The Karl Rove Thread :)

[Apotheosis]

the story speaks for itself :)

[Skirmisher]

Just a matter of time I think. :shrug:

[StrayRogue]

American Dad had him pretty well covered in my opinion.

[Apotheosis]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
American Dad had him pretty well covered in my opinion.

yeah, I would say so.

In any case, I would encourage people to study this situation for themselves.

It appears that the media did set him up, but the point is, he did it.

[Edited on 7-12-2005 by Yswithe]

[Apotheosis]

http://votelouise.com/page/petition/rove


on-line petition to remove rove

sign it if you are a US citizen

[Jenisi]

Am I the only one that doesn't know what this thread is about? I'm assuming it has something to do with tv... and I never watch tv... so I wouldn't know.

[Asha]

Agreed Jenisi.
I have no clue either.

[Hulkein]

It's from a couple years ago.

It's pretty much a democratic hunt against the guy that keeps beating them in elections.

[DeV]

If I was that CIA agent, I'd want to get to the bottom of it as well. Whoever leaked the information fucked up major. They should be held accountable for their actions.

[peam]

Karl Rove's ass is toast, if the President actually holds to his word.

So... I guess Mr. Rove's position is secure for the next 3 years and change.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Hulkein
It's from a couple years ago.

It's pretty much a democratic hunt against the guy that keeps beating them in elections.

CIA agents everywhere may feel a tad bit different.

And the stance that those pressing for Rove's release by calling it a political attack are forgetting that the agents name was released for political reasons and releasing such information is, beyond being dangerous and an incredibly stupid practice, against the law.

Oh the irony.

[Apotheosis]

Essentially, a few years ago, a few reporters for the press, most notably Time magazine, leaked the identity of a CIA agent who was operating covertly.

Conveniently, her husband was a reporter who turned up evidence that documents relating to Iraq's attempts to purchase nuclear materials from Nigeria (or some other country in Africa) were falsified. The documents were presented to the US and the UN as positive evidence that Iraq had a WMD program in place.

They weren't the only part of the evidence, but they were one of the reasons for going to war with Iraq. Naturally, when they were revealed as false, the Bush administration acknowledged the error.
(on a side note, the original reason to go to war with Iraq was regarding WMD's, when it turned out that they didn't exist, the administration's new spin was that they wanted to bring democracy to Iraq)

At the time, the reporters refused to reveal their source, trying to fall back on the press's right to keep their sources anonymous.

Eventually, it was found that the person who leaked the identity of the Agent was a high level person in the Bush administration.

After much legal wrangling, Time was forced to reveal the source.
It turns out that Karl Rove either directly named or implied to the reporter that this woman was a CIA agent.

Read the news for yourself, so you can get what story there is out there.

[Apotheosis]

Let's also not forget that Scott Mcllelan, press secretary for the white house, has been recorded as stating:
(pardon the paraphrasing)

"If the administration finds out that the source of the leak came from the administration, they would be fired."

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Skirmisher


CIA agents everywhere may feel a tad bit different.

And the stance that those pressing for Rove's release by calling it a political attack are forgetting that the agents name was released for political reasons and releasing such information is, beyond being dangerous and an incredibly stupid practice, against the law.

Oh the irony.

In what way will they feel differently?

It's from a couple years ago and it is a hunt being led by democrats.

I don't really care if he gets fired or not, he already got Bush in office by defeating everything the democrats and 527s like MoveOn had to offer, that's all I really care about the guy.

[Edited on 7-12-2005 by Hulkein]

[Skirmisher]

Interesting how some conservatives are all for the intelligence community in the country until it's politiclaly convenient to backstab those actual officers who do the work .

I don't wnt him fired.

I want him in jail.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Hulkein
It's from a couple years ago.

It's pretty much a democratic hunt against the guy that keeps beating them in elections.

:lol:

[Apotheosis]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
Interesting how some conservatives are all for the intelligence community in the country until it's politiclaly convenient to backstab those actual officers who do the work .

I don't wnt him fired.

I want him in jail.


Yeah, I know, they feel like the democrats are demonizing them for breaking the law. I am not surprised at Hulkein's blind loyalty, it's reflective of alot of Americans who don't care about how their country is run.

And I can't imagine what the White House will do without their top advisor.. while average joe citizen who doesn't care, this is going to bring alot more moderates out.

My father, a die-hard catholic republican thinks Rove should get the axe.

Before that, Bush and his team couldn't sin.

ALOT of republicans in my area are pissed. Rove fux0r3d up bad and now his ass is grass. maybe.

[Hulkein]

I don't have any loyalty to Karl Rove.

Fire him, put him in jail, I don't care.

Only difference between me and you here is I'm not making threads about him with a smiley face.

PS. Alot isn't a word.

[Edited on 7-12-2005 by Hulkein]

[Skirmisher]

Awsome comeback.

[Hulkein]

What comeback?

I'm not loyal to him, being called for having 'blind loyalty' is something I'm going to clarify.

Sorry...

[Edited on 7-12-2005 by Hulkein]

Fire him.

[Skirmisher]

At first it was political, then when thats shown to be false, your reply is to call someone on a grammatical error and imply that using a smiley in a thread discredits it somehow.

Hey, whatever works for you.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
At first it was political, then when thats shown to be false,

It is political. It's obvious that the democrats have a hardon with nailing Rove for whatever they can because he is the guy that keeps beating them.

Nothing said here changes my opinion on that - so nah - nothing was proven false.



your reply is to call someone on a grammatical error

I didn't do it in a mean way, I was telling him it isn't a word. It was the PS. of my post, had he not been wrong in calling me blindly loyal, I would've been done with this thread.



and imply that using a smiley in a thread discredits it somehow.


Nope, I didn't imply that. Why don't you stop making baseless assumptions?

I mentioned the smiley to point out the fact that he has some amount of happiness that Rove committed a crime, backing up my claim that a lot of this thing about Rove is fueled by the hardon democrats have with busting their white whale.

[Edited on 7-12-2005 by Hulkein]

[Apotheosis]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Only difference between me and you here is I'm not making threads about him with a smiley face.

I was willing to continue giving the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt. And I would continue to do so if they stoold by their claim that they would fire anyone involved.

I detest extremism on any side of the political spectrum, but this situation definitely angers me.


P.S. Alot isn't a word.

Congratulations, anyone with a highschool diploma or GED knows that. Sorry, I am all out of gold stars though, otherwise you would get one.

Why did I put a smilie face on the thread? Because, this story out of all of them, is the trump that will call anyone out on their bullshit.

[Edited on 7-12-2005 by Yswithe]

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Yswithe

Congratulations, anyone with a highschool diploma or GED knows that. Sorry, I am all out of gold stars though, otherwise you would get one.

I don't need a gold star, just your word that you'll try and appear like you have a GED or something along those lines and avoid messing that up in the future. ;)

Just looking out for ya buddy.

[Apotheosis]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Yswithe

Congratulations, anyone with a highschool diploma or GED knows that. Sorry, I am all out of gold stars though, otherwise you would get one.

I don't need a gold star, just your word that you'll try and appear like you have a GED or something along those lines and avoid messing that up in the future. ;)

Just looking out for ya buddy.

lol

I appreciate you looking out for my best interests, pal.

:D

[Edited on 7-12-2005 by Yswithe]

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Hulkein

It is political. It's obvious that the democrats have a hardon with nailing Rove for whatever they can because he is the guy that keeps beating them.

Nothing said here changes my opinion on that - so nah - nothing was proven false.


So the call to impeach Clinton was not politcal but the call to have someone removed for endangering lives of US intelligence agents for politcal retribution is a witch hunt of some sort?


Why don't you stop making baseless assumptions?

I mentioned the smiley to point out the fact that he has some amount of happiness that Rove committed a crime, backing up my claim that a lot of this thing about Rove is fueled by the hardon democrats have with busting their white whale.

[Edited on 7-12-2005 by Hulkein]

Now who is making the baseless assumptions? I took it to mean they were laughing at the hypocrosy of those who would try to defend him at all and that he has not simply resigned.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
So the call to impeach Clinton was not politcal but the call to have someone removed for endangering lives of US intelligence agents for politcal retribution is a witch hunt of some sort?

No, I think it was a witch hunt what happened to Clinton.

Just as I think this is a witch hunt now.

That doesn't excuse what either person did (or allegedly did, in Rove's case).



Now who is making the baseless assumptions? I took it to mean they were laughing at the hypocrosy of those who would try to defend him at all and that he has not simply resigned.

You're quite the swami.

I'm sure your feeling had nothing to do with the fact that Yswith just said that. :lol2:

It's quite clear that the hardliner democrats like yourself are happy to see him in some trouble, the smiley face is an example of that.

Loosen up Skirm, you seem like you've been a little stressed out lately.

[Apotheosis]

I'm not a hardline democrat, for the record.

I consider myself a moderate, left leaning on social issues, right leaning on economical matters.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Hulkein


It's quite clear that the hardliner democrats like yourself are happy to see him in some trouble, the smiley face is an example of that.

Loosen up Skirm, you seem like you've been a little stressed out lately.

I take the act of betraying the confidence of US intelligence officers kind of seriously, yes.

And my frame of mind or "loosening up" or not doesn't really relate to the fact that the Rove should be first fired, and second prosecuted. It also does not relate to the fact that the administration knew damned well who leaked this info and has let him go on working all this time.

Sorry, but iI didnt find a smiley to quite capture the level of disgust i have for Rove and anyone who has helped protect him knowing what he has done.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Hulkein


Loosen up Skirm, you seem like you've been a little stressed out lately.
So have you, especially concerning issues surrounding Moveon.org and now this.

I could care less if it was Karl Rove or Joe Schmoe from the street that released the identity of a government agent. It's fucked up no matter how you look at it. Any CIA agent with a sane mind would feel the same.

[Warriorbird]

"It is political. It's obvious that the democrats have a hardon with nailing Rove for whatever they can because he is the guy that keeps beating them. "

I should bring this up whenever you talk about a Clinton. Ever.

[Edaarin]

Wait...how does American Dad have him pretty well covered?

[Sean]

Originally posted by Edaarin
Wait...how does American Dad have him pretty well covered?

Did you miss the episode where he helps Stan get elected to his church position?

[Edaarin]

Ohhhh. I caught about half of it...I thought that was satan or something.

[StrayRogue]

It may as well have been. I think that was the point:

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
"It is political. It's obvious that the democrats have a hardon with nailing Rove for whatever they can because he is the guy that keeps beating them. "

I should bring this up whenever you talk about a Clinton. Ever.

Wouldn't really bother me, considering I didn't follow politics back then. I was 8 years old when he was first elected.

[Gan]

If he's guilty, and proven so beyond a reasonable doubt, then he should be fired and prosecuted. No one is above the law, regardless of their political affiliation.

But if you cant prove it beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it, then you're just going to turn him into a martyr by hunting him down.

Basically we need more cooberating evidence that clearly implicates Rove (more details than just the 1 set of notes from 1 of 2 reporters breaking the story of the leak). To this point, we have very little hard evidence and more inuendo and circumstantial information than anything else. How about witnesses or a recording? Lets see some facts before we call for his head on a platter.

Perhaps we should take a closer look at the Wilson(s) factor and just how much they were involved.

:!:

Edited a grammatical error.

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by Ganalon]

[Artha]

I sort of hope he gets convicted, but only so he can then be pardoned. I think that would be excellent.

[Soulpieced]

Eh, just strip his clearance.

[Skirmisher]

Please expand upon the whole " Perhaps we should take a closer look at the Wilson(s) factor and just how much they were involved. " concept?

[Gan]

From what I understand... which may or may not be completely accurate.

Mr. Wilson (forgot first name) was the ambassador sent to Niger to verify if Saddam sought uranium.

Mr. Wilson came back and decided to write an op-ed piece (during the Kerry/Bush election season I believe) denoting that he could find no evidence that Saddam bought uranium.

Now its coming out that Mr. Wilson was a Kerry supporter and might have used the media/press in order to take a stab at Bush's credibility. Its also been said that Mrs. Wilson (CIA agent) was the one to encourage (I dont know if or how she had that authority) her husband to be the one to perform the Niger interviews.

To date we only have 1 of 2 sets of notes from 1 of 2 reporters that broke the story that Mrs. Wilson's name was leaked supposedly by a white house official. The 2nd reporter is still in jail for refusing to name her source. Why? You'd think that if it was a high ranking republican official then jail would have been the last thing on her agenda. And I also hear that the notes from the 1st reporter mention an interview with Rove but nothing damning was revealed, nor cooberated.

With that said, I'm starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist so I'm going to rest my opinion in my previous post and wait and see what else turns up. Too bad I'm going to have to wade through all the witch hunt propeganda to find out what happens.

