Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on July 02, 2005, 12:16:28 PM

Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Chairboy on July 02, 2005, 12:16:28 PM
News flash: Karl Rove leaked Plame's name to the press.  If true, this means that the Bush administration outed a CIA operative out of political retribution.  Not only that, but also directly lied about Rove's involvement (they said it wasn't him).

This could be...   bad.

Initial stories
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972839
http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20318
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972841

Tracking Link for Google News
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=rove+plame
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Toad on July 02, 2005, 12:19:26 PM
If he's guilty, he's guilty. I sure don't think he's "special" because he's Karl Rove.

It's a good thing for other pols to see guilty abusers of the public trust go to jail.

He'll get his "due process" I'm sure.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: oboe on July 02, 2005, 01:18:08 PM
I just finished John Dean's "Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W Bush" and Dean predicted a scandal like this to break, even mentioning this case specifically. due the the excessive secrecy and arrogance of the Bush administration.

Not surprisingly, he drew a lot of parallels between GW and Nixon in their almost paranoid need to control information.

btw, outing a CIA operative is a far more serious crime than the bungled break-in and coverup at the Watergate Hotel.  This woman's career was destroyed and her life was endangered.

Isn't Rove the one who just recently called all liberals, "traitors"?
And he blows a CIA agent's cover as an act of retribution against someone who disagreed with the President's position on the Iraq invasion?    My gawd the mind boggles at the hypocrisy.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 02:11:27 PM
Finally.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Toad on July 02, 2005, 02:42:41 PM
Nash, did you see the FBI dropped by Cunningham's house and that corporations offices?

Looks like the mills continue to grind slowly.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: oboe on July 02, 2005, 02:44:20 PM
Is outing a CIA operative a crime of treason?   Seems like it should be.    Its definitely a crime against the State, but I'm not sure all crimes in that legal category are actually Treason.   If it is, I'm just curious, what is the punishment for Treason?

If this turns out to be true, I expect we'll get to see just how far above the Law the Bush administration believes they are in the coming months.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Bodhi on July 02, 2005, 02:48:04 PM
It will be interesting to see how this pans out.  If Rove is the one responsible, hang his arse out to dry.  This type of crap has no place and is highly despicable.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 02:55:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Toad
Nash, did you see the FBI dropped by Cunningham's house and that corporations offices?

Looks like the mills continue to grind slowly.


If by "dropped by" you mean 20 agents smashing the locks and bustin' into the joints, yeah. :)
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 02:57:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Bodhi
It will be interesting to see how this pans out.  If Rove is the one responsible, hang his arse out to dry.  This type of crap has no place and is highly despicable.


When it comes to this stuff, the cover-up is always always always worse than the crime. Think Bush didn't know? I don't think it's going to end at Rove.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Toad on July 02, 2005, 02:58:09 PM
Ames got life in prison for betraying over 100 CIA operatives to the KGB; 10 of those were killed.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 03:01:23 PM
If I'm not mistaken, I think the penalty in this case is up to 10 years in jail, and a $50,000 fine.... or something like that.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 03:05:24 PM
Btw... While the investigation is makin' grounds by moving upwards, I'd be interested to see it start moving outwards as well. Who was responsible for the forged documents in the first place?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Thrawn on July 02, 2005, 03:38:37 PM
I am shocked....shocked.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: FUNKED1 on July 02, 2005, 03:53:08 PM
Is that document enough to convict him?  Enough to get him to plea bargain and rat people out?  Or enough to get people to walk into a perjury ambush like Bubba did?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 04:02:41 PM
Good question - I don't know.

Basically, the forged documents drew a direct connection between Iraq and WMD.

Is there any illegality in the Bush admin crafting forged documents, getting them into an Italian agent's hands who then tried to sell them to a journalist who then brought them to the US embassy in Rome? I kind of doubt it.

But when the documents were discredited, the CIA wife of the person who busted it is then sold out by (allegedly) Rove.

I don't know, Funked.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: FUNKED1 on July 02, 2005, 04:05:56 PM
By document I meant the one that names Rove as the leak source.

I doubt the Italian stuff was illegal.  Disinformation for national security purposes.  Hell, a person who exposes the disinformation is the one who ought to be in trouble.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 04:13:06 PM
Oh, well then it's not so much a document as it is a whole ton of documents - turned over by Time Inc.

Depends also upon how much Cooper and Judith Miller enjoy prison food.

This is happening.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: FUNKED1 on July 02, 2005, 04:15:02 PM
So you think the documents aren't enough to convict Rove, and it will take the testimony of Cooper & Miller to get it done?

I think this (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/15/subchapters/iv/sections/section_421.html) is the law that Rove would be guilty of violating if he is indeed the leak.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 04:15:43 PM
I'm honestly not sure.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: FUNKED1 on July 02, 2005, 04:20:27 PM
Roger that, just wondering if anybody had worked it all out.

Here's part of the law that might be a problem:
Quote
knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States


If Rove can plausibly deny that he knew about "affirmative measures..." then he could get off.

Even if they don't get him on this one, there's probably enough there to justify a crapload of investigating and grand juries, etc,  and as we saw with Bubba you can always find something on these weasels if you look hard enough.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 04:20:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by FUNKED1
So you think the documents aren't enough to convict Rove, and it will take the testimony of Cooper & Miller to get it done?

I think this (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/15/subchapters/iv/sections/section_421.html) is the law that Rove would be guilty of violating if he is indeed the leak.


Section (a), specifically.

edit: Exactly Funked. But I'd have a hard time believing that Rove didn't have the complete low-down on this chick. He's got it on everybody.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: FUNKED1 on July 02, 2005, 04:24:00 PM
I'm sure he knew.  But if he has plausible deniability then he could get off.  These are smart weasels.  DC is a big natural selection machine for weasels.  Survival of the weaseliest.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 04:24:23 PM
lol - true. :)

Yeah, yer right.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: rpm on July 02, 2005, 05:06:31 PM
I smell Presidential pardon for a true republican patriot!
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: SOB on July 02, 2005, 05:22:28 PM
If he's convicted, I hope he spends real time with real criminals.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: weaselsan on July 02, 2005, 06:04:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I'm sure he knew.  But if he has plausible deniability then he could get off.  These are smart weasels.  DC is a big natural selection machine for weasels.  Survival of the weaseliest.


That all depends on what your definition of the word weasel is.....
it can very as much as what your definition of the word is...is.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Chairboy on July 02, 2005, 06:24:03 PM
"Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel."
 -- Homer Simpson

I lok forward to seeing an official response from the administration on this.  Some directions I can see this going:

1: Deny it.  (well, they've already done that, so this is most likely)
2: Downplay it, say it's no big deal.
3: Hellfire and recriminations. (Unlikely)

Any other ways this could develop?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 06:26:46 PM
I think you give them too much credit... They will discredit.

It's what they always do. I don't think they've the imagination for anything else.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Chairboy on July 02, 2005, 06:30:56 PM
Status change, there are now two sources.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972841
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: ASTAC on July 02, 2005, 06:56:52 PM
Just a quick questionwould you guys be in such an uproar if a Administration you agreed with was in power?..I don't think so..in fact the liberal media probrably wouldn't have even reported it, so it wouldn't even be an issue. You guys are worse than a pack of wolves.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: T0J0 on July 02, 2005, 06:56:59 PM
Rove will deny it and then they will prove how your terrorist sympathizer reporter made the whole thing up... Rove is the number one target for all Democratic terrorist sympathizers and its no surprise...  This will be a long distraction from actual work and another reason for democrats to blame why nothing ever gets done when they are in office...

TJ
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 07:06:23 PM
Quote
Originally posted by ASTAC
the liberal media....  


mpphht. Okay.

Anyways...

Much like the regular soldiers, these operatives put their [expletive deleted] on the line for the good 'ol USA. They do not expect to be sold out by the White House (for heaven's sake) on account of some political grudge.

Lunatics.

Spare me the "just trying to distract them from doing the people's work" business. If you don't think this is bigger, then... well I really wonder about that.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: ASTAC on July 02, 2005, 07:12:10 PM
Come on it's just the CIA..what real good have they ever been? I mean really. Nothin but a bunch of cloak and dagger troublmakers whose whole service should be shut down.

And prove to me that the "mainstream" media especially their most recognizable personalities, haven't aligned themselves with the Dems/Libs..it started in the 92 election and gets more and more out in the open as the years drag on. Hell CBS outright concocted a story with fake evidence to try to prevent the re-election of W. ABC CBS NBC are the worst CNN follow close. Don't ppeg me as a Rush limbaugh right wing nut..FOX news isn't my GOD...I just call it as I see it.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 07:19:57 PM
"I mean, like, the CIA sucks anyways!"


Like I said, discredit.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Silat on July 02, 2005, 07:20:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Thrawn
I am shocked....shocked.



Hehe!!
Only the righties are shocked.
Bush will probably now give Rove the Medal of Freedom...
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Silat on July 02, 2005, 07:21:47 PM
Quote
Originally posted by ASTAC
Just a quick questionwould you guys be in such an uproar if a Administration you agreed with was in power?..I don't think so..in fact the liberal media probrably wouldn't have even reported it, so it wouldn't even be an issue. You guys are worse than a pack of wolves.



What liberal media?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Thrawn on July 02, 2005, 07:25:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Chairboy
2: Downplay it, say it's no big deal.



It's already begun.


"Just a quick questionwould you guys be in such an uproar if a Administration you agreed with was in power?..I don't think so..in fact the liberal media probrably wouldn't have even reported it, so it wouldn't even be an issue. You guys are worse than a pack of wolves."
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: FUNKED1 on July 02, 2005, 07:31:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by ASTAC
Just a quick questionwould you guys be in such an uproar if a Administration you agreed with was in power?


That's not relevant.  Blowing a CIA agent's cover is wrong, period.  If she did something wrong regarding her husband then she should be punished through the chain of command, not by some treacherous press leak.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: SOB on July 02, 2005, 07:41:28 PM
Quote
Originally posted by ASTAC
Just a quick questionwould you guys be in such an uproar if a Administration you agreed with was in power?

My god, are you really so blinded by this left vs. right nonsense that you believe that would make a difference?  Sad.  Really sad.  Wake up.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: ASTAC on July 02, 2005, 08:53:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by SOB
My god, are you really so blinded by this left vs. right nonsense that you believe that would make a difference?  Sad.  Really sad.  Wake up.


No, you guys wake up...EVERYTHING that goes on in the daily politics of our country has become left vs. right...to the point where there is no middle. It's sad to the point  that as much as I would be against it, the US govt. may soon see an armed uprising against it's stupidity since voting people in or out doesn't seem to help.

Our country is in ruins and all people can do is try to find fault in one side or the other. If this K.Rove thing is true then yes he should be punished. But now the whole operation of the government will stop so we can sort this out.

We need to get our country back. One way or another.

Even the great (sarcasm) Thomas Jefferson believed that the Govt and The Constitution of his time was temporary and SHOULD be replaced as often as needed.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 09:05:48 PM
Heh.

You slay me.

Ooh yeah, baby, Republicans this, Republicans that.

When it turns out that these guys are the idiots that everyone knew they were, it's like "Well, the whole entire Government and politics and the media and the CIA and the Universities and the courts all suck!"

Also amusing: "Well... I voted Libertarian."

Again, don't shlep your stuff off on everyone else. You bought it - you own it.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Sandman on July 02, 2005, 09:08:55 PM
Quote
Originally posted by ASTAC
Just a quick questionwould you guys be in such an uproar if a Administration you agreed with was in power?..I don't think so..in fact the liberal media probrably wouldn't have even reported it, so it wouldn't even be an issue. You guys are worse than a pack of wolves.


Someone always brings up crap like this as if it's relevant.

FWIW, Superman could whip the snot out of Spiderman.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 02, 2005, 10:39:32 PM
carefull liberals.....don't count your chickens before they hatch.  Most of you have a big history of doing that with this administration.  If it is true....what toad said.


Quote
Originally posted by Toad
If he's guilty, he's guilty. I sure don't think he's "special" because he's Karl Rove.

It's a good thing for other pols to see guilty abusers of the public trust go to jail.

He'll get his "due process" I'm sure.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 10:41:55 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
carefull liberals.....don't count your chickens before they hatch.  Most of you have a big history of doing that with this administration.


Oh yeah?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 02, 2005, 10:53:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by oboe

Isn't Rove the one who just recently called all liberals, "traitors"?
 


I've never heard that.  He did insist that liberals "offered indictments and unerstanding for our attackers" after 9/11 wich is mostly true.  


I've never heard him out right say "all liberals" are "traitors"
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 10:56:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
carefull liberals.....don't count your chickens before they hatch.  Most of you have a big history of doing that with this administration.


Like when we said that this administration is made up of a bunch of crooks? Like when we said that there was no WMD and everyone was gettin' yanked into a war? Like when we said that  Cheney speaks martian? That Rumsfeld speaks Strauss..I mean Machiavellian? That there would be no rose parade? That the deficit is a monster and that a tax giveaway during war is nuts?

And on.... and on... and on...

Exactly where were we wrong?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 02, 2005, 10:59:15 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
Like when we said that this administration is made up of a bunch of crooks? Like when we said that there was no WMD and everyone was gettin' yanked into a war? Like when we said that  Cheney speaks martian? That Rumsfeld speaks Strauss..I mean Machiavellian? That there would be no rose parade? That the defecit is a monster and that a tax giveaway during war is nuts?

And on.... and on... and on...

Exactly where were we wrong?


well Dan Rather's memo gate is one.

and just for the attention span deficient.  I never said this was for sure or not just be carefull.

EDIT:

And Nash....for the record there were PLENTY of liberals saying Iraq had WMDs.  The Bush Admin was not alone in that stance.  I think we've been downt hat road way to many times.

The tax give away was before the war period.  It was also during a recession.

I would agree with you on the deficit

EDIT II:  

Cheny speaking martian is nothing new.  Everyone knows he's from mars and speaks martian.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 11:07:19 PM
Kinda tired of the argument that "It wasn't just the Bush Admin saying there was WMD."

Because, like.... Only the Bush admin could ever know.

They're the ones with the satellites. The CIA reports to them. If Bush says they got WMD, who (besides a punk like me) can really refute that?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 02, 2005, 11:11:47 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
Kinda tired of the argument that "It wasn't just the Bush Admin saying there was WMD."

Because, like.... Only the Bush admin could ever know.

They're the ones with the satellites. The CIA reports to them. If Bush says they got WMD, who (besides a punk like me) can really refute that?


kinda like EVERYONE including OTHER foreign intell services telling them it's true.  Not to mention the whole previous admins contentions.  There were several prominent liberals that said it as well.

 You say somehting enough times and it starts to become true.

I didnt have a doubt in my mind.  I was shocked and disappointed when I found out the truth.  I have a harder time beleiving that somone would lead a country to war based on a lie that they knew.  Very hard time.  

That's neither here nor their.  My above statment stands.

carefull liberals.....don't count your chickens before they hatch. Most of you have a big history of doing that with this administration. If it is true....what toad said.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 11:15:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I didnt have a doubt in my mind.  I was shocked and disappointed when I found out the truth.  I have a harder time beleiving that somone would lead a country to war based on a lie that they knew.  Very hard time.  


Sometimes?

Truth hurts.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: AKS\/\/ulfe on July 02, 2005, 11:27:10 PM
"Liberals" vs "conservatives"

"Democrats" vs "Republicans"

People need to find a new boogeyman. You may flip those two vs statements if you wish.

-SW
I placed those names in quotes because what they claim to be today is far from what they were in the past.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 02, 2005, 11:29:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
Sometimes?

Truth hurts.


Again....for the last time.

Just make sure you know what the truth is before you start to preach it as such.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 11:31:32 PM
Yeah maybe the handles are wrong, but they're what we got.

I think Republicans know who I am addressing when I say "Republican."

I think Democrats know who's being talked to when they hear "Democrat."

So whatever.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 11:33:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Just make sure you know what the truth is before you start to preach it as such.


Hey - absolutely.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: AKS\/\/ulfe on July 02, 2005, 11:33:17 PM
Nash, since you are a Canadian, my post really wasn't directed at you.
-SW
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 11:35:15 PM
Yeah, right....
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Toad on July 02, 2005, 11:40:43 PM
Nash... this is Saturday night.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 11:42:27 PM
Yeah Toad - It was Canada Day yesterday - a holiday - screwed my whole clock up. :D
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: AKS\/\/ulfe on July 02, 2005, 11:45:12 PM
Yeah right what?
-SW
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: FUNKED1 on July 02, 2005, 11:45:39 PM
Wow, Nash is really excited.  It's kinda cute.  :)
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 11:47:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Wow, Nash is really excited.  It's kinda cute.  :)


Hey man, I don't swing that way. I'm a one man guy.

:rofl
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 11:49:28 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Yeah right what?
-SW


Yeah right what what?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: FUNKED1 on July 02, 2005, 11:50:23 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
Hey man, I don't swing that way. I'm a one man guy.

:rofl


Join the FGB's, we'll turn you out.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: AKS\/\/ulfe on July 02, 2005, 11:50:31 PM
Yeah right what what to your "Yeah, right" what?
-SW
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 11:53:03 PM
This is getting out of control.

Please, gentlemen....

BOOSH SUXXORS.

Okay?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: FUNKED1 on July 02, 2005, 11:53:57 PM
But I vote libertardian, so I must be a Boosh supporter?  :confused:
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Chairboy on July 02, 2005, 11:54:50 PM
C'mon guys, I don't want a thread I started to get locked.

Any predictions on whether there will be an official response in the next couple days?  Or will this die out?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 11:55:04 PM
Well... yeah sorta Funked.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: FUNKED1 on July 02, 2005, 11:56:00 PM
I'm cornfused.
I should vote for the lesser of two evils?
That's what got Chimpler elected in the first place.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 02, 2005, 11:56:15 PM
Okay Chairboy - my fault. Sorry.

Uhm, yes.... this is deep deep DEEP doo-doo.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Ack-Ack on July 03, 2005, 12:00:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Toad
Nash, did you see the FBI dropped by Cunningham's house and that corporations offices?

Looks like the mills continue to grind slowly.



Hehehe my parents did.  They live by the fat corrupt POS in Rancho Sante Fe.  Saw the FBI and other Feds turn into his drive way and leave a few hours later.


ack-ack
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: rpm on July 03, 2005, 01:27:42 AM
[offtopic]Funked, why you got the guy from The Village People as your avatard? Just wondering.[/offtopic]
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 03, 2005, 01:37:59 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Chairboy
C'mon guys, I don't want a thread I started to get locked.

Any predictions on whether there will be an official response in the next couple days?  Or will this die out?


Lawyer Says Rove Talked to Reporter, Did Not Leak Name
Sat Jul 02 2005 21:05:04 ET

Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, spoke with TIME mag's Matthew Cooper during a critical week in July 2003 when Cooper was reporting on a public critic of the Bush administration who was also the husband of a CIA operative.

But Rove did not leak the name of the CIA op Plame, Rove's lawyer said again Saturday night.

Robert Luskin said Rove never identified Plame to Cooper in those conversations.

"Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn't disclose Valerie Plame's identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else,'' Luskin said to the WASHINGTON POST. Luskin said the question remains unanswered: ``Who outed this woman? ... It wasn't Karl.''

NBC's Lawrence O'Donnell claimed this weekend, 'Rove Blew CIA Agent's Cover'.

"Emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months," O'Donnell said.

Developing...

Sounds like Mr. Rove is gonna have a nice stay in prison.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 03, 2005, 01:59:06 AM
I didn't leave this sinkin' ship...

...this sinkin' ship left me.

Good night brothers.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Dago on July 03, 2005, 08:16:11 PM
DELETED

5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 03, 2005, 08:31:19 PM
Ah.... who knows.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Charon on July 05, 2005, 05:03:12 PM
Quote
I'm sure he knew. But if he has plausible deniability then he could get off. These are smart weasels. DC is a big natural selection machine for weasels. Survival of the weaseliest.


As brilliant as he is, and he really is and very effective, you can get a bit too arrogant and make a blunder. BTW, brilliant at PR is not necessarily a compliment :) He pushed the propaganda and divisiveness aspects to the limits - very effectively. A master at gossip, runor, US vs. Them and the beauty of simplicity and making the most of peoples worst instincts. More on the ethics of Karl Rove from Wikipedia:

Quote
In 1970, at the age of nineteen and while a protege of Donald Segretti (later convicted as a Watergate conspirator), Rove sneaked into the campaign office of Illinois Democrat Alan Dixon and stole some letterhead, which he used to print fake campaign rally fliers promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing," and distributed them at rock concerts and homeless shelters. Admitting to the incident much later, Rove said, "I was nineteen and I got involved in a political prank."


Quote
n 1986, just before a crucial debate in the election for governor of Texas, Karl Rove announced that his office had been bugged by the Democrats. There was no evidence of this, and it was later alleged that he had bugged his own phone to garner media coverage.


Quote
Karl Rove's reputation for political dirty tricks is such that, among both his supporters and critics the phrase "Rovian" has come to be used as a synonym for "Machiavellian".


He also implied that Ann Richards was a lesbian to Get Bush elected Texas Gov.; the attacks on McCain as being unhinged from his POW experiences and the “push poll” questions in the south: "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" (adopted Bangladesh daughter); his co-authoring of Unfit for Command against Kerry (what did you do during the war, Karl?); the 1994 defeat of Georgia senator and wounded Vietnam vet Max Cleland, implying he was a buddy of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden -- a real piece of brilliant work. From what I have read, there are a variety of more traditional Republicans who won't be sad at his departure, since the whole "You're either with us or against us" thing is wielded pretty strongly within the party. A master at developing the brands: Republican and Conservative; and even more masterful at setting the opposition’s brands for: Democrat and liberal - not that Democratic ineptitude didn’t play a major role.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy :)

Charon
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 05, 2005, 05:40:16 PM
yep old Karl is a real piece of work. And He is Bush's HEAD POLITICAL ADVISOR.  I have no doubt Karl is gonna take the fall, but I wouldnt doubt the official decision to release the name came from Bush/Cheney. I think it would be bad if we get hit with another political scandal, especially right now, so hopefully karl didnt do it, but I think we all knew he did whenever it got released last year.(or maybe it was 2 years ago now)
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: ASTAC on July 05, 2005, 05:45:37 PM
You know I'm so sick of the Dumbocrats vs. Republicans and both parties trying to dig up dirt on the other...Wake up people..this is all a smoke screen...as we watch the staged fights between parties, the federal government is chipping away at all our personal liberties..soon this will be the People's Republic of America.

