PDA

View Full Version : Frog-Marching Time for Rove? (long)



SnakebyteXX
07-12-2005, 06:29 AM
Frog-Marching Time for Rove?

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 12, 2005; 7:57 AM

The liberal blogosphere is aflame with animosity toward Karl Rove, now that he's been sucked deeper into the Plame probe.

Some folks out there think he should just be thrown in the jail cell next to Judy Miller's, no indictment or trial necessary.


To some on the left, Rove is the epitome of all they despise about the administration. He is Bush's brain, pulling the strings from behind the scenes, injecting politics into every conceivable decision. Rove further infuriated his critics a couple of weeks ago when he seemed to use the 9/11 tragedy to score political points, saying Republicans wanted to wage war and liberals wanted to offer the terrorists therapy.

Add the fact that this controversy is about the runup to the Iraq war and an apparent White House effort to discredit a prominent Bush critic, Joe Wilson, and you have an incendiary mixture. (It was Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband, who once declared that "fun to see Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs.") And this dovetails nicely with the conviction that the press did a lousy job on WMD before the war and has been too soft on Karl & Co. ever since.

There are two issues here, it seems to me. Legally, what Rove said to Matt Cooper on "double super secret background" (according to this Mike Isikoff piece) may or may not have violated the law against identifying intelligence agents. There are questions about whether Rove knew that Plame was undercover, whether he was "knowingly" outing her, and so forth.

But politically, this is a bombshell. Rove, who has insisted he did not leak Plame's name, had something to do with this effort, even if he didn't "name" her. ( The defense: It all depends on the meaning of the word "leak?") He was attempting to undercut Wilson when he told Cooper that wifey had helped set up Wilson's fact-finding trip to Niger (where Wilson didn't find the facts the administration wanted on Saddam seeking uranium) and that the uranium business could still be true (it wasn't). And didn't the White House promise to fire anyone involved in the leak?

What does Rove do now? Give a couple of interviews and explain his role? Or remain in the background while his lawyer issues carefully parsed statements?

The newspapers all jump on the White House in stonewall mode, beginning with the New York Times :

"Nearly two years after stating that any administration official found to have been involved in leaking the name of an undercover C.I.A. officer would be fired, and assuring that Karl Rove and other senior aides to President Bush had nothing to do with the disclosure, the White House refused on Monday to answer any questions about new evidence of Mr. Rove's role in the matter.

"With the White House silent, Democrats rushed in, demanding that the administration provide a full account of any involvement by Mr. Rove, one of the president's closest advisers, turning up the political heat in the case and leaving some Republicans worried about the possible effects on Mr. Bush's second-term agenda. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, cited Mr. Bush's statements about firing anyone involved in the leak and said, 'I trust they will follow through on this pledge.'. . . .

"In two contentious news briefings, the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, would not directly address any of a barrage of questions about Mr. Rove's involvement."

"Reporters at Monday's question-and-answer session at the White House peppered spokesman Scott McClellan with 41 questions in 35 minutes," says USA Today .

Chicago Tribune : "Sensing vulnerability on the part of a formidable political adversary, Democrats on Monday urged hearings into the conduct of presidential adviser Karl Rove and demanded his security clearance be revoked as the White House grew close-mouthed about allegations that Rove played a role in revealing a CIA employee's identity."

WP columnist Dana Milbank captures the tone:


"'This is ridiculous!'

"'You're in a bad spot here, Scott.'

"'Have you consulted a personal attorney?'

"The 32-minute pummeling was perhaps the worst McClellan received since he got the job two years ago. His eyes were red and tired. He wiggled his foot nervously behind the lectern and robotically refused to answer no fewer than 35 questions about Rove and the outing of the CIA's Valerie Plame. Twenty-two times McClellan repeated that an 'ongoing' investigation prevented him from explaining the gap between his past statements and the facts."

The Wall Street Journal notes: "In an email message to supporters, Mr. Bush's defeated 2004 election rival, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, wrote: 'It's perfectly clear that Rove -- the person at the center of the slash-and-burn, smear-and-divide tactics that have come to characterize the Bush administration -- has to go.'"