Edit:
This is from combining the information given on both CNN and Fox News.

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by Ganalon]

[Artha]

Too bad I'm going to have to wade through all the witch hunt propeganda to find out what happens.
True 'nuff.

Originally posted by Soulpieced
Eh, just strip his clearance.
That would ruin him... good thinking.

[longshot]

Hulk, not to single you out, but I don't think this is a partisan issue at all.

He outed an agent.

This isn't the kind of thing that goes away after you apologize on "Dr. Phil".

Would you want to put your life on the line for this country knowing that you could be killed because someone decided it was okay to do something like this?

I don't think so...

Is Karl Rove a brilliant political strategist? Absolutely.

But, I don't see how this is defensible in any light.

[Gan]

Unless I'm watching reruns of the news, I havnt seen where Rove has been convicted yet. I am seeing lots of speculation, political manuevering, and inuendos but no proof.

And yet some folks here are steadfast convinced that he did it, even though no proof has been offered.

Amazing, utterly amazing.

[Skirmisher]

Keep grasping to that hope for as long as you can.

This is only a matter of time though i'm sure they will drag it out as long as possible.

[Gan]

whatever...

I stand by my earlier comments... if he's guilty then he should face charges in court. If he's not then he shouldnt. But until he's convicted - he is considered innocent until proven guilty.

:deadhorse:

[Apotheosis]

(here's me falling into conspiratorial thinking :( )
wasn't there an e-mail connected to Karl and Cooper?

wasn't the evidence that initially came out showing that Rove said what he said to Cooper as "damage control" and may have been a slip up on Rove's part?

I'll have to collect all the media sources and present all the data, as posted by as many news sources as I can find on the subject.

Even if this isn't a direct attack on either side, the facts remain:

The Nigerian documents were proven to have been falsified, by whom, I have no idea.

The sources were confirmed to have been high ranking Bush administration officials. as a reporter, if my life was potentially in danger, I would do my damndest to keep my mouth shut. We don't know if there's any behind the scenes coercing on either side, but when money and politics are at stake, people die, either by suicide or outright murder. I'm not as naive to think that people die or get ruined because they know something they shouldn't.

In the initial exposition, we see people 'claiming' things and having evidence to back it up, now, don't tell me that people supress stuff or try to put as light of a spin on it.

Karl Rove himself admitted that he indirectly identified a covert agent. End of story.


Now, there's alot of circumstantial evidence, and people have been convicted on that alone. In some cases, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a friggin' duck

Oh, and finally, Ocham's Razor, look it up.

[Apotheosis]

Here's the original article written by Cooper, the reporter who revealed Rove as a source:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,465270,00.html

Thursday, Jul. 17, 2003
A War on Wilson?
Inside the Bush Administration's feud with the diplomat who poured cold water on the Iraq-uranium connection
By MATTHEW COOPER, MASSIMO CALABRESI AND JOHN F. DICKERSON

Has the Bush Administration declared war on a former ambassador who conducted a fact-finding mission to probe possible Iraqi interest in African uranium? Perhaps.

Former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson raised the Administration's ire with an op-ed piece in The New York Times on July 6 saying that the Administration had "twisted" intelligence to "exaggerate" the Iraqi threat. Since then Administration officials have taken public and private whacks at Wilson, charging that his 2002 report, made at the behest of U.S. intelligence, was faulty and that his mission was a scheme cooked up by mid-level operatives. George Tenet, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, took a shot at Wilson last week as did ex-White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. Both contended that Wilson's report on an alleged Iraqi effort to purchase uranium from Niger, far from undermining the president's claim in his State of the Union address that Iraq sought uranium in Africa, as Wilson had said, actually strengthened it. And some government officials have noted to TIME in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein's government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore, sometimes referred to as yellow cake, which is used to build nuclear devices.

In an interview with TIME, Wilson, who served as an ambassador to Gabon and as a senior American diplomat in Baghdad under the current president's father, angrily said that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Africa. "That is bulls__t. That is absolutely not the case," Wilson told TIME. "I met with between six and eight analysts and operators from CIA and elsewhere [before the Feb 2002 trip]. None of the people in that meeting did I know, and they took the decision to send me. This is a smear job."

Government officials are not only privately disputing the genesis of Wilson's trip, but publicly contesting what he found. Last week Bush Administration officials said that Wilson's report reinforced the president's claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa. They say that when Wilson returned from Africa in Feb. 2002, he included in his report to the CIA an encounter with a former Nigerien government official who told him that Iraq had approached him in June 1999, expressing interest in expanding commercial relations between Iraq and Niger. The Administration claims Wilson reported that the former Nigerien official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales.

"This is in Wilson's report back to the CIA," White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters last week, a few days before he left his post to join the private sector. "Wilson's own report, the very man who was on television saying Niger denies it...reports himself that officials in Niger said that Iraq was seeking to contact officials in Niger about sales."

Wilson tells the story differently and in a crucial respect. He says the official in question was contacted by an Algerian-Nigerien intermediary who inquired if the official would meet with an Iraqi about "commercial" sales — an offer he declined. Wilson dismisses CIA Director George Tenet's suggestion in his own mea culpa last week that the meeting validates the President's State of the Union claim: "That then translates into an Iraqi effort to import a significant quantity of uranium as the president alleged? These guys really need to get serious."

Government officials also chide Wilson for not delving into the details of the now infamous forged papers that pointed to a sale of uranium to Iraq. When Tenet issued his I-take-the-blame statement on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium connection last week, he took a none-too-subtle jab at Wilson's report. "There was no mention in the report of forged documents — or any suggestion of the existence of documents at all," Tenet wrote. For his part Wilson says he did not deal with the forgeries explicitly in his report because he never saw them. However, Wilson says he refuted the forgeries' central allegation that Niger had been negotiating a sale of uranium to Iraq. Wilson says he explained in the report that several Nigerien government signatures would be required to permit such a sale — signatures that were either absent or clearly botched in the forged documents.

Administration officials also claim that Wilson took at face value the claims of Nigerien officials that they had not sold uranium ore to Saddam Hussein. (Such sales would have been forbidden under then-existing United Nations sanctions on Iraq.) "He spent eight days in Niger and he concluded that Niger denied the allegation." Fleischer told reporters last week. "Well, typically nations don't admit to going around nuclear nonproliferation,"

For his part, Wilson says that the Administration conflated the prior report of the American ambassador to Niger with his own. Wilson says a report by Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the American ambassador to Niger, addresses the issue of Nigerien government officials disputing the allegation. Wilson says that he never made the naïve argument that if Nigerien officials denied the sales, then their claims must be believed.

A source close to the matter says that Wilson was dispatched to Niger because Vice President Dick Cheney had questions about an intelligence report about Iraq seeking uranium and that he asked that the CIA get back to him with answers. Cheney's staff has adamantly denied and Tenet has reinforced the claim that the Vice President had anything to do with initiating the Wilson mission. They say the Vice President merely asked routine questions at an intelligence briefing and that mid-level CIA officials, on their own, chose to dispatch Wilson.

In an exclusive interview Lewis Libby, the Vice President's Chief of Staff, told TIME: "The Vice President heard about the possibility of Iraq trying to acquire uranium from Niger in February 2002. As part of his regular intelligence briefing, the Vice President asked a question about the implication of the report. During the course of a year, the Vice President asked many such questions and the agency responded within a day or two saying that they had reporting suggesting the possibility of such a transaction. But the agency noted that the reporting lacked detail. The agency pointed out that Iraq already had 500 tons of uranium, portions of which came from Niger, according to the International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA). The Vice President was unaware of the trip by Ambassador Wilson and didn't know about it until this year when it became public in the last month or so. " Other senior Administration officials, including National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, have also claimed that they had not heard of Wilson's report until recently.

After he submitted his report in March 2002, Wilson says, his interest in the topic lay dormant until the State of the Union address in January 2003. In his speech, the President cited a British report claiming that Hussein's government had sought uranium in Africa. Afterward, Wilson says, he called a friend at the Africa bureau of the State Department and asked if the reference had been to Niger. The friend said that he didn't know but, says Wilson, allowed the possibility that Bush was referring to some other country on the continent. Wilson says he let the matter drop until he saw State Department spokesman Richard Boucher say a few months later that the U.S. had been fooled by bad intelligence. It was then that Wilson says he realized that his report had been overlooked, ignored, or buried. Wilson told TIME that he considers the matter settled now that the White House has admitted the Bush reference to Iraq and African uranium should not have been in the State of the Union address.

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by Yswithe]

[Gan]

Its Occams Razor, and yes I'm familiar with it, kthx.


Going to see what else I can find on it, I'll be back.

[Apotheosis]

this is the full text of Ambassador Wilson's NY times article that was published after his trip to Africa to research the WMD information.

July 6, 2003
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
What I Didn't Find in Africa
By JOSEPH C. WILSON 4th

WASHINGTON -- Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.

It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.

In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.

The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.

(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)

Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.

Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.

I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.

Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.

Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.

I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program — all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.

But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.

Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant.

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by Yswithe]

[Apotheosis]

This is a fellow who follows media and political tactics, and is fairly observant of the Left Wing, I would say he is a fairly neutral source.


http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507121626.asp

July 12, 2005, 4:26 p.m.
Lawyer: Cooper “Burned” Karl Rove
Rove’s attorney talks to NRO.

The lawyer for top White House adviser Karl Rove says that Time reporter Matthew Cooper "burned" Rove after a conversation between the two men concerning former ambassador Joseph Wilson's fact-finding mission to Niger and the role Wilson's wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, played in arranging that trip. Nevertheless, attorney Robert Luskin says Rove long ago gave his permission for all reporters, including Cooper, to tell prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald about their conversations with Rove.

In an interview with National Review Online, Luskin compared the contents of a July 11, 2003, internal Time e-mail written by Cooper with the wording of a story Cooper co-wrote a few days later. "By any definition, he burned Karl Rove," Luskin said of Cooper. "If you read what Karl said to him and read how Cooper characterizes it in the article, he really spins it in a pretty ugly fashion to make it seem like people in the White House were affirmatively reaching out to reporters to try to get them to them to report negative information about Plame."

First the e-mail. According to a report in Newsweek, Cooper's e-mail to Time Washington bureau chief Michael Duffy said, "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation..." Cooper said that Rove had warned him away from getting "too far out on Wilson," and then passed on Rove's statement that neither Vice President Dick Cheney nor CIA Director George Tenet had picked Wilson for the trip; "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip." Finally — all of this is according to the Newsweek report — Cooper's e-mail said that "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly that there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger..."

A few days after sending the e-mail, Cooper co-wrote an article headlined "A War on Wilson?" that appeared on Time's website. The story began, "Has the Bush administration declared war on a former ambassador who conducted a fact-finding mission to probe possible Iraqi interest in African uranium? Perhaps."

The story continued:

Some government officials have noted to Time in interviews (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein's government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore, sometimes referred to as yellow cake, which is used to build nuclear devices.

Plame's role in Wilson's assignment was later confirmed by a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation.

Luskin told NRO that the circumstances of Rove's conversation with Cooper undercut Time's suggestion of a White House "war on Wilson." According to Luskin, Cooper originally called Rove — not the other way around — and said he was working on a story on welfare reform. After some conversation about that issue, Luskin said, Cooper changed the subject to the weapons of mass destruction issue, and that was when the two had the brief talk that became the subject of so much legal wrangling. According to Luskin, the fact that Rove did not call Cooper; that the original purpose of the call, as Cooper told Rove, was welfare reform; that only after Cooper brought the WMD issue up did Rove discuss Wilson — all are "indications that this was not a calculated effort by the White House to get this story out."

"Look at the Cooper e-mail," Luskin continues. "Karl speaks to him on double super secret background...I don't think that you can read that e-mail and conclude that what Karl was trying to do was to get Cooper to publish the name of Wilson's wife."

Nor, says Luskin, was Rove trying to "out" a covert CIA agent or "smear" her husband. "What Karl was trying to do, in a very short conversation initiated by Cooper on another subject, was to warn Time away from publishing things that were going to be established as false." Luskin points out that on the evening of July 11, 2003, just hours after the Rove-Cooper conversation, then-CIA Director George Tenet released a statement that undermined some of Wilson's public assertions about his report. "Karl knew that that [Tenet] statement was in gestation," says Luskin. "I think a fair reading of the e-mail was that he was trying to warn Cooper off from going out on a limb on [Wilson's] allegations."

Luskin also shed light on the waiver that Rove signed releasing Cooper from any confidentiality agreement about the conversation. Luskin says Rove originally signed a waiver in December 2003 or in January 2004 (Luskin did not remember the exact date). The waiver, Luskin continues, was written by the office of special prosecutor Fitzgerald, and Rove signed it without making any changes — with the understanding that it applied to anyone with whom he had discussed the Wilson/Plame matter. "It was everyone's expectation that the waiver would be as broad as it could be," Luskin says.

Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller have expressed concerns that such waivers (top Cheney aide Lewis Libby also signed one) might have been coerced and thus might not have represented Rove's true feelings. Yet from the end of 2003 or beginning of 2004, until last Wednesday, Luskin says, Rove had no idea that there might be any problem with the waiver.

It was not until that Wednesday, the day Cooper was to appear in court, that that changed. "Cooper's lawyer called us and said, "Can you confirm that the waiver encompasses Cooper?" Luskin recalls. "I was amazed. He's a lawyer. It's not rocket science. [The waiver] says 'any person.' It's that broad. So I said, 'Look, I understand that you want reassurances. If Fitzgerald would like Karl to provide you with some other assurances, we will.'" Luskin says he got in touch with the prosecutor — "Rule number one is cooperate with Fitzgerald, and there is no rule number two," Luskin says — and asked what to do. According to Luskin, Fitzgerald said to go ahead, and Luskin called Cooper's lawyer back. "I said that I can reaffirm that the waiver that Karl signed applied to any conversations that Karl and Cooper had," Luskin says. After that — which represented no change from the situation that had existed for 18 months — Cooper made a dramatic public announcement and agreed to testify.

A few other notes: Luskin declined to say how Rove knew that Plame "apparently" (to use Cooper's word) worked at the CIA. But Luskin told NRO that Rove is not hiding behind the defense that he did not identify Wilson's wife because he did not specifically use her name. Asked if that argument was too legalistic, Luskin said, "I agree with you. I think it's a detail."

Luskin also addressed the question of whether Rove is a "subject" of the investigation. Luskin says Fitzgerald has told Rove he is not a "target" of the investigation, but, according to Luskin, Fitzgerald has also made it clear that virtually anyone whose conduct falls within the scope of the investigation, including Rove, is considered a "subject" of the probe. "'Target' is something we all understand, a very alarming term," Luskin says. On the other hand, Fitzgerald "has indicated to us that he takes a very broad view of what a subject is."

Finally, Luskin conceded that Rove is legally free to publicly discuss his actions, including his grand-jury testimony. Rove has not spoken publicly, Luskin says, because Fitzgerald specifically asked him not to.

[Gan]

As reported on Fox News:

...Rove is on the hot seat after his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed over the weekend that in July 2003 Rove spoke to Time magazine's Matt Cooper (search) about a trip former Ambassador Joe Wilson (search) took to the African nation of Niger. During his visit, Wilson investigated claims that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake uranium, used for making nuclear weapons, from Niger. Wilson returned without such evidence, and subsequently wrote an op-ed in The New York Times criticizing the administration for manipulating intelligence to justify an invasion of Iraq.

Wilson claimed that his trip was authorized by Vice President Dick Cheney and then-CIA Director George Tenet.

According to Luskin, Rove told Cooper that Cheney and Tenet were not involved in planning Wilson's trip but that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame (search), "apparently works" at the CIA and had authorized her husband's trip to Africa, according to a July 11, 2003, e-mail by Cooper obtained by Newsweek magazine.

Apparently works at the CIA and being a field agent that was identified are 2 different things no?

The e-mail is now in the hands of federal prosecutors who are hunting down the leakers who revealed Plame's name to the news media.

Rove's lawyer insists Rove did not know or disclose Plame's name at the time that she worked undercover. Such a disclosure is illegal.

"A fair-minded reading of Cooper's e-mail is that Rove was trying to discourage Time magazine from circulating false allegations about Cheney, not trying to encourage them by saying anything about Wilson or his wife." Luskin said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162227,00.html


Funny how the media isnt as sure as your post above is Yswithe. I think you might not want to make the sauce for that duck just in case it turns in to a chicken. :lol:

[Apotheosis]

I admitted that Rove did not directly implicate Wilson's wife.
I also admitted that it appears that he did not realize the implications of the waiver that he had signed.

But if you put two and two together, it's not that hard to find the name of the ambassador's wife.

Plus we all know that Fox news is a biased source.

Time magazine, for all the years that I have read it, has just reported the simple facts of the state of affairs. The good, bad, and ugly side of everything and everyone.

And remember, those are Rove's attorney's words. Of course he is going to spin everything to the defense of his client.

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by Yswithe]

[Gan]

You're saying Time isnt biased? :lol2:

I admit Fox is right slanted but only as much as Time is left slanted.

I think everyone is coming to conclusions here on Rove's guild/innocence way to quick. All the facts arent out, and even then there's still a trial to go through if it gets that far.

I think its time to park the bandwagon and objectively look at whats going on. Quit being a sucker for the political bandstanding thats going on with this issue.

[Apotheosis]

According to Luskin, Rove told Cooper that Cheney and Tenet were not involved in planning Wilson's trip but that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame (search), "apparently works" at the CIA and had authorized her husband's trip to Africa, according to a July 11, 2003, e-mail by Cooper obtained by Newsweek magazine.

Apparently works at the CIA and being a field agent that was identified are 2 different things no?

And oral sex is not technically sex.
saying she "apparently works" while it doesn't point the finger, it certainly gives someone enough to go on to make the full connection..

as an indirect result of Rove's statements, she was outed as an active, covert CIA agent, (am I wrong?)

anyway, I want the full text of the e-mail. Probably will never happen though.

[Apotheosis]

hey gan, I pretty much keep my mouth shut about all the political bandstanding. I talk down to conspiracy theorists, because that stuff is nonsense to me.

When I have a lawyer stating the quote that you put above, I can logically conclude what the end result of those comments are.

Both sides are playing nasty, and believe me, the Left is definitely looking for whatever dirt they can.

[Gan]

Not all CIA employees are spooks, in the field, subject to eminent danger if their name is revealed or identity compromised.

[Apotheosis]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Not all CIA employees are spooks, in the field, subject to eminent danger if their name is revealed or identity compromised.

then why is there such an uproar at her identity being revealed?

A trial might be unlikely for a security violation of this nature. An investigation will be undertaken which may only result in the removal of his clearance. Depending on the seriousness of the violation they may bring charges against him, But that will depend on how sensitive the information was. It is no secret that 90% of the people in a embassy (no matter the country) work for an intelligence agency of some sort, and are actively acting as a foreign intelligence threat in any given country.

If a security violation was committed, at a minimum he should be fired and disgraced, although the fact that he did not name her specifically is a sign that he was sanitising the information, although not enough it seems.

[Gan]

Thats my question.

Originally posted by Ganalon
Not all CIA employees are spooks, in the field, subject to eminent danger if their name is revealed or identity compromised.

That is true, the CIA has a ton more "overt" operatives than covert ones.

[Skirmisher]

I'll give you a quick example of how the FOX version is nonsense.

A GSIV GM talking to a friend could say something like:
"I can't tell you whether or not Lord Imaginaryperson also is the owner of Lord Imaginarypersontwo. It is against the rules and it is wrong and so for that reason i would never tell you that Lord Imaginaryperson is also Lord Imaginarypersontwo."

Sure, they denied it, but in such a way that anyone can see what they are intimating.

There is always a way to say something without actually saying something.

[Gan]

Define oral sex again?

:lol:

[Apotheosis]

partial transcript from a Press conference, the following are GWB's statement's regarding the matter, the full transcript is on the White House website:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040610-36.html

Q Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --

Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

Q My final point would be -- or question would be, has Vice President Cheney assured you --

THE PRESIDENT: It's up to the --

Q -- subsequent to his conversations with them, that nobody --

THE PRESIDENT: I haven't talked to the Vice President about this matter, and I suggest -- recently -- and I suggest you talk to the U.S. Attorney about that.

Hold on for a minute. I'm kind of observing for a second. I've got to call on the Texas newspaper. Hillman.

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by Yswithe]

Okay, and that shows... The President saying that the U.S. Attorney is the one in charge of the case not him. Amazing, that reporter got him so bad, Bush admitted he was not in charge of the investigation!!!!

[Apotheosis]

most recent Washington Post article regarding the matter:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/12/AR2005071200093_pf.html
GOP on Offense in Defense of Rove

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 13, 2005; A01

Republicans mounted an aggressive and coordinated defense of Karl Rove yesterday, contending that the White House's top political adviser did nothing improper or illegal when he discussed a covert CIA official with a reporter.

With a growing number of Democrats calling for Rove's resignation, the Republican National Committee and congressional Republicans sought to discredit Democratic critics and knock down allegations of possible criminal activity.

"The angry left is trying to smear" Rove, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, a Rove protege, said in an interview. -yswithe-RHETORIC ALERT

A federal grand jury is investigating whether anyone in the Bush administration unlawfully leaked the name of a CIA official, Valerie Plame, to the news media. Although the White House has previously said Rove was not involved in the episode, a recently disclosed internal Time magazine e-mail shows that Rove mentioned Plame, albeit not by name, to reporter Matthew Cooper before her name and affiliation became public in July 2003. The grand jury is scheduled to hear from Cooper today.

The emerging GOP strategy -- devised by Mehlman and other Rove loyalists outside of the White House -- is to try to undermine those Democrats calling for Rove's ouster, play down Rove's role and wait for President Bush's forthcoming Supreme Court selection to drown out the controversy, according to several high-level Republicans. -ysiwthe- Naturally, it's either the supreme court nomination, or an investigation into impropriety's by the admin.

The White House said Bush retains full confidence in Rove, but for a second day officials would not answer a barrage of questions about Rove's role in the leak scandal on the grounds that the investigation is not complete. But the RNC -- effectively Bush's political arm -- weighed into the controversy in a major fashion.

Mehlman, who said he talked with Rove several times in recent days, instructed GOP legislators, lobbyists and state officials to accuse Democrats of dirty politics and argue Rove was guilty of nothing more than discouraging a reporter from writing an inaccurate story, according to RNC talking points circulated yesterday.-yswithe- it worked before, probably will work again.

"Republicans should stop holding back and go on the offense: fire enough bullets the other way until the Supreme Court overtakes" events, said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.).

Rove has not been asked by senior White House officials whether he did anything illegal or potentially embarrassing to the president and he spent most of the day strategizing on Bush's Supreme Court nomination, aides said.

"No one has asked him what he told the grand jury. No one has deemed it appropriate," said a senior White House official, who would discuss the Rove case only on the condition of anonymity. "What you all need to figure out is, does this amount to a crime? That is a legitimate debate." Still, some aides said they were concerned about the unknown. "Is it a communications challenge? Sure," the official said.

Privately, even Rove's staunchest supporters said the situation could explode if federal prosecutors accuse Rove or any other high-level official of committing a crime. William Kristol, a conservative commentator with close White House ties, said it would be hard to imagine a prosecutor conducting an investigation that has landed one reporter in jail and challenged the constitutional rights of the journalism profession without indicting someone. Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald "is the problem for the White House, and we have no idea what he knows," Kristol said.-yswithe- I hope this guy manages to avoid any potential "unfortunate" incidents

Bush has said if any White House officials were involved, they would be fired. The president yesterday twice refused to answer questions on whether Rove should be dismissed.

The controversy involves former U.S. diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV, who had been sent by the CIA in February 2002 to Niger to investigate allegations that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was attempting to buy nuclear material. Wilson subsequently became a critic of administration policy in Iraq and after the invasion in March 2003 questioned whether Bush had exaggerated the threat from Hussein.

After Wilson went public with his concerns, columnist Robert D. Novak reported that he had been told by two administration officials that the Niger trip had been suggested by Wilson's wife, Plame. It is a federal felony to knowingly identify an active undercover CIA officer, but legal experts said such a crime is very difficult to prove.

Whatever the legal considerations in the case, the emerging record suggests that the administration was involved in an effort to discredit Wilson after he went public with his criticism.

According to the Time magazine e-mail, the conversation between Cooper and Rove took place a few days before Novak's column appeared in July 2003. Cooper says Rove raised questions about Wilson's credibility, offering a "big warning" not to "get out too far on Wilson," Newsweek has reported.

The e-mail comports with a previously reported conversation between a Washington Post reporter and an administration official two days before the Novak column ran. The administration official, who has not been identified, described the Wilson trip as a boondoggle that was set up by his wife and was not being taken seriously by the White House.

Rove has maintained he neither knew Plame's name nor leaked it to anyone. In an interview yesterday, Wilson said his wife goes by Mrs. Wilson, so it would be clear who Rove was talking about, and noted how Rove attends the same church as the Wilson family. Wilson said Rove was part of a "smear campaign" designed to discredit him and others who undercut Bush's justification for war.-ywsithe- How nice, they're so close to each other

Wilson was a chief target of the new GOP offensive designed to take some pressure off Rove. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said the White House did not have to discredit Wilson. "Nobody had to do that," he said, adding that "he discredited his own report" by including unfounded allegations. The RNC talking point memo included a list of anti-Wilson lines.