.I used to be a strong supporter of the Republican party..but they are in this just as deep as the democrats...I've decided that my views are more aligned with the libertarians...as probrably most of your are(and don't even realize it)... Take this quiz and see where you stand.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

I ended up a little to the right side of the Libertarian sector of the graphic.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Charon on July 05, 2005, 05:58:43 PM
Quote
You know I'm so sick of the Dumbocrats vs. Republicans and both parties trying to dig up dirt on the other...Wake up people..this is all a smoke screen...as we watch the staged fights between parties, the federal government is chipping away at all our personal liberties..soon this will be the People's Republic of America.


Old Karl's a master at making that happen.

I agree with you 100% BTW. I voted for that Libertarian fellow last time around, his name esacpes me now :)

Charon
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: oboe on July 06, 2005, 08:17:22 AM
Quote
Originally posted by ASTAC
You know I'm so sick of the Dumbocrats vs. Republicans and both parties trying to dig up dirt on the other...Wake up people..this is all a smoke screen...as we watch the staged fights between parties, the federal government is chipping away at all our personal liberties..soon this will be the People's Republic of America.

.I used to be a strong supporter of the Republican party..but they are in this just as deep as the democrats...I've decided that my views are more aligned with the libertarians...as probrably most of your are(and don't even realize it)... Take this quiz and see where you stand.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

I ended up a little to the right side of the Libertarian sector of the graphic.


I came out as a Centrist, but in the Libertarian/Liberal corner of the Centrist box.

I did some playing around with that test, and this may surprise you ASTAC, but on the Personal Issues scale, Libertarians are 100% Liberal in their beliefs (they favor the maximum amount of individual freedom - while traditional Conservatives favor maximum amount of government control over Personal Issues).
I always thought you hated Liberals and equated them with communists.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: oboe on July 06, 2005, 08:23:29 AM
Charon,

How do you feel about McCain?    I always held in in very high regard, and thought he had a great political future.   I was really upset by the way the Rove and the Bush team destroyed him in the 2000 primaries.

That is why when he endorsed Bush in 2004, I lost quite a bit of respect for his judgement.    Not sure I would vote for him now, because his behavior by falling in line behind someone who treated him like that is so incomprehensible to me.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: lazs2 on July 06, 2005, 08:35:36 AM
We will have to see how it plays out but you liberals do have a habit of wringing the bones right out of your hands at the very first hint of what you "know" must be happening in the evil Bush empire...  probly shorted out your keyboards with the saliva...

In any case.. even if Bush ordered the guy hit... it is still not near as bad as Klinton having janet reno kill those 28 kids.  And none of you libs even cared about that.

lazs
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Sandman on July 06, 2005, 09:14:21 AM
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
In any case.. even if Bush ordered the guy hit... it is still not near as bad as Klinton having janet reno kill those 28 kids.  And none of you libs even cared about that.

lazs


Nope. It was their own damn fault. When the nice police officer says come outside, it's best to do so.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: lazs2 on July 06, 2005, 09:17:46 AM
I don't think reno got any answer one way or the other from those kids.   The adults were paid for but the kids?   You are kidding right?  

Did anyone even get a stern talking to over the murder of all those children?

lazs
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: oboe on July 06, 2005, 09:27:51 AM
'morning Laz.  If that really is you, that is - that last post had none of your typical down-to-earth country wisdom and went pretty heavy on the radical rightwing zealotry.   The nifty diversion to the Waco incident is more typical of a radical neocon poster.

Regarding Rove, I think his denial through his lawyer should be sufficient to close the matter.  No further investigation or press coverage should really be necessary.

Whudja get on ASTAC's test?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Eagler on July 06, 2005, 09:29:36 AM
I know nothing but my gut says Karl is smarter than to put it in an  email ..
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Sandman on July 06, 2005, 09:30:49 AM
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't think reno got any answer one way or the other from those kids.   The adults were paid for but the kids?   You are kidding right?  

Did anyone even get a stern talking to over the murder of all those children?

lazs


You wish to blame law enforcement and the administration. I blame Koresh and the rest of his whack job followers.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: oboe on July 06, 2005, 09:33:37 AM
My gut wonders why a journalist would be willing to go to jail to protect Rove (or the real person who committed the federal offense of outing a CIA operative).

I also wonder why the journalist who wrote the original story naming Plame as an operative, Novak, is not in the same situation as Cooper and Miller.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: lazs2 on July 06, 2005, 09:45:07 AM
Deleted

Rule#2 - Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Chairboy on July 06, 2005, 09:52:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by oboe
My gut wonders why a journalist would be willing to go to jail to protect Rove (or the real person who committed the federal offense of outing a CIA operative).
Common misunderstanding.  The journalist was not protecting Rove, he/she was protecting their first amendment rights, not to mention their future dealings with sources who don't want to be named.  Agree or disagree with the politics of your source, you don't want to be 'that guy' that flips the moment someone whispers subpoena.  

It kills your street credibility.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Charon on July 06, 2005, 11:07:40 AM
Quote
Charon,

How do you feel about McCain? I always held in in very high regard, and thought he had a great political future. I was really upset by the way the Rove and the Bush team destroyed him in the 2000 primaries.

That is why when he endorsed Bush in 2004, I lost quite a bit of respect for his judgement. Not sure I would vote for him now, because his behavior by falling in line behind someone who treated him like that is so incomprehensible to me.


I don't know. He talks a good game but he still plays politics as usual. Not just the endorsement, but talking about reforming the pork barrel, for example, then voting along with the rest of the crowd. He would be a return to the mediocre middle, which isn't looking too bad at the moment.

I almost think we need some sort of collapse/wake up call of major proportions to have real change. Not just a reformist president but enough like-minded people in Congress and the will of the people behind them to overhaul the system. You have to get the money out of the system, but it’s so ingrained at so many levels that I can’t see one reformer having any real chance of success. Four years of stonewalling by both parties then out, IMO.

Charon
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 06, 2005, 02:54:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by oboe
My gut wonders why a journalist would be willing to go to jail to protect Rove (or the real person who committed the federal offense of outing a CIA operative).

I also wonder why the journalist who wrote the original story naming Plame as an operative, Novak, is not in the same situation as Cooper and Miller.


I agree with you on these.  Somehow the journalists think that freedom of press trumps the CIA agents name being secret. I wonder if anyone she has "worked" with has disappeared yet?

I have to say that protecting secret agents names should take precedence over the right of freedom of the press. Now if she were involved in something illegal, the reporters might have a leg to stand on, but as it was done by spite or just to get a story that day, they should get locked up.

Now as for Robert Novak, The only thing that can be thought is that he must of have co-operated with the investigation.  Maybe he just had no hard evidence of the source and could only reveal who told him the name. As for Karl Rove being smarter than sending a email with the name in it, I agree. What emails they might have are inter-office emails from Time. The one's where the reporter or someone higher up discusses the source and how they "know" its true.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Skuzzy on July 06, 2005, 03:33:00 PM
OT: Cute, I came out on the edge of Centrist, dead center between liberal and conservative, in the Libertarian quad.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Holden McGroin on July 06, 2005, 03:49:40 PM
Quote
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- A federal judge on Wednesday ordered a New York Times reporter jailed after she refused to name her source to a grand jury probing the leak of an undercover CIA agent.
 
Separately, Time White House correspondent Matthew Cooper said he would testify, breaking two years of silence, after his source Wednesday morning, in a "very sudden development" consented.


I guess soon we will find out the name of the anonymous source at least according to Cooper.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Manedew on July 06, 2005, 04:03:07 PM
Quote
WASHINGTON, July 6 - A federal judge on Wednesday jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller for refusing to divulge her source to a grand jury investigating who in the Bush administration leaked an undercover CIA operative's name.

"There is still a realistic possibility that confinement might cause her to testify," U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan said of the showdown in a case that has seen both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney interviewed by investigators.

Miller stood up, hugged her lawyer and was escorted from the courtroom.

Earlier, Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, in an about-face, told Hogan that he would cooperate with a federal prosecutor's investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. He said he would do so now because his source gave him specific authority to do so.

"Last night I hugged my son goodbye and told him it might be a long time before I see him again," Cooper said as he took the podium to address the court.

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

As for Miller, unless she decides to talk, she will be held until the grand jury ends its work in October. The judge speculated that Miller's confinement might cause her source to give her a more specific waiver of confidentiality, as did Cooper's.

Cooper, talking to reporters afterward, called it "a sad time."

"My heart goes out to Judy. I told her as she left the court to stay strong," Cooper added. "I think this clearly points out the need for some kind of a national shield law. There is no federal shield law and that is why we find ourselves here today."

"Judy Miller made a commitment to her source and she's standing by it," New York Times executive editor Bill Keller told reporters.

Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment lawyer who represented Miller, told reporters: "Judy is an honorable woman, adhering to the highest tradition of her profession and the highest tradition of humanity."

"Judy Miller has not been accused of a crime or convicted of a crime," Abrams said. "She has been held in civil contempt of court."

The prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald had responded in court to Miller's refusal to name her source by saying "we can't have 50,000 journalists" each making their own decision about whether to reveal sources.

"We cannot tolerate that," he said. "We are trying to get to the bottom of whether a crime was committed and by whom."

Another Miller attorney, Robert Bennett, said earlier that prosecutors traditionally have shown great respect for journalists and "have had the good judgment not to push these cases very often."

Hogan held the reporters in civil contempt of court in October, rejecting their argument that the First Amendment shielded them from revealing their sources. Last month the Supreme Court refused to intervene.

In court documents filed Tuesday, Fitzgerald urged Hogan to take the unusual step of jailing the reporters, saying that may be the only way to get them to talk.

"Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality - no one in America is," Fitzgerald wrote.

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

Cooper said he had been told earlier that his source had signed a general waiver of confidentiality but that he did not trust such waivers because he thought they had been gained from executive branch employees under duress. He told the court that he needed not a general waiver but a specific waiver from his source, which he did not get until Wednesday.

"I received express personal consent" from the source, Cooper told the judge.

Hogan and Fitzgerald accepted Cooper's offer.

"That would purge you of contempt," Hogan said.

Prior to the hearing, Miller argued that it is imperative for reporters to honor their commitments to provide cover to sources who will only reveal important information if they are assured anonymity. Forcing reporters to renege on the pledge undercuts their ability to do their job, she said.

Last week, Time Inc., last week provided Fitzgerald with records, notes and e-mail traffic involving Cooper, who had argued that it was therefore no longer necessary for him to testify. Time also had been found in contempt and officials there said after losing appeals it had no choice but to turn over the information.

The case is seen as a key test of press freedom and many media groups have lined up behind the reporters. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have shield laws protecting reporters from having to identify their confidential sources.

Fitzgerald is investigating who in the administration leaked Plame's identity. Her name was disclosed in a column by Robert Novak days after her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, impugned part of President Bush's justification for invading Iraq.

Wilson was sent to Africa by the Bush administration to investigate an intelligence claim that Saddam Hussein may have purchased yellowcake uranium from Niger in the late 1990s for use in nuclear weapons. Wilson said he could not verify the claim and criticized the administration for manipulating the intelligence to "exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

Novak, whose column cited as sources two unidentified senior Bush administration officials, has refused to say whether he has testified before the grand jury or been subpoenaed. Novak has said he "will reveal all" after the matter is resolved and that it is wrong for the government to jail journalists.

Disclosure of an undercover intelligence officer's identity can be a federal crime if prosecutors can show the leak was intentional and the person who released that information knew of the officer's secret status.

Cooper spoke to White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove after Wilson's public criticism of Bush and before Novak's column ran, according to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, who denies that Rove leaked Plame's identity to anyone. Cooper's story mentioning Plame's name appeared after Novak's column. Miller did some reporting, but never wrote a story.

Among the witnesses Fitzgerald's investigators have questioned besides Bush and Cheney are Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby; and former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, who is now the attorney general.

Fitzgerald has said that his investigation is complete except for testimony from Cooper and Miller.

© 2005 AP


Kind of disturbes me what the Bushies do and get away with.
I hope these abuses of power don't go unpunished.



here's an editoral for you folks...

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0706-20.htm

_____________________________ _____

http://www.commondreams.org/ <==== good progressive news site
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: ASTAC on July 06, 2005, 05:39:43 PM
Quote
Originally posted by oboe
I came out as a Centrist, but in the Libertarian/Liberal corner of the Centrist box.

I did some playing around with that test, and this may surprise you ASTAC, but on the Personal Issues scale, Libertarians are 100% Liberal in their beliefs (they favor the maximum amount of individual freedom - while traditional Conservatives favor maximum amount of government control over Personal Issues).
I always thought you hated Liberals and equated them with communists.


Actually if you do some research you'll find the Libertarians take the best aspects of both sides of the right/left stuff.

I have always been more toward the center than alything else. I do disagree with some of the L.P.'s positions. However, not as much as I disagree with the other two parties.

The "liberals" I can't stand are the typical "government programs can solve all our problems" types that want to spend so much money and resources on social programs in a land that is basically founded on "create your own destiny". I have no responsibility for others problems or for the problems of corperations.

The problems I have with both parties are

Democrats: Will turn  us into  a socialist country if they got their way.

Republicans: will turn us into a dictatorship faster than has happened to any representative government in history. And even though it will happen someday as it always has, I'm not ready for it to be in my lifetime.

I feel the Libertarian party just wants to preserve the original concept of the United States. Preserve the Bill of Rights and our way of life.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Krusher on July 06, 2005, 06:05:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by oboe
My gut wonders why a journalist would be willing to go to jail to protect Rove (or the real person who committed the federal offense of outing a CIA operative).


It is looking more and more like there has been no federal crime committed. what they (the prosecuter) is looking for now is the crime of perjury.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Shamus on July 06, 2005, 09:00:20 PM
The Clintstone and Bush administrations should be driving home just why we need a free press in this country.

When I see the poll numbers on the large segment of the population that feels that the government should be able to run the media, I want to puke.

shamus
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: T0J0 on July 06, 2005, 10:18:15 PM
DELETED - #5
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Lizard3 on July 07, 2005, 05:38:29 AM
See Rule #4
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: oboe on July 07, 2005, 06:24:16 AM
Do you know her personally or do you have a link for us?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: T0J0 on July 07, 2005, 01:40:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Manedew
Kind of disturbes me what the Bushies do and get away with.
I hope these abuses of power don't go unpunished.

here's an editoral for you folks...

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0706-20.htm

_____________________________ _____

http://www.commondreams.org/ <==== good progressive news site



Kuttners editorial is great if you like zero fact conspiracy theories, but alot of it is just plain fiction, we should expect at least some fact checking if were going to take someone at his word. But for librul reporting it probably serves an interest where fact checking isnt really needed or required just administration bashing sells more copy even if it is pathetic reporting..

TJ
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: JB73 on July 07, 2005, 01:44:58 PM
"quiz" put me with my red dot under the letter "h" in right.

conservative
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Yeager on July 07, 2005, 02:07:56 PM
Whatever you think of Rove dont matter.  The guy is not an idiot and thats what he would have to be to have done this.  The fine is no greater that 50k and no more than 10 years in the pen.  Rove aint about that.

I suspect that he at least put one fall guy between himself and the dirty deed.  At a minimum.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: indy007 on July 07, 2005, 02:11:42 PM
I ended up directly in the middle of the Libertarian block.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 07, 2005, 02:30:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Yeager
Whatever you think of Rove dont matter.  The guy is not an idiot and thats what he would have to be to have done this.  The fine is no greater that 50k and no more than 10 years in the pen.  Rove aint about that.

I suspect that he at least put one fall guy between himself and the dirty deed.  At a minimum.


So you are assuming that the fall guy is gonna take the fall. A lot of people that get put in that position will rat someone else out in a heartbeat to avoid jail.

Also like I said earlier, Karl might have made sure he didn't have any evidence that he was the source, but internal documents from Time and reporters notes (which is what they just got) could prove very damning.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Yeager on July 07, 2005, 02:53:38 PM
yes but any media source that conducts an investigation is slanted one way or the other and has no more or less credibility in my eyes than anyone else, including rove or someone like dean.  Its all so much political gas to me.  It all stinks.

 A fall guy like north is what Im thinking....when I say fall guy I mean falls on the sword, takes a bullet for the boss sort of fall guy.  Rove is not a genius or even brilliant but he is smart, or at least smart enough not to get caught doing something so obviously illegal.

In any event, in my job if I disclosed the identity of a covert agent I would be sent to prison for 10 years without so much as a second thought or any hope of mercy.  If Rove is the leak I hope he gets the same penalty as anyone would.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Pongo on July 07, 2005, 08:27:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Toad
Ames got life in prison for betraying over 100 CIA operatives to the KGB; 10 of those were killed.


Whats this? I dont think I have ever head of this?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 07, 2005, 10:58:51 PM
Anyone heard anything about Karl Rove being fired from Reagan's 1980 campaign for releasing Rob Mosbacker's name to Novak???
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: oboe on July 07, 2005, 11:07:56 PM
Here's a link that seems to confirm it, Raider:

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/transcripts_060404_roving.html (http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/transcripts_060404_roving.html)
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 10, 2005, 12:19:18 PM
New info incoming....

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

For two years, a federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been investigating the leak of Plame's identity as an undercover CIA agent. The leak was first reported by columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. Novak apparently made some arrangement with the prosecutor, but Fitzgerald continued to press other reporters for their sources, possibly to show a pattern (to prove intent) or to make a perjury case.

Rove's words on the Plame case have always been carefully chosen. "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," Rove told CNN last year when asked if he had anything to do with the Plame leak.

Rove has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. But last week, his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Rove did—and that Rove was the secret source who, at the request of both Cooper's lawyer and the prosecutor, gave Cooper permission to testify.

NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine's corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip."

Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative.

A fair reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame's identity, but was an effort to discourage Time from publishing things that turned out to be false," the source said, referring to claims in circulation at the time that Cheney and high-level CIA officials arranged for Wilson's trip to Africa.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/

1) So Karl didn't use her name he just said "Wilson's wife". Thats laughable.

2)It says he didnt reveal her as CIA agent. Just Someone who "apparently works at the Agency on WMD". Sheesh what joke.

3)You might be right Yeager he might have found a way around the law.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Thrawn on July 10, 2005, 01:03:02 PM
Well this should be interesting.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Chairboy on July 12, 2005, 05:21:38 PM
There was just an exciting press conference that kept coming back to the subject of Karl Rove, and it felt like some squirming.  This is good reading for anyone following the developing story.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050711-3.html
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Shamus on July 12, 2005, 05:41:01 PM
Let's use the same type of standard for the public persons that we use for private for christs sake's....

Martha, we cant make the case and prosecute you for fraud, but we say you lied to a federal cop interviewing you.

Karl ...no sweat, you didnt know that the CIA was protecting wilsons wife's ID.

And folk wonder why there is an attitude many of us have toward the government that they cant be trusted..

shamus
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 12, 2005, 05:46:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Chairboy
There was just an exciting press conference that kept coming back to the subject of Karl Rove, and it felt like some squirming.  This is good reading for anyone following the developing story.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050711-3.html


Yeah I watched it. Spokesman kept answering every question with "We wont discuss an ongoing investigation" Then a reporter asked if he was aware they (the whitehouse) was free to talk about the case and was not under a gag order and I thought he was gonna just pass out from the heat. Of course he gave the same answer to that question too.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Suave on July 12, 2005, 06:11:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Shamus
Let's use the same type of standard for the public persons that we use for private for christs sake's....

Martha, we cant make the case and prosecute you for fraud, but we say you lied to a federal cop interviewing you.

Karl ...no sweat, you didnt know that the CIA was protecting wilsons wife's ID.

And folk wonder why there is attitude many of us have toward the government that they cant be trusted..

shamus


On Martha.

Legislators who have inside knowledge of FDA studies are allowed to invest in experimental drugs. Why are they allowed to do this and we can't? We'll they're legislators and they made a law making it legal for them to do it.
Title: a couple of interesting articles
Post by: Captain Virgil Hilts on July 13, 2005, 09:39:06 AM
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006955

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/12/AR2005071201288_pf.html
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: oboe on July 13, 2005, 09:55:33 AM
Wow, I've been following the developments in this story, particularly with the "Admit nothing/Deny everything/Make counter-accusations" strategy that I first learned about on this board (Sandman or Nash?).   Anyway, yesterday's press conference and the WSJ opinion piece fit in beautifully.  

Not sure if it is strictly a Neocon scandal-handling tactic or if it applies to all politicians but thanks for the links, CVH.

Wondering now if there could be a Presidential Medal of Freedom in Rove's future...

Would probably be instructive to follow the money and learn who owns the WSJ.

Here's hoping Nugent runs on a 3rd party ticket.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 13, 2005, 10:18:01 AM
Quote
A fair reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame's identity, but was an effort to discourage Time from publishing things that turned out to be false," the source said, referring to claims in circulation at the time that Cheney and high-level CIA officials arranged for Wilson's trip to Africa.


I think this sentence pretty much sums this whole argument up.  Rove attackers really are grasping at political straws here.  Seriously when are democrats gonna learn?  They apitimize the term "jump the gun", there political frothing of the mouth is all too apparent.

One could make alot of money doing some kind of betting pool.  We could call it "political human sacrifice" and we could place bets on when and who the demacrats are going to demonize next.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Krusher on July 13, 2005, 10:23:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I think this sentence pretty much sums this whole argument up.  Rove attackers really are grasping at political straws here.  Seriously when are democrats gonna learn?  They apitimize the term "jump the gun", there political frothing of the mouth is all too apparent.

One could make alot of money doing some kind of betting pool.  We could call it "political human sacrifice" and we could place bets on when and who the demacrats are going to demonize next.




Its amusing to watch all the drooling from the usual suspects :)
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: oboe on July 13, 2005, 11:31:48 AM
I agree with that assessment of the fair reading of the email.  
Rove did identify Wilson's wife as a CIA employee, but it's an incredible stretch to call that email outing of an undercover operative.    
 
Still waiting to hear Novak's story on the whole deal, and still wondering why there seems to be no heat on him to reveal what he knows.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 13, 2005, 11:45:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I think this sentence pretty much sums this whole argument up.  Rove attackers really are grasping at political straws here.  Seriously when are democrats gonna learn?  They apitimize the term "jump the gun", there political frothing of the mouth is all too apparent.

One could make alot of money doing some kind of betting pool.  We could call it "political human sacrifice" and we could place bets on when and who the demacrats are going to demonize next.