Here are some of the anti-Rove posts:

Slate's Tim Noah : "Inside the Bush administration, lying to reporters doesn't even come close to being a firing offense, so neither Rove nor Scott McClellan, who first called the accusation that Rove exposed Plame "totally ridiculous" and then flat-out said "it is simply not true," need fear for his job on that score. But Rove blew the cover of an undercover CIA official. If Dubya doesn't fire the man he nicknamed "Turd Blossom" for this offense, he's an even bigger hack than I think."

Blanton's and Ashton's

"Way to go Karl. Only in a Bush administration could you still be working at the White House instead of scrubbing toilets in prison. . . .

"Rove is attempting to wiggle away from criminal charges based on a literal interpretation of the law and a lot of weaselly little garbage. For instance, he is making sure to let everyone know he didn't 'name' Valerie Plame. No, he didn't. He just referred to Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife. So he didn't 'name' her, he merely identified her, but not by name, so be careful you don't say that he 'named' her. Dear Karl, do you actually feel good about yourself when you have to rely on that kind of maneuvering to look innocent?"

"Karl Rove is Mr. Disinformation himself. Mr. Smear. By refusing to give up his name, Judy Miller is aiding and abetting government corruption -- not much of a surprise, considering her stellar work in the lead-up to the war and in its early days as she danced around the desert with Super Secret troops declaring WMD found here and there."


Uh, small problem: We don't know whether Miller's source was Rove or someone else.

Carpetbagger

"I think there's ample evidence that Rove is in a world of legal trouble right now after intentionally disclosing information identifying an undercover CIA agent. But put that aside for a moment while the White House criminal investigation continues to unfold.

"Instead, let's consider the defense. Under the best case scenario, if Rove's conversations about Joseph Wilson's wife were not technically illegal, we still have the president's top political aide covering up a White House lie by smearing an opponent, going after his wife, and in the process 'accidentally' exposing an undercover CIA agent. For the White House, that's the best case scenario.

"Indeed, the defense isn't that Rove has acted in an ethical and principled fashion; the defense is that Rove is merely a vicious smear artist who helped disseminate classified information to cover his lies about Iraq. But it's not a problem, according to the defense theory, because he didn't literally leak Plame's name. Yeah, that's persuasive."

Andrew Sullivan

"ROVE WAS COOPER'S SOURCE: Well, we kinda knew this already, but it's good to have it confirmed. The salient fact is that Rove appears to have told Cooper about Wilson's wife working at the CIA before the Novak column appeared. Rove was clearly coordinating a message to discredit Wilson by linking him to his wife, and implying that Wilson had no real authorization from the senior levels of the administration. Rove may not be guilty of a crime, if he did not disclose her name and did not know she was undercover. He is guilty of sleaze and spin. But then that's also hardly news, is it?"

Craig Crawford ponders whether it was all a Rovian plot:

"If Karl Rove planned this -- which I doubt -- he really is a genius:

"1.) He leaks to Time's Matt Cooper in such a way that he avoids the law's intent requirement for criminal liability (Newsweek notes that Cooper's email shows nothing indicating Rove knew or revealed that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent, only that she worked at the CIA).

"2.) The ensuing grand jury investigation dramatically weakens the news media and future leakers, as reporters must decide whether to testify or go to jail, and even turns Rove's foes in the public against the reporters involved because they are seen as protecting him.

"In other words, by making himself a protected source who loses that protection, Rove makes it easier for the government to use federal courts to target all leakers. This would give Machiavelli a migraine."


John Hinderaker of Power Line explores the legal liability question:

"A violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act seems highly unlikely. It is doubtful whether Rove or any other administration source knew of Plame's affiliation with the CIA through access to classified materials; it is further questionable whether Rove or any other source knew that she was a 'covert' employee, or that the government was making an effort to keep her affiliation with the Agency a secret. (In fact, it is unclear whether the Agency did make such an effort.) As to the third situation covered by the statute, neither Rove nor any other administration source identified Plame as part of a 'pattern of activities intended to identify or expose covert agents' for the purpose of impairing national security.