"In all honesty, the facts thus far -- and the e-mail involved -- indicate to me that there is not a problem here," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). "I have always thought this is a tempest in a teapot." -ywsithe- MORE RHEOTRIC ALERT

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by Yswithe]

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by Yswithe]

[Gan]

Damn, all that bold burned my eyes.

Yes, it seems the Republican party will not take the attacks lying down. Good for them.

[Apotheosis]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Damn, all that bold burned my eyes.

Yes, it seems the Republican party will not take the attacks lying down. Good for them.

apparently, all they have is rhetoric to defend themselves.

Ehh since he did not name her by name there is a good chance he might get away with it (if he did it in the first place).

[Gan]

<Rove has maintained he neither knew Plame's name nor leaked it to anyone. In an interview yesterday, Wilson said his wife goes by Mrs. Wilson, so it would be clear who Rove was talking about, and noted how Rove attends the same church as the Wilson family. Wilson said Rove was part of a "smear campaign" designed to discredit him and others who undercut Bush's justification for war.-ywsithe- How nice, they're so close to each other >


Attending the same church doesnt mean you know everyone in the congregation. Especially if the church has more than a few hundred members that attend regularly.

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by Ganalon]

[Gan]

Originally posted by Yswithe

Originally posted by Ganalon
Damn, all that bold burned my eyes.

Yes, it seems the Republican party will not take the attacks lying down. Good for them.

apparently, all they have is rhetoric to defend themselves.

Looks like a play straight out of the Democratic playbook if you ask me. :rolleyes:

[Apotheosis]

ok, I take that back.

study the dynamics of social structure, and then tell me that people who run in related political/business circles do not, at least, have a familiarity with each other.

[Gan]

This is just a new Act in the same old Play if you ask me. Its just sad that so many continue to get taken in when it appears like blood is in the water.

[Apotheosis]

Hey, I've ignored other issues before, but there was clear hesitation on the White Houses part, and since day 1 of the Leak hitting the press, this is a topic that I feel strongly about.

I am sorry, but I don't like hipocrisy, from anyone, even myself.

and the lawyer was very clear on what Rove said.

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by Yswithe]

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Yswithe

Originally posted by Ganalon
Not all CIA employees are spooks, in the field, subject to eminent danger if their name is revealed or identity compromised.

then why is there such an uproar at her identity being revealed?

Because Rove said it.

In the grande scheme of things, him identifying a CIA agent (even though he didn't name her, just technicalities at this point), as dumb as it was and should be punished for it somehow, is not earth shattering. It doesn't affect the world to such a scale that it needs to be rectified in a hurry. They'll just reassign her or something along those lines, big whoop.

However it's okay that someone call Gitmo a gulag/Nazi camp and all they get is a slap on the hand. Bad senator. Nevermind that the countries that already hate us have something to go on, encouraging their efforts that our own are in agreement with them. THAT is world-affecting. Rove saying something on the fly without thinking is just a dumb mistake.

But what do I know, I'm just a sheeping Republican. :rolleyes:

[Edited on 7/13/2005 by CrystalTears]

[DeV]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Rove saying something on the fly without thinking is just a dumb mistake.
:rolleyes:

[CrystalTears]

I said it was a dumb mistake and should be punished for it. He was an idiot and did a dumb thing. I don't think it was done in a malicious or conniving way.

It's still just another excuse for the liberals to have him fired. They've been wanting him out for the longest time. Well here's your chance. Get rid of the bad guy. You people will still never be happy until all conservatives are out of the administration.

[DeV]

I am not yet completely convinced that Rove is fully the blame, but I'm glad the Conservatives feel that all Moderates and Liberals will jump on any bandwagon together just to help someone to the chopping block.

[Warriorbird]

A dumb mistake that endangered lives. Gosh gee. He deserves a slap on the wrist. Once again another person to mock when they bring up Clinton.

:whistles:

;)

[CrystalTears]

You mock me anyway, BFD. You bundle me with conservatives all the time, regardless of my views, I'm just giving in and giving you what you want and expect.

[Edited on 7/13/2005 by CrystalTears]

[Warriorbird]

I guess it justifies my feelings that both political parties are pretty slimy and dipping into realpolitik, in all seriousness. It saddens me, but that is apparently where the country wants it and has wanted it for a while now. The way you win is by blunting the other side's issues and seizing on things that are one thing but symbolize another very negative or non politically correct thing.

If conservatives didn't think that the constant "liberal" bashing that goes on was going to backfire at some point...well... here's an instance of it.

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Skirmisher]

CT, you know I do not lump you in anywhere, but the difference between someone calling gitmo a gulag and Rove naming a Cia operative is that one is against the law and potentially places not only the operative, but anyone who may have worked with them at risk and one is just someone stating an opinion.

[Janarth]

I'm a republican through and through, I have no shame and there is no denying it. Anyone who knows me knows my values fall there, as do my opinions.

That said, I also have a friend from college who graduated with a degree in International Relations, he's in the CIA now doing something somewhere. I feel this statement is vague enough not to be hypocrit. I also feel like if it can be proven Rove was the leak, he deserves to go to jail.

Its these guys' jobs to defend us by finding out stuff; you take away their cover and they are not gonna be able to do their job at worst, dead at best. And don't tell me not all CIA agents have cover...every CIA agent in the field has a cover: from the low-level ones who work as cipher clerks and also information gathering in the embassies to the 007 types.

If he did what they allege, throw him in jail.

[CrystalTears]

And I personally think that our own people talking shit about our own soldiers is a risk to this nation as well. :shrug:

Yes, Rove fucked up and should lose his job, go to jail, be punished, whatever needs to be done. I guess, honestly, I'm tired of him being mentioned for every little thing he says. I want him to go just to get peace!

[DeV]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
I want him to go just to get peace! Then it's for the wrong reason.

It fucking sucks that this has turned into a political tug of war, both sides to blame. It should be about the CIA agent who's identity was compromised and catching the highly unprofessional and unethical individual/s who are responsible.

[CrystalTears]

I was kidding. I knew leaving out a smilie would be bad. :P

Political debates have always been about blaming, and not about who it's affecting. It's why it sucks that no one is thinking about the CIA agent who was outted. Why it sucks that no one thinks of the soldiers when they are compared to nazis.

I find it unfortunate that more people in power who abuse that power to say whatever the hell they want don't get punished for it.

I know that if I spoke of my customers to other customers in a bad light, calling them a bunch of idiots, I'd be screwed. As true as it may be, I would still lose my job over it. But then, I'm a peon. Managers, presidents, supervisors get away with a lot more for some reason.

[Edited on 7/13/2005 by CrystalTears]

[Warriorbird]

"And I personally think that our own people talking shit about our own soldiers is a risk to this nation as well."

The funny thing is that statements like this are used to attack honest, decent, criticism of the war in Iraq.

[CrystalTears]

Quite frankly, criticizing a war that is already well underway is a waste of brain power. Nothing is going to come of it.

The war started, wrong reasons, Bush screwed up with his tactics, it's all been said. Rehashing it will not make the war go away, and it won't prevent future wars because the situations will never be same, nor will the leaders.

I want to hear things we are going to do NOW. How to make the war more effective, help plan better, train smarter, get out safer and sooner. I'm tired of hearing of why we're in the war. It will solve nothing but point blame and animosity with each other.

Be against the war all you want. Hate it for what it is. However the soldiers are just doing their job, there is no need to trash them, especially so vocal that our enemies hear this and causes more problems.

[Warriorbird]

So you're basically saying that no one can criticize it. That's not only undemocratic and un-American...it is ridiculous. I'm sure these guys would have a few choice words for the notion.

http://www.operationtruth.com

You wonder why some (albeit stupid) people suggest there's Nazi-ism at work? "If you're not with us, you're against us." comes across remarkably like the way Goebbels destroyed the Weimer Republic.

Sure things have been said. Sure it won't likely stop the war. That doesn't take away our Constiution-given rights to say these things and the fact that a whole lot of unethical things have been done. Nobody gets a carte blanche to do wrong behind the scenes just because the soldiers are in the foreground. I'm sure some of them would love a percentage on the Halliburton contracts. I'm sure some of them would love their spouses back home to have lower gas prices. I'm sure some of them wonder when they're going home.

And you know what? I don't think that harms a single hair on a single soldier's head. I'm glad I have a few civil rights left. If you thought about it, you probably would be too.

[CrystalTears]

I never intended to say to to not criticize the war. I'm just saying I have the same right to say that it's ALL been said, it won't help matters, find something else to bitch about, some are tired of hearing about it.

But nevermind. I'm either not explaining myself right or you're doing what you normally do.. dismiss my opinion completely. Either way I get tired of explaining myself to you because you love trashing me, so I'm done in this thread.

[Edited on 7/13/2005 by CrystalTears]

[Warriorbird]

I'm sorry a serious attempt at explaining an alternate opinion gets taken as "trashing."

I think what you're trying to reach for is the patriotic solidarity America had in World War 2, which is an honest and noble desire. I just think a lot of people feel that this war is a lot more like the Soviets invading Afghanistan.

[Farquar]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Quite frankly, criticizing a war that is already well underway is a waste of brain power. Nothing is going to come of it.

Is there blood coming out of my ears?

[Valthissa]

Background info on the Niger story and Wilson's credibility.
registration required:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

I think it's a little early in the Rove story to be certain the he is the target of the procecutor.

I think one of the elements of the crime requires that he have a security clearance. In other words, if I call a reporter and say Harmnone is an undercover CIA agent and that turns out to be true, I'm not guilty of disclosure if I don't have a clearance. I certainly hope as a political advisor to the president Rove wasn't given a top secret clearance.

C/Valth

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Yswithe
as a reporter, if my life was potentially in danger, I would do my damndest to keep my mouth shut.Yeah, nobody ever gets shanked in jail.
Oh, and finally, Ocham's Razor, look it up.Take your own advice (Ockham). I'm sure you'll find plenty of backing for the idea that an unproven premise used to distinguish between materialism and dualism is at all applicable. :)

As has been said, if Rove is proven guilty, then he will be punished. Conjecture is not proof.

[Warriorbird]

"Take your own advice (Ockham). I'm sure you'll find plenty of backing for the idea that an unproven premise used to distinguish between materialism and dualism is at all applicable"

Hilarious coming from you.

;)

[Latrinsorm]

I don't understand how, considering I've never invoked Ockham's Razor in my life.

Or maybe you're referencing my penchant for producing awesomely relevant analogies. I don't get why that amuses you, but you are a Crazy Democrat (c). :)

[DeV]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Quite frankly, criticizing a war that is already well underway is a waste of brain power. Nothing is going to come of it.Surely you jest. I can't speak for most but I can say I'm of a select few that have been criticizing the war since before the invasion even began. I recall debating whether or not the war was justified to begin with. My views have never changed. I'm sorry if you feel it's a waste of brain power, I feel quite the opposite.

[Apotheosis]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I don't understand how, considering I've never invoked Ockham's Razor in my life.


ok, I won't use the magical lvl. 10 spell of "Ockham's Razor" ever again. :D

anyway, I think that the press set the Bush administration up during this. One side is gonna get real fux0r3d up because of this.

All I can say is that the conservatives are trying to look at his "intentions" rather then his actual actions.

Isn't the road to hell paved with good intentions?

[Latrinsorm]

While the intentions of an act are very important in determining its moral worth, in this case I don't believe they have any legal ramifications, and are therefore irrelevant to this discussion. Furthermore, the only person to bring up intentions was Ganalon, and I don't believe he was trying to excuse Rove. I think he was saying that there has been no admission of guilt, and as an aside he added that what Rove was trying to do was protect Cheney. I'm sure Ganalon will correct me if I missed it.

[Gan]

No correction needed.

[Apotheosis]

I brought up intentions a number of times in the various threads I have posted. The conclusion, from my perspective, based on what I have read can be summed up in the following statement (mine):

"Karl Rove indirectly exposed Ambassador Wilson's wife as an operative CIA agent. His intentions for the action, based on Rove's lawyer's(Luskin's) claim, were to prevent Cooper from publishing a "fake" or "erroneous" story"

While the intentions appear well-meaning, the end result of the actions is the important thing.

where am I wrong on this?

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by Yswithe]

[Hassassin]

Karl Rove is the devil.

[Latrinsorm]

If your premise was true, then yes, intentions would be irrelevant. I have not seen any proof for your premise that Rove outted the agent. I must have missed those other threads of which you speak, because in this thread the first mention of the word intention is you (erroneously) describing the conservative position.