Rove Identified her as working for the CIA. Rove named her as "wilson's wife". Sorry but if your NOT SURE if somone works for the agency isn't an Agent, you should keep your mouth shut.

Even if it is a mistake (which I doubt) He still cost her a career and jeopardized the lives of anyone she has worked with.  The fact that Bush gives Rove his full support makes me sick to my stomach given the above repercussions of what Rove talking about her did.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 13, 2005, 12:22:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I think this sentence pretty much sums this whole argument up.  Rove attackers really are grasping at political straws here.  Seriously when are democrats gonna learn?  They apitimize the term "jump the gun", there political frothing of the mouth is all too apparent.

One could make alot of money doing some kind of betting pool.  We could call it "political human sacrifice" and we could place bets on when and who the demacrats are going to demonize next.


You cant be serious. Oh yeah good ol Karl just wants to make sure Time doesnt get a story wrong. How did he find out about the story? How did he know who authorized the trip? I see no reason he would know about any of that without finding out she was an agent. Claiming Rove was trying to help is about one of the funniest defenses I have heard in a long time.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Rude on July 13, 2005, 12:25:53 PM
Oh the pain!

Looks like not much has changed here...lol
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 13, 2005, 01:37:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Raider179
You cant be serious. Oh yeah good ol Karl just wants to make sure Time doesnt get a story wrong. How did he find out about the story? How did he know who authorized the trip? I see no reason he would know about any of that without finding out she was an agent. Claiming Rove was trying to help is about one of the funniest defenses I have heard in a long time.


yes and your theory that he outed an "agent" for the CIA for political reasons is entirly laughable for one simple thing....

PROOF

No law was broken here yet again we have the political "frothing of the mouth"

The conversation that took place was a brief 20 second one while Karl Rove was "heading out the door" so to speak.

But I guess in your eyes the evil mastermind himself KNEW for a fact that this story would leak out and he has nothing but distain for anyone who doesnt support him or the pres and would purposly put somone's life in danger??????

Cmon were is your proof that he broke ANY law?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: oboe on July 13, 2005, 01:43:07 PM
The fact that an undercover CIA agent was exposed suggests the law was broken (although its not conclusive, and its still possible the law was not broken).    

Clear evidence exists (the email) that Rove informed a reporter that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

A revenge motive has been suggested, consistent with Rove's previous actions.

Plenty of smoke, but no fire yet.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 13, 2005, 02:05:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
yes and your theory that he outed an "agent" for the CIA for political reasons is entirly laughable for one simple thing....

PROOF

No law was broken here yet again we have the political "frothing of the mouth"

The conversation that took place was a brief 20 second one while Karl Rove was "heading out the door" so to speak.

But I guess in your eyes the evil mastermind himself KNEW for a fact that this story would leak out and he has nothing but distain for anyone who doesnt support him or the pres and would purposly put somone's life in danger??????

Cmon were is your proof that he broke ANY law?


He released a CIA Agents identity to Cooper. Do you deny that? .

The thing that get me about conservatives is they love using labels to make the other side seem stupid, wrong, or unamerican. "Evil masterminds" and "frothing at the mouth" and the like. Like any case it takes time for "proof" to come to fruition.

Nice defense on your part but it doesnt hold water.

Short answer yes, I think karl has no second thoughts about dirty tricks to get the job done. Including putting people's lives at risk.

I am just guessing you havent went through the entire thread or you would have read about Rove getting fired from Bush Sr.'s campaign for a leak to Bob Novak.

Here is a little background info.

Karl Rove, senior political advisor to George W. Bush, is a very powerful man. That is not to say he has never been in trouble. Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush Sr. campaign for trashing Robert Mosbacher, Jr., who was the chief fundraiser for the campaign and an avowed Bush loyalist. Rove accomplished this trashing of Mosbacher by planting a negative story with columnist Bob Novak. The campaign figured out that Karl had done the dirty deed, and he was given his walking papers.

But I am sure he is really a nice guy, seeing he is so loyal as to stab his own candidate in the back when he wanted to.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 13, 2005, 02:16:00 PM
Here is some more info I have found. Looks like another of Coopers "sources" was Cheney's top aide.


"Cooper agreed to discuss his contact with Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide, after Libby gave him permission to do so. But Cooper drew the line when special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald asked about other sources."


"In early October 2003, NEWSWEEK reported that immediately after Novak's column appeared in July, Rove called MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews and told him that Wilson's wife was "fair game."


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/

I guess what gets me is the blind loyalty of Republicans. How you defend Karl Rove when it is clear that there is at least a "reasonable suspicion" that he was behind it is amazing.

Let me ask a question.

Was it known that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA? If not then that revelation alone that she worked there would have compromised her status as an agent. She no longer would be able to go undercover.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Eagler on July 13, 2005, 02:29:41 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Raider179
Here is some more info I have found. Looks like another of Coopers "sources" was Cheney's top aide.


"Cooper agreed to discuss his contact with Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide, after Libby gave him permission to do so. But Cooper drew the line when special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald asked about other sources."


"In early October 2003, NEWSWEEK reported that immediately after Novak's column appeared in July, Rove called MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews and told him that Wilson's wife was "fair game."


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/

I guess what gets me is the blind loyalty of Republicans. How you defend Karl Rove when it is clear that there is at least a "reasonable suspicion" that he was behind it is amazing.

Let me ask a question.

Was it known that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA? If not then that revelation alone that she worked there would have compromised her status as an agent. She no longer would be able to go undercover.


"undercover"?
I think she still goes under any covers she did before

talk about a mountain out of a mole hill... is this the best the dems got?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: DrDea on July 13, 2005, 02:50:55 PM
This is a woman that was poseinmg in a magazine when this all came out.I dont think her "Cover" was blown by anyone but herself as far as "Covert" ops.If Rove rat her out,which each day looks even more doubtfull then he needs to fry.You Dems really are frothing at the mouth here.Remember Dan Rather and let it play out.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: DrDea on July 13, 2005, 02:54:20 PM
Oh and I scored left of center on the Liberterian side.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 13, 2005, 03:06:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DrDea
This is a woman that was poseinmg in a magazine when this all came out.I dont think her "Cover" was blown by anyone but herself as far as "Covert" ops.If Rove rat her out,which each day looks even more doubtfull then he needs to fry.You Dems really are frothing at the mouth here.Remember Dan Rather and let it play out.


What magazine? Got a link? I cant find any info on this...More republican propaghanda?

I notice you repubs sidestep things like Rove leaking info to Novak previously.

or Rove's comments about her being "fair game"

but thats fine what would I expect from people who would impeach a president for having a mistress.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 13, 2005, 03:12:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DrDea
If Rove rat her out,which each day looks even more doubtfull then he needs to fry.


Where you got it looks more doubtful from amazes me.

Even The old man himself is keeping his distance.

President Bush said Wednesday he will withhold judgment about top aide Karl Rove's involvement in the leaking the identity of a CIA operative until a federal criminal investigation is complete.


"I also will not prejudge the investigation based on media reports," he said, when asked whether Rove acted improperly in discussing CIA officer Valerie Plame with a reporter.


Bush's statement was a surprise for some White House advisers and senior Republicans who had expected the president to deliver a vote of confidence for Rove, his deputy chief of staff.

Prejudge? lmao bush he is sitting behind you just ask him. You dont need the media to tell you...

oh thats right you wont talk about it.


Bush refused to directly answer questions about whether he had spoken to Rove about his discussion with Cooper.

Earlier, first lady Laura Bush, talking to reporters while traveling in Africa, called Rove "a very good friend" but said she did not want to talk about the investigation


cnn.com

But yeah your right looks more doubtful all the time. sheesh.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: DrDea on July 13, 2005, 03:28:37 PM
I'll try to dig you up a link but it was Vanity Fair.Heard it on the news today.Theirs alot coming out every day about this and for the record no,Slick Willy shouldnt have been Impeached for a BJ.He should have been looked into for all the deaths in Whitewater.If Roves dirty I'd be happy to see his arse fry.As far as Laura not wanting to discuss the situation?Thats common in an investigation.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 13, 2005, 03:57:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DrDea
I'll try to dig you up a link but it was Vanity Fair.Heard it on the news today.Theirs alot coming out every day about this and for the record no,Slick Willy shouldnt have been Impeached for a BJ.He should have been looked into for all the deaths in Whitewater.If Roves dirty I'd be happy to see his arse fry.As far as Laura not wanting to discuss the situation?Thats common in an investigation.


I cant find any info on the date that photograph was taken but everything seems to indicate it was AFTER The Novak column and that she was disguised and supposed to be unidentifiable. but still havent seen a real source so not believing any of it for now.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 13, 2005, 05:53:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Raider179
He released a CIA Agents identity to Cooper. Do you deny that? .

The thing that get me about conservatives is they love using labels to make the other side seem stupid, wrong, or unamerican. "Evil masterminds" and "frothing at the mouth" and the like. Like any case it takes time for "proof" to come to fruition.

Nice defense on your part but it doesnt hold water.

Short answer yes, I think karl has no second thoughts about dirty tricks to get the job done. Including putting people's lives at risk.

But I am sure he is really a nice guy, seeing he is so loyal as to stab his own candidate in the back when he wanted to.


Raider you have not answered my question WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE THAT HE BROKE THE LAW?

To go a step further what specific law did he break?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 13, 2005, 05:57:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DrDea
This is a woman that was poseinmg in a magazine when this all came out.I dont think her "Cover" was blown by anyone but herself as far as "Covert" ops.If Rove rat her out,which each day looks even more doubtfull then he needs to fry.You Dems really are frothing at the mouth here.Remember Dan Rather and let it play out.


oh oh oh....don't forget about the missing explosives in Iraq right before the election.

I couldnt agree with you more that they are wagging their tails when no one is going to throw them a pork chop.

Raider probably doesnt even know wether or not she was an "operative" or not nore what laws were specifically broken.  He just wants to see rove fry and will say/beleive anything to make it happen.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 13, 2005, 06:28:21 PM
just to throw 2 more cents in:

here is something that democrats cant prove.


1) intention
Knowledge that the US was making efforts to conceal Valerie Plame's intelligence identity:

There is a need to produce evidence that Karl Rove "intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States" per § 421.

2) US efforts to conceal Valerie Plame's intelligence identity:

There is a need to produce evidence that "the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States" per § 421. Press reports indicate Ms. Plame had a notional identity as a private businesswoman, created as a cover by the CIA, which would appear to meet the "affirmative measures" test.

3) that Valerie Plame was actually a covert agent:

There is a need to produce evidence that Valerie Plame qualifies as a "covert agent" per § 426. In particular, no evidence has been published to date that she served outside the US (which is a requirement). A single official trip overseas might suffice, however.

Raider until you can prove all that keep frothing.  I've said it before if one of these guys is guilty then let them go down for it.  If not they are innocent until proven otherwise.  To me it doesnt matter what your political agenda is.

just to keep you from searching here is the answer to one of my questions earlier
 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, (50 USC 421-426)
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 13, 2005, 08:27:39 PM
Lets see, Gunslinger....

The CIA itself referred this over for criminal investigation, and they didn't know whether she was undercover or not?

Then the prosecutor works on this for two years, and he hasn't made the determination that a crime even took place?

Come on....
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 13, 2005, 08:49:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
Lets see, Gunslinger....

The CIA itself referred this over for criminal investigation, and they didn't know whether she was undercover or not?

Then the prosecutor works on this for two years, and he hasn't made the determination that a crime even took place?

Come on....


wrong and wrong.


First

I didn't say the CIA did not know wether she was undercover I said the US Govt has yet to release wether or not she worked as a "covert Agent"

Second

That is what grand jury investigations are all about.  To determin if a crime did in fact take place and wether or not to hand out indictments.  Last time I checked Karl Rove has not been indicted by a grand jury for any crime.

Nash I'm quoting the exact law.   THAT is what has to be PROVEN in order for a CRIME to have taken place.  

Has it been proven yet???

The evidence released to the public thus far does not prove he commited any crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, (50 USC 421-426)

again you guys are jumping the gun here.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 13, 2005, 08:54:57 PM
Well no... it hasn't been proven. Last time I checked it takes a judge or jury to make that finding. We aren't there yet.

But I'm well aware of the talking points which RNC has just released and which you are employing. They all fall flat on their face.

"I didn't say the CIA did not know wether she was undercover I said the US Govt has yet to release wether or not she worked as a "covert Agent" - Gunslinger

Covert agent = undercover. K?

The CIA felt that someone blew a "covert" agent's cover, and asked for a criminal investigation. Now you among others want to try and say that she wasn't covert afterall? I'd think that they would know if she was. She did work for them. And I'd think that this would be the reason why they asked for the investigation. Don't you?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 13, 2005, 09:01:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
Well no... it hasn't been proven. Last time I checked it takes a judge or jury to make that finding. We aren't there yet.

But I'm well aware of the talking points which RNC has just released and which you are employing. They all fall flat on their face.

"I didn't say the CIA did not know wether she was undercover I said the US Govt has yet to release wether or not she worked as a "covert Agent" - Gunslinger

Covert agent = undercover. K?

The CIA felt that someone blew a "covert" agent's cover, and asked for a criminal investigation. Now you among others want to try and say that she wasn't covert afterall? I'd think they know if she was. I'd think that that'd be the reason why they asked for the investigation. Don't you?


I've never read anywere that she was a "covert" agent or "undercover'.  That's not to say that she has been or is but the fact of the matter is in order for a crime to have taken place on Rove's part a prosecuter would have to prove the three points I layed out in the previous post.

Nash I don't visit the RNC website I got those from wickepedia wich are strait out of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act

If Rove get's convicted in a court of law so be it.  If he gets indicted I probably wont back him.  It's the simple fact that the Dems are frothing at the mouth over this and thus far the evidence sudgests that Rove commited NO CRIME under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 13, 2005, 09:05:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
It's the simple fact that the Dems are frothing at the mouth over this and thus far the evidence sudgests that Rove commited NO CRIM under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.


Well, you have tried to give one reason why "no crime" has been committed. That didn't work. She was a covert agent.

So, for what other reason do you - unlike the CIA or Fitzgerald - think that no crime has been committed?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 13, 2005, 09:13:31 PM
Nash, its real simple.  Just revealing her name or the fact that she works for the CIA is not a CRIME in of itself.  

IAW The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (PL97-200, 50 U.S. Code Secs. 421–426) the following HAS to be proven:

Quote



1) intention
Knowledge that the US was making efforts to conceal Valerie Plame's intelligence identity:

There is a need to produce evidence that Karl Rove "intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States" per § 421.

2) US efforts to conceal Valerie Plame's intelligence identity:

There is a need to produce evidence that "the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States" per § 421. Press reports indicate Ms. Plame had a notional identity as a private businesswoman, created as a cover by the CIA, which would appear to meet the "affirmative measures" test.

3) that Valerie Plame was actually a covert agent:

There is a need to produce evidence that Valerie Plame qualifies as a "covert agent" per § 426. In particular, no evidence has been published to date that she served outside the US (which is a requirement). A single official trip overseas might suffice, however.



these are not RNC talking points this is US law.

Edit:  IAW = In Accordance With
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 13, 2005, 09:20:33 PM
Geeze.... Someone sells a CIA agent (patriot!) down the river and all you have to say about it is this?

It depends on the meaning of "is".

Yes Gunslinger, thanks for reminding us what the law is. Do you think the CIA and Fitzgerald, who has put two years into the investigaion, are oblivious to the law.... and just proceeding for the hell of it?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 13, 2005, 09:24:29 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
Geeze.... Someone sells a CIA agent (patriot!) down the river and all you have to say about it is this?

It depends on the meaning of "is".

Yes Gunslinger, thanks for reminding us what the law is. Do you think the CIA and Fitzgerald, who has put two years into the investigaion, are oblivious to the law.... and just proceeding for the hell of it?


has Karl Rove been indicted?

I've read what he said and it doesnt sound to me like he's selling anyone down the river.

Last time I checked the CIA doesnt investigate criminal acts that would be DoJ wich is handling the investigation and no I don't think they are oblivious to the law.  My contention is all along that there is more to this story than is being told or released.  So far the evidence does not indicate Karl Rove broke the law.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 13, 2005, 09:35:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Raider you have not answered my question WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE THAT HE BROKE THE LAW?

To go a step further what specific law did he break?


1)lol what do I look like? Am I gonna find the "evidence" that convicts Karl Rove? LoL cause that is what you are asking from me.

2)You are talking about the law that states he has to "knowingly" disclose an undercover agents name, correct? I know this is what you mean because this is his fallback position..."I didnt know she was undercover so you cant do anything." Sorry but that is not gonna hold weight with me. He knew enough to know she authorized her husbands trip to DISCOUNT Bush's story about yellow cake. You gonna tell me he knew all that but not that she was a covert agent? Yeah right.

3)Asking for absolute proof on a forum shows me you are grasping at straws.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 13, 2005, 09:35:41 PM
Karl Rove made public the identity of a covert agent. We know that.

And that's illegal.

The only reason it wouldn't be illegal would be due to things we don't know about.

You've got things in reverse.

By everything we know, he broke the law. It's only the things we don't know about that might save him. By his lawyer's utterances and the very weak means of counter attack, I'd have to say his chances are slim. Very slim.

His defence seems to rely upon "I didn't say her exact name."

Too bad:

"There is a need to produce evidence that Karl Rove "intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States."

So..... "I didn't say Plame, I just said "Wilson's wife" doesn't work.

Your defence saying "she wasn't covert" isn't even on the table. The CIA says she was. They'd know.

What other defence has he got?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 13, 2005, 09:36:41 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger


Raider probably doesnt even know wether or not she was an "operative" or not nore what laws were specifically broken.  He just wants to see rove fry and will say/beleive anything to make it happen.


I have seen the law and I understand it says "knowingly identified an agent" so let that line of bs go.

But cheap shots at my intelligence again show you are grasping at straws for a defense instead of countering the evidence which points to KR.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 13, 2005, 09:57:48 PM
Lets not forget....

The reason why this is even happening is because everyone was lied to about going to war. Bald-faced lied to.

Everyone was lied to.

That's why we're talking about this. It's what brings us to Plame. This wasn't some random leak.

A rationale for war was being built.... and it was being built on false premises. On lies. One of them being that Saddam was seeking yellowcake from Niger. Totally false. When that was pointed out, all the Bush admin could do was to discredit him by damaging the man's wife. What complete weasels.

They love the "patriotism" line.... but that's a joke. Plame devoted her life... risked her life for the United States... and she gets tossed aside like scrap because she is married to a guy who said things that were ultimately true.

This is worse than Watergate.

This is coming back like a boomerang.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 13, 2005, 10:02:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
just to throw 2 more cents in:

here is something that democrats cant prove.


1) intention
Knowledge that the US was making efforts to conceal Valerie Plame's intelligence identity:

There is a need to produce evidence that Karl Rove "intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States" per § 421.

2) US efforts to conceal Valerie Plame's intelligence identity:

There is a need to produce evidence that "the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States" per § 421. Press reports indicate Ms. Plame had a notional identity as a private businesswoman, created as a cover by the CIA, which would appear to meet the "affirmative measures" test.

3) that Valerie Plame was actually a covert agent:

There is a need to produce evidence that Valerie Plame qualifies as a "covert agent" per § 426. In particular, no evidence has been published to date that she served outside the US (which is a requirement). A single official trip overseas might suffice, however.

Raider until you can prove all that keep frothing.  I've said it before if one of these guys is guilty then let them go down for it.  If not they are innocent until proven otherwise.  To me it doesnt matter what your political agenda is.

just to keep you from searching here is the answer to one of my questions earlier
 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, (50 USC 421-426)


1)Just because he seems to have found a loophole you think he should be let off? Give me a break. You Conservatives wanted to hang Clinton on the definition of what constitutes sex now you want to let KR off because he said "wilson's wife" instead of Valerie Plume. Double standard?

Yeah I am sure when Her husband released his statement contradicting Bush on the yellow cake, KR "accidentaly" told Matt Cooper she worked for the CIA. Everyone here including myself has said KR is smart. Way to smart to not have known she was an agent. That alone calls for a resignation on his part.


2)Semantics brother. It might be tough to prove since words like "knowingly and intentionally" are used in the law and since those are only things KR would know. Ignorance is no excuse in my book.

3)LMAO now she wasnt even undercover huh? Have you read the actual passage by novak?

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

WoW sounds a lot like what KR told Cooper doesnt it?

4)If nothing else KR lied about it and that is now clear and in the public eye.

"Luskin told NEWSWEEK that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." Luskin declined, however, to discuss any other details"

So you want to deny KR told Matt Cooper she worked for the CIA?

"Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip."


5)You want proof like this is a court of law and I laugh. It is only what I think and I think I have shown substantial reason to hold to that belief. You on the other hand have offered nothing except how KR could have circumvented the law by being a "slick willy".

6)Ever hear of morals? Sometimes there are things in life that a law doesnt or can't cover. Resign its that simple.

7) hard to save time for someone who already knows what the law says.

Now again why have no conservatives offered anything up about the KR Novak connection from 1992 when he got fired for "leaking info to Novak?

Yeah see because it shows a past history of doing the same thing.

or how about how he called her "fair game" to Harball's Matthews?

Got anything to say on that or what?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 13, 2005, 10:05:43 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
wrong and wrong.


First

I didn't say the CIA did not know wether she was undercover I said the US Govt has yet to release wether or not she worked as a "covert Agent"

Second

That is what grand jury investigations are all about.  To determin if a crime did in fact take place and wether or not to hand out indictments.  Last time I checked Karl Rove has not been indicted by a grand jury for any crime.

Nash I'm quoting the exact law.   THAT is what has to be PROVEN in order for a CRIME to have taken place.  

Has it been proven yet???

The evidence released to the public thus far does not prove he commited any crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, (50 USC 421-426)

again you guys are jumping the gun here.


Simple question...

Have people ever resigned for "questionable actions" ever or did it always take a conviction?

What you call "jumping the gun" I call keeping my head up and paying attention. You seem to think this is a court of law for some reason.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 13, 2005, 10:05:53 PM
Quote
intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States" per § 421.


If Rove did not know her "employment" at the CIA was classified he broke no law.  That is the meat and potatos of the issue.  

He did not out her as an operative he didn't even mention her by name (wich I KNOW is not excusable becaues her name wasnt mentioned) he simply stated she "worked" for the CIA.

now this is both according to Novak and Rove so who knows.  So far I don't see any violation of any law.  AGAIN that's not to say he might have violated one.  All this fuss is political mouth foaming.