"It is hard to see how Rove could be indicted for violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, and it is very unlikely that he would have been foolish enough to testify falsely before the grand jury about his conversations with journalists. None of this will matter much, though, when it is publicly acknowledged that Rove was one of the sources of the Plame 'leak.' (This isn't, by the way, the sort of communication that is ordinarily referred to as a 'leak.') We can expect a media feeding frenzy or potentially unprecedented proportions.

"Rove presumably told the President that he was one of the sources of the Plame information long ago. It is interesting that Bush didn't take the path of least resistance and ease Rove out of the administration at the end of his first term. The President's reputation for loyalty to has aides is certainly well-deserved."

Almost obscured in all this is the fact that Judy Miller is sleeping on a foam mattress on the floor of the Alexandria Detention Center. The Dallas Morning News gives Judy a standing O:

"Your decision to pay a personal price to protect the confidentiality of professional conversations sends powerful signals. It tells authorities that an ardor exists among journalists equal to the force of subpoenas. It tells would-be sources, who may want to reveal an awful truth, that it's still possible to speak in confidence.

"And it tells the public that an uncowed press -- the founders' desire -- still exists 214 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified."

David Kidwell of the Miami Herald measures the Time/Times fallout:

"It seems like such a simple concept that any 10-year-old can easily grasp. You make a promise, you keep it.

"But some in journalism's executive offices -- Norman Pearlstine among them -- are having a difficult time with it.

"Anyone who reads the paper or watches television is going to hear a lot of snarky criticism of Judith Miller in the coming days and weeks as she sits alone in a jail cell. You're going to hear about her personality quirks, her past mistakes as a journalist, even her perceived ulterior motives to enrich her career.

"All you really need to consider is this: If you were a government employee with a nagging conscience, if you had secret records that would expose corruption or lies at the highest levels, if your job was on the line and you needed to find a journalist whose promises you could trust with your life -- who would you call today: Matt Cooper and Time magazine, or Judith Miller and The New York Times?"


Times Editor Bill Keller, by the way, told me that criticism of Miller was "repellent" and coming from the "partisan fringe."

Romenesko has a pungent exchange between Keller and LAT op-ed editor Nick Goldberg, who was seeking a response for this Mike Kinsley column on Miller's plight.

GOLDBERG: "He's written various other pieces of the same sort since then and has another coming out tomorrow that once again states his position that a reporters' right to protect his or her source is not necessarily more important than the government's right to get the information it needs. He specifically takes on the long NYT editorial that ran a few days ago.

"This is a bit of a long shot, but I thought that perhaps Judy Miller would like to write some kind of rejoinder (especially now that Kinsley's columns and editorials, as I understand it, are being used by the prosecutor to help make his case). Is such a thing possible? Is there a way to contact her and ask if she's interested?"

KELLER: "How clever of the Los Angeles Times to propose that Judy Miller debate Mike Kinsley on the subject of press freedom. Sadly, Judy is not on a fellowship at some writers' colony. She is in JAIL. She is sleeping on a foam mattress on the floor, and her communications are, shall we say, constrained.

"I have to tell you that Mike's contrarian intellectualizing on the subject of reporters and the law was more amusing when it was all hypothetical. Back then it was just punditry. But that was before Norm Pearlstine embraced acquiescence as corporate policy, and before Judy Miller braved the real-world discomforts of the moral high ground. Of course this is an important issue, and clever minds should wrestle with it. But at the moment Kinsley and Pearlstine seem perversely remote from the world where actual reporters work."

web page (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/07/12/BL2005071200330.html)

Gayle in MD
07-12-2005, 06:51 AM
Unfortunately a headline about the Bush people telling lies is hardly a scoop. My burning wuestion is, why is Judith, who didn't print the story, in jail, while Novak, who did print the story, scott free?

Can anyone defend Rove as a good man after this? Can anyone defend the Yellow Cake lies told by this administration?

Gayle in Md?

