Rove in Hot Water, But Will He Get Fired?
With further developments in the Valerie Plame/Karl Rove/Breach of National Security case, Karl Rove has got to be sweating. It has now been confirmed that Rove spoke with Time Magazine reporter Matt Cooper before columnist Robert Novak’s article was published disclosing Plame's secret identity.
To be considered a violation of the law, a disclosure by a government official must have been deliberate, the person doing it must have known that the CIA officer was a covert agent, and he or she must have known that the government was actively concealing the covert agent's identity. Its unclear whether Rove will be convicted of a crime. There are legal technicalities that could prevent that.
The official White House position is to not comment until the end of the investigation. But reporters have been eating the White House press secretary alive over this since White House officials previously commented on the story back when they were denying that Karl Rove had anything to do with it.
As Rove's lawyer explains in a Washington Post story:
For now, though, the question on everyone's mind is whether the President is going to have to follow through on his earlier statement in a June 10th, 2004 press conference.
So if Rove didn't actually leak her name but clearly leaked her identity, does the President have to fire him (in order to keep his word)? What do you think?
-- Posted by Sam Buffone
To be considered a violation of the law, a disclosure by a government official must have been deliberate, the person doing it must have known that the CIA officer was a covert agent, and he or she must have known that the government was actively concealing the covert agent's identity. Its unclear whether Rove will be convicted of a crime. There are legal technicalities that could prevent that.
The official White House position is to not comment until the end of the investigation. But reporters have been eating the White House press secretary alive over this since White House officials previously commented on the story back when they were denying that Karl Rove had anything to do with it.
As Rove's lawyer explains in a Washington Post story:
"'It puts Karl in a no-win position,' Luskin said. 'If he doesn't talk to [reporters], he subjects himself to criticisms like we're hearing from the Democrats on why he won't come forward and talk about his role. But if he does . . . he runs the risk of being accused of not cooperating with the investigation.' "
For now, though, the question on everyone's mind is whether the President is going to have to follow through on his earlier statement in a June 10th, 2004 press conference.
QUESTION: Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?
THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --
QUESTION: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.
So if Rove didn't actually leak her name but clearly leaked her identity, does the President have to fire him (in order to keep his word)? What do you think?
-- Posted by Sam Buffone
posted by Anonymous at 4:06 PM
80 Comments:
ROVE MUST GO
If a Mob Boss Says to a Hit Man, "Kill Jim Smith's Wife," Can He Claim He Didn't Order the Murder Because He Didn't Mention Her Name? Apparently, That's Karl Rove's Thinking.
What was Judith Miller Up To?
Speculation in dc about Judith Miller is that she may have participated in spreading the word about Plame.
Connecting the dots .....Classified State Dept report on Wilson and Bush's trip to Africa
By Ridge
While many have suspected that certain members of the senior White House staff were the ones who leaked the identity of Amb. Wilson's wife as an undercover CIA operative....the question that has always struck me was, "How did those staffers get access to that type of closely held information?" It would be in a classified State Dept. file on Amb. Wilson as well as at the CIA. Perhaps other agencies would also know it, but considering the nature or the information, ....it would not be laying around.
So how would thugs like Rove or Libby, etc... get a hold of it?
A hint was revealed on CNN's Inside Politics today.
Jul 11, 2005 -- 09:51:43 PM EST
"ISIKOFF: But the problem that people in the White House, Rove among them, may have is how did they know that Valerie Plame, or Wilson's wife worked at the CIA? What we do know is there was a classified State Department report that said this, that was taken by Secretary of State Powell with him on the
trip to Africa that President Bush was then on, and many senior White House aides were on.
That classified State Department report appears to have been -- or may well have been the source for the information that Rove and others were then dishing out to reporters. And if that's the case, there still may be -- we don't know yet, but there still may be an instance where classified information was provided to reporters. "
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/11/ip.01.html
-----------------
Right.
Amb. Wilson's NYTImes editorial is published July 6, 2003.
President Bush traveled to Senegal, South Africa, Botswana, Uganda, Nigeria, July 7-12, 2003. Sec Powell and other senior staff accompanied the President on that trip. If you are going to brief the President on secret information, do you do it in an African Hotel, a small US Embassy, or do you do it on Air Force One?
1) Were said staffers cleared to read or hear that report?
2) Were they cleared to disseminate the information in that classified report? If so, by whom?
US Attorney Fitzgerald has subpoenaed logs of *Air Force One* communications . Wonder if they cover the period of that trip?
So we now have motive, access to the information (either directly or indirectly from others in the room), and Fitzgerald is investigating opportunity. Who called who from Air Force One? Were they *ordered* to do so? What was said? Is Judy Miller one of those called? Rove (on his way to a vacation) called Cooper on July 11, 2003 . That is the time period of the African trip but I don't know if he was there or in Washington; however, he would be in communication with people on the plane.
Wonder who he talked to ? I'