Edit:  Nash by your statement recuarding the investigation.  This has been under investigation for 2+ years, Rove has testified "2 or 3 times", and he's yet to be indicted.  Who's to say he did anything wrong?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 13, 2005, 10:08:59 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
Geeze.... Someone sells a CIA agent (patriot!) down the river and all you have to say about it is this?

 


Yep Nash, not only do they sell her and her husband down the river and everyone they ever worked with they then turn on anyone who defends them. I have begun to see the conservatives as a bunch of bullies who name call because the democratic party is too weak to stand up for its own properly. Really sad state of affairs.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 13, 2005, 10:09:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Raider179
Simple question...

Have people ever resigned for "questionable actions" ever or did it always take a conviction?

What you call "jumping the gun" I call keeping my head up and paying attention. You seem to think this is a court of law for some reason.


it's simple.  When the "wind of scandel" picks up ever so slightly you democrats act like dog's in heat and froth at the mouth uncontrolably crying foul before any real fact or reason has been established.

you guys have ended up with Egg on your face more times than I can remember.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 13, 2005, 10:12:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Nash


A rationale for war was being built.... and it was being built on false premises. On lies. One of them being that Saddam was seeking yellowcake from Niger. Totally false. When that was pointed out, all the Bush admin could do was to discredit him by damaging the man's wife. What complete weasels.

 


cough cough anyone say Downing memo? Well said and true.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 13, 2005, 10:14:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
If Rove did not know her "employment" at the CIA was classified he broke no law.  That is the meat and potatos of the issue.  

He did not out her as an operative he didn't even mention her by name (wich I KNOW is not excusable becaues her name wasnt mentioned) he simply stated she "worked" for the CIA.

now this is both according to Novak and Rove so who knows.  So far I don't see any violation of any law.  AGAIN that's not to say he might have violated one.  All this fuss is political mouth foaming.

Edit:  Nash by your statement recuarding the investigation.  This has been under investigation for 2+ years, Rove has testified "2 or 3 times", and he's yet to be indicted.  Who's to say he did anything wrong?


Oh come on.... He didnt "know"? That is the biggest bunch of bs yet. I would think someone in his position would be careful about talking about someone who works for the CIA. (To a reporter no less) but I guess Karl is dumber than we think huh?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 13, 2005, 10:16:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
it's simple.  When the "wind of scandel" picks up ever so slightly you democrats act like dog's in heat and froth at the mouth uncontrolably crying foul before any real fact or reason has been established.

you guys have ended up with Egg on your face more times than I can remember.


Sorry Guns. No democrat here. I hate both parties equally. But you know what I hate worse? A traitor and that is what this is coming down to.

KR knowing or unknowingly released that info.
Is that up for debate?

Either way I see a resignation coming.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 13, 2005, 10:20:27 PM
Again I see no defense for KR hardball admission that Valerie Plume was "fair game"

or anything about his leaking to Novak in 1992 and being fired from Bush Sr.'s campaign. No response? or just choose to ignore?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 13, 2005, 10:25:11 PM
My last thoughts before I go cook steaks.

1)Please dont lock this thread it has been very open and is one of the best debates the O'club has had in awhile. Much respect to both sides of the debate.

2)KR is in a position to know if she was an agent. If he didnt know she was an operative then he didnt do his job and deserves to be fired or resign.

3)Ever wonder if this might effect future covert ops? High level administration officials loosing names of CIA agents makes me sick.

4)The defense seems to be whether he "knowingly or intentionally" did it. Ok lets say he did it not knowing. Do you think he should resign?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: DrDea on July 13, 2005, 10:35:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Raider179
My last thoughts before I go cook steaks.

1)Please dont lock this thread it has been very open and is one of the best debates the O'club has had in awhile. Much respect to both sides of the debate.

Amen to that

2)KR is in a position to know if she was an agent. If he didnt know she was an operative then he didnt do his job and deserves to be fired or resign.

He said the guys wife worked for the CIA..Do you seriously expect KR to know all the CIA opps???? Seriously????
   Saying someone works for the CIA,and remember,the reporter who KR talked to isnt the one that dug out the info and printed it.Key point there.

3)Ever wonder if this might effect future covert ops? High level administration officials loosing names of CIA agents makes me sick.

Members of Congress have been leaking stuff ever since time began.

4)The defense seems to be whether he "knowingly or intentionally" did it. Ok lets say he did it not knowing. Do you think he should resign?

  Im waiting to hear the whole story on that one.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 13, 2005, 10:46:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DrDea
Amen to that

2)KR is in a position to know if she was an agent. If he didnt know she was an operative then he didnt do his job and deserves to be fired or resign.

He said the guys wife worked for the CIA..Do you seriously expect KR to know all the CIA opps???? Seriously????
   Saying someone works for the CIA,and remember,the reporter who KR talked to isnt the one that dug out the info and printed it.Key point there.

3)Ever wonder if this might effect future covert ops? High level administration officials loosing names of CIA agents makes me sick.

Members of Congress have been leaking stuff ever since time began.

4)The defense seems to be whether he "knowingly or intentionally" did it. Ok lets say he did it not knowing. Do you think he should resign?

  Im waiting to hear the whole story on that one.


1)Yes, when a high level official is leaking to the press, he better check his facts and I really don't believe he didnt know. He might have just gave a push instead of getting on the sled himself. (no difference in my book.

2)Name one

3)come on, its a hypothetical situation. Answer....
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 13, 2005, 10:51:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Raider179
.
KR knowing or unknowingly released that info.
Is that up for debate?
 


Nope I don't think so.

Quote
Originally posted by Raider179
.
KR is in a position to know if she was an agent. If he didnt know she was an operative then he didnt do his job and deserves to be fired or resign.


I think this IS debatable.  He may or may not have known but from what it sounds like in transcripts between him and Novak it does not sound like he was trying to out her cover and ruin her career.

Quote
Again I see no defense for KR hardball admission that Valerie Plume was "fair game"

or anything about his leaking to Novak in 1992 and being fired from Bush Sr.'s campaign. No response? or just choose to ignore?

It's 2005 not 1992.  I havnt seen anything were he says she was "fair game" that's not to say he didn't say it.

Raider he didn't call her an agent he just said that she worked for them.  According to Novak this was a 2 min conversation that happened in passing.  If I was trying to destroy somone I'd make a little bit more effort than that.

Again it does not sound like she was the topic of conversation or that he INTENDED to out her as an agent or operative.  

Now if we want to talk about "yellow cake" and wilson's mission to africa this is my opinion:

Quote
In February 2002, Ambassador Joseph Wilson traveled to Niger, Africa to investigate whether or not that country had sold uranium to Saddam Hussein.  In January 2003, President Bush stated that the British government believed Saddam had sought to buy uranium from Africa. Note the word sought. It is very important.

In July 2003, a few months later, Wilson the ambassador wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times, saying he could not verify Saddam had bought uranium from Niger. Note the word bought.


I think Nash summed up Downing Street memo perfectly:
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
It's fake but accurate!

er wait a minute, it's accurate but FAKE!

Uhm... It's no less fake than it is less accurate!

It is no more less accurate than it is no more less fake! But, accurate, but fake.

Uhm.... dang.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 13, 2005, 11:52:33 PM
Except that it wasn't fake and it was accurate.

Apologist. Wake up. Yer getting raped.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 13, 2005, 11:56:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
Except that it wasn't fake and it was accurate.

Apologist. Wake up. Yer getting raped.



right.....
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 14, 2005, 12:18:37 AM
right.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 14, 2005, 04:49:27 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Nope I don't think so.

 

I think this IS debatable.  He may or may not have known but from what it sounds like in transcripts between him and Novak it does not sound like he was trying to out her cover and ruin her career.

 
It's 2005 not 1992.  I havnt seen anything were he says she was "fair game" that's not to say he didn't say it.

Raider he didn't call her an agent he just said that she worked for them.  According to Novak this was a 2 min conversation that happened in passing.  If I was trying to destroy somone I'd make a little bit more effort than that.

Again it does not sound like she was the topic of conversation or that he INTENDED to out her as an agent or operative.  

Now if we want to talk about "yellow cake" and wilson's mission to africa this is my opinion:

 

I think Nash summed up Downing Street memo perfectly:


1)Then what was he doing talking to Matt Cooper if he wasnt trying to out her???

2)Check my link on the "fair game"

3)Again Semantics. He didnt call her out by name, he just called her "wilson's wife". Give me a break. That alone is an admission that he messed up. Whether he knew it or not, he let her name out.

4)Fall on the "intended or knowingly" defense if you have to but what it really comes down is that you shouldnt have to. That is my point. He duffed it. He is involved deep enough that he should resign.

5)LMAO nice defense on the downing memo. You quote one of us to prove your point.

6)Try actually quoting and linking to Ambassador Wilson's Op-ed about Nigeria. I see you just plopped down a bunch of junk. Thats what good about links, they speak for themself. I always find it funny that "conservatives" never use links. Why is that?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 14, 2005, 04:52:02 AM
Also again I see no response to these remarks.

Again I see no defense for KR hardball admission that Valerie Plume was "fair game"

or anything about his leaking to Novak in 1992 and being fired from Bush Sr.'s campaign. No response? or just choose to ignore?

Your oh it happened in 1992 doesnt hold water. It shows a link between KR and Novak which you cannot deny. Please try.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: TheDudeDVant on July 14, 2005, 08:00:09 AM
Kinda funny to see peps attempt to defend KR.

I believe the scum is guilty.

Thing here is it really doesn't matter if hes guilty or not from a job perspective.  Bush said he would fire any person known to leak information outta the white house..  Well folks.. I think we may have a leak here.. lol

So, the question becomes will bush prove himself to be a liar once more, or perhaps as mentioned the other night on tds, shall we all stay tuned for cheif justice rove?? lol
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: lazs2 on July 14, 2005, 08:49:20 AM
So far I haven't heard much about this except here.  And "here" all I am getting is a bunch of agenda based speculation.

I will wait to see new developments or see how it plays out.   So far... nobody seems to really be on this thing as much as some of the posters.

Knowing the media... I would say that the only reason is that there isn't as much there as the posters here seem to think.

Other than the breaking links.... there doesn't seem to be much happening.

If there are poeple guilty of crimes I would like to see em punished.

lazs
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: DrDea on July 14, 2005, 10:09:13 AM
"Kinda funny to see peps attempt to defend KR.

I believe the scum is guilty. "

  When did we throw out the basic law "Innocent untill proven guilty"?
 Wishfull thinking isnt a court of law.As Laz said,if hes done wrong then he should be canned but you guys really should back off a touch on the partisan wish listing.This could blow up in your faces like Dan Rather did.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 14, 2005, 10:34:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Raider179
1)Then what was he doing talking to Matt Cooper if he wasnt trying to out her???

2)Check my link on the "fair game"

3)Again Semantics. He didnt call her out by name, he just called her "wilson's wife". Give me a break. That alone is an admission that he messed up. Whether he knew it or not, he let her name out.

4)Fall on the "intended or knowingly" defense if you have to but what it really comes down is that you shouldnt have to. That is my point. He duffed it. He is involved deep enough that he should resign.

5)LMAO nice defense on the downing memo. You quote one of us to prove your point.

6)Try actually quoting and linking to Ambassador Wilson's Op-ed about Nigeria. I see you just plopped down a bunch of junk. Thats what good about links, they speak for themself. I always find it funny that "conservatives" never use links. Why is that?


well if he was trying to "out" her don't you think she would have been the topic of conversation and not who sent wilson to africa?  keep in mind this was a 2 min conversation not an indepth interview.  In addition he said she was an employee....not an agent or an op.  If his INTENT was to out her don't you think he would have IDed her by name and position?

I don't know the answers to these questions either.  only time will tell, but the fact that this case has been under investigation for over 2 years and no indictment has been handed down and you guys our out to hump any leg on this that you can.....well I don't think I need to say any more.

PS i'm not falling on any defense that's what the law says.  He had to have criminal INTENT in order to be convicted
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: TheDudeDVant on July 14, 2005, 10:42:08 AM
Quote
Originally posted by DrDea
"Kinda funny to see peps attempt to defend KR.

I believe the scum is guilty. "

  When did we throw out the basic law "Innocent untill proven guilty"?
 Wishfull thinking isnt a court of law.As Laz said,if hes done wrong then he should be canned but you guys really should back off a touch on the partisan wish listing.This could blow up in your faces like Dan Rather did.


Well, I suppose it could..  But I was only offering my opinion and last I checked this bbs is not a court of law but rather a place to express opinion..

But still its funny to see the rove defence team in action.. Taking into consideration rove's past exploits its not really that long a leap of faith to see this is just another example of rove's SOP..  At least in my opinion..

But TDS really nailed the hyprocy/humor in the fact of Tennet's medal of freedom (or whatever), rice's promotion after the missed PDB of pending attacks, and now this with rove whom will surely be placed up for nomination for the surpreme court justice.. lol  Yup, thats the american way with this administration.. No matter how terrible your folly, tow the party line and you're in for good things!
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Krusher on July 14, 2005, 10:48:32 AM
Quote
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Well,But still its funny to see the rove defence team in action..  


Its not nearly as funny as watching the "get rove" crowd reach for anything.  Call me when he is convicted of lying to a grand jury like umm... well you know.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Shamus on July 14, 2005, 11:54:51 AM
If Rove has any style at all he will fall on his sword so Bush dosent have to fire him to keep his promise, I think everyone knows it was a payback for Wilsons transgretions, be it legal or not.

I do find it comical that his defenders are going thru thier own "depends on what the meaning of is is" gyrations.

shamus
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: mosgood on July 14, 2005, 12:13:28 PM
If it was a payback, is it realistic to think that Rove would do this on his on volition?  He just decided, himself, that this retribution needed to occur?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Shamus on July 14, 2005, 12:15:35 PM
We wont know unless he starts talking.

shamus
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: TheDudeDVant on July 14, 2005, 12:50:16 PM
Its okay to laugh Shamus.. Just don't froth at the mouth..
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: DrDea on July 14, 2005, 01:27:09 PM
Dont pay any attention to Shamus.Hes hitting the bottle.:eek:
And hes a spit dweeb too:rofl
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Krusher on July 14, 2005, 01:29:05 PM
So how does this compare to the administration that hired Craig Livingston to pull the (classified) FBI files on several hundred republicans?  I bet this never gets mentioned during the "get rove" rah rah parties.  Do you think it might when the US senator who helped get him the job runs for president?  

Prior administrations never ever ever leaked information on people like say Linda Trips high school misbehavior.  

call me when Rove is indicted for actually breaking the law.  If and when he is, you can giggle all day.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: DrDea on July 14, 2005, 01:32:53 PM
And I'll get the rope for ya.Right now it looks like a shark feeding frenzy with no food involved.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: lazs2 on July 14, 2005, 02:09:36 PM
well... I am sure that you guys don't want to get caught looking like hysterical little girls with an agenda....   again...

lazs
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: TheDudeDVant on July 14, 2005, 02:25:44 PM
ya ya.. hysterical little girls...  that sums up the post made here.. lmao.. I mean really with everyone going on and on about how the world is going to end.

riiiiighhhttt   :rolleyes:

Back to my question. As I cannot find anything in this thread that disputes KR leaking the info (only dispute i see is if it was illegal)..  What will our dear leader do??

A. Will he keep his word and fire rove??

or

B. Will KR receive some sort of National award such as the medal of freedom??

or

C. Will KR be nominated for the supreme court??

or

D. All parties involved in the investigation be totally discredited and the white house just turn this into another summer political scandle that never sees light?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 14, 2005, 02:27:48 PM
Yeah, the Judges have granted the prosecutor everything he's asked for because there's absolutely nothing there, and it's just hysterical girls with an agenda. And that's why a reporter is sitting in jail, because there's absolutely nothing there, and it's just hysterical girls with an agenda. And that's why the CIA referred this case for criminal investigation in the first place, because there's absolutely nothing there, and it's just hysterical girls with an agenda.

Yeah lazs. There's absolutely nothing going on. Just hysterical girls with an agenda.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: lazs2 on July 14, 2005, 02:31:37 PM
Now see... there you guys go getting all hysterical.


If there is something wrong we will get to it... I just find it funny that some of you are so willing to step on your own pee pee's.

I can still recall how you insisted that the guard memo was genuine.  

lazs
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 14, 2005, 02:36:59 PM
Well, I aint hysterical. I do have a big-arsed grin on my face though.

Biggest bunch of crooks I have ever seen. This is hella fun to watch. :D
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: TheDudeDVant on July 14, 2005, 02:38:24 PM
lol I like your definition of hysterical..  What is your definition of plaid?  :rolleyes:

I was not wrong about the guard memo myself.. So, not sure why you would say guys..  But hey, if it makes you feel better.. 8)
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Shamus on July 14, 2005, 02:58:56 PM
AWW shaddupp Doc, yur wrecking my hysterical moment.

shamus
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: TheDudeDVant on July 14, 2005, 03:03:22 PM
lmao :lol   I'sir!
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: DrDea on July 14, 2005, 03:34:23 PM
Blow it out your hysterical pie hole Shamus.:lol
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 14, 2005, 04:52:24 PM
lmao.... Harry Reid just introduced an amendment to the Homeland Security thingamajig that would take away security clearance for anyone who discloses the identity of a covert CIA agent. There's a 90 minute debate live right now on CSPAN (http://www.c-span.org/watch/cspan2_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS2) then a vote.

[edited out potentially inflammitory sentence. Lets just say I think it's funny. :D]
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: DrDea on July 14, 2005, 05:02:51 PM
For those foaming at the mouth about how she was a "covert" agent,guess what.Shes been covertly sitting behind a DESK for the past 6 years.:rofl
Now that just caps it for me.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 14, 2005, 05:09:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DrDea
For those foaming at the mouth about how she was a "covert" agent,guess what.Shes been covertly sitting behind a DESK for the past 6 years.:rofl
Now that just caps it for me.


1) you do realize that this happened 2 years ago right? So that is only 4 behind a desk and I guess it doesnt matter either if anyone she worked with in the past now might be exposed as having worked with her.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Chairboy on July 14, 2005, 05:30:50 PM
I find it troubling that some of you seem to be trying to downplay her role as a covert agent.

Let's say she's been behind a desk for 3 years, does that mean that she would never be in the field again?  By blowing her cover, her usefulness as an in-field asset has been removed.  

What about people who have worked with her?  Let's say person A is an agent who meets with person B in some country, and person B is a mole that is giving person A info.  Person A is unmasked as an agent a couple years later, so some enterprising security agent of said country decides to run some credit card receipts or go over some old records, and suddenly, lo and behold, sees the connection between person B and person A.

End result, people can die because of this stuff.

Did it happen here?  I don't know.

Finally, y'all should have the same reaction to the unmasking of an agent without regard to whether it was a democrat, republican, or martian that did it.  I feel that some of the people responding would not do so the same way if it was, say, Senator Kennedy.  This is not a republibasher sentiment, I think there are some liberal folks that might be chomping at the bit more then usual, but I also think some of you conservative types are being...  uncharacteristically unconcerned.

Ideally, this should not be a partisan issue, it should be a 'protection of the nation' one that goes beyond political one-upsmanship.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Eagler on July 14, 2005, 05:31:59 PM
like a said, this is the best ya got?

lol lol lol

ya got 3 more years to find better, keep digging girls...
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: DrDea on July 14, 2005, 05:48:10 PM
Now now.No need to go nasty with the "Girls" comment.Lets keep it as civil as we can shall we?
 The 6 years was when her name was dropped.That would make it 8 years if your counting from now.Anyone still an "Asset" to the spy industry after 8 years wouldnt have been tasked to someone like her more than likely.Shes not in the field,hadnt been for 6 years when her name was broken out by a reportere that didnt even talk to Rove and Rove didnt even drop her name.Get off it guys.This hounding of the Bush admin just looks like sour grapes andsounds like a broken record.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Lizard3 on July 14, 2005, 06:16:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
ya ya.. hysterical little girls...  that sums up the post made here..  


Hehe, I called ya'll chromosome challenged and got bleeped!

Fer real, this is all ya'll got? :rofl
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 14, 2005, 07:58:12 PM
Respectfully DrDea, once again the CIA wouldn't have referred this to Justice if they didn't consider her covert. I'd think they'd know better than you, perhaps? Then Fitzgerald would have had to make a determination whether or not a crime took place before proceeding with an investigation that has lasted for over two years. Then, the judges would also would have to make a determination before even allowing the grand jury. He would certainly have to feel it was serious enough to have a journalist put in jail over it.... no?

I mean, what you seem to be saying is that all of this is happening - and none of them have any idea that there was no crime committed. That they have no idea whether or not Plame was covert. That they'll get to the end of the line and realize one day: "Hey wait a sec - Plame wasn't covert! OMG, our bad - carry on, nothing to see here."

Does that make sense to you? Certainly doesn't to me.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Krusher on July 14, 2005, 08:02:03 PM
In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins.

This meant that Plame would have been stationed in the U.S. for six years before Bob Novak published his column citing her two years ago today.

The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a "covert agent" must have been on an overseas assignment "within the last five years." The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: DrDea on July 14, 2005, 08:22:42 PM
What I dont understand here is the fact that 2 years later its "All of a sudden" a huge issue when the past 2 years its been a serious back burner issue.Dont you think thats kinda odd?Maby what Rove said was taken and run with.But it was run with by someone he didnt talk to.The Husband was a seriously outspoken Anti Bush advocate.He scoffed at the idea that Saddam tried to get Yellow cake.Key word there tried.That is what was being checked up on.Apparently he tried to get it and never did.This guy is a rabid anti war advocate and after coming back with the info that was sought out on the yellow cake all this happened.If it comes out that Rove did wrong I hope they burn his ass,but the fact is they have a few pissed off Democrats screaming for Roves head and thats not all that odd.Theyve been doing that for ever.Did he bust her out?I dont think so but I will be the first to admit Im wrong if he did.This just smacks of more attacking the Bush administration at any and all costs.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 14, 2005, 08:26:30 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Krusher
In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins.

This meant that Plame would have been stationed in the U.S. for six years before Bob Novak published his column citing her two years ago today.

The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a "covert agent" must have been on an overseas assignment "within the last five years." The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say.


doesn't matter krusher.  Rove named her...well not her but her as a wife in a 2 min conversation that happened in passing were she wasn't even the main topic of conversation nore the article.

He's signed a confidentiality waiver and he's testified before a grand jury 3 times now.