DickLeonard
07-12-2005, 07:12 AM
There is only one solution to This Problem overthrow the Republicans in the House and vote to Impeach Pres. Bush. They impeached Bill Clinton for lying about ZipperGate now we must impeach Bush for lying about WMD.
This adm makes Richard Nixon seem like an Angel.####

Qtec
07-13-2005, 07:46 AM
...........and the wheels of the RNC propaganda machine start to turn.

avoid the issue (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Exclusive_GOP_talking_points_on_Rove_seek_to_discr e_0712.html)

I dont expect him to be fired. Not one single person in this Admin has ever taken responsibility for any of the multitude of mistakes that have been made.
Lets see if GW will do a major FLIP-FLOP. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Q

SnakebyteXX
07-13-2005, 08:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
"Short of a criminal indictment, Rove is not going anywhere," said Marshall Wittmann, a former Republican aide who now works for the Democratic Leadership Council.

"For Bush to get rid of Rove would be like Charlie McCarthy firing Edgar Bergen." <hr /></blockquote>

web page (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050713.wxrove13/BNStory/International/)

highsea
07-13-2005, 10:23 AM
I want to know who Judith Miller's source was. $20 says it was Joe Wilson, which would explain why the NYT won't let her speak up.

Wilson leaked the contents of his own report to the CIA--in the pages of the New York Times!--only he lied about his own report. Not surprisingly, the Times has never issued a correction of the misstatements in Wilson's op-ed.

Rove was obviously trying to warn Cooper away from Wilson's web of fantasies and fabrications. We now know that it wasn't Cheney's office that sent Wilson to Niger, it was his wife! As far as "outing" her, Wilson's own online biography identified her by name, and they both posed in a photo spread for Vanity Fair, with Valerie dressed up as a spy! ROFL.

Cooper's emails to his Newsweek editors are crystal clear- Rove was simply warning him of the risk of trusting Wilson's version of events. The left is so desperate for a head on a platter that they are completely ignoring the facts.

The Wall Street Journal gets it right in today's editorial...[ QUOTE ]
Karl Rove, Whistleblower

He told the truth about Joe Wilson.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same can't be said for Mr. Wilson, who first "outed" himself as a CIA consultant in a melodramatic New York Times op-ed in July 2003. At the time he claimed to have thoroughly debunked the Iraq-Niger yellowcake uranium connection that President Bush had mentioned in his now famous "16 words" on the subject in that year's State of the Union address.

Mr. Wilson also vehemently denied it when columnist Robert Novak first reported that his wife had played a role in selecting him for the Niger mission. He promptly signed up as adviser to the Kerry campaign and was feted almost everywhere in the media, including repeat appearances on NBC's "Meet the Press" and a photo spread (with Valerie) in Vanity Fair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006955
<hr /></blockquote>

nAz
07-13-2005, 11:49 AM
Hey you old scalawag how are you doing?

not to worry I am sure this will blow over just as every other fiasco that our current Prez has gotten himself and us into, something in the news will push this story a side... maybe another hurricane will hit FLA. or a new terror alert will be announce . hey has anyone notice there really haven't been any announced since the last Prez campaign... strange.

Qtec
07-13-2005, 12:49 PM
Geez, what a fantasy you have! /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

For starters-
[ QUOTE ]
before the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed him as a fraud. <hr /></blockquote>

The REAL report ,[ not the additions]said this;

[ QUOTE ]
Niger and the Iraqi nuclear program
Section II of the report discussed the handling of intelligence indicating that Iraq might be attempting to purchase uranium from Niger. The report examined the role played by former ambassador Joseph Wilson in investigating the issue, and the way Wilson's assessment was communicated within the intelligence community. It also discusses the process whereby references to Iraq's uranium-procurement efforts were removed from some speeches by administration officials, but left in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. The report concludes that prior to October, 2002, it was reasonable for the intelligence community to believe Iraq may have been attempting to obtain uranium from Africa.

