OT - Karl Rove Named as CIA Agent Leak

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

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

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

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

[John Galt]

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

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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

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

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

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

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

[Arles]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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

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

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by KWhit

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


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

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

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

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

[KWhit]

Here's the quote.

Originally Posted by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

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

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Here's the quote.

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

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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

Yes, I know. I was just posting the quote that I originally asked about. It was lost in Ryche's quoting of my earlier post.

[KWhit]

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

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4752466

(4 minute audio clip)

[JPhillips]

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

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JW

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

[i was away for the day]

Perjury will be easy, I should think.

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

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

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

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

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

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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

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

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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

Then don't believe it.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

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

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






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

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

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

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

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

Then don't believe it.

so he never said that or wrote that?

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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

Thanks.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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

William Safire put it best back in 2004:

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

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

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

The Washington Post also ran an article on this:

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...r=emailarticle

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

so he never said that or wrote that?

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

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

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

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

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

William Safire put it best back in 2004:



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

The Washington Post also ran an article on this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...r=emailarticle

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

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

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

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

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

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

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

[John Galt]

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

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

[Arles]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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

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

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

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

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

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

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

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

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

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

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

Your rose-colored glasses have become opaque.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by John Galt

You seem to be missing the point that he still says "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter" and that the evidence that contradicts that is a memo she wrote, but she says was ordered to be written in the chain of command. It is still in controversy. I'm willing to believe he lied, but stop trying to act like it is 100% certain and without question.

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

As for the other "lie," he says he misspoke and the WP facts are reported quite differently in other sources. These are not absolute issues that "nearly every major media organization, the bi-partisan senate committee and even Wilson himself" agreed upon. Your assertion is the "lie" in this thread.

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

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

So Arles, when you cited a fabricator on this board and then pretty much made up shit to explain away two contradictory statements by you here, were those your two strikes?

Let's see:
"nearly every major media organization"
Wall Street Journal...check
NY Times...check
Washington Post...check
CNN....check
Fox News....check

That seems to be a correct statement.

"the bi-partisan senate committee"

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

Check

"Wilson himself"

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

Check.

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

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

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

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

Originally Posted by Arles

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

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

Originally Posted by Arles

"the bi-partisan senate committee"

Check.

Cite (the original material)?

Originally Posted by Arles

"Wilson himself"

Check.

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

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

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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

I tried on the FBI part [(B)(ii) from the law] and it didn't fly.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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

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

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

Cite (the original material)?

Here's the original senate report:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell...chapter2-b.htm

Originally Posted by Senate report

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

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

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

So, when someone states to a senate comittee that he told a Washington Post reporter that "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong" from a document he later admitted he never saw - what exactly was he trying to say if not trying to pull a fast one on the reporter to bolster his case? It's a pretty specific claim and he only recanted when he was caught red-handed by the committee.

[Flasch186]

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

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

[JW]

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

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

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

Excerpts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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

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

Your rose-colored glasses have become opaque.

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

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

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

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

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

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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

Sure, I think Rumsfeld has lied a few times.

How about Bush? Im sure I could find articles and the such showing he lied or "misspoke" more than 2 times. So is he a liar too?

Yep. Plus, I'll do you one further and state I think most presidents lie. Bush has, Clinton has, Bush I did numerous times. Reagan lied, Carter lied and we don't even want to talk about Kennedy and Nixon. I'd be surprised if anyone could find a US president that hasn't lied over a 4 or 8-year term to be honest.

You accuse but aren't willing to apply the same standard to your team. why is that?

Seems like we have a little premature ejaculation on questions here.

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

I am certainly partisan, but I think it's better to admit that than be dilusional and think my first instinct is always going to be "completely fair" to both sides. I was a partisan lefty for about 10 years of my life, so I have been on the other side as well. Just because someone is partisan does not mean they cannot be intellectually honest - it just means it's a little more difficult because of their inheirant bias. There are times where I will not be intellectually honest and that bothers me. But, by admitting I am a partisan I can atleast look out for those occasions and try to be fair to both sides.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by yabanci

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

Here's the physical report (Section II Niger, Part B):

Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." This was just one day before CPD sent a cable DELETED requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him "there's this crazy report" on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.

The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA's behalf . The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region . Because the former ambassador did not uncover any information about DELETED during this visit to Niger, CPD did not distribute an intelligence report on the visit.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell...chapter2-b.htm

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

[Arles]

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

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell...at-roberts.htm

[Arles]

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

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...14/wbr.01.html

Here's the comment that puzzle me:

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

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

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

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

WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department.

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

Ugh, what a waste of time this is becoming.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Arles

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

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...14/wbr.01.html

Here's the comment that puzzle me:

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

Ugh, what a waste of time this is becoming.

You are missing something. he said once she was outed, she wasn't clandestine anymore now was she?

[JW]

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/po...gewanted=print

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Flasch186]

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

[panerd]

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

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

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

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

[JW]

Originally Posted by panerd

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

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

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

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

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

[JW]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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

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

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

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by panerd

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

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

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

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

In many ways you're right. Just one of the reasons I'm not a Democrat. Just trying to do my part to keep Americans informed about what's going on, so that hopefully we can make some progress. Eventually.

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

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Chubby

You are missing something. he said once she was outed, she wasn't clandestine anymore now was she?

OK, that's a good point. When I watched the interview, it seemed like he was saying she was not clandestine when she was named. But, after looking at the transcript, your explanation makes a lot more sense.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by panerd

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

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

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

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

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

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by panerd

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

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

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

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

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

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by panerd

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

That's not why I do this.

[JW]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

That's not why I do this.

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