None of this matters to the democrats, his name is Karl Rove, he's a republican that works for Bush....he was "involved"

his head must roll.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 14, 2005, 08:42:19 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DrDea
What I dont understand here is the fact that 2 years later its "All of a sudden" a huge issue when the past 2 years its been a serious back burner issue.Dont you think thats kinda odd?Maby what Rove said was taken and run with.But it was run with by someone he didnt talk to.The Husband was a seriously outspoken Anti Bush advocate.He scoffed at the idea that Saddam tried to get Yellow cake.Key word there tried.That is what was being checked up on.Apparently he tried to get it and never did.This guy is a rabid anti war advocate and after coming back with the info that was sought out on the yellow cake all this happened.If it comes out that Rove did wrong I hope they burn his ass,but the fact is they have a few pissed off Democrats screaming for Roves head and thats not all that odd.Theyve been doing that for ever.Did he bust her out?I dont think so but I will be the first to admit Im wrong if he did.This just smacks of more attacking the Bush administration at any and all costs.


Entirely irrelevant.

Here the Wilson smear campaign kicks in. Next is Plame herself. Cooper is in for it too. After that, the CIA. Finally, Fitzgerald.

Problem is..... the justice system is deaf to these kinds of rants. So Rove finally runs up against a system that he can't bully. Fitzgerald can't be painted as, say, a wacked out war vet with an illegitimate black child to any effect. He, and the courts, don't need any votes. They see the law and apply it. That's it. They're immune to this stuff.

I don't know to what effect these predictible smears are supposed to have.... because ultimately this doesn't come down to public perception. Attack away, but it's not going to amount to squat. Rush listeners aren't gonna save anyone's bellybutton here.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: DrDea on July 14, 2005, 08:46:17 PM
Listening to Rush is like listening to Teddy Kennedy.I still feel suprised whenever anyone takes either of those clowns seriously.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 14, 2005, 08:52:05 PM
Well all that stuff you just wrote - where you gettin' it from - if you don't mind me askin'? I've seen several versions of the exact same thing today.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 14, 2005, 08:52:09 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DrDea
Listening to Rush is like listening to Teddy Kennedy.I still feel suprised whenever anyone takes either of those clowns seriously.


I listen to him for 15 minutes driving home to grab lunch (if I get a lunch break)

today he was talking about the new study that came out that said blacks are worse off in LA than ever before.  

Yesturday he ranted about a study that wanted to bann soda because it was bad for you.

frothing.....
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: DrDea on July 14, 2005, 09:01:23 PM
Nash...I bounce back and forth between CNN and FOX.I try to get as many sides as I can get and both of those have a diffrent view on the world.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 14, 2005, 09:30:04 PM
IMHO it was Don Rumsfield in the green room with the candlestick.  He must resign now!
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Donzo on July 14, 2005, 11:11:47 PM
Quote
Originally posted by FUNKED1
That's not relevant.  Blowing a CIA agent's cover is wrong, period.  If she did something wrong regarding her husband then she should be punished through the chain of command, not by some treacherous press leak.



Fact: She was not "under cover".
Fact: She recommended that her hubby go on the trip to Niger.  There are document to prove this.

If this was "under cover" and "hush-hush", why did Mr. Wilson write an editorial about his trip?

This whole thing amazes me.  
The Rove machine biatch-slapped the Dems twice and they can't take it.  
Pathetic how people are grasping at anything negative against the current administration.  It's as if what's in the media is the end-all truth to everything.  Just like the National Guard docs Danny boy tried to sluff off as being "authentic".
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Donzo on July 14, 2005, 11:29:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Chairboy
C'mon guys, I don't want a thread I started to get locked.

Any predictions on whether there will be an official response in the next couple days?  Or will this die out?


It will die out.
Why?
Stage 1: "Rove has to resign"
Stage 2: "The President should fire Rove"
Stage 3: "Rove's position at the White House should be lowered"

This has been the progressing over the past couple of weeks.
The blood has disapated in the water....move along people, nothing to feed on here.
Oh wait...one last-ditched effort!!!!

Stage 4: Hillary - "Rove was responsible for the "Hot Coffee" mod for grand theft auto!"
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 14, 2005, 11:42:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Donzo
Fact: She was not "under cover".
Fact: She recommended that her hubby go on the trip to Niger.  There are document to prove this.


1) Is that so? Care to share that document with us?

2) Who cares? You're just making excuses. It's not relevant.

Here's a fact:

No senior political advisor to the President should disclose the identity of a covert CIA agent. It is against the law. And to do so as either:

a)  payback due to someone going against "fixed" Iraq policy, or...

b) the discrediting of the messenger regarding the lies of this fixed policy, is....

Reckless, treasonous, illegal, unethical. It's a felony.

Period.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 14, 2005, 11:45:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Donzo
This has been the progressing over the past couple of weeks.
The blood has disapated in the water....move along people, nothing to feed on here.
Oh wait...one last-ditched effort!!!!


We're in day 4.

Not 14.

Though I'm sure it must feel like it.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Holden McGroin on July 15, 2005, 12:02:24 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
1) Is that so? Care to share that document with us?

...Reckless, treasonous, illegal, unethical. It's a felony.

Period.


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

According to some thirty odd news orgs, incl CNN, the NYTimes, Newsweek, etc, there is "ample evidence on the public record to cast considerable doubt that a crime has been committed"

Look at page five of the brief...
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 15, 2005, 12:06:14 AM
Hey Holden. I gotta pretty bad computer situation involving a recently reformatted HD and some nasty viruses. I can't download anything - and aint bothering to deal with it until after I get back from vacation. Can you post the section here, along with the source url?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 15, 2005, 12:14:26 AM
In the meantime, everyone's focusing on the IIPA, and forgetting about the espoinage act:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000793----000-.html

Quote
(1) possession of (2) information (3) relating to the national defense (4) which the person possessing it has reason to know could be used to damage the United States or aid a foreign nation and (5) wilful communication of that information to (6) a person not entitled to receive it.
Under the Espionage Act, the person doing the communicating need not actually know that revelation could be damaging; he needs only "reason to know." Classification is generally reason to know, and a security-clearance holder is responsible for knowing what information is classified.

Nor is it necessary that the discloser intend public distribution; if Rove told Cooper -- which he did -- and Cooper didn't have a security clearance -- which he didn't -- the crime would have been complete.

And to be a crime the disclosure need not be intended to damage the national security; it is only the act of communication itself that must be wilful.

It's also a crime to "cause" such information to be communicated, for example by asking someone else to do so.


There's also perjury and obstruction of justice. Methinks that's just the tip of the iceburg here.

Yes, the IIPA is tough to prove. No doubt. But Fitzgerald thinks he has something, and so does the courts. This focussing on Plame's job title is absurd when you consider that. This would not be happening otherwise.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Donzo on July 15, 2005, 12:14:45 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
1) Is that so? Care to share that document with us?



How's this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

This stands out:
"The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him. "

Not the "document" per-say, but "The Report" is a Senate intelligence committee report.  I'm sure it can be found somewhere.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 15, 2005, 12:19:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Donzo
How's this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

This stands out:
"The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him. "

Not the "document" per-say, but "The Report" is a Senate intelligence committee report.  I'm sure it can be found somewhere.


How does this relate to her being covert or not?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Donzo on July 15, 2005, 12:24:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
How does this relate to her being covert or not?


Read my post:
"Fact: She recommended that her hubby go on the trip to Niger. There are document to prove this."

This was the document I spoke of...never said anything about a document saying she was or was not under cover.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 15, 2005, 12:28:05 AM
Oh - well you stated as "fact" that: " She was not "under cover".

I assumed you could back up such a fact. I assumed that by there being documents, you could also  provide documents of this "fact"

Can you not?

What then makes it a "fact" in your mind?

As for your second point, which you do have documentation for, again - who cares? What does that have to do with outing a covert agent's identity? So what?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 15, 2005, 12:28:47 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Donzo
Read my post:
"Fact: She recommended that her hubby go on the trip to Niger. There are document to prove this."

This was the document I spoke of...never said anything about a document saying she was or was not under cover.


Lmao. Man go back and read the whole thread. Her recommending him to go has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the situation. No one is doubting that, You are arguing against yourself lol
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Holden McGroin on July 15, 2005, 12:36:34 AM
http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s10News/FileUpload44/10159/Amici%20Brief%20032305%20(Final).PDF

This is the brief to try to keep the two journalists from revealing their sources, and out of jail.

For some reason, I can't cut and paste from this pdf, (says I need reader 6.0.1) so the big points from the brief are; She wasn't a covert operative in the last five years, her CIA 'cover' required her to work at CIA headquarters in Langley and anyone could witness her arrival and departure. The CIA made no effort to keep her identity secret, as a matter of fact Novak asked the CIA if she worked for them and they said, "yup!"
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 15, 2005, 12:39:14 AM
I tried that link and got:

"The page you are looking for may have moved or does not exist. You may search our attorneys, search the entire site or return to the home page."

Let me ask you though... Do you really think that the prosecutor and judges are blissfully unaware that a crime may have in fact not been committed? That such a fundamental question has been overlooked?

[edit].... and if it's the brief they made to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court obviously saw it differently; one reporter rolled and one is in jail. So what use is it?[/edit]
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Donzo on July 15, 2005, 12:41:39 AM
Fitzgerald has been working on this for 18 months, right?  He must know by now if she was undercover.  With this being known and what Rove said being known, what is the hold-up?
Answer:
There is no hold-up.  Of the two statements above, one must be false.  We know what Rove said (they have the notes from the Cooper).  What we don't offically know is was she undercover.  If she was, don't you think Rove would be indicted?
Grasping at straws...that's all it is.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 15, 2005, 12:46:52 AM
No - I think you're grasping at straws. There is an investigation underway. Whether it takes 18 months or 8 years doesn't matter. The reason it is heating up now is of no special importance. There is not some kind of coincidence as one guy here alluded to. It's just the way it works. There is going to come a time when it wraps up.

Indictments will be handed down. You can be sure of it. For what and for whom is the only question.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Holden McGroin on July 15, 2005, 12:51:48 AM
I click on my "here is your document request" link and it comes up... but the second "link" (which I did not intend to be a link) I get your message.  I think you need the (final).pdf in the Http string.

In answer to your question, "Do you really think that the prosecutor and judges are blissfully unaware that a crime may have in fact not been committed?"

I think that the prosecutors truely believe crimes were committed, but we all know now that Micheal Jackson was completely innocent.  Unless you are referring to Ken Starr and whatever it was he investigated.

(sometimes the motives of prosecutors are not completely pure)
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 15, 2005, 12:59:04 AM
Well okay.... honest enough answer. I just happen to think this is a completely different beast than Michael Jackson. But forget about the prosecutor's wishes for a sec....

The decision by a judge to jail a NYT reporter is extremely serious. It doesn't really happen unless the judge also thinks there's something here...

The SC even denied that appeal.

And this happened in spite of nobody understanding if Plume was covert or not? That there's even a case here? That the CIA itself - who requested this investigation - didn't know if she was covert? Sorry - it's unimaginable.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Holden McGroin on July 15, 2005, 01:06:39 AM
Usually, when reporter's source cases are brought up, when reporters are jailed, (not that it's common, it isn't) it is for refusing a court order.  They are jailed for contempt of court.

If the court orders you to testify in front of a grand jury and you do not, you would be held in contempt.  The function of a grand jury is to decide if there is enough evidence of a crime to proceed with a trial.

So you could be jailed for witholding your testimony before it is legally known that a crime was committed.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 15, 2005, 01:13:05 AM
Well you're exactly right and it's good to see you emphasize the fact...... it is rare for a reporter to be sent to jail for not revealing his/her sources.

The reason it happened here should tell us something.

Again, I simply can't believe that the fundamental determination of if a crime had even taken place has been overlooked by everyone. I can't believe it's even a question. What the grand jury is determining is who by, and if the evidence can support that. Not if there was a crime in the first place.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Holden McGroin on July 15, 2005, 01:20:20 AM
I thought "who by" was a given, since Rove was convicted even before there was any publically known evidence.

(Interesting that columnists from the NYT et al were condemning Rove while lawyers representing the very same news groups were argueing that he did nothing wrong)

So "if" is the important piece of the pie.

Grand juries frequently decide "if".
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 15, 2005, 01:35:29 AM
Well lets back up a second.

We're all speculating that this whole thing revolves around the IIPA. It may not. There are plenty of other things that may be happening instead. In point of fact, Rove may not even be at the center here. We just don't know.

This idea, however, that the CIA who asked for the investigation, and the prosecutor who has been investigating it for two years, and the judges who are sending people to jail over it, have no idea what Plame's job description was defies logic.

Fact is - it might not even matter. Our even talking about this  could just be the result of RNC talking points completely missing the mark.

Like I said, there's the espionage act, purgery and obstruction of justice among other things that they may be looking at. In that case, her job description doesn't even matter.

What we do know is that Rove (and others?) outted a CIA agent's identity in retribution for truth being told about lies. I regret seeing you avoid quite the same (or any) examination of that.

And with that, I'm off to bed. :D
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Holden McGroin on July 15, 2005, 02:04:19 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
Well lets back up a second.

.... clip...

In point of fact, Rove may not even be at the center here. We just don't know.

.... clip...

What we do know is that Rove (and others?) outted a CIA agent's identity in retribution for truth being told about lies. I regret seeing you avoid quite the same (or any) examination of that.

And with that, I'm off to bed. :D


We do not know that "Rove (and others?) outted a CIA agent's identity in retribution for truth being told about lies." A story is out there with as much credibility as any other that Rove may have passed on information that was already out in the public domain.

We do not truely know what his motives were: if it was an offand response to someone or if it was a cold calculated maneuver.  

To illustarate, if you were to unthinkingly respond to a your wife's question "Does this make me look fat?" Would it be a calculated response to say "yes" or was it an unthinking reflexive response?  Once you said it did you wish you could have retracted it?  But perhaps you planned to say yes to get your wife to think about losing weight and two weeks on the couch would be worth it?

The only thing that we do know is that we don't know.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: DrDea on July 15, 2005, 05:47:36 AM
I found this intresting.The Hubby is saying his wife wasnt responsible for his being sent,even after she claimed she was.
Quote
Administration officials told columnist Robert D. Novak then that Wilson, a partisan critic of Bush's foreign policy, was sent to Niger at the suggestion of Plame, who worked in the nonproliferation unit at CIA. The disclosure of Plame's identity, which was classified, led to an investigation into who leaked her name. The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional.

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

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

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

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


Quote
The committee found Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at his wife's suggestion.
The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

  Hmmmm..No agenda here.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: DrDea on July 15, 2005, 06:32:57 AM
Also on Yahoo today.Guess she wasnt covert and heres the proof.
Quote
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.


  Heres the link for those that need it.http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050715/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_rove
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: DrDea on July 15, 2005, 06:52:12 AM
More info came out today.Newsweek reported that Rove tried to dissuade Cooper from letting out the name and CIA info.Today the NY times stated that Novac called Rove and discussed another matter but also sidelined that he was working a story about Wilson and had heard his wife worked for the CIA.Rove stated that he had "heard something like that."  The 2 things dems are useing to burn Rove exonerate him.A leftist web site is calling for people to go to his house and mess up his yard.WTF????:lol   I bet even Dan Rather is saying "Boy,Im glad Im not on this story.Wouldnt want to look like an idiot again."
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 15, 2005, 08:08:39 AM
I don't want to "jump the gun" or act like I need a political legg to hump or anything but:

Source: Rove says reporters told him of Plame (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8577190/)

:lol
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Krusher on July 15, 2005, 10:29:51 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I don't want to "jump the gun" or act like I need a political legg to hump or anything but:

Source: Rove says reporters told him of Plame (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8577190/)

:lol


Its getting better every day.  :)

A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.
"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times. "Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this.

A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. ... The agency never changed her cover status."
Mr. Rustmann, who spent 20 of his 24 years in the agency under "nonofficial cover" -- also known as a NOC, the same status as the wife of Mr. Wilson -- also said that she worked under extremely light cover.

In addition, Mrs. Plame hadn't been out as an NOC since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, married Mr. Wilson and had twins, USA Today reported yesterday.
The distinction matters because a law that forbids disclosing the name of undercover CIA operatives applies to agents that had been on overseas assignment "within the last five years."
"She was home for such a long time, she went to work every day at Langley, she was in an analytical type job, she was married to a high-profile diplomat with two kids," Mr. Rustmann said. "Most people who knew Valerie and her husband, I think, would have thought that she was an overt CIA employee."
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 15, 2005, 01:01:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Donzo
Fitzgerald has been working on this for 18 months, right?  He must know by now if she was undercover.  With this being known and what Rove said being known, what is the hold-up?
Answer:
There is no hold-up.  Of the two statements above, one must be false.  We know what Rove said (they have the notes from the Cooper).  What we don't offically know is was she undercover.  If she was, don't you think Rove would be indicted?
Grasping at straws...that's all it is.


If she wasnt undercover this would not even be an issue.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 15, 2005, 01:06:43 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DrDea
Also on Yahoo today.Guess she wasnt covert and heres the proof.


  Heres the link for those that need it.http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050715/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_rove


Man you are so off the point it's getting rediculous.

Doesnt matter if she wasnt "covert" on the day her name got blown. She can "NO LONGER" be an agent. Also, Anyone she worked with, "IS PROBABLY IN DANGER".

Matters none if she is no longer an agent. They compromised her and people she dealt with in the past.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 15, 2005, 01:09:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DrDea
Also on Yahoo today.Guess she wasnt covert and heres the proof.


  Heres the link for those that need it.http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050715/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_rove


Here is also from your link

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.



See the part about Noavak "inquired about Wilson's wife"

Now are you gonna tell me that Inquired does not mean asked?

Rove then "indicated he had heard something like that"

Sounds to me like he was confirming her being an agent.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 15, 2005, 01:13:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Krusher
Its getting better every day.  :)

A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.
"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times. "Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this.

A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. ... The agency never changed her cover status."
Mr. Rustmann, who spent 20 of his 24 years in the agency under "nonofficial cover" -- also known as a NOC, the same status as the wife of Mr. Wilson -- also said that she worked under extremely light cover.

In addition, Mrs. Plame hadn't been out as an NOC since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, married Mr. Wilson and had twins, USA Today reported yesterday.
The distinction matters because a law that forbids disclosing the name of undercover CIA operatives applies to agents that had been on overseas assignment "within the last five years."
"She was home for such a long time, she went to work every day at Langley, she was in an analytical type job, she was married to a high-profile diplomat with two kids," Mr. Rustmann said. "Most people who knew Valerie and her husband, I think, would have thought that she was an overt CIA employee."


You do of course understand the difference between neighbors and Friends knowing you work for the CIA and someone telling the press your an Agent and it getting printed in a world wide newspaper? or maybe you dont.

Also, you should think about anyone she might have worked with during her time as an "agent" Wonder if anyone has gotten killed?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 15, 2005, 01:15:55 PM
My thoughts are now if its not KR who leaked then who was it? Libby? Novak should be in jail right now, since he was the original "outer". KR still seems to have corroborated Novak's story though, so I am not sure that he is off the hook. Saying he can't remember who told him first sounds like utter BS to me. If Novak told him first than how could Rove have indicated he "heard something like that"?


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.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 15, 2005, 01:43:27 PM
lets take a look at the very first line of this thread:

Quote
News flash: Karl Rove leaked Plame's name to the press. If true, this means that the Bush


First we have "News flash: Karl Rove leaked Plame's name to the press"

then immediatly after that we have: "If true, this means that the Bush"

anyone else see this?  First somthing written as a statement of fact convicting somone who hasn't even been indicted.......than an "if it's true"

It's striking that this goes to prove the point I've been saying all along.  You Bush haters really need to loosen the panties from the bunch they get into every time one of your beloved democrat leaders starts spewing their hatred and diarea of the mouth when ever the slight scent of a scandle starts to come out.

I've heard all week long from democrat leaders saying how "Rove should resign" "Rove needs to be fired" and even from this board how "Rove is a traitor" and committed "treason".

This isn't the first time you guys have jumped the gun either.  Hopfully you wont learn from this and you keep repeating this mistake over and over again.  ;)
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: T0J0 on July 15, 2005, 02:04:38 PM
Just like I pointed out in my first post, lots of accusations, little meat, many elected officials wasting time on this issue and no real work getting done....
 We pay these guys to make stuff work and they sit around all day bickering like a bunch of school kids at play time over who called who a name....

Its a non issue...Cant even watch any real news because this story is on every minute on every channel radio and tv...

TJ
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: JBA on July 15, 2005, 02:46:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Raider179
My thoughts are now if its not KR who leaked then who was it? Libby? Novak should be in jail right now, since he was the original "outer". KR still seems to have corroborated Novak's story though, so I am not sure that he is off the hook. Saying he can't remember who told him first sounds like utter BS to me. If Novak told him first than how could Rove have indicated he "heard something like that"?


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.




What if the first person was the other reporter Miller who is in jail because she won't admit it was her who told KR?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Krusher on July 15, 2005, 02:47:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Raider179
You do of course understand the difference between neighbors and Friends knowing you work for the CIA and someone telling the press your an Agent and it getting printed in a world wide newspaper? or maybe you dont.

Also, you should think about anyone she might have worked with during her time as an "agent" Wonder if anyone has gotten killed?



Do you?  

Maybe you should check yesterdays issue of the USA today..

The straw some are grasping gets shorter every day.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: DrDea on July 15, 2005, 03:45:51 PM
I sence a huge baloon deflating:rolleyes:
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 15, 2005, 04:30:54 PM
Quote
Originally posted by JBA
What if the first person was the other reporter Miller who is in jail because she won't admit it was her who told KR?