Section III of the report discusses assessments of Iraq's domestic nuclear program. It focuses a significant amount of attention on the intelligence process that took place in the spring of 2001 regarding Iraq's attempts to purchase 60,000 high-strength aluminum tubes. The CIA concluded that the tubes could be intended for constructing centrifuges for a uranium-enrichment program (i.e., for a restarted Iraqi nuclear weapons program); analysts in the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense considered that to be unlikely. <font color="blue">ie, the experts </font color>

The October 2002 NIE stated that Iraq appeared to be reconsitituting its nuclear weapons program. The Committee's report concluded that this view was not supported by the underlying intelligence, and the report agreed with the opinion of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, expressed as an "alternative view" in the NIE, that the available intelligence did not make "a compelling case for reconstitution" of the Iraqi nuclear program. The committee reached several conclusions critical of poor communications between the CIA and other parts of the intelligence community concerning this issue.
<hr /></blockquote>


[ QUOTE ]
Wilson criticized the President over the Niger claims, and shortly thereafter an anonymous source leaked the fact that his wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert CIA operative to columnist Robert Novak. Wilson accused the Bush administration of attempting to discredit and intimidate him. The U.S. Congress has set up an inquiry to determine who was involved with the leak, headed by U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

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

Although Senator Roberts was clear that he and the Panel's democratic members disagreed about the inclusion of the statements above in the official report, he alleged that the panel agreed on "the underlying facts" regarding those conclusions. The other members did not confirm this alleged agreement. <font color="blue"> Apparently ignoring this dispute, many media outlets reported them as established facts from the report itself. Wilson responded to Roberts claims, pointing to numerous statements by the CIA indicating that his wife did not recommend him for the mission and that the CIA had concurred with Wilson's findings that the Niger link was false prior to the President's mention of that connection in the State of the Union address.</font color>[/b]

In the imagination of partisans and others, Wilson became both a hero and a villain, depending on their opinions of the Bush administration and the nature of the evidence provided by Wilson and his detractors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson <hr /></blockquote>

What about the real issue.

Q

highsea
07-13-2005, 02:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> What about the real issue.<hr /></blockquote>Ermm, this thread is about Rove, and the media's shameless attempt to frame him....try to keep up.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>The REAL report ,[ not the additions]said this;<hr /></blockquote> I will highlihgt the portions that are relevent to this thread, since you seem to be distracted again by the tubes...

[ QUOTE ]
Niger and the Iraqi nuclear program

Section II of the report discussed the handling of intelligence indicating that Iraq might be attempting to purchase uranium from Niger. The report examined the role played by former ambassador Joseph Wilson in investigating the issue, and the way Wilson's assessment was communicated within the intelligence community. It also discusses the process whereby references to Iraq's uranium-procurement efforts were removed from some speeches by administration officials, but left in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. The report concludes that prior to October, 2002, it was reasonable for the intelligence community to believe Iraq may have been attempting to obtain uranium from Africa.

Wilson criticized the President over the Niger claims, and shortly thereafter an anonymous source leaked the fact that his wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert CIA operative to columnist Robert Novak. Wilson accused the Bush administration of attempting to discredit and intimidate him. The U.S. Congress has set up an inquiry to determine who was involved with the leak, headed by U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

Several months after the scandal broke, Senator Pat Roberts, joined by Senators Christopher Bond and Orrin Hatch, made "additional comments" following the release of the Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq. In these comments they claimed, amongst other things, that Wilson's wife had "suggested her husband for the trip to Niger" and that Wilson had made statements which "were not only incorrect, but had no basis in fact." In particular, Senator Roberts criticized Wilson for allegedly informing reporters that he had personal knowledge of the Iraq-Niger uranium documents and allegedly informing reporters that he had personal knowledge that the Iraq-Niger uranium connection had been "completely debunked," when in fact Ambassador Wilson lacked personal knowledge regarding those issues.<hr /></blockquote>You see, Q, Wilson was being a political hack. He was sent to Niger by his wife (not Cheney, as he claimed) to investigate the British uranium reports. When he returned, he went straight to the New York Times, and immediately afterwards signed on with the Kerry Campaign. Hello??? Is any of this sinking in, Q?

As a CIA consultant, he was violating his duty by leaking his report to the press. He also LIED about his reasons for going, his findings, and who sent him in the first place. Not a very proud moment for the CIA, hopefully Plame has been shuffled to some low-level desk where she can't do any more harm.

Now Rove, when asked about this by Cooper, warned him that Wilson was lying about the trip. For this warning, which he delivered in passing during an interview on a completely different subject, the media has went on a feeding frenzy, completely overlooking the truth of the matter.

Rove never sought out Cooper, he didn't even know Plame's name, all he did was warn Cooper that Wilson wasn't telling the truth.

