him that he . . .
McCLELLAN: I don't think he needs that. I think I've spoken clearly to this publicly . . . I've just said there's no truth to it.

QUESTION: Yes, but I'm just wondering if there was a conversation between Karl Rove and the President, or if he just talked to you, and you're here at this . . .

McCLELLAN: He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved.

QUESTION: How does he know that?

McCLELLAN: The President knows.

Scott McClellan
Press Gaggle
September 29, 2003

QUESTION: Weeks ago, when you were first asked whether Mr. Rove had the conversation with Robert Novak that produced the column, you dismissed it as ridiculous. And I wanted just to make sure, at that time, had you talked to Karl?
McCLELLAN: I've made it very clear, from the beginning, that it is totally ridiculous. I've known Karl for a long time, and I didn't even need to go ask Karl, because I know the kind of person that he is, and he is someone that is committed to the highest standards of conduct.

QUESTION: Can you say for the record whether Mr. Rove possessed the information about Mr. Wilson's wife, but merely did not talk to anybody about it?

McCLELLAN: I don't know whether or not -- I mean, I'm sure he probably saw the same media reports everybody else in this room has.

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

McCLELLAN: We're going down a lot of different roads here. I've made it very clear that he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was.

Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
September 29, 2003

QUESTION: Yesterday we were told that Karl Rove had no role in it. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

QUESTION: Have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
September 30, 2003

McCLELLAN: Let me make it very clear. As I said previously, he [Karl Rove] was not involved, and that allegation is not true in terms of leaking classified information, nor would he condone it.
QUESTION: He does not condone people pointing reporters toward classified information that's been released; he would not condone that either? Is that what you're saying?

McCLELLAN: The President doesn't condone the activity that you're suggesting, absolutely he does not.

Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
October 1, 2003

QUESTION: Scott, you have said that you, personally, went to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliot Abrams to ask them if they were the leakers . . . Why did you do that, and can you describe the conversations you had with them?
McCLELLAN: They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt of that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.

QUESTION: So you're saying -- you're saying categorically those three individuals were not the leakers or did not authorize the leaks; is that what you're saying?

McCLELLAN: That's correct.

Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
October 7, 2003

QUESTION: Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?
McCLELLAN: I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands.

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

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

Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
October 10, 2003

Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column.
The American Prospect
Plugging Leaks
March 8, 2004

I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name.
Karl Rove
CNN Interview
August 31, 2004

"Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn't disclose Valerie Plame's identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else . . . Who outed this woman? . . . It wasn't Karl." Luskin said Rove "certainly did not disclose to Matt Cooper or anybody else any confidential information."
Rove attorney Robert Luskin
CNN Interview
July 4, 2005

Luskin confirmed that Rove and Cooper had spoken prior to the publication of the original Time article, but said that Rove “did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA” nor did he “knowingly disclose classified information.”
Newsweek
Turning Up the Heat
July 6, 2005

Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division . . . Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak's column appeared; in other words, before Plame's identity had been published
Newsweek
Matt Cooper's Source
July 10, 2005

[NoMyths]

McCLELLAN: The President knows.A fairly damning phrase...but sadly an accurate one.

[NoMyths]

http://ak.imgfarm.com/images/ap/BUSH_.sff_WHRE105_20050711134520.jpg

"I can't take the lying anymore! Who wants to help me lynch the fuckers?"

[SFL Cat]

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

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

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

In Clinton's corruption ledger you can add campaign "funny money" with Communist Chinese ties. Plus you can add all those quid pro quo pardons (140 pardons, 36 sentence commutations) at the end of his presidency, in particular billionaire Marc Rich -- whose wife Denise "donated" several hundred thousand dollars to the Clinton Library Foundation (and perhaps a presidential hummer to boot!).

[flere-imsaho]

I find it funny those that are bringing up the past as if they knew anything that went on more than 5 years ago. Flere's list of "corruptions" shows no understanding of history or events that went on at the time - just a rehash of recent blogs or chat rooms.

:rolleyes:

Look, I didn't intend for this to derail into a discussion on the merits of previous presidents. I was responding to this:

Welcome to US politics. It's been the same under Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Kennedy,... It's a dirty game and I think the public has enough skepticism for the entire process by now to understand that.

I'll make it very simple for you all. In response to Arles, I make the following two points, both of which are merely my opinion:

1. I think it's a gross overgeneralization to say that the politics of the White House have been uniformly dirty since Kennedy. Gross generalizations lead to sloppy conclusions (i.e. it's always been this way, we can't change it - which is essentially Arles' point).

2. In my (partisan) opinion, misuse of the power of the White House for partisan political gain, has been worse under Republicans (save Bush I), than under Democrats (save Kennedy).

Read #2 carefully, folks. It's a nuanced point, not a blinding gross overgeneralization. I don't want to have to come back here in 10 posts and re-explain it to you again, OK?