Nope, She found out from somewhere.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Chairboy on July 15, 2005, 05:00:55 PM
Interesting development:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8577190/?fark=cool

Rove says that the reporters told him her name, not the other way around.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: DrDea on July 15, 2005, 09:26:31 PM
May as well close this.The dems have run away.Gentlemen,ya gotta learn from the Rather fiasco.Wishing its true doesnt make it true.Better luck next time  
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 15, 2005, 09:44:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DrDea
May as well close this.The dems have run away.Gentlemen,ya gotta learn from the Rather fiasco.Wishing its true doesnt make it true.Better luck next time  


Seen any confirmation of this story by Rove? or his lawyer? How about by novak or his lawyer? What about time? or newsweek or Cooper or Miller? Not saying its not true but the article is sourced to 1 person who is hiding their identity because its a grand jury. Funny how their is a leak in the Grand jury investigation of a leak...
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: DrDea on July 15, 2005, 10:01:07 PM
Its looking more and more like a dead issue.Not a cover up as some would say,or wish hopefully,but a blown WAY out of perportion wish list.And how much time has been wasted with the witch hunt on Rove while much more important things like social security,homeland security and basicly everything else that needs done in this divided by partisan bull crapcountry while the smear the queer with the ball game went on?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 15, 2005, 10:34:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DrDea
And how much time has been wasted with the witch hunt on Rove while much more important things like social security,homeland security and...



edit... bah, I better snag this back before the moderators do. It wasn't helpful. Behaving is so much work. :)
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 15, 2005, 10:57:16 PM
Has anyone ever seen this interview. Blitzer and Novak

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/blitzer.novak/


Thursday, October 2, 2003

NOVAK: New York Times ... That was on a Sunday morning. On Monday, I began to report on something that I thought was very curious. Why was it that Ambassador Wilson, who had no particular experience in weapons of mass destruction, and was a sharp critic of the Iraqi policy of President Bush and, also, had been a high-ranking official in the Clinton White House, who had contributed politically to Democrats -- some Republicans, but mostly Democrats -- why was he being selected?

I asked this question to a senior Bush administration official, and he said that he believed that the assignment was suggested by an employee at the CIA in the counterproliferation office who happened to be Ambassador Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. I then called another senior official of the Bush administration, and he said, Oh, you know about that? And he confirmed that that was an accurate story. I then called the CIA. They said that, to their knowledge, he did not -- that the mission was not suggested by Ambassador Wilson's wife -- but that she had been asked by her colleagues in the counterproliferation office to contact her husband. So she was involved.

NOVAK: Under Clinton, that's correct. So that was the story I wrote, was about the details of Ambassador Wilson's mission, which created a great storm. And in the sixth paragraph of a 10-paragraph story I mentioned that two senior administration officials had said it was suggested by his wife, who worked at the CIA.

BLITZER: Now, in today's column, I think you wrote in The Chicago Sun-Times and The Washington Post, appearing as well, you wrote this: "He asked me not to use her name," referring to a CIA official, "saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment, but that exposure of her name might cause difficulties if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name." How much did they press you and say, you know what, this is really a problem? Please don't use her name. She's a covert operative.

NOVAK: It was what I call a weak request. In journalism we are asked not to use things constantly. I'm sure you have been. Don't use that, Wolf. I was asked by the CIA official not to use it. He did not, at any point, say her life was in danger. He did not press it. I thought it was in the nature of a pro forma request after a conversation in which he had detailed Ambassador Wilson's mission, explained to me that the mission -- that there was never a written report. A lot of people don't even know that. There was no written report.

BLITZER: "He asked me not to use her name saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment."

NOVAK: Yes. That was not anything -- whether I wrote anything or not, he said she would never be given a foreign assignment. That was a fact that she had moved on to a different phase of her career. It was not because of anything I was writing.

NOVAK: Difficulties if she was traveling abroad, I guess, on vacation or something. But they said she would not be given a foreign assignment. I thought that was a very weak request, let me repeat. And the editor of The Washington Post, Fred Hyatt, said in an editorial as well that if the request had been made by the CIA not to put this information in for the fear of the safety of Mrs. Wilson or anybody else, I certainly would not have used her name. But that request was not made. Now, why was it not made? There's one of two reasons. One possible reason is that it was a mistake by the CIA. They screwed it up. The other reason is they didn't think her life was in danger. I don't know the answer. It's one of the two though.

BLITZER: It is the subject of an investigation right now. The other issue that's coming out is the use of your word "operative" to suggest that you knew she was a covert, clandestine operative as opposed to an analyst. There's been some debate. She's currently an analyst, but according to all the sources we have, she used to be an operative.

NOVAK: Well, I have sources, too. I have sources that tell me that she was never an analyst -- I mean, never an operative. She was never covert. She was never covert. Put it that way. She was never covert. She was always what they call "light covert." That is, she was covered, she was working under the cover of another government agency, but she was not a covert operator. I have been told that by other sources...

NOVAK: But I just want to say that the word operative that I said in today's column, Wolf, was a mistake, using that word on my part. I have called hack politicians operatives if you read my column carefully over 40 years. And it's just kind of a throw-away word. I had no knowledge whether or not she was an operative.

NOVAK: So then they made that up. I never said that. I said I didn't dig it out in the sense I went through the files of the CIA. It was given to me, as I just told you. There's no inconsistency there at all. But that is -- you have to be very careful, Wolf, with these things because they say that the idea that -- they're saying they came to me. They did not come to me.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: ... the quote part is correct, "I didn't dig it out. It was given to me."

NOVAK: I just told you it was given to me. I didn't dig it out of the files there. Let me tell you this. There are people putting out stories that the White House was trying to find a pawn to put out this information. They went through six people...

NOVAK: I just told you it was given to me. I didn't dig it out of the files there. Let me tell you this. There are people putting out stories that the White House was trying to find a pawn to put out this information. They went through six people...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: ... to smear Joe Wilson.

NOVAK: Yes. And finally came to me. That's not true. As I have told you in detail this story, nobody came to me. Nobody came to me. I never said that. The story in Newsday is absolutely incorrect. It's not in my quotes. They never came to me. I went to them in reporting that story.

BLITZER: And the suggestion has been made -- and we're not going to ask you to reveal your sources because I know you would never reveal your sources -- that Karl Rove somehow is manipulating this whole thing to get even with Joe Wilson who was critical of the president.

NOVAK: Ambassador Wilson, I'm not going to call him a liar. Certainly, it seems highly improbable that after the story had appeared in print and it was not -- I would like to say that this was a hell of column that rocked Washington. It didn't. It was in the sixth paragraph of a 10-paragraph story. But after it appeared, Mr. Rove, the idea that he would be going around trying to peddle this column after it appeared in print, it doesn't make sense to me. Maybe it did happen, maybe it didn't. I have no information of that. I would like to see the names of the reporters, though, wouldn't you?

BLITZER: Definitely. A lot of people want it a lot more. And I'm sure presumably in the days and weeks to come we'll know a lot more. We're almost out of time. But a couple -- just to wrap a couple things up. Had you known that this information, releasing the name, could have endangered her or her colleagues, you would never have reported this?

NOVAK: No, no. I want to rephrase your question. Had I known. You're saying it would have endangered her and her colleagues. I still don't know that to this day. I will tell you this. If a CIA official said, "You are endangering the life of Mrs. Wilson and her colleagues," I never would have printed it.

BLITZER: But do you have any reason to believe that the source or sources that you spoke to in the administration themselves knew that by giving her name or telling you about her, that this would be causing her any kind of problem?

NOVAK: I really resent that premise that it endangers her life because you're saying if they knew that...

BLITZER: ... they may have thought she was simply an analyst, too.

NOVAK: She might have been. You don't know whether she was and I don't know whether she was. There's no way -- we do not know that fact. I have been told, not by the official sources at the CIA, but the unofficial sources, that she was not a covert operative whose life was in danger

BLITZER: Because this is significant, as you know, because the law also states that you have to have intent, you have to know that by revealing the identity of a covert agent, you're committing this crime. They may not have known.

NOVAK: Let me say one other thing I had in today's column. The person who gave me the original story, I said it was given in an off-handed way during in this conversation and he was not a partisan gun slinger. I said that. I'm not going to go into more description, but I did feel that the idea that this was some kind of a carefully arranged plot to destroy this woman and her husband, as far as I'm concerned, was nonsense. It didn't happen that way, and this kind of scandal that has perpetrated in Washington is Washington at its worst.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 15, 2005, 11:07:26 PM
"Did Robert Novak rat on New York Times reporter Judith Miller? While some have suggested Miller—who never wrote a word about CIA spook Valerie Plame—was dragged into the leak probe when her name turned up on a White House call log, several beltway insiders close to the investigation say special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald learned of Miller’s involvement from Novak himself"

This seems to fit with what the facts say, although Novak in the above interview claims CIA official told him, not Miller. Though it would explain why she is in jail and he is not.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 15, 2005, 11:11:05 PM
Interesting - no, I hadn't seen that.

This thing has taken too many twists for me to follow. Not for lack of trying.

I do note that all of the twists are solely a result of Rove's mouthpeice lawyer, so who the hell really knows. The prosecutors are certainly keeping it zipped...

There was some some buzz a couple of weeks ago that the investigation "shifted".... whatever the hell that means.

....so something tells me that when the indictments are finally handed down, they may not have much to do with what we're talking about here. Maybe.

At this point I have no idea what in the world is going on. It's so much fun though. :D
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 15, 2005, 11:20:51 PM
Yeah it is getting a little crazy.

Looks like Karl Rove did break the law, the same federal law that got Martha Stewart sentenced to six months in prison.

It now appears that Rove, President Bush’s chief of staff, may have lied to the FBI in October 2003-a federal crime-when he was questioned by federal agents investigating who was responsible for leaking information about a covert CIA operative to the media.

During questioning by the FBI about his role in the Plame affair, Rove told federal agents that he only started sharing information about Plame with reporters and White House officials for the first time after conservative columnist Robert Novak identified her covert CIA status in his column on July 14, 2003, according to a report in the American Prospect about Rove’s testimony in March 2004.

But Rove wasn’t truthful with the FBI what with the recent disclosure of Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper’s emails, which reveal Rove as the source for Cooper’s own July 2003 story identifying Plame as a CIA operative, and show that Rove spoke to Cooper nearly a week before Novak’s column was published and, according to previously published news reports, spoke to a half-dozen other reporters about Plame as early as June 2003.


LoL I think Rove getting Martha Stewarted would be fitting punishment.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 15, 2005, 11:28:02 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Raider179

LoL I think Rove getting Martha Stewarted would be fitting punishment.


again carfull.  Did Rove reveal her working status or did other media types?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 15, 2005, 11:34:01 PM
Gosh - this fixation on her status.....
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: DrDea on July 16, 2005, 12:02:49 AM
Ya know.When the Clinton Monica story broke I gave it all the credit Im giving this.The wacko idiots in life went nuts and the others waited till the story had an ending.Which catagory are you in?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 16, 2005, 12:18:24 AM
Very good question.

Although, granted, I don't exactly equate lying about a blow job to matters of national security. Your mileage may vary.

Though with all due respect DrDea - you weren't around back in the heady days of Monica. People here were losing their minds daily. And it didn't end with her not even close. We coulda used a Clinton Outrage of the Week forum. Like when he sailed into Vietnam with the US flag flown under Vietnam's. Except he flew in. Stuff like that.

What.... you got 3 or 4 people here askin' questions about Treasongate? Hell, this aint nothin'.

And there aint nothing wrong about talking about this as it unfolds. I find it interesting at least. You wanna take Bush's line: "No talking about it because there is a criminal investigation underway".... then that is your business.

The rest of us will speculate, mistake, bumble, point fingers, dig at the truth, and just have a goofy 'ol time with it. K?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 16, 2005, 12:18:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
Gosh - this fixation on her status.....


well her status is what determins if a crime did in fact take place according to the law.

Nash If you want somone to admit he screwed up I would say yea he kinda did.  Not with bad intentions or malice but he in hind sight he shouldnt have said anything.  Now that we KNOW, the political sharks have circled because they smell possible blood.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 16, 2005, 12:23:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Now that we KNOW, the political sharks have circled because they smell possible blood.


Damned straight.

You think Rove gets outted as either a leaker or a confirmer and everyone's gonna mind their own business?

What did y'all expect was gonna happen when this investigation got underway 2 years back? That it would be like the ending of a song, and just kind of fade out?

No... It comes to a conclusion.

Hello... Here we are.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 16, 2005, 12:27:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
Damned straight.

You think Rove gets outted as either a leaker or a confirmer and everyone's gonna mind their own business?

What did y'all expect was gonna happen when this investigation got underway 2 years back? That it would be like the ending of a song, and just kind of fade out?

No... It comes to a conclusion.

Hello... Here we are.


I disagree.  To me the wind changed direction briefly and the Bush haters jumped at it and changed sails prematurely.  I don't think he really is a major issue in this "issue".  Like I said in hind sight he screwed up but who knew?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 16, 2005, 12:32:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
.... the Bush haters jumped at it and changed sails prematurely.  


That aint the case here.

Law is gonna do what it does despite anything anyone says. Spin-proof.

Thank god.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: DrDea on July 16, 2005, 01:15:40 AM
I think the Bush haters jumped the gun here.Granted the same happened with the Republican dweebs that foamed at the mouth over any Clinton indescretion.All things being equal,and their not,I had NO political affiliation at all till 9\11.I looked at what was going on and made my choice.Kerry wasnt it.Clinton was a horndog looking to get laid  via the Presidency.He wasnt an evil guy but I FIRMLY believe Hillary is.Bill wanted to get laid.Hill wants to own the world.What the Bush admin has done even if it all is true PALES in concideration to all the money lost,cocain smuggeled and people suddenly wanting to take a vacation from life that the Clinton admin left in its wake.For a blatent example just look the guyn OTW to the NY times with some info that suddenly decided that his life wasnt worth living.The Clinton Admin did a ton more that needed looking into than the Bush Admin did.That being said?I think there ALL scumbags.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 16, 2005, 02:37:33 AM
You say: "The wacko idiots in life went nuts and the others waited till the story had an ending.Which catagory are you in?"

...and in the very next post you say that Clinton became President so he could get laid, and that Hillary wants to own the world.

Yegads. What is wrong with you people? Is this boozonics?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Holden McGroin on July 16, 2005, 02:40:33 AM
Since when did Dr Dea become "you people"

Seems like all you Canucks like to paint with a wide brush. ;)
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 16, 2005, 02:47:11 AM
You know what I'm sayin'.

(and yer joke - a good one - isn't lost on me) :D
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 16, 2005, 02:51:19 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
again carfull.  Did Rove reveal her working status or did other media types?


Well if he lied to the FBI he might get an indictment for that, hence the Martha Stewart remark. And I believe Novak used Rove as a fact checker.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: DrDea on July 16, 2005, 10:15:47 AM
Well maby wacko idiots is a bit strong,tone that down to hyped up numb nuts and I think Im in that catagory:D
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 17, 2005, 11:56:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by DrDea
Well maby wacko idiots is a bit strong,tone that down to hyped up numb nuts and I think Im in that catagory:D


Spin this then Dea.

WASHINGTON - 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 officer, the reporter said in an article 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.

A top Cheney aide was also among the sources, the Cooper said Sunday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8605680/
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: DrDea on July 17, 2005, 12:18:48 PM
Im not trying to spin anything.Thats an intresting artical.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 17, 2005, 12:43:17 PM
Might not be a chargable offense, except if he lied to the FBI, the Martha Stewart charge. But he should resign....
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 28, 2005, 11:15:25 PM
More information coming in....

Newsweek
Aug. 1 issue - A deal that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald cut last year for NBC "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert's testimony may shed light on the emerging White House defense in the Valerie Plame leak case. The agreement between Fitzgerald and NBC avoided a court fight over a subpoena for Russert's testimony about his July 2003 talk with Dick Cheney's top aide, Lewis (Scooter) Libby. The deal was not, as many assumed, for Russert's testimony about what Libby told him: it focused on what Russert told Libby. An NBC statement last year said Russert did not know of Plame, wife of ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson, or that she worked at the CIA, and "he did not provide that information to Libby."

This now appears significant: in pursuing Russert's testimony, Fitzgerald was testing statements by White House aides—reportedly including Libby—that they learned about Wilson's wife from reporters, not classified documents. Libby's lawyer did not respond to requests for comment. A source close to Karl Rove, who requested anonymity because the FBI asked participants not to comment publicly, says the White House aide—who passed info about Wilson's wife to Time's Matt Cooper—only knew about her CIA job from either a reporter or "somebody" who heard it from a reporter; he can't remember which or who. Rove did not initially discuss his talk with Cooper with the FBI, but later volunteered info about it and called agents' attention to a subpoenaed e-mail he had written to national-security aide Stephen Hadley mentioning the conversation, the source said.

The emerging White House defense is important in light of recent attention on a classified State Department memo that had key info about Wilson's wife. The memo, dated June 10, 2003, was labeled top secret at the top of the first page; a paragraph referring to "Valerie Wilson" at the CIA had the letters snf in front of it, for "Secret No Foreign," meaning the info is secret and can't be shared with any foreign national, says a government official who reviewed it but asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the material. The memo was taken by Secretary of State Colin Powell aboard Air Force One during a trip to Africa in July 2003, and Fitzgerald has questioned White House aides about who saw it. Fitzgerald has been said to be investigating whether any aides violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act—which makes it a felony to disclose the identity of a covert CIA employee: it requires showing the violator knew the agent's undercover status. (The State memo makes no reference to that.) But the CIA's initial "crimes report" to the Justice Department requesting the leak probe never mentioned that law, says a former government official who requested anonymity because of the confidential material involved. Fitzgerald may be looking at other laws barring the disclosure of classified info or the possibility that current or former White House aides made false statements or obstructed justice.

So it looks like Fitzgerald is after whoever read the Memo and then leaked Valerie's name, not because she was an operative but on the sole reason the memo was marked "secret"

I really hope they get to the bottum/top of this soon. I find it an impossibility that KR "cant remember" who told him about Valerie. He might not have been the source but he is protecting someone and did "verify" her identity to Matt Cooper.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8682500/site/newsweek/
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 29, 2005, 02:15:25 AM
My guess:

Miller heard it from Bolton. It found its way to Cooper, who then used Rove et al as a fact checker. Rove confirmed it, and in light of it being in the hands of a few members of the press, passed it along to Novak and took a "she's now fair game" posture.

It would explain why Cooper got released from keeping his source, but Miller didn't. The sources were two different people. I don't think Miller is protecting anybody but herself. She's in as much trouble as Bolton, Rove and Libby.

This of course could all be cleared up rather easily, with Bush demanding that Rove tell him exactly what went down, and then stating it to the public. Nothing to it.

Why that isn't happening is because this whole thing, as serious as it is, is far less serious than what it ultimately leads to. It is the initial frayed thread that threatens to unravel the administration's blatent lying to the public about the war.

We're only a half a year in. Three and a half to go. This is gonna be some term.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Eagler on July 29, 2005, 06:40:43 AM
lol

beat that dead horse, it's all you got

lol lol lol
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: SOB on July 29, 2005, 08:10:15 AM
You think this is funny?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Eagler on July 29, 2005, 08:43:32 AM
I think it is so desperate it is hilarious
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 29, 2005, 09:06:39 AM
The CIA asked for this investigation. What exactly do you think the CIA was desperate about when it did this? Where are you getting "desperate" from?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 29, 2005, 09:11:21 AM
Quote
Originally posted by SOB
You think this is funny?


Yea I know I do.  every time the Dems have a straw to grasp at they end up tripping over it
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Krusher on July 29, 2005, 09:23:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yea I know I do.  every time the Dems have a straw to grasp there the end up tripping over it


Oh yea, this "political explosion" is looking like a fire cracker in a tin can.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Thrawn on July 29, 2005, 12:09:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yea I know I do.  every time the Dems have a straw to grasp at they end up tripping over it


What's funny is how you lable anyone that thinks the Bush administration is bellybutton as a "Dem".  Which, for example, is impossible for Nash to be.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 29, 2005, 03:32:43 PM
I think its funny that you hardcore conservatives label anyone who doesnt like bush a democrat or a liberal.  I also find it slightly amusing that you think an investigation into who leaked either classified or secret documents to the media is "grasping as straws".

Also dont forget KR lied to the FBI which is what Martha Stewart did, or do you think only people who don't know GWB personally should be convicted of crimes.

I have heard of some double standards but its getting ridiculous. I was reading about watergate last night and I am not gonna be surprised if years down the road a lot of information comes to light on this administrations "manipulation" of the American People. Look at what is all ready out there and you know there is more coming.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 29, 2005, 06:06:34 PM
Raider it is grasping at straws,

every time you liberals/dems ( I say this because the majority of the time it is a liberal or a dem accept it allready) get a new wind of something that may sound even rmotly fishy or even unconvicing you scream and jump up and down and thus starts the political leg humping and frothing.

In addition you decry something when you do the same thing.  "hardcore conservatives"  Many of us are libertarions and REALLY hate liberals while we just disagree with republicans.



You guys want Rove to go down so bad that you will beleive anything you read and agree with any negative slightly plausible but yet unconfirmed story about this UNCONVICTED UNINDICTED charged with nothing political adviser of a person you hate.

Quote
funny that you hardcore conservatives label anyone
Arent you doing the same here????

Cmon it's just that obvious.  You guys will beleive anything about this guy and you want it all to be true and so damaging so bad.  

Just re-read through this entire thread and hear the tone of the Rove haters change as new news that confirmed fact gets released.  you can almost sense the sadness and resenment in the posts.

Alot of us "neo-cons" or those that have been defending Rowe have said we will stand behind this guy until there is actual evidence of guilt WICH THERE HAS BEEN NONE SO FAR!

If the guys guilty so be it.  Send him to jail.  I will be dissapointed in this administration but that's it.  You guys will jump for joy that you "nailed another one"  hooray! ! !

Re-read this thread......see the tone change in Democratic politicians who have publicly spoken about rove and this event.  It is clearly evident that they were grasping at what ever wrong they could and this "political explosion" so far has been a fizzle
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 29, 2005, 07:56:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Raider it is grasping at straws,

every time you liberals/dems ( I say this because the majority of the time it is a liberal or a dem accept it allready) get a new wind of something that may sound even rmotly fishy or even unconvicing you scream and jump up and down and thus starts the political leg humping and frothing.

In addition you decry something when you do the same thing.  "hardcore conservatives"  Many of us are libertarions and REALLY hate liberals while we just disagree with republicans.



You guys want Rove to go down so bad that you will beleive anything you read and agree with any negative slightly plausible but yet unconfirmed story about this UNCONVICTED UNINDICTED charged with nothing political adviser of a person you hate.

 Arent you doing the same here????

Cmon it's just that obvious.  You guys will beleive anything about this guy and you want it all to be true and so damaging so bad.  

Just re-read through this entire thread and hear the tone of the Rove haters change as new news that confirmed fact gets released.  you can almost sense the sadness and resenment in the posts.

Alot of us "neo-cons" or those that have been defending Rowe have said we will stand behind this guy until there is actual evidence of guilt WICH THERE HAS BEEN NONE SO FAR!

If the guys guilty so be it.  Send him to jail.  I will be dissapointed in this administration but that's it.  You guys will jump for joy that you "nailed another one"  hooray! ! !