I don't know why I bother trying to explain any of this to you. You are too blinded by ideology to see what's completely obvious to everyone- that Wilson is a liar who was motivated by partisan politics, and he got caught red-handed. The fact that the MSM has ignored this only exposes their partisanship even more.

The comical part is that the left still refuses to face the truth. Rove didn't "out" anyone- Wilson should be in jail for going directly to the media after returning from an assignment that was obviously classified.

And why does the NYT refuse to allow Miller to testify about her source? Rove has signed all the waivers, she has been ordered by a Federal judge to disclose her information, yet her bosses refuse to let her talk. It's pretty obvious that they are hiding something embarassing, wonder what it is? We know it can't be Rove, they would never protect him at the expense of one of their own, especially after he signed the waivers!

Why isn't Novak and the NYT coming under fire for PUBLISHING Plame's name?

A: Because it is POLITICS- the NYT doesn't give a crap about the CIA, we all know that...

highsea
07-13-2005, 02:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> Hey you old scalawag how are you doing? <font color="red"> Purty good yar, how bout you?. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif</font color>

not to worry I am sure this will blow over just as every other fiasco that our current Prez has gotten himself and us into, something in the news will push this story a side... <font color="red">Lol, It will all go away as soon as Bush announces a candidate for the Supreme Court. Then the libs will have a new cause to get hysterical over, and we can go back to the filibuster debate and Frist can pull out his "nukes". /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif</font color><hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
07-13-2005, 11:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You see, Q, Wilson was being a political hack. He was sent to Niger by his wife <font color="blue"> wrong </font color> (not Cheney, as he claimed) <font color="blue"> wrong. he was sent by the CIA in response to a request for more info made by Cheney. </font color> to investigate the British uranium reports. When he returned, he went straight to the New York Times, <font color="blue"> wrong </font color> and immediately afterwards signed on with the Kerry Campaign. Hello??? Is any of this sinking in, Q?

As a CIA consultant, he was violating his duty by leaking his report to the press. <font color="blue"> wrong. </font color> He also LIED about his reasons for going, his findings, and who sent him in the first place. <font color="blue">wrong </font color> Not a very proud moment for the CIA, hopefully Plame has been shuffled to some low-level desk where she can't do any more harm.
<hr /></blockquote>

You might try reading the first 10 pages of the report on Niger. All you are doing is repeating the lies of the 'machine'. Wilson wasnt under ANY obligation to keep silent! The CIA didnt even ask him to!
It wasnt a secret.

The real issue is that Wilson's wife was outed in order to deflect attention away from a classic example of the Govt 'fixing' the evidence.

Q

Gayle in MD
07-14-2005, 01:52 AM
One would think that after the massive amount of evidence which has surfaced about the lies told by this administration to get us into Iraq.... The number of books written, documentaries aired, personal statements and reports which prove that Bush had targeted Iraq before 9/11. The personal statements made by many CIA terrorist experts of how the administration rebuffed any and all intelligence which didn't support Bush's intended policy to invade Iraq....The fact that Bush tried to stop the 9/11 Senate Investigation..... The history of the Rove/Bush slander machine from Texas to the white House, that this last little news item would not be met by the right with the same old outrage against Hillary and Kerry and partisan politics.

The Prosecutor has been investigating this case for two years. I'm sure there is a great deal which none of us knows. The bottom line is that when asked by a reporter if he intended to fire the person responsible for outing Valarie if it turned out that that person was one of his people in the WH, he said "Yes"

All the rest of the republican spin, the use of distraction from the issue, the slanderous partisan BS against the Democrats, is just same ol same ol. To think there are people out there trying to minimize the outing of a CAI undercover agent, regardless of when she last was involved in covert activities, and during war time, is just incredible. The outing of one undercover agent can expose many others who were involved with her, and who may still be at risk.

The fact the the republicans are trying to say that Rove, who is known for his smear tactics, was trying to help a reporter out by correcting errors in his story, is the funniest thing this bunch of clowns has put out there yet. The only thing funnier than that was their story that bin Laden was in kahootz with Saddam H.!

Gayle in Md.