From a legal standpoint, I doubt very much intentions have any weight in this case. I do not know Rove's moral motivation, but I doubt it is of the caliber necessary to allow him to endanger Mrs. Plame, if his was the action that endangered her. This quote: "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip." is heresay even before we consider that big honking "apparently". Considering that's all we have to work on, I'd recommend allowing the investigation to conclude (or at least get reasonably far along) before we start throwing baseless accusations around.

[Warriorbird]

"If your premise was true, then yes, intentions would be irrelevant."

I agree. If Karl Rove is the Devil, we're all fucked.

[Apotheosis]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
If your premise was true, then yes, intentions would be irrelevant. I have not seen any proof for your premise that Rove outted the agent.

The only "evidence" I am working on is Luskin's comments about what Karl Rove said in the e-mail. The results of that conversation indirectly outed an operative that was undercover. How is that coincidental?




This quote: "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip." is heresay even before we consider that big honking "apparently". Considering that's all we have to work on, I'd recommend allowing the investigation to conclude (or at least get reasonably far along) before we start throwing baseless accusations around.

Ok, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt for the time being. I would assume the rest will have to depend on Rove's level of security clearance.

In any case, even if he didn't "truly" know that she was or wasn't a CIA agent, ignorance of the law doesn't matter?


I mean, can't we reasonably conclude that it isn't difficult, at least, in that community, to figure out who is and who isn't intelligence?

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by Yswithe]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I agree. If Karl Rove is the Devil, we're all fucked. Karl Rove is way more powerful than the Devil.
Originally posted by Yswithe
The only "evidence" I am working on is Luskin's comments about what Karl Rove said in the e-mail.Ganalon even bolded it, but I'll put it up again: "Rove's lawyer insists Rove did not know or disclose Plame's name at the time that she worked undercover." Which comment do you feel undermines this?

[Warriorbird]

If he said, "The ambassador to wherever's wife is in the CIA." without mentioning her name it could still be a problem.

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Ilvane]

He said Wilson's wife, but didn't say her name. So how many wives does Wilson have again? Hmm.

-A

[CrystalTears]

I guess you would have had to know her name, because it's surely not Mrs. Wilson. :shrug:

[Ilvane]

It's doesn't take rocket science to find out who Wilson was married to. It's public record...he didn't have to say anything about her job, or what she was doing.

What is so hard to understand that an agent in the field might be put in danger if some idiot says who she is and it's published in a newspaper?

-A

[CrystalTears]

I don't think anyone's doubting that. It's just up to the investigations to decide if he's at fault for that or not. I was just pointing out that he didn't give a name.

I'm also not sure why the name of a secret CIA agent would be public knowledge, but that's just me. And I think from what I've read, he said "his wife who is an agent", the reporter is the one who did the outting of the name, making it worse.

[DeV]

The reporters did their job.

[Back]

Karl Rove is a scumbag. You would think that would be obvious no matter what side, or middle, of the political fence you were on.

[Latrinsorm]

If we start convicting people based on character, we are in very, very bad shape.

[Back]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
If we start convicting people based on character, we are in very, very bad shape.

Agreed. Thats his whole modus operandi. Look what he did to McCain in 2000.

And really, don’t give me that crap that Dems do it too. Perhaps on a much smaller scale, but what Dems do is constructive criticism, not bashing for political gain. True criticism.

In fact, name me one smear campaign the Dems have launched that even comes close to the absurdity of Keneth Star’s multi-million dollar investigation of Clinton.

[Artha]

Valerie Plame doing some undercover work in Vanity Fair:
http://hyperion.hmdnsgroup.com/~malkin/archives/pictures/plame.jpg
http://img.slate.msn.com/media/64/031202_VF_ValeriePlame.jpg

[Back]

Artha... your fired!

[Artha]

Damn it, I was just about to apply for a raise.

[Jack]

Everyone keeps calling her a covert agent, or field agent, or other nonsense. Perhaps you should make yourselves aware of the actual facts of the case, rather than blindly striking out at Karl Rove.

The 1982 Intellegence Identities Protection Act requires at a minimum: The Agent be truly Covert, and assigned to duty outside the United States, currently or within the past 5 years. This means one must be permanently assigned, not spending a week in another country on temporary assignment, or any other such nonsense.

Plame had been working at a desk in Langley for over 9 years at the time of the article. In 1994 it was suspected that her cover was blown by Aldrich Aimes, and she was pulled out of field duty, and assinged to Langley as an analyst.

The law further requires that the disclosure be made intentionally, with the knowledge that the government is taking "affirmative measures to conceal the agent's relationship to the United States". Since it was known on the Washington "Cocktail Circuit" that Plame worked for the CIA, it can be reasonably assumed there was no attempt to hide her relationship with the US.

Knowing this, where is the crime exactly? The Washington Post covered this back in January....

[Warriorbird]

Yet curiously the prosecutor is still looking into it... though it has been stated that Rove is not the target of the prosecution.

[ElanthianSiren]

So WB you think Novak is?

-M

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash
Agreed. Thats his whole modus operandi. Look what he did to McCain in 2000.

Wow, he exposed a Republican! That man has no political morals?!? Not only will he attack Democrats but Republicans too! :rolleyes:



Originally posted by Backlash
And really, don’t give me that crap that Dems do it too. Perhaps on a much smaller scale, but what Dems do is constructive criticism, not bashing for political gain. True criticism.

And you expect anyone to belive this? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:



Originally posted by Backlash
In fact, name me one smear campaign the Dems have launched that even comes close to the absurdity of Keneth Star’s multi-million dollar investigation of Clinton.

While its true that Rove has taken political mudslinging to the next level. Find something you're good at and stick with it. I'd say that the 'falsified airforce reserve documents would qualify to you're above statement- ask Dan Rather what happens when you try to push something like that and it backlashes. Thats one less liberal bias media type person we can rely upon to slant the news instead of reporting it unbiased. Yes, he's even from Texas and I still dont appreciate the stunts he's pulled over the years.

We cant help it if the Democrats suck at this game worse than the Republicans do. Perhaps they got out of practice with the 8 years Bill and Hilly were running the show. You've got 3 more years to put up before you're shut up again so I suggest you work a little harder at slinging this leftest rhetoric. :lol:

[ElanthianSiren]

I dunno Ganalon, I think a lot of the anger over this case is in response to the fact that this administration in particular touts itself on security principles.

We've gone to war for security principles.

We've restricted rights for security principles.

Then a high ranking White House official goes and exposes a CIA agent (directly or indirectly). That is why more than dems are saying, "Hey, wait a minute here..." People don't dig hypocritical maneuvers, especially not by people who pull the strings in government.

-M

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Backlash
Agreed. Thats his whole modus operandi. Look what he did to McCain in 2000.

Wow, he exposed a Republican! That man has no political morals?!? Not only will he attack Democrats but Republicans too! :rolleyes:



Originally posted by Backlash
And really, don’t give me that crap that Dems do it too. Perhaps on a much smaller scale, but what Dems do is constructive criticism, not bashing for political gain. True criticism.

And you expect anyone to belive this? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:



Originally posted by Backlash
In fact, name me one smear campaign the Dems have launched that even comes close to the absurdity of Keneth Star’s multi-million dollar investigation of Clinton.

While its true that Rove has taken political mudslinging to the next level. Find something you're good at and stick with it. I'd say that the 'falsified airforce reserve documents would qualify to you're above statement- ask Dan Rather what happens when you try to push something like that and it backlashes. Thats one less liberal bias media type person we can rely upon to slant the news instead of reporting it unbiased. Yes, he's even from Texas and I still dont appreciate the stunts he's pulled over the years.

We cant help it if the Democrats suck at this game worse than the Republicans do. Perhaps they got out of practice with the 8 years Bill and Hilly were running the show. You've got 3 more years to put up before you're shut up again so I suggest you work a little harder at slinging this leftest rhetoric. :lol:

You see, this is the crux of your downfall... the schoolyard tactics, the toilet tactics, the 5th grader name calling. I know you are but what am I tactics.

Your comparison of who is better should win means people who are good at stealing, for example, are right and correct and should not be punished for it.

You want to call me out on taking sides, but guess what? I’m the objective observer. I have no faith in anyone in our government currently. The GOP are asshats who have recovered through white male middle class angst, and the Dems aren’t effective enough to counter.

Your argument about Bush’s service is weak as the truth has not yet come into focus. Like so many things about this administration. Face it. This administration is hanging by bootstrings trying to keep it together.

What we need is a uniter, an inspirerer, a real leader to take us to the next level of global unity morally, culturally and economically.

This isn’t about grudges, or one uppance. This is about truth. This is about our future on this globe. And you want to play global politics like its a game of marbles? Thats fucking stone age man.

[Artha]

I think a lot of the anger over this case is in response to the fact that this administration in particular touts itself on security principles.
I think a lot of anger in this case is just posturing. Nobody really cares, except that there's a chance Karl Rove might be fired or sent to jail and he was integral to getting Bush elected twice.

[Gan]

This is about vendetta seeking and partisan politics, plain and simple. As long as there are those who refuse to COMPROMISE on some issues in order to seek a higher agenda then you will have what you are seeing now.


Originally posted by Backlash
You see, this is the crux of your downfall... the schoolyard tactics, the toilet tactics, the 5th grader name calling. I know you are but what am I tactics.

to wit...


Originally posted by Backlash
Karl Rove is a scumbag. You would think that would be obvious no matter what side, or middle, of the political fence you were on.


Originally posted by Backlash
Statements like the crack-smoker Rove made, and the subsequent back-up from the Republican controlled Congress and the White House are examples of how they themselves are the ones causing bitter divide, yet claim it is the minority who are against progress.


Originally posted by Backlash
The same old motto of the republican party.
“If it was good, it was us. If it was bad, it was the democrats.”
Bullshit


Originally posted by Backlash
13) Disolve the democratic party. Join the republican party. Change it from the inside.


Originally posted by Backlash
I disagree Democrats need to be more moderate. If anything, they need to be more extreme. They really need a revolutionary. Someone who will call the GOP and the Administration on all their bullshit. Kerry didn’t do enough of that.

I mean... if I can sit down at the internet and find legitimite stories on how manipulative this administration and the GOP are, who ever the dems pick as their next candidate should shout about these things loud and clear.

Then again, I like my other idea on dissolving the democratic party entirely. It would dismantle the bipartisan system, put everyone on the same page and bring some much needed unity BACK to our country. :eek:


Originally posted by Backlash
Really, that sort of attitude, us vs them, is a fearful way to live. At the first sign of anyone questioning a Republican’s motives, they freak out and start pointing fingers in other directions. or worse, start to villianize the questioner.
The Republicans reign in fear of everything.

Theres no problem with questioning the current authority, in fact, its a nice check and balance that the public has the power and the right to do. But when you take it to the extreme and start screaming for heads to roll the minute a story hits the press then you are just jumping in line to buy a first class ticket on the partisan bullshit express.


Originally posted by Backlash
What we need is a uniter, an inspirerer, a real leader to take us to the next level of global unity morally, culturally and economically.

This isn’t about grudges, or one uppance. This is about truth. This is about our future on this globe. And you want to play global politics like its a game of marbles? Thats fucking stone age man.

As long as the platforms and fundamental views of both parties remain so different then you will never see one global party. In fact, that concept scares the hell out of me. Competition is healthy as long as its kept above board, unfortunately politicans have figured out that the quickest way to defeat an opponent (be it Republican or Democrat) is not to debate the issues and let the constituentcy decide but to publically discredit them through mudslinging, press pandering, and the like. Why? Because thats what people like to hear, thats what the media likes to broadcast. If its not dramatic then it will not give you your 15 minutes of fame.

Only having one party to determine the outcome of elections, laws, and the like would truly be facist, in my opinion.

[Edited on 7-15-2005 by Ganalon]

[Gan]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Chief presidential adviser Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of a CIA officer but that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not government sources, according to a person briefed on the testimony.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/15/cia.leak.rove.ap/index.html

"Rove testified that Novak told him he planned to report in a weekend column that Plame had worked for the CIA, and the circumstances on how her husband traveled to Africa to check bogus claims that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Niger, according to the source."

"Rove told the grand jury that by the time Novak had called him, he believes he had similar information about Wilson's wife from another member of the news media but he could not recall which reporter had told him about it first, the person said."

"When Novak inquired about Wilson's wife working for the CIA, Rove indicated he had heard something like that, according to the source's recounting of the grand jury testimony."

"Rove told the grand jury that three days later, he had a phone conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and -- in an effort to discredit some of Wilson's allegations -- informally told Cooper that he believed Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, though he never used her name, the source said."

"An e-mail Cooper recently provided the grand jury shows Cooper reported to his magazine bosses that Rove had described Wilson's wife in a confidential conversation as someone who "apparently works" at the CIA."

So who's right? Rove or Cooper? He said, she said. And what about the other reporter's notes and sources? She's still being held in contempt of court?

"In an interview on CNN earlier Thursday before the latest revelation, Wilson kept up his criticism of the White House, saying Rove's conduct was an "outrageous abuse of power ... certainly worthy of frog-marching out of the White House."

"But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said."

Wait a minute... WHO blew her identity???

And the truth shall set you free.... :rolleyes:

[Edited on 7-15-2005 by Ganalon]

[Warriorbird]

I'm curious as to who the real target of the investigation is.

[Back]

Wow, you pulled some old quotes of me ranting away. I think I’ve been somewhat consistent at least. My views on politics are different now than even a year ago, but not by much. If anything more disappointed with the DNC. Not because of anything they’ve done, but what they are unable to do.

I fully agree with you about politicians in general. I was thinking about your very point just yesterday while riding the train home. In no other venue than the political arena are people so virulently intent on demonizing their opponent. The closest thing I can think of right now is boxing, but even then they don’t go to the lengths politicians do and we all know its part of the sport to trash talk before a match.

[Ilvane]

heh, so Rove gets away with it..big surprise. Oddly back when we didn't know it was Rove Bush was quite ready to fire the person involved in this leak...

:rolleyes:

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I'm curious as to who the real target of the investigation is.

Im curious to see who the Democrats will accept as the real target

[Warriorbird]

It isn't a Democrat in charge. I was actually curious if they were going to nail Wilson.

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
It isn't a Democrat in charge. I was actually curious if they were going to nail Wilson.

I meant to say who will the Demos accept as the target without a huge outcry

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash

I fully agree with you about politicians in general. I was thinking about your very point just yesterday while riding the train home. In no other venue than the political arena are people so virulently intent on demonizing their opponent. The closest thing I can think of right now is boxing, but even then they don’t go to the lengths politicians do and we all know its part of the sport to trash talk before a match.

I also thought of boxing, as well as the rap music business as highlighted by Tupac's demise, the notorious BIG, etc. Except they're more violent with actions than with words.

Also, I have some Wezas/Artha inspired artwork, because a picture is worth a thousand words.

[Edited on 7-15-2005 by Ganalon]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ilvane
heh, so Rove gets away with it..big surprise.Usually people who are innocent of a crime are not convicted.
Oddly back when we didn't know it was Rove Bush was quite ready to fire the person involved in this leak...It's astounding how you feel you are more adept at determining the guilt of the parties involved than the people actually involved in the case.

[Gan]

She's still blinded by the light...

:rolleyes:

[ElanthianSiren]

Actually, Rove has still admitted to inferring that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

No matter who suggested it to him, he still confirmed it; perhaps, a more appropriate action might have been to say, "I don't have a comment on that" maybe... just maybe... given how serious security and security issues are to this administration.

-M

[Latrinsorm]

I believe you mean implying. Infer would mean that Rove figured it out from someone else's unstated info, imply is the other way around. Even if he has (which I have yet to read about), if it's true that she doesn't fall under the previously listed requirements, I'm not too worried. They made the law's requirements that way for a reason.

[Valthissa]

Originally posted by Ilvane
heh, so Rove gets away with it..big surprise. Oddly back when we didn't know it was Rove Bush was quite ready to fire the person involved in this leak...

:rolleyes:

Rove is the kind of political hack that I dislike. He's the Repulican equivalent of Carville - say or do anything to win an election. With any luck he will not be part of future presidential campaigns (but that's probably wishful thinking on my part)

I have been seeing for some time the notion that Bush said he would fire the leaker. I did some research (as it seemed to me that would be a very broad statement) and found that he actually said

"And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of"

the above is from the NY Times in 2003 quoting Bush.

It's quite a bit differnet then the current standard that I have seen reported.

C/Valth

[Warriorbird]

It'd be awesome if Bush had Rove shot.

[Gan]

not really

[Gan]

Originally posted by Valthissa
I have been seeing for some time the notion that Bush said he would fire the leaker. I did some research (as it seemed to me that would be a very broad statement) and found that he actually said

"And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of"

the above is from the NY Times in 2003 quoting Bush.

It's quite a bit differnet then the current standard that I have seen reported.

C/Valth


which would be...


Originally posted by Yswithe
Let's also not forget that Scott Mcllelan, press secretary for the white house, has been recorded as stating:
(pardon the paraphrasing)

"If the administration finds out that the source of the leak came from the administration, they would be fired."

:rolleyes:

[Warriorbird]

"not really "

Pff. Let Bush display his Dr. Evil style machismo. You're holding him back!

Its kinda funny watching them foam at the mouth.
Jumping around screaming "We got him, We finally got him!!!"
Just to see them slump their shoulders in defeat after all is over.

[Gan]

Although the investigation is starting to shape up, I'm not going to sing like a fat lady until I know for sure who's the blame.

Preliminary reports indicate that it might be a press member who gets the finger, but we'll see. Wouldnt that be ironic. :lol:

[Warriorbird]

Or Wilson himself, which would be more ironic.

And exorbitantly amusing. I have to be honest Worriorbird, I am surprised that thought would even cross your mind. I give you less credit than you deserve sometimes.

[Gan]

Resistance [to the truth] is futile.

[Warriorbird]

When I saw what the prosecutor had released so far, it changed my mind quite a lot on this case. Heard some quality commentary too.

[Gan]

Dont think there wont be some humble pie served in this thread once the truth is finally confirmed... especially if it indeed isnt Rove as its trending now.

Now watch some posts mysteriously get deleted or edited... (thats ok, I've already got the quotes ready for review). :smilegrin:

[DeV]

Posts deleted or edited... :lol: Give me a break.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Resistance [to the truth] is futile.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v412/Jemah/smilies/borgassimilation.gif

Originally posted by Warriorbird
When I saw what the prosecutor had released so far, it changed my mind quite a lot on this case. Heard some quality commentary too.
mind posting some of the info, i have not been able to follow this to closely and wouldent mind getting filled in.

[Back]

Originally posted by DeV
Posts deleted or edited... :lol: Give me a break.

Its a conspiracy, Dev.

I think Gan is trying a little to hard considering what sort of venue this is. Have you won the PC yet Gan?

[Gan]

We can win the PC?!?

I'm just patiently waiting for the ruling to come out. Then I'm going to remind some folks of what they posted in the beginning. I seek nothing but an enhancement of the amusement I already get from spending time with all my friends on the PC.

:grouphug:

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ganalon
We can win the PC?!?

I'm just patiently waiting for the ruling to come out. Then I'm going to remind some folks of what they posted in the beginning. I seek nothing but an enhancement of the amusement I already get from spending time with all my friends on the PC.

:grouphug: Well, since I won't be one of those you'll be reminding of what they posted since like you, I've only been seeking the truth. I'm wondering, what type of amusement you get from someone being wrong in their pre-judgement of a guy who has an MO of being an asshole among Republicans and Democrats alike. Sure, their guess may have been wrong, and sure, you may have been one to wait for the ruiling instead of jumping the gun, but then again, so what? Kudos to you and I?

[Gan]

We'll just have to wait and see wont we? :)

Edited to add:

If I didnt find amusement here, I wouldnt be here.

[Edited on 7-15-2005 by Ganalon]

[DeV]

But of course.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Dont think there wont be some humble pie served in this thread once the truth is finally confirmed... especially if it indeed isnt Rove as its trending now.

Now watch some posts mysteriously get deleted or edited... (thats ok, I've already got the quotes ready for review). :smilegrin:

Don't hold your breathe waiting for any of my posts to go away.

[Back]

I could see Karl Rove pulling that kind of shenanigan if he posted here.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Artha

I think a lot of the anger over this case is in response to the fact that this administration in particular touts itself on security principles.
I think a lot of anger in this case is just posturing. Nobody really cares, except that there's a chance Karl Rove might be fired or sent to jail and he was integral to getting Bush elected twice.

And that was what I said since the beginning. Nice to see others agree. SILENT MAJORITY MAYBE??!?omg

Now if it turns out that it wasn't any of Rove's fault (haven't been following the case really, just seeing recent posts here), I think it will even further prove that most of this thing has been blown up because of the democrats over-zealousness to nail this guy who embarrassed them twice.

[DeV]

Because only Democrats thought Rove responsible at the time. :rolleyes:

I'm glad I worded my posts the way I did. I could sense that it would resort to something like this in the end.

[Hulkein]

<< Because only Democrats thought Rove responsible at the time. >>

No, but it's pretty obvious who was leading the charge and turning this into the type of story it is.

If ya would take my post for what is was.

"most of this thing has been blown up because of the democrats over-zealousness to nail this guy who embarrassed them twice."

[Edited on 7-15-2005 by Hulkein]

Hulkein, cant you understand... You're wrong, because you're a republican. No matter how right you really are (all the time) you are still going to be wrong.

[Apotheosis]

Well,

guess it looks like I might be wrong. Naturally, have to wait until the end of the investigation, but no harm no foul.

Looks like I finally got caught up in bullshit I try to avoid.

:lol:

[Gan]

Originally posted by DeV
Because only Democrats thought Rove responsible at the time. :rolleyes:

I'm glad I worded my posts the way I did. I could sense that it would resort to something like this in the end.


What? Accountability? Gods no, nothing like that would ever happen here. :whistle: until now.

The anticipation is so delicious.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by DeV
Because only Democrats thought Rove responsible at the time. :rolleyes:

I'm glad I worded my posts the way I did. I could sense that it would resort to something like this in the end.


What? Accountability? Gods no, nothing like that would ever happen here. :whistle: until now.

The anticipation is so delicious.

Accountability? To whom? This is a random message board dude.

How is speculation about this any different than speculation on Michael Jackson? Everyone is entitled to an opinion based on the facts they know, or in some cases, just because they want to. People thought he was guilty before the jury made a verdict. The public, people NOT on the jury. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

But hell, I should stop bashing you for having your fun. You’re right, thats why we all come here. For fun and amusement. Whatever floats your boat.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Backlash
How is speculation about this any different than speculation on Michael Jackson?Nobody accused Jeff Sony of purposefully withholding deserved punishment from Michael Jackson. Karl Rove neither had any history of nor gave any indications of playing fast and loose with confidential information, making speculation aimed at him wholly undeserved. I imagine a poster would get a quite similar reaction if they accused Michael Jackson of bank robbery.

Plus Michael Jackson is just creepy. ;)

[Gan]

Accountability, credibility amongst your peers here on the PC, surely the time you spend here demonstrates at least some of the worth you place in its participation.

Just seeing the posts of those who were 'positive' and so quick to jump on the bandwagon screaming for Rove's head, in this thread, and using him as a stepping stool to bash Republicans and Bush, especially when 10 posts later folks say that they 'really dont do that'. Its the same as Tabor touting all of his falsehoods, same as Xcaliboob making all of his outrageous claims. Folks here like to represent themselves other than what they are, with rhetoric inflammatory words because of it being 'just' a message board. Now, a lot of adamant people who were so convinced that Rove was guilty, even bashing those of us who told them to wait until more evidence was revealed, will have to see where their own words will take them. Dont worry, I will help you find that path. Thats where the anticipation I mentioned earlier comes in, its delicious indeed.

And now in light of that, some are attempting to discredit the levity of the debate, "This is a random message board dude.". Like pee wee herman... "I meant to do that". Riiight. :rolleyes:

Like I said, we'll see what happens. Its just a beautiful thing that words have a funny way of coming back and biting you in the ass when you speak before you think. As even Rove will admit.

Entertaining? Yes. Amusing? Yes. Perhaps I take more stock in my own credibility and how I represent myself here than you do, so dont let me thwart you in your efforts, especially if you're one of the left wing conspiracy theorists who jump on the bandwagon at the hint of any blood in the political water. Just be warned that sometimes (most times) its only red dye #4. And the fresh meat you think you're sinking your teeth into might just be the that of your own rear end. :lol:

[Edited on 7-15-2005 by Ganalon]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Backlash
But hell, I should stop bashing you for having your fun. You’re right, thats why we all come here. For fun and amusement. Whatever floats your boat. Yeah, sorry, my bad for taking politics somewhat seriously. My bad on that.

I am not a Republican and I pretty much waited until the facts came out... although the investigation is coming to a close so I guess I'm looking at it differently than you. I don't feel that those who believed Rove was guitly with the small amount of evidence provided have to be accountable to anyone but themselves. I just don't understand why you feel anyone has to be accountable to you solely on the basis of your political alignment versus theirs.

It's all about having fun though, so don't let me or anyone else spoil yours.


Originally posted by DeV
I am not yet completely convinced that Rove is fully the blame, but I'm glad the Conservatives feel that all Moderates and Liberals will jump on any bandwagon together just to help someone to the chopping block.

[Edited on 7-15-2005 by DeV]

[Gan]

Dont get me wrong, I'm not even considering to judge. If anyone judges here, its the PC as a whole. I am but a tiny part in the community, not worthy of trying to 'beat the PC', and even more not worthy of being a judge of others. I do like pointing out idiotic behavior though.
:saint:

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ganalon
I do like pointing out idiotic behavior though.
:saint: Touche... same. :)

[Back]

Shit thats what half of PC is all about. Ok, maybe 70%. :lol:

[Liberi Fatali]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Accountability, credibility amongst your peers here on the PC, surely the time you spend here demonstrates at least some of the worth you place in its participation.

Its the same as Tabor touting all of his falsehoods, same as Xcaliboob making all of his outrageous claims. Folks here like to represent themselves other than what they are, with rhetoric inflammatory words because of it being 'just' a message board.


Christ, you're a moron. Who we are? What does it matter? Or... do you need a name to describe me? A definition by words is merely a means to deceive oneself. It's meaningless before the truth. What matters is how you perceive things.

[Artha]

Voting card plz?

[Stunseed]

:rofl:

Artha wins.

[Liberi Fatali]

Originally posted by Artha
Voting card plz?

Ah, Ma'Belle Peché, you're straying off topic. Who made you a moderator, anyway? Deplorable...

[Skirmisher]

So.......no voting card then?

Originally posted by Tabor

Originally posted by Artha
Voting card plz?

Ah, Ma'Belle Peché, you're straying off topic. Who made you a moderator, anyway? Deplorable...

Yeah dude, where the voting card?

[Gan]

Thank you for illustrating my point precisely Tabor. As you so eloquently demonstrate, having zero credibility sucks. :lol:

[Ilvane]

Cooper's email indicates that Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by CIA Director George Tenet or Vice President Dick Cheney; rather, Rove claimed, "it was ... [W]ilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on [WMD] issues who authorized the trip." (Rove was wrong about the authorization.)

Hmm..I don't know..seems odd to me. And well..I still think Wilson has one wife, and who else would he be talking about.

I also think Novak should be nailed on this..Novak is an ass, and he needs to have some accountability too.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/15/dean.rove/index.html

I liked this article..and this man was a council under Nixon..so no talking about how he's biased.

-A

[Ilvane]

Oh, came across this earlier today. Seems Cooper says Rove told him..not the other way around.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/07/17/time_reporter_rove_was_first_source_on_cia_agent/

By Randall Mikkelsen | July 17, 2005

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - White House political aide Karl Rove was the first person to tell a Time magazine reporter that the wife of a prominent critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy was a CIA agent, the reporter said in an article on Sunday.

Time correspondent Matthew Cooper said he told a grand jury last week that Rove told him the woman worked at the "agency," or CIA, on weapons of mass destruction issues, and ended the call by saying "I've already said too much."

He said Rove did not disclose the woman's name, Valerie Plame, but told him information would be declassified that would cast doubt on the credibility of her husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson, who had charged the Bush administration with exaggerating the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs in making its case for war.

"So did Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the 'agency' on 'WMD'? Yes," Cooper wrote in Time's current edition.

"When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know. Is any of this a crime? Beats me," Cooper wrote.

He also wrote that he was not certain what Rove meant by commenting he had already said too much.

Cooper testified on his conversations with Rove under court order before the grand jury to avoid going to jail, and had received a last-minute waiver from Rove allowing him to break a confidentiality pledge. New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for refusing to testify.

A federal prosecutor is investigating whether any government officials broke laws against exposing the identity of a covert CIA agent.

Columnist Robert Novak first revealed Plame's identity in July 2003, citing two administration officials, shortly after Wilson published an opinion piece in the New York Times that accused the administration of twisting intelligence on Iraq.

Wilson wrote that on a 2002 mission funded by the CIA he was unable to substantiate allegations that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear materials from Niger, as the White House asserted.

Cooper also reported on Plame's identity, attributing the information to Novak's column and administration officials, in a piece on Time's Web site shortly after Novak's column.

Wilson says the Bush administration leaked his wife's identity in retaliation for his article; Rove's lawyer said the aide had done nothing wrong and was not a target of the investigation. Other defenders have said Rove is the victim of a smear campaign.

President Bush has said he would fire anyone responsible for the leak, but said last week he would withhold judgment on Rove's role pending the investigation.

Cooper also wrote in Time that in previous testimony to the grand jury he had discussed Wilson and his wife with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a senior aide to Vice President Dick Cheney. He said he asked Libby whether he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger, and Libby replied, "Yeah, I've heard that too."

Rove had used the same language in discussing the issue with Novak, according to media reports.

[Artha]

Seems Cooper says Rove told him..not the other way around.
From what I've read, Rove said that he read the information in another reporter's work and figured it wasn't classified.

[Apotheosis]

Originally posted by Artha

Seems Cooper says Rove told him..not the other way around.
From what I've read, Rove said that he read the information in another reporter's work and figured it wasn't classified.

I thought the Bush administration didn't get their information from the media, according to Mclellan.

[Ilvane]

Did you read the article, Artha? This was a new article as of today.:)

-A

[Edaarin]

Originally posted by Tabor
It's meaningless before the truth. What matters is how you perceive things.

Apparently, truth is a loose term.

[longshot]

It posts the voting card on the message board,

Or it gets the hose again.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Artha
From what I've read, Rove said that he read the information in another reporter's work and figured it wasn't classified.

He "figured"?

Is that how high level administration officials come to decide what is and what is not classified and therefore acceptable to talk about to of all people a reporter? " Maybe I should check ......Nawww...."

Wow, let's hope that's not the standard for everyone in goverment .

[Artha]

Awesome. Let's pick one word in Artha's statement and use it to demonize Karl Rove. Good work!

Originally posted by Skirmisher

Originally posted by Artha
From what I've read, Rove said that he read the information in another reporter's work and figured it wasn't classified.

He "figured"?

Is that how high level administration officials come to decide what is and what is not classified and therefore acceptable to talk about to of all people a reporter? " Maybe I should check ......Nawww...."

Wow, let's hope that's not the standard for everyone in goverment .

IF its common knowledge the classification is kinda a moot point. If you hear information from a reporter, knowing that the reporter, who lacks a security clearance, and a need to know, gave you the information it kinda makes things appear as if the info was not classified.

PS. (you spelled government wrong :ducks: )





[Edited on 7-17-2005 by Dave]

[Gan]

So basically I'm reading that Rove might or might not have told Cooper that Senator Wilsons wife worked for the CIA.

"So did Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the 'agency' on 'WMD'? Yes," Cooper wrote in Time's current edition.

So armed with this information, and the powers of deduction, how responsible did the press act?

Columnist Robert Novak first revealed Plame's identity in July 2003, citing two administration officials, shortly after Wilson published an opinion piece in the New York Times that accused the administration of twisting intelligence on Iraq.

Cooper also reported on Plame's identity, attributing the information to Novak's column and administration officials, in a piece on Time's Web site shortly after Novak's column.

Even though Rove gave Cooper leave to break confidentiality of his conversation, did that still give Cooper, and Novak for that matter, the ethical or legal right to publish it? Especially if the identity was based on deduction rather than a direct quote?

Alas I still dont think Rove will be charged, nor do I find guilt in his actions. And I still await the final judgement by the special investigation comittee to see who is to blame and then what will be done.

Edited to add: It still is a moot point since it has been established that Wilson's wife was not on clandestine duty nor considered a 'special agent in the field'. Thus her life never was or has been in jeopardy.

[Edited on 7-17-2005 by Ganalon]

[Hulkein]

I say we hang him from the Gallows Pole.

[Ravenstorm]

9/29/2003:


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.

Let me guess... The CIA gave them faulty information. Whether he's committed a crime or not, he's certainly involved. But lies and disinformation from the Bush administration isn't anything new is it?

raven

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Artha
Awesome. Let's pick one word in Artha's statement and use it to demonize Karl Rove. Good work!

I chose that word as it was the key word in the post. It was the explanation for releasing classified information.

Use a different word and then we'll talk about it, but until then I find it completely appropriate.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Dave

IF its common knowledge the classification is kinda a moot point. If you hear information from a reporter, knowing that the reporter, who lacks a security clearance, and a need to know, gave you the information it kinda makes things appear as if the info was not classified.

PS. (you spelled government wrong :ducks: )

[Edited on 7-17-2005 by Dave]

I'm sure the NSA would be facinated by your way of deciding what is and is no longer consider classified information Dave.

And you really do not want to get in spelling contests with anyone there chief.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Edited to add: It still is a moot point since it has been established that Wilson's wife was not on clandestine duty nor considered a 'special agent in the field'. Thus her life never was or has been in jeopardy.

[Edited on 7-17-2005 by Ganalon]

I know you don’t like this source, but the business about Wilson saying his wife wasn’t active is an inaccuracy thats been mistakenly repeated throughout the press. Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/items/200507150003).org explains how AP got it wrong, then corrected their own report.

[edit cause jetlag is kicking my ass]

[Edited on 7-17-2005 by Backlash]

I am not saying that it is classified or not, I am saying that its somewhat a moot point if a reporter knows the information and freely talks about it.

BTW, the NSA could care less since they are not the classifying authority, they don't deal with the information in the slightest, in this case it is all CIA, and only CIA.

Lets not get into a pissing match on what is and is not classified information and how it should be handled.
(people who know nothing [most of the public] about classified information and how it is handled need to keep their mouths shut... that goes for half of these congresspeople who keep bitching about things that are not criminal.)

[Gan]

We'll see what shakes out in the end. Seeing some reactions, perhaps even my own, will prove to be priceless.

[Skirmisher]

So Dave, for the record, in your opinion, if a reporter asks a qustion about classified information then that means they must know about the secret thereby making it no longer classified and making it alright to discuss it?

[Back]

Last paragraph of Matt Cooper’s newest article in Time (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1083899,00.html) released today. Bug Me Not (http://www.bugmenot.com) should give you login/password to get you in to read the whole story.


So did Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the "agency" on "WMD"? Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know. Is any of this a crime? Beats me. At this point, I'm as curious as anyone else to see what Patrick Fitzgerald has.

[Edited on 7-17-2005 by Backlash]

That's not what I said, but continue to put words in my mouth if it makes you feel better. You seem to be good at that lately.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
So Dave, for the record, in your opinion, if a reporter asks a qustion about classified information then that means they must know about the secret thereby making it no longer classified and making it alright to discuss it?

And even knowing that it was secret, and potentially harmful, they should also publish it so the world will know. :rolleyes:

[Skirmisher]

Stop whining and state your opinion more clearly then.

"I am not saying that it is classified or not, I am saying that its somewhat a moot point if a reporter knows the information and freely talks about it. "

So what do you mean by that?

What is moot? A reporter has the ability to declassify information? Or no? I would be very interested to see you justify the disclosing or even confirming of classified information.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Ganalon

And even knowing that it was secret, and potentially harmful, they should also publish it so the world will know. :rolleyes:

No, I a gree that reporters releasing classified an potentially dengerous information is wrong as well.

Get rid of them both.

Lets try the member of the Media who told Mr. Rove in the first place.

Originally posted by Skirmisher
Stop whining and state your opinion more clearly then.

"I am not saying that it is classified or not, I am saying that its somewhat a moot point if a reporter knows the information and freely talks about it. "

So what do you mean by that?

What is moot? A reporter has the ability to declassify information? Or no? I would be very interested to see you justify the disclosing or even confirming of classified information. \
No only the original classifying authority has the ability to declassify information (hence why it always seems to take a long time when somebody decides to unclassified a document and release it to the public).

Please read my comments again. It seems you selectively decided not to pay attention to it since you were looking for a fight.

IF its common knowledge the classification is kinda a moot point. If you hear information from a reporter (who lacks a security clearance, and a need to know) gave you the information it kinda makes things appear as if the info was not classified.


edit: to make it easier to understand

[Edited on 7-17-2005 by Dave]

[Gan]

Right, I'm whining. :rolleyes:

Stop trying to justify the actions of the reporters.

"I am not saying that it is classified or not, I am saying that its somewhat a moot point if a reporter knows the information and freely talks about it. "

Meaning: that even Rove did not directly divulge (according to the latest reports) the name of Mrs. Wilson, and knowing that it was sensitive information that had the potential to be damaging or even harmful, WHY THE FUCK DID THE PRESS PUBLISH IT TO THE FREE WORLD??? At this point, only a small group of people knew it. Did it make your life better by knowing that? No, so what was the aim of publishing it? Definately a smart move on their part [/sarcasm] Would it have mattered if who was the actual disclosing entity?

At what point do we hold the press responsible for what the publish? Look at what happened when they erronously said that the US soldiers were flushing the Koran down the toilettes at GITMO. There are other examples but I dont feel the gumption to dig them up at the moment. Especially for someone who thinks I'm the one whining [clarified: strike last statement].

[Edited on 7-17-2005 by Ganalon]

[Edaarin]

Not having read most of the past 3 or 4 pages...

...just because you're not charged doesn't mean you're not guilty. You should know that.

[Gan]

Innocent until proven guilty...

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Right, I'm whining. :rolleyes:



I wasn't directing that at you.

But he is a republican, and the devil. He has to be guilty for political gain.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Dave
But he is a republican, and the devil. He has to be guilty for political gain.



Originally posted by Dave
That's not what I said, but continue to put words in my mouth if it makes you feel better. You seem to be good at that lately.

Awsome

[Gan]

Originally posted by Skirmisher

Originally posted by Ganalon
Right, I'm whining. :rolleyes:



I wasn't directing that at you.

My bad. Thanks for clarifying.

Originally posted by Skirmisher

Originally posted by Dave
But he is a republican, and the devil. He has to be guilty for political gain.



Originally posted by Dave
That's not what I said, but continue to put words in my mouth if it makes you feel better. You seem to be good at that lately.

Awsome
Its something called sarcasm, mostly directed at all the people who said he was the devil in this thread. Were you one of them?

[Edaarin]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Innocent until proven guilty...

Heh, not when it involves politicians.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Edaarin

Originally posted by Ganalon
Innocent until proven guilty...

Heh, not when it involves politicians.

touche` :(

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Dave

Its something called sarcasm, mostly directed at all the people who said he was the devil in this thread. Were you one of them?

You were responding to someone from how many posts ago?

Sure, if you say so Dave.

Originally posted by Edaarin
Not having read most of the past 3 or 4 pages...

...just because you're not charged doesn't mean you're not guilty. You should know that.

:yeahthat:

is what I was responding too

[Skirmisher]

Okie dokie Dave.

:?:

[Gan]

It was a communication vortex!

:insert twilight theme music here:

[Back]

You know, while I am glad this investigation is finally getting somewhere it still overshadows the entire point of this affair. The administration “cooking” facts to show Iraq as an imminent threat for their case for war.

[Wezas]

President Bush said Monday that if anyone on his staff committed a crime in the CIA-leak case, that person will "no longer work in my administration." At the same time, Bush yet again sidestepped a question on the role of his top political adviser, Karl Rove, in the matter. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050718/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_investigation_20;_ylt=Ao9QEhnmYm288MplBmS QKgtZJ_wA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

[Atlanteax]

I anticipate, contrary to popular belief, that Bush will fire Rove when it's "proven".

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Atlanteax
I anticipate, contrary to popular belief, that Bush will fire Rove when it's "proven".

Years of appeals and controversy - Rove will finish out Bush's term. And it'll never (in everyone's eyes) be "proven".

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Meaning: that even Rove did not directly divulge (according to the latest reports) the name of Mrs. Wilson, and knowing that it was sensitive information that had the potential to be damaging or even harmful, WHY THE FUCK DID THE PRESS PUBLISH IT TO THE FREE WORLD??? At this point, only a small group of people knew it. Did it make your life better by knowing that? No, so what was the aim of publishing it? Definately a smart move on their part [/sarcasm] Would it have mattered if who was the actual disclosing entity?

At what point do we hold the press responsible for what the publish?

Wow. You talk about accountability; that starts with whomever confirmed what the reporter asked. You think if the source had said, "I'm not sure" or "I can't comment on matters at the CIA" the press would have had anything of substance TO publish beyond the usual "no comment"?

I mean, does this not strike anyone else as a glaring cry of hypocrasy to call 'accountability' to the reporters while systematically defending the ones (plural now if you count Cheney's aid), who may be found to have leaked the info?

I'd love it if they went after Novak too, but I wouldn't try to smokescreen around the issue of due process for administration officals with "Omg, the press is so bad for reporting what they were told!"; last I checked, that's their job, and Miller is in jail.

-M

[Gan]

Its not hyprocricy at all.

I'm merely pointing out what has been established and what hasnt. As I've said pointless times before... IF Rove is guilty then he should be charged. He's not found guilty yet, nor even charged; much to the chagrin of those here on the boards who started off so adamant and some who still are, that he's guilty.

It has been established that the press did leak the story to the mass public. Saying they arent responsible is like saying the crack-fiend is innocent but the dealer is guilty.

If Rove is guilty then, and I say again, he should be charged. However, since he's not and its just speculation then everyone who's so convinced he is needs to STFU with the bandwagoning, grandstanding, and witch-hunt mentality until he's charged. It just makes you look stupid, especially if he's not even charged.

[Gan]

PS.

Miller is in jail because she's being held for contempt of court. Disobey a judge and thats what happens.

[ElanthianSiren]

We should all suspend discussion until he's formally convicted then? Sounds like a totalitarian state. Honestly, I don't think he will be convicted, but also, I think he did it.

I claim the ability to say that I think he did it based on the fact that he's a fat glasses-wearing creepy old man. Does that make you feel better? We'll get down to the M. Jackson level.

In seriousness though, I don't believe that he is not the only one who leaked (inadvertantly I think we're admitting now), as Miller still won't reveal her source name. If it was Rove or Cheney's advisor, I imagine she would just say as much at this point. It's interesting to me, deducing that there is another source, who that may be.

-M

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Ganalon
PS.

Miller is in jail because she's being held for contempt of court. Disobey a judge and thats what happens.

The judge who asked for her source documents, correct?

-M

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ganalon
However, since he's not and its just speculation then everyone who's so convinced he is needs to STFU with the bandwagoning, grandstanding, and witch-hunt mentality until he's charged. It just makes you look stupid, especially if he's not even charged. :lol:

You do know how ridiculous that sounds right...

It happens in court rooms across America every day. It happens in newpapers across America everyday. It happens... just about anywhere on any given day.

But, this is Karl Rove so there are exceptions, of course.

[Gan]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
We should all suspend discussion until he's formally convicted then? Sounds like a totalitarian state. Honestly, I don't think he will be convicted, but also, I think he did it.

I claim the ability to say that I think he did it based on the fact that he's a fat glasses-wearing creepy old man. Does that make you feel better? We'll get down to the M. Jackson level.

-M

Its a free country, you can say almost anything you want and get away with it because it is your right.

It also should expected that foolish remarks and foolish behavior will also be pointed out. So as much as it is your right to make your claim before all the facts are in; it is also my right to help remind you of the error should you be wrong. And the more radical the erronious statement, the more radical the response will be upon conclusion. :lol:

[Gan]

Originally posted by DeV

It happens in court rooms across America every day. It happens in newpapers across America everyday. It happens... just about anywhere on any given day.


It does, ask Dan Rather how that effects his credibility of his statements, hell - ask Tabor how it feels to have ZERO credibility and yet yearn to have your words given the attention you think they deserve. It happened to Marsha Clark and look where she's at now. It sucks to lose, especially when you're either unprepared or blind to where the facts are leading you.

[Edited on 7-18-2005 by Ganalon]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by DeV

It happens in court rooms across America every day. It happens in newpapers across America everyday. It happens... just about anywhere on any given day.


It does, ask Dan Rather how that effects his credibility of his statements. It happened to Marsha Clark and look where she's at now. It sucks to lose, especially when you're either unprepared or blind to where the facts are leading you. Dude, we, including you are peons. Once again, :lol: at that statement.

We aren't getting paid for this shit. We are going by what is written in the press, viewed on television, or read off the internet. Including YOU. How much is Rove paying you, by the way...

[Gan]

I dont have to get paid to want my words to have credibility. Its a matter of pride I suppose.

Edited to add:

You're the second person to allude that whatever you say here on the PC doesnt matter, and that the PC doesnt matter. If thats the case, why do you put the effort you do in posting here?

[Edited on 7-18-2005 by Ganalon]

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Ganalon

So as much as it is your right to make your claim before all the facts are in; it is also my right to help remind you of the error should you be wrong. And the more radical the erronious statement, the more radical the response will be upon conclusion.

Okay, then, so do those people a favour and not remind them that they're "wrong" until they're proven "wrong". Then they will give you the big daddy backbiting award :D

-M

[Gan]

I havnt called anyone on being wrong yet. And if I'm proven wrong then I'll be the first to to call myself on it.

Fair is fair, even on the PC.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ganalon
I dont have to get paid to want my words to have credibility. Its a matter of pride I suppose.

Edited to add:

You're the second person to allude that whatever you say here on the PC doesnt matter, and that the PC doesnt matter. If thats the case, why do you put the effort you do in posting here?

[Edited on 7-18-2005 by Ganalon] Eh, what I say on the PC does in fact matter. However, I don't feel that I owe you anything or that anyone else does when they are simply going off of the facts and imformation presented up to this point regarding an issue and building their own opinion along the way.

Damn, argue the opinion, argue the facts, but telling someone they have to be accountable to you for what they are taking at face value coming from both sides of the fence, (Dem/Repub) is in a word, ridiculous. In that case, you should be silent on the subject until you have all the facts together as well, eh?

I'm waiting until all the facts are brought to light but that doesn't mean I don't feel that anyone should speak on the issue until then. It is beyond me that you feel they shouldn't.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Its a free country, you can say almost anything you want and get away with it because it is your right.

It also should expected that foolish remarks and foolish behavior will also be pointed out. So as much as it is your right to make your claim before all the facts are in; it is also my right to help remind you of the error should you be wrong. And the more radical the erronious statement, the more radical the response will be upon conclusion. :lol:

Apply that to the Bush administration and it’s claims that Iraq’s WMDs were an imminent threat.

[Gan]

Speak all you want, but making statements like "he's guilty - the administration is hidng it" or "Rove is the devil" is stupid and I choose to say otherwise. Regardless of his past or who he represents, he deserves a fair representation and as long as the PC allows for discussion on both sides of a topic then I'll participate, and if I choose to do that by debating the idiocy of some of the more radical statements that were posted here the so be it.

So post at will, and fear not that you're accountable to me - because you or anyone else is not. As I said earlier I'm not the judge of what you say, I'll just enjoy bringing it back up to make it look even more ridiculous if its proven wrong.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ganalon
So post at will, and fear not that you're accountable to me - because you or anyone else is not. Zing!

[Back]

Poll: Many Doubt White House Cooperation in CIA Leak Probe (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=949950&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)

Gan, you’ve got your work cut out for you, man.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Ganalon

It does, ask Dan Rather how that effects his credibility of his statements, hell - ask Tabor how it feels to have ZERO credibility and yet yearn to have your words given the attention you think they deserve. It happened to Marsha Clark and look where she's at now. It sucks to lose, especially when you're either unprepared or blind to where the facts are leading you.

[Edited on 7-18-2005 by Ganalon]

Speaking of credibility:



Now, in the public's view,
President Bush is sliding into negative territory on that score. For the first time in his presidency, more Americans give Bush a low rating (45 percent) on being "honest and straightforward" than give him a high rating (41 percent), according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

Bush loses some luster on credibility <--Link to full story here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/aratingsx;_ylt=Auo9cYxNgYmP0VyamILDmB6yFz4D;_ylu=X 3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

[CrystalTears]

Darn. I guess that means that his chances of getting reelected are slim, eh? :P

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Darn. I guess that means that his chances of getting reelected are slim, eh? :P

Hell, after the last two elections few things would shock me.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash
Poll: Many Doubt White House Cooperation in CIA Leak Probe (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=949950&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)

Gan, you’ve got your work cut out for you, man.

The sad thing is that even though I support Bush and what he and the party stand for; I feel that either directly or indirectly he's made some choices that could have been better made and definately better broadcasted. I'm afraid that all of the positive things his administration have attempted will be largely overshadowed by the mistakes. He's expended almost all of his political capital, not that he needs it for re-election. However, if it keeps going then it will backlash onto the Republican party and that would be unfortunate foundation for the 2006 congressional elections and the 2008 presidential elections.

As for my efforts, I wont apologize for my attempt at keeping the debate legitimate and at the same time intellectual. I have developed a lot of respect for the views and opinions of those who partake in the more serious discussions here on the PC, and it saddens me to see the PC stoop to the level of idiotic name calling or childish blanket statements. I have been and will always be an advocate for mature decorum, which I hope my support has helped strengthen the resolve of the PC staff to help maintain a higher quality discussion environment. With this same mindset will I endeavor to keep at least some of the discussions that I've been a participant on at the same level - only I realize that I'm only a small voice among so many. :(

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Ganalon
As for my efforts, I wont apologize for my attempt at keeping the debate legitimate and at the same time intellectual.

You mean the posts that basically boiled down to 'ha ha, I can't wait to throw people's words back in their face and scream PWNED! and I've got the screencaps to make sure they don't edit what they've said'?

I wasn't aware that fell under 'legitimate and intellectual'. Nor 'mature decorum'. Learn something new every day.

Raven

[Edited on 7-18-2005 by Ravenstorm]