Re-read this thread......see the tone change in Democratic politicians who have publicly spoken about rove and this event.  It is clearly evident that they were grasping at what ever wrong they could and this "political explosion" so far has been a fizzle


Oh ok I guess I shouldnt express my opinion of the situation... please

Do you deny there is an investigation underway? That my friend is not grasping at straws. All I want to know is who they are after and for what charge. Sorry but all the info points to someone in the administration leaking secret information. Guess that's not a big deal...

I decryed "hardcore conservatives" in response only.

Like I said guess I cant express my opinion on the situation without being some kind of pre-judger. lol Well guess what I am looking at the evidence (that is known) and making judgements so say what you want, I only represent myself in the situation not the American Public or the Liberals or anyone besides myself, and I am allowed to judge and make accusations. Note that I always provide links and what I consider evidence of my judgements. I cant say the same for most posters.

Again you ask for evidence and I point you to the same charge that got Martha stewart time in jail. Lying to the FBI, but dodge that too when you answer posts.

Oh let me pity poor KR.  The dems just have it in for him. Come on Matt Cooper admits KR told him about Valerie Plume working for the CIA and on WMD. He stated that. Its not heresay. KR does not deny it.

But I will wait to see your response on KR lying to the FBI before I respond more.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 29, 2005, 07:58:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Raider179
Oh ok I guess I shouldnt express my opinion of the situation... please

Do you deny there is an investigation underway? That my friend is not grasping at straws. All I want to know is who they are after and for what charge. Sorry but all the info points to someone in the administration leaking secret information. Guess that's not a big deal...

I decryed "hardcore conservatives" in response only.

Like I said guess I cant express my opinion on the situation without being some kind of pre-judger. lol Well guess what I am looking at the evidence (that is known) and making judgements so say what you want, I only represent myself in the situation not the American Public or the Liberals or anyone besides myself, and I am allowed to judge and make accusations. Note that I always provide links and what I consider evidence of my judgements. I cant say the same for most posters.

Again you ask for evidence and I point you to the same charge that got Martha stewart time in jail. Lying to the FBI, but dodge that too when you answer posts.

Oh let me pity poor KR.  The dems just have it in for him. Come on Matt Cooper admits KR told him about Valerie Plume working for the CIA and on WMD. He stated that. Its not heresay. KR does not deny it.

But I will wait to see your response on KR lying to the FBI before I respond more.


ok so what has Karl Rove been charged with?  When was he indicted?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 29, 2005, 08:31:24 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
ok so what has Karl Rove been charged with?  When was he indicted?


Why do I have to wait until that to make judgements? I know what matt cooper said. I watched him the day after he testified come on Meet the Press and discuss his conversation with KR. I saw it as Rove knowing he had went beyond what he should have discussed with Cooper. See this quote

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."

Now I am not sure what you think "I've already said too much" means, but I know what it means to me. It means KR knew what he was doing was wrong.

So I guess I cant have an opinion or make judgement until he is charged or indicted? LOL I am not the court of public opinion as I already tried to tell you. I have no reason, nor obligation to reserve my judgment on anything or anyone.

As for charges give it time, it will all come out in the wash.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 29, 2005, 08:39:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Raider179
Why do I have to wait until that to make judgements? I know what matt cooper said. I watched him the day after he testified come on Meet the Press and discuss his conversation with KR. I saw it as Rove knowing he had went beyond what he should have discussed with Cooper. See this quote

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."

Now I am not sure what you think "I've already said too much" means, but I know what it means to me. It means KR knew what he was doing was wrong.

So I guess I cant have an opinion or make judgement until he is charged or indicted? LOL I am not the court of public opinion as I already tried to tell you. I have no reason, nor obligation to reserve my judgment on anything or anyone.

As for charges give it time, it will all come out in the wash.


You can have the opinion all you want.  I don't think you know all the "facts" at all.  If KR was guilty of anything he would have been charged by now.  He's testified 2+ times to a grand jury.  If he lied under oath (wich we all know isn't a real crime now is it) or if he admitted guilt would they not have the evidence by now to charge him??????

Don't sit here and tell me he's broken a law when you don't know he has or not.

He is innocent until PROVEN guilty.  Obviously he hasnt been proven guilty by you are anyone else.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 29, 2005, 08:45:24 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
You can have the opinion all you want.  I don't think you know all the "facts" at all.  If KR was guilty of anything he would have been charged by now.  He's testified 2+ times to a grand jury.  If he lied under oath (wich we all know isn't a real crime now is it) or if he admitted guilt would they not have the evidence by now to charge him??????

Don't sit here and tell me he's broken a law when you don't know he has or not.

He is innocent until PROVEN guilty.  Obviously he hasnt been proven guilty by you are anyone else.


The investiagtion is still going on. They file charges once the investigation closes, not in the middle of it.

If he lied to the FBI which all reports I have seen say he did when he gave his original testimony, its a crime. Simple as that. Unless you think that People that high up in Government should be allowed to lie when they feel like it, because its not really a crime. (cough cough clinton)

Innocent until proven guilty is a concept of the courts and public opinion. Again, That is does not apply to me as an individual. I still think OJ is guilty or am I not allowed to because he wasn't found guilty?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 29, 2005, 08:59:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Raider179
The investiagtion is still going on. They file charges once the investigation closes, not in the middle of it.

If he lied to the FBI which all reports I have seen say he did when he gave his original testimony, its a crime. Simple as that. Unless you think that People that high up in Government should be allowed to lie when they feel like it, because its not really a crime. (cough cough clinton)

Innocent until proven guilty is a concept of the courts and public opinion. Again, That is does not apply to me as an individual. I still think OJ is guilty or am I not allowed to because he wasn't found guilty?


OJ isn't the mastermind behind your hated president so who cares.  Again I hope this doesnt deflait you even further but If KR had commited a crime and the FBI knew about it and had evidence to prove it they would present it to a federal Grand Jury.  The Jury could then hand down an indictment if they believe it a crime was committed.

It wouldnt matter if there was an investigation going or ended they would still indict him.  They've done it before.  

Get a towel and wipe off the drewl before you leave stains on the rug.  He's not in the clear yet but he isn't guilty of anything by a long shot.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 29, 2005, 10:45:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
OJ isn't the mastermind behind your hated president so who cares.  Again I hope this doesnt deflait you even further but If KR had commited a crime and the FBI knew about it and had evidence to prove it they would present it to a federal Grand Jury.  The Jury could then hand down an indictment if they believe it a crime was committed.

It wouldnt matter if there was an investigation going or ended they would still indict him.  They've done it before.  

Get a towel and wipe off the drewl before you leave stains on the rug.  He's not in the clear yet but he isn't guilty of anything by a long shot.


well the oj remark was in regard to you seeming to think I cant think someone is guilty of something unless a court says so.

Here is a stat on federal grand jury's.

http://www.lawcollective.org/article.php?id=46

"For example, in fiscal year 2000, federal grand juries voted to indict a total of 59,472 suspects3 and chose not to indict 29 suspects4—only one out of every two thousand suspects was left un-indicted."

"Some people who are called as witnesses at grand jury hearings, are prosecuted afterward."

more on federal grand jury's

Q: Does anyone have to tell you at a grand jury hearing that you’re being indicted? Is it legal to indict a person without their knowledge or representation?

A: There isn’t a requirement that you be advised ahead of time that an indictment is going to be returned against you. Grand jury proceedings are considered secret. In general terms, this means that the authorities aren’t allowed to reveal what happens before a grand jury.

If you’re a “target” (loosely defined as a person against whom the government has evidence of an involvement in a crime for which you may be charged) or a subject of a grand jury investigation, the government may want to question you about your involvement in the crime under investigation. In that case, the United States Attorney’s Manual requires federal prosecutors to advise you in writing of your right to counsel and to use your privilege not to incriminate yourself if you so choose.

If you think you’re the target or subject of a grand jury investigation, you might consider getting a lawyer to open communications with the prosecutor. Sometimes the prosecutor will confirm her intention to indict you, engage in plea negotiations before the indictment, or agree to surrender instead of arrest when the indictment is returned. Other times, the prosecutor will request that the indictment be sealed by the court until your arrest, to reduce the chance you’ll flee to avoid prosecution.

http://www.lawyers.com/lawyers/A~1001633~LDS/FAQ+CRIME+FEDERAL.html#two
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 29, 2005, 10:51:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Raider179
well the oj remark was in regard to you seeming to think I cant think someone is guilty of something unless a court says so.

Here is a stat on federal grand jury's.

http://www.lawcollective.org/article.php?id=46

"For example, in fiscal year 2000, federal grand juries voted to indict a total of 59,472 suspects3 and chose not to indict 29 suspects4—only one out of every two thousand suspects was left un-indicted."

"Some people who are called as witnesses at grand jury hearings, are prosecuted afterward."

more on federal grand jury's

Q: Does anyone have to tell you at a grand jury hearing that you’re being indicted? Is it legal to indict a person without their knowledge or representation?

A: There isn’t a requirement that you be advised ahead of time that an indictment is going to be returned against you. Grand jury proceedings are considered secret. In general terms, this means that the authorities aren’t allowed to reveal what happens before a grand jury.

If you’re a “target” (loosely defined as a person against whom the government has evidence of an involvement in a crime for which you may be charged) or a subject of a grand jury investigation, the government may want to question you about your involvement in the crime under investigation. In that case, the United States Attorney’s Manual requires federal prosecutors to advise you in writing of your right to counsel and to use your privilege not to incriminate yourself if you so choose.

If you think you’re the target or subject of a grand jury investigation, you might consider getting a lawyer to open communications with the prosecutor. Sometimes the prosecutor will confirm her intention to indict you, engage in plea negotiations before the indictment, or agree to surrender instead of arrest when the indictment is returned. Other times, the prosecutor will request that the indictment be sealed by the court until your arrest, to reduce the chance you’ll flee to avoid prosecution.

http://www.lawyers.com/lawyers/A~1001633~LDS/FAQ+CRIME+FEDERAL.html#two


so when the previous attempt to say "he lied" didn't work you are now telling me he is statistically guilty?:rolleyes:

EDIT:  raider further proof of "grasping" here is the fact that this thread and the story in General was dead for a week.  Nothing new has come about.....you just want to see him go down and will keep bringing this up until somone beleives it.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 29, 2005, 11:15:26 PM
No the statistic has nothing to do with KR. It has to do with the odds that someone high up in the administration is going to get charged.

the part that had to do with KR is this part.

"Some people who are called as witnesses at grand jury hearings, are prosecuted afterward."
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 29, 2005, 11:17:07 PM
Uh... Rove has admitted he told it to Cooper. (how could he not? busted dead to rights).

The only thing folks are waiting on is if he's gonna get indicted, and who else will, and if just for that or something else.

So where's the outrage? Pheh... don't bother trying to explain.

Anyways... I'm thinkin' "something else."

(you should read the bio on Fitzgerald - this guy is like a robot. If he has to invoice for a 5 minute photocopy then somebody is going to jail.)

I love this... Every minute of it.

Crooks and liars.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 29, 2005, 11:40:44 PM
Dear leader. (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/bush-flips-press.mov)
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Toad on July 30, 2005, 12:23:02 AM
The outrage will be there when the charges are laid and proven.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 30, 2005, 12:24:12 AM
Oh I am so sure.

Hell, you'll prolly have a post the next day detailing how Dems do it too, and it's all business as usual, and move along everyone.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 30, 2005, 12:24:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Raider179
No the statistic has nothing to do with KR. It has to do with the odds that someone high up in the administration is going to get charged.

the part that had to do with KR is this part.

"Some people who are called as witnesses at grand jury hearings, are prosecuted afterward."


So statistically somone in the Bush Admin is guilty and based on past practices.....or.....statisti cs it is likely to be Karl Rove because "some people who are called as witnesses at grand jury hearings, are prosecuted afterward"....

Got it.  For a while there you were confusing me.  I couldnt figure it out.

:rolleyes:
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 30, 2005, 12:27:54 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
Uh... Rove has admitted he told it to Cooper. (how could he not? busted dead to rights).

The only thing folks are waiting on is if he's gonna get indicted, and who else will, and if just for that or something else.

So where's the outrage? Pheh... don't bother trying to explain.

Anyways... I'm thinkin' "something else."

(you should read the bio on Fitzgerald - this guy is like a robot. If he has to invoice for a 5 minute photocopy then somebody is going to jail.)

I love this... Every minute of it.


read the past 6 pages of this thread and maybe you will learn something.  In order for KR to be found guilty certain criteria have to be met.  Just outing her is not enough.  We've established this and moved on....keep up Nash   ;)

Quote

Crooks and liars.


wow that sounds really familiar.....kinda like the LAST ADMINISTRATION

SNAFU.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Toad on July 30, 2005, 12:28:25 AM
Sure, Nash. Whatever you want to believe.

Betcha this though... I bet I'm one of the few guys here that actually writes my Representatives with both compliments and outrage. I also wager that I have both praised and condemned both parties as appropriate in those letters. Lastly, I'll wager there's a whole lot more that just vent on BBS than write their representatives.

And I bet damn few Canadians ever write the US Congress.

:)
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 30, 2005, 12:31:33 AM
Based on your comments, I really can't fathom your letters amounting to anything.

If there's perceived good, you ""

If there's perceived bad you make apologies and duck.

What are you telling these guys? Seriously.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on July 30, 2005, 12:32:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
Oh I am so sure.

Hell, you'll prolly have a post the next day detailing how Dems do it too, and it's all business as usual, and move along everyone.


well to be honest there was a Dem that was CAUGHT red handed removing classified documents.

It was right around the last election.....anyone remember his name?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Toad on July 30, 2005, 12:33:18 AM
Why should I be serious when you never are?

You have no clue what I write, except of course that you have the letter I sent Bush. Guess you thought that was full of apologies and "ducking"?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 30, 2005, 12:35:27 AM
Well Toad, you sure as hell did enough apologizing for them before you wrote that letter, and you had zero clue as to what was happening.

Has there been a change there? I don't think so.

I can't even imagine what you are writing these swine now.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Toad on July 30, 2005, 12:37:57 AM
No, I didn't apologize for them. I gave them the benefit of the doubt and time to be proven right or wrong. A significant difference you refuse to accept.

Again, direct question... did you find apologizing and "ducking" in that letter?

Answer instead of dodging.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Toad on July 30, 2005, 12:41:10 AM
And as for "clues" we both had the generic news media. Obviously, there was a large spread of opinion there.

I also had friends from my AF days that I greatly respected telling me the threat was there.

Turns out I was wrong. But I sure don't think your "data" at the time was any better than mine. IIRC, you admitted yours was a guess as much as mine was a guess.

So now you're proud you were a "lucky guesser"?

Seems I remember something else you posted about people who were going to crow about "being right" after the fact too.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 30, 2005, 12:43:24 AM
Well okay first of all - I loved your letter. It was great. There was no ducking. It was straight forward and honest. It was far more than I expected.

Yeah...

It was good.

As to the second part - yes you did apologize. And make excuses for. And make cases for. And belittle others for not.

You were a huge advocate.

Me?

I wanna hold you and everyone else accountable for it. Because those boys are paying a hell of a price for it and I wanna make sure you remember why. I aint never gonna let it drop Toad.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 30, 2005, 12:46:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
So statistically somone in the Bush Admin is guilty and based on past practices.....or.....statisti cs it is likely to be Karl Rove because "some people who are called as witnesses at grand jury hearings, are prosecuted afterward"....

Got it.  For a while there you were confusing me.  I couldnt figure it out.

:rolleyes:


You said something about how this will all amount to nothing.  I showed you a stat that says only 1 in 2000 federal grand jury investigations goes without a prosecution.

The part about KR shows why and how he can still be prosecuted since you used the "he hasnt been charged defense"
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 30, 2005, 12:48:44 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
read the past 6 pages of this thread and maybe you will learn something.  In order for KR to be found guilty certain criteria have to be met.  Just outing her is not enough.  We've established this and moved on....keep up Nash   ;)
 


Actually if you read the entire posts you will learn that it seems the information on Valerie Plume came off a secret/No foreign document. So actually the "criteria" you want doesnt have to be there. Revealing secret documents is also a crime. So if he learned it from that document (which is why he can't remember where he heard it) then outing her is plenty.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Toad on July 30, 2005, 12:51:47 AM
I was an advocate prior to the invasion and until they caught SH and had time to interrogate him.

I did "make the case" based on what I thought. As you did.

If I "belittled" the opposition it was no more or less than you or any of the others in the hotly debated topic did.


However, I call you on the apologizing/excuses.

I challenge you to find any post of me "apologizing" or "making excuses" BEFORE I wrote the letter.

Let's see it.














As for holding me accountable, that's in you. You deal with it. I supported the invasion along with the majority of Americans at the time. That's my accountability.

I remember why too. From my evaluation of the situation, I thought it was the right thing to do. I have no qualms or regrets about that part of it. Decisions get made on the available data; not all of them always turn out to be correct but they still have to be made.

Hey bring it up once a week if it makes you feel good. Don't bother me none.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 30, 2005, 12:55:57 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Toad
That's my accountability.


You're not alone.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Toad on July 30, 2005, 09:45:25 AM
Obviously. As I said, the majority sided with the administration. I was one of those.

I deal with my accountability on a daily basis. I have friends over there at just about any given time. Do you?

The decision was made. So what do we do now that it proved incorrect? Just leave? Just walk away and toss a "sorry" over our shoulder?  I don't think so.

What no response on the "apologizing" or "excuse making"? Were you just doing your Nash thing again and throwing stuff against the wall to see what would stick?

Or do you want to tell me that back then it was OBVIOUS I was wrong because your reading of the situation in the print media and guessing was so much better than mine?


Quote
Originally posted by Nash
I didn't see the thread where the clock had started... but I assume it goes for our wager also Toad (or whenever u want)?

As far as I'm concerned, *everyone* was going on guesses. Due to that, bragging about any which way this turned out (and will turn out) is absurd.

"I was right, you were wrong" is the same as saying "Gee aint I smart - neither of us had any information, but I made a better guess than you". So I think it's silly to see or do any bragging on it.

It'll cost me, but I really do hope WMD turns up. And for selfish reasons. It just works out better for folks in our part of the world if this WMD stuff doesn't turn out to be a crock of ****. It'll end up being worth a lot more to me than the bet, that's for sure.






As I said, bring it up all you like.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 30, 2005, 03:39:07 PM
I also said (feel free to look it up) that I thought it was absolutely incredible that a nation was about to invade another nation based on guesses.

You weren't "obviously" wrong. You were obviously guessing. And you were wrong to support a war based on guesses.

You have no problem with that? Fine - we differ.

But the kicker, it turns out, is not only were those guesses wrong, but they were based on complete lies. It slays me.

You haven't come around to that one yet, have you?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 30, 2005, 03:53:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Nash


But the kicker, it turns out, is not only were those guesses wrong, but they were based on complete lies. It slays me.

You haven't come around to that one yet, have you?


Some people are still debating the meaning of the word "fixed" lol

To me this is just something else that shows the pattern that this adminstration follows. Deception/lying of the American public is ok to them.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Toad on July 30, 2005, 05:13:23 PM
Well, you and I clearly differ.

For example, you classify all intel as "guesses" apparently. Intel is a tough business. You can show two highly qualified photo interpreters the same photo and they often will deduce diifferent things from it. To Nash, apparently, these are "guesses". Maybe they are.

That doesn't mean that National Command Authority can disregard the two interpretations; it means somone has to make a decision and formulate policy from one of those reports. Sometimes a decision to go to war result from this chain of events.

You ever had to make a decision where people's lives were in the balance? Make the right decision, everyone lives; make the wrong one and everyone dies? Somebody has to make decisions like that. You use the best available information you can get and then you have to make the call. Second-guessers always look brilliant after the fact but it's rarely so cut and dried for the guy having to make the call.

You can say it's wrong to support a war based on what the government tells you. You can feel all good about being so right. You can even brag on how well you guessed if you like. I chose to believe my government and I don't feel that was wrong. Sorry.

Now, if you have an incontrovertible information that the guesses were based on "complete lies" please link it. And pass it on to the US Congress as well.

Or are you just going by what you read in the media?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 30, 2005, 05:20:43 PM
Yeah yeah.... didn't think so.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 30, 2005, 05:25:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Toad


Now, if you have an incontrovertible information that the guesses were based on "complete lies" please link it. And pass it on to the US Congress as well.

Or are you just going by what you read in the media?


86 days since congressional request for investigation.

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

Lets also not forget the "yellow cake" which was put into the State of the Union, when they knew the intel was bad.

Lets also not forget the use of  Chalabi and Curveball for intel. We all know now they they both lied about all the intel they gave.

Lets not forget the attempt to discredit Joe Wilson's report on the Yellow cake. (Which Wilson was right about)

Lets not forget Osama is still running around free.

Lets not forget Mullah Omar is still free.

hell I am trying to think of 1 thing the adminstration got right when it came to the war on terror. Iraq is already in a Civil war. Its not gonna wait till we leave. But as soon as we do, be assured what's going on now over there will look miniscule.

yet no one has taken responsibility for any of these errors. No one is held responsible. That is what this adminstration does. Hell look at Rove. 1st Bush says any leakers will get fired. 2nd when it is found that Rove confirmed it to Novak and leaked it to Matt Cooper, Bush changed it to someone must be charged. This adminstration is awful. And its all coming to light.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 30, 2005, 05:33:54 PM
Actually Toad, I gotta question.....

You asked for "incontrovertible information that the guesses were based on "complete lies."

Yet you had no incontrovertible information with which to base your support for the war. So yhy are you suddenly needing this now? Is it a "once bitten twice shy" kind of thing? Or is it safe to conclude that you're being a bit selective here. That's telling for sure.

Actually - forget these questions. Let me ask you just one. Very simple.

Based on everything you know, would you guess that the administration lied in seeking your support for the war, or would you guess that they didn't lie in seeking your support for the war?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Manedew on July 30, 2005, 05:47:11 PM
yup Nash .... and we bite our tounges to avoid saying "I told you so" too all the warmongers.

Many of us never belived all the WMD B.S.   .... espesicaly with people like Wilson speaking out..... the timeing of leaking Plames CIA idenity made this clear as daylight.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Toad on July 30, 2005, 05:52:49 PM
I'm believe Bush made a decision on the information available to him.

Now did he "lie" in presenting his case to the American people? So far, I have not seen anything that convinces me that he did.

That's not a dodge.

In my previous example of photo interpreters, would you call one of them a "liar"? I mean one of them has to be wrong, they can't both be right. So which one is "lying"?

I think Bush gave his interpretation of the evidence he was presented. The "imminent threat" of WMD, the reason for invasion, was never proven post-invasion.

If it can be shown he deliberately lied, I think he should be impeached. Have you seen anything in the media on which to base impeachment charges in the Senate?

Why should there be incontrovertible evidence to impeach the President and not to go to war with Iraq?  Because they are entirely different situations. The invasion was based on an immediate threat to national security. The possibility Bush lied doesn't fall into that category. You, of course, will feel differently.

Let's flip the question now and you answer. Before you had no incontrovertible evidence that Iraq was NOT a WMD threat, yet you chose not to support the invasion. Now you have no incontrovertible evidence that Bush lied but you are ready to see him impeached. So why have you suddenly changed your standards?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Toad on July 30, 2005, 05:55:05 PM
Raider, I guess it's 86 days then that the opportunity to actually ask the guy that wrote the report exactly what he meant and exactly what was said in the meeting has been studiously avoided.

Why haven't they just asked the guy that wrote the memo?

Why haven't they asked the guy that actually went to DC and talked to the US folks?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 30, 2005, 06:04:29 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Toad
Let's flip the question now and you answer. Before you had no incontrovertible evidence that Iraq was NOT a WMD threat, yet you chose not to support the invasion. Now you have no incontrovertible evidence that Bush lied but you are ready to see him impeached. So why have you suddenly changed your standards?


Your answer was very unsatisfactory. I'm sorry, it was.

Now to answer yours.

I indeed had no evidence that Iraq was not a threat. Just as I have no evidence that Sweden is not a threat. Before invading either of those two countries, and cosidering the costs, I would need some freaking evidence to do it. Okay?

Now the second part of your question.

The Bush admin lied about Iraq's attempt to buy uranium in Africa. See, it was proven false, yet he still went ahead and said it. This is incontrovertible. And this, Toad, is a lie.

That's your answer right there, right? He lied.

I could continue on with "Mushroom clouds" (they said it, it wasn't true and (whoah look out!) that's another lie), and on....but it just doesn't seem to register.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Holden McGroin on July 30, 2005, 06:11:20 PM
Just a small aside...

Quote
Originally posted by Nash
The Bush admin lied about Iraq's attempt to buy uranium in Africa. See, it was proven false, yet he still went ahead and said it.


What Bush said was "British intellegence reports that Iraq tried to buy yellowcake.."

British intel did report that and AFAIK they still stand by that report.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 30, 2005, 06:14:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Toad
Raider, I guess it's 86 days then that the opportunity to actually ask the guy that wrote the report exactly what he meant and exactly what was said in the meeting has been studiously avoided.

Why haven't they just asked the guy that wrote the memo?

Why haven't they asked the guy that actually went to DC and talked to the US folks?


Toad, sorry if you cant read that paragraph in the context it is written in. Its simple, straightforward and to the point. You want to debate what "fixed" means go ahead. But you are really really stretching if thats your defense. It's clear to anyone who gives a fair reading to that memo under what context "fixed" is used. The only defense worth even discussing is that its fake, but its not so gotta stretch out for that what does "fixed" mean.

As for the 86 days, Mabe when they actually get the investigation rolling they will have him testify. On the other hand, I doubt Tony Blair wishes to embarass Bush and might find a way to make the "writer" unavailable.

These 2 lines say it all

 Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

1)Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action

do you deny it says that?

2)It says he wants to justify it by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD

do you deny it says that

3)it then says BUT the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

want to explain why there is a BUT after the justication line? I cant see those 2 sentences in any other light. Why would the writer say intelligence and facts were being fixed around policy if he didnt mean exactly that. If the facts and intelligence fit policy why didnt he say that. Why not say according to the intelligence and facts such and such policy has been adopted?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 30, 2005, 06:17:51 PM
Oh my god... Holden - you're too smart for that.

You of course know that Bush's own intelligence said this was a bunch of bull.

And by "own intelligence" we're not talkin' about the "office of special plans" (picture me rolling me eyes).

So semantically? What you're trying to say is that Bush took precious time out of his State of the Union adress to report on the false claims by some other government. He wouldn't be doing that to convice everyone that those claims were true now, would he? Nooooooo....

He was merely  - actually, you tell me. Why did the president take the time to repeat a claim he knew was false?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Holden McGroin on July 30, 2005, 06:27:54 PM
IIRC we have had this discussion b4 Nash, About WMD's, Bush was proven wrong, but allegations of him lieing about WMD's are not proven.

Lieing and being wrong are two different things.

Since (1998 I think) it was the policy of the USA to seek regime change in Iraq,  that the president should seek regime change is not a surprise: he is sworn to administer the policy of the country.  

And unless my information has been superceded, British Intel still stands by the yellowcake story.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 30, 2005, 06:32:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Just a small aside...

 

What Bush said was "British intellegence reports that Iraq tried to buy yellowcake.."

British intel did report that and AFAIK they still stand by that report.


Where he got it from is of little consequence. The point is he found it and used it to scare Americans and make his case for attacking Iraq. What does matter is if he knew it was bad info and used it anyway. That has been the accusation leveled but have nothing besides Wilson saying he told them so before hand and they used it anyway. Pretty good motive for discrediting him.

Only Tony Blair stands by that report. The IAEA and our own government acknowledge its false.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 30, 2005, 06:33:24 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
IIRC we have had this discussion b4 Nash, About WMD's, Bush was proven wrong, but allegations of him lieing about WMD's are not proven.

Lieing and being wrong are two different things.

Since (1998 I think) it was the policy of the USA to seek regime change in Iraq,  that the president should seek regime change is not a surprise: he is sworn to administer the policy of the country.  

And unless my information has been superceded, British Intel still stands by the yellowcake story.


And the government of Goondawragi believes that the earth is flat. Who cares?

The Bush administration knew it was false, and the Bush administration decided to put it in a freaking State of the Union address anyways?

Why was there no mention of Goondawragi?

More importantly (and again) - why do you think they did that?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Holden McGroin on July 30, 2005, 06:39:00 PM
Why don't you rag on British Intel?  It's your commonwealth.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 30, 2005, 06:45:24 PM
The Bush administration knew it was false, and the Bush administration decided to put it in the State of the Union address anyways.

Why do you think they did that?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Holden McGroin on July 30, 2005, 06:49:27 PM
Maybe the same reason British Intel stands by the story?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 30, 2005, 06:52:40 PM
Well the British intel thinks it's true. The Bush admin knew it wasn't.

Are you trying to say that the Bush admin thinks its true and knew it wasn't all at the same time?

I don't get your question, and you still haven't answered mine.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Holden McGroin on July 30, 2005, 06:58:57 PM
So by your logic then...British intellegence is lying.  After all, they think it's true, but they know it's false.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 30, 2005, 07:01:11 PM
No - that's not what I said at all.

Blair stands by it, but Bush knew it was false. He was practically begged not to say it.

But he said it anyways.

Why, Holden? Why do you think he did that?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Holden McGroin on July 30, 2005, 07:04:29 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
Blair stands by it, but Bush knew it was false.


So... then... Blair must be an idiot....  I mean to stand by something so obviously false...
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 30, 2005, 07:05:15 PM
Why do you think he did that?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Holden McGroin on July 30, 2005, 07:10:26 PM
because... Blair is lying to himself, but I do not have any information on what kind of deep seeded emotional problems he may have.. Probably stems from childhood.

I mean to believe such obvious falsehoods...
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 30, 2005, 07:14:27 PM
I have not seen British intelligence standying by this peice of info. Only Blair does as far as I know. And he more stands by the dossier it was contained in, rather than the actual info on yellow cake.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Holden McGroin on July 30, 2005, 07:16:38 PM
So Blair has no information on this and yet continues to stand by it? :eek:
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 30, 2005, 07:21:39 PM
You think that saying something and believing something are the same thing? And you think that about a politician? Are you kidding me?

I'm not asking about Blair. No, the same question I've asked a half dozen times is:

Why did the president take the time to repeat a claim he knew was false?

You pipe in all "just a small aside".... Like "Well, not a big deal here or anything, but he wasn't lying." Then you want to dance with me or something?

I really don't get some people. It is as if words were of no consequence anymore. As if support were of no consequence and by extension even action is of no consequence. Like you'll work it all out later in the mix or something.

I'm completely at a loss.

You brought it up, Holden. You said:

"What Bush said was "British intellegence reports that Iraq tried to buy yellowcake.."

Now what I'm asking is; why do you think that Bush said this when his own people were telling him that it simply wasn't true?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 30, 2005, 07:32:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So Blair has no information on this and yet continues to stand by it? :eek:


My understanding of it is that Blair says there is confirmation from another source (outside of the Dossier) but he wont reveal the source. Its really insignifigant what blair thinks though. Its about the administration knowing the info was bad or at least questionable enough to not go into the State of the Union and using it regardless. It shows a pattern.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Holden McGroin on July 30, 2005, 07:32:51 PM
Quote
"What Bush said was "British intellegence reports that Iraq tried to buy yellowcake.."


British Intellegence does report that and they stand by still  AFAIK and as far as Google takes me today.

Bush said "British Intel says" and British Intel does say that.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 30, 2005, 07:36:22 PM
Holy smokes.

Know what? Forget it.

I don't blame ya. Like you have any choice but to dodge.

 I wouldn't know what to say myself. Of course, in that case, I wouldn't be trying to say anything.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 30, 2005, 07:40:19 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
British Intellegence does report that and they stand by still  AFAIK and as far as Google takes me today.

Bush said "British Intel says" and British Intel does say that.


This is after of Course Wilson told him it was false.

In an interview on NBC, Wilson insisted his doubts about the purported Iraq-Niger connection reached the highest levels of government, including Vice President Dick Cheney's office.

In fact, he said, Cheney's office inquired about the purported Niger-Iraq link.

"The question was asked of the CIA by the office of the vice president. The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked, and that response was based upon my trip out there," Wilson said.

Yet nearly a year after he had returned and briefed CIA officials, the assertion that Saddam was trying to obtain uranium from Africa was included in Mr. Bush's State of the Union address.

The International Atomic Energy Agency told the United Nations in March — after the State of the Union — that the information about the uranium procurement efforts was based on forged documents.

A British parliamentary committee concluded Monday that Prime Minister Tony Blair's government mishandled intelligence material on Iraqi weapons — and said key questions remain about the allegations of an attempted uranium deal with Nigeria.

On Monday, the Foreign Affairs Committee said Blair "misrepresented" the status of a dossier published in January.

Blair had referred to it as "further intelligence," although he acknowledged later that it contained material from a graduate thesis published on the Internet.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Holden McGroin on July 30, 2005, 07:50:32 PM
I was not dodging.  A = B, B =C, therefore A = C

You have taken conflicting information and with that you have determined that Bush was not just wrong, but he lied.

I pulled out a certain verifiable statement from the SOTU and even though the statement is a verifiable truth, you claim it is a lie.  The truth is that Bush made a truthful claim that BI did say that.

You claim that because conflicting reports exist whether SH attempted to get yellowcake from Niger, this proves that Bush lied.

It does not prove that.  It proves there are conflicting reports.

If it proved that, Blair would have didtanced himself from the statement.

You have made a decision on what is the truth based on faulty intellegence.  You are guilty of the same mistake you critisize Bush for.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 30, 2005, 07:54:49 PM
Lets try again then.

Why do you think that Bush said this when his own people were telling him that it simply wasn't true?

Can you answer that or not?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Holden McGroin on July 30, 2005, 08:02:28 PM
Why he chose one conflicting report to believe over another?

Probably the same reason you choose to do the very same thing.  A preconceived notion.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 30, 2005, 08:30:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Why he chose one conflicting report to believe over another?

Probably the same reason you choose to do the very same thing.  A preconceived notion.


Holden you just answered the question.

He had TWO DIFFERING points of view on it, yet he included it into his SOTU speech anyway. Saying "according to American sources there is no evidence of Iraq attempting to purchase yellow cake" wouldnt have fit the speech  as well as " The british government has evidence..."

A clear example of "fixing" information.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Black Sheep on July 30, 2005, 09:16:57 PM
um WMD's or not - No president is gonna sit idly by after 9/11 (cept perhaps Clinton) and let that happen again. Iraq was and has been for over 2000 years a hotspot of chaos and perpetual war, both inside and out. So what's another war to them? Now its a 'If I were prez, I'd have done this or I'd have done that and I'd be the hero right now since I'd be right...' mentality. Noone in that position is gonna have an easy go at it. Or would they?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 30, 2005, 09:22:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Black Sheep
um WMD's or not - No president is gonna sit idly by after 9/11 (cept perhaps Clinton) and let that happen again. Iraq was and has been for over 2000 years a hotspot of chaos and perpetual war, both inside and out. So what's another war to them? Now its a 'If I were prez, I'd have done this or I'd have done that and I'd be the hero right now since I'd be right...' mentality. Noone in that position is gonna have an easy go at it. Or would they?


well thats just all hypothetical mess because Bush is President and another war is nothing to them but it is to us.

I would have thought everything would be backburner till Osama had his head on a pole, but thats just me.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Black Sheep on July 30, 2005, 09:30:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Raider179
well thats just all hypothetical mess because Bush is President and another war is nothing to them but it is to us.

I would have thought everything would be backburner till Osama had his head on a pole, but thats just me.

Me too, if a guy like that wasn't funded from Iraq...or Afghanistan...or wherever else.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Manedew on July 31, 2005, 12:44:45 AM
Osama is a Saudi prince.... you know, our allies? :rolleyes:

He was also trained and supplied by the CIA to fight the Russians in Astudmuffinanistan..... don't get confused.  I know Bush tries hard to confuse you ... but Iraq(Saddam) and Osama have no links, and never have.

________________________

Quote
Iraq was and has been for over 2000 years a hotspot of chaos and perpetual war, both inside and out.


Your history books only go back 2000 years? quite a bit longer than that really :D ... mankind is warlike, like most animals ... and Babylon is the frist great city.

____________________________
Bush seems to think things are soooo simple
I remember him being helpless under pressure as Governor of Texas.... he was  stuttering mess when south Texas was flooded with like 30" of rain in a couple of days.  He seemed shocked when he heard news America was under attack(I'm sure you've seen the tape?) .... same old weak draft dodger.

And what simplistic arrogance ...

The plan for the new American century
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

a blog about it
http://www.pnac.info/blog/archives/000012.html


Take up the White man's burden
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_2/kipling.html

_____________________________

I think it's a pathetic shame the way this president uses the 9/11 tradgedies for his neocon agenda's.

And he had to 'fix' things to get his way...... as this thread throughly points out.

You that defend Bush and Rove are splitting hairs over wording, like what the meaning of is, is ..... but this is over 5,000 dead Americans, and by some estimates a 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians....... a little diffrant than a halftruth about sex.

I'm no great fan of Clinton but at least he's not an arrogant fool.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Nash on July 31, 2005, 01:34:20 AM
At some point, folks are really gonna need to decide if Bush is even worth gettin' dragged over the coals for.

When nothing was known it was easy to parachute in - the mighty 101st Fighting Keyboardists to the rescue - and make any whoopeeed blustery bravado-like Freedom statement.

Now it just looks like they're doing the moonwalk.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Manedew on July 31, 2005, 05:04:26 AM
Quote
At some point, folks are really gonna need to decide if Bush is even worth gettin' dragged over the coals for.


well ....  I'd think the basis for this thread shows just how many coals you might be drag'd over... if you challenge big brother bush

I don't feel that bad for Plame herself... I feel bad for her freinds/contacts she might have had that may be in danger as we BS.

In case you don't understand ... such people are bigger 'patriots' than you or me.

But to 'Bushies' it was all means to an end to sacrifice these people for a spin/fix.... to a war they wanted loooong before 9/11
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Toad on July 31, 2005, 09:29:28 AM
My answer was unsatisfactory to you? My gosh, I am SO sorry.

I'm not predisposed to a "get Bush" position; I think that is why my answer was unsatisfactory to you.

I don't think he lied. I think he made a decision based on the information presented to him. If it can be shown he deliberately lied, I'll support impeachment.

And the Brit memos do not show that, despite Raider's fervent wet dreaming. If they did, Congress would already have started impeachment proceedings and the media would be in a feeding frenzy.

Quote
Originally posted by Nash


I indeed had no evidence that Iraq was not a threat. Just as I have no evidence that Sweden is not a threat.
[/b]

Yah, Iraq WAS just like Sweden! How did I miss THAT? I mean when the Swedes gassed one of their ethnic minorities, invaded Norway as a "lost province",  shot at US and Brit aircraft on almost a daily basis in the "no-fly zone", threw out UN WMD inspectors, defied the UN SC.... my gosh......... HOW did I miss all that?


Quote
The Bush admin lied about Iraq's attempt to buy uranium in Africa.


Holden seems to have covered this while I was away. No point in repeating it. That, Nash, is a choice you've made to believe one conflicting report over another. You are became teh Boosh.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Holden McGroin on July 31, 2005, 12:10:09 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Raider179
Holden you just answered the question.

He had TWO DIFFERING points of view on it, yet he included it into his SOTU speech anyway. Saying "according to American sources there is no evidence of Iraq attempting to purchase yellow cake" wouldnt have fit the speech  as well as " The british government has evidence..."

A clear example of "fixing" information.


The same as proving Bush had dead bang evidence that there was no threat by throwing away the British Intel report.  That fixes the information to fit that argument.

You cannot be consistant in arguement if you use the very same tactics you rail against.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 31, 2005, 03:12:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The same as proving Bush had dead bang evidence that there was no threat by throwing away the British Intel report.  That fixes the information to fit that argument.

You cannot be consistant in arguement if you use the very same tactics you rail against.


The consistency lies in the fact that he "used" the information instead of leaving it out of the speech. If it was questionable, i.e two different sources saying two different things, it should have been left out.  It was included because it fit into the other bunch of lies they told us.  I guess no one remembers George Tenet's Claim "Its a slam dunk", or Colin Powell at the U.N. with friggin drawings of alledged "Iraqi Mobile Labs".

Name 1 peice of Pre-war intel about WMD or Terrorism that turned out to be true....
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 31, 2005, 03:18:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Toad
And the Brit memos do not show that, despite Raider's fervent wet dreaming. If they did, Congress would already have started impeachment proceedings and the media would be in a feeding frenzy.

 


Sorry but your not gonna convince me that "fixed" meant he was placing the facts and intel correctly around the policy. That sounds as dumb as believing it. I see you answered none of the questions I posed and instead bypassed them. I don't blame you, they are tough to answer if you are defending the side you are on.  

Like I also said there has been a call for congressional investigation. And as for the media, there has been wide-spread speculation as to why the story hasn't gotten more attention. I did watch the 1st meeting on the downing memo on CSPAN and I gotta tell ya, those who were in the room, were pretty confident about what "fixed" meant.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on July 31, 2005, 03:37:16 PM
Lets just for the sake of argument assume Bush was only wrong and didnt lie. Perhaps you could point me to where he apologizes or even admits that the intel was faulty? His top advisor does but Bush (the one who actually spoke the BS) does not.  Why?
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Holden McGroin on July 31, 2005, 05:39:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Raider179
The consistency lies in the fact that he "used" the information instead of leaving it out of the speech...


I am not defending Bush or the decision to go to war.

I am pointing out that one cannot with consistancy criticise someone else for picking and choosing "facts" that bolster his position while practicing the same behavior while making that criticism.

If one were to criticize Bush for choosing the British Intellegence and throwing out other information he had, an honest argument cannot throw out the British Intellegence report simply because it contradicted the criticism of Bush.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Toad on July 31, 2005, 11:56:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Raider179
I see you answered none of the questions I posed and instead bypassed them.


I answered them in one of your other repetitive threads though. Don't see any real point in rehashing it with you here.

Nothing would change your mind and it's going to take more than that memo to change my mind. Asking Richard Deerlove exactly what he meant when he said that would be a huge step forward.

You are convinced it's "the smoking gun"; unfortunately no one in any position of power, either Congress or the media, appears to agree with you at this point.

If those in the Congress thought these memos were "it" they wouldn't be calling for an investigation, they'd be moving for impeachement.

If the media thought there was enough substance to this to make a huge brouhaha out of it and increase ratings they would.

Neither of those things have happened but we here on the BBS are blessed with your non-stop anti-Bush messages.

Thank goodness we have you to point out how many times he's been Texas; thank goodness for the proper perspective on Presidential work habits and travel in general that you have provided as background.

Thank goodness we have you to point out that Bush has handed out Ambassadorships as political plums to his supporters. Thank goodness we have you to put THAT situation in proper Presidential perspective too; it's not like the State Department hasn't been complaining about that practice for .... oh... the last 200 years or so.

Like I said, I feel blessed to receive your incredible insights.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Gunslinger on August 01, 2005, 12:43:55 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Manedew
Osama is a Saudi prince.... you know, our allies? :rolleyes:


OMG PLs tell me you are trolling right now.....Osama is not a prince Bin Ladens are just the 2nd richest family in the country.

Secondly don't sit there and Moore it up to be some big ole conspiracy between us and the Sauds.

Moore is one of 49 siblings.  49 brothers and sisters!  Did you know that.....I bet ya did and just seemed to forget because when you put it that way it doesn't sound so farenhypish
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Raider179 on August 07, 2005, 03:36:25 AM
Hehe someone sure is feeling the heat, could you say he even is feeling the pressure? Anyone see his little tirade on CNN? Looks like Novak can give it but he cant take it.

While discussing Rep. Katherine Harris's (R-FL) plan to run for a Senate seat against Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), Novak told Carville, "Just let me finish what I'm going to say, James, please. I know you hate to hear me." Carville said to host Ed Henry, describing Novak: "He's gotta show these right-wingers that he's got backbone, you know. The Wall Street Journal editorial page is watching you. Show 'em you're tough."

Novak responded: "Well, I think that's bull****, and I hate that." He then said to Henry, "Just let it go." As Henry asked Carville a question, Novak walked off the set.

After the segment ended, Henry apologized to viewers for Novak's leaving the set "a little early," adding: "I had told him in advance that we were going to ask him about the CIA leak case. He was not here for me to be able to ask him about that. Hopefully, we'll be able to ask him about that in the future."

Novak is a pos. I get the feeling though that we will oneday know the entire truth about this. Maybe as soon as indictments come down.
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: bj229r on September 05, 2006, 07:58:30 PM
snicker.:rofl
Title: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....
Post by: Meatwad on September 05, 2006, 08:48:45 PM
Jeez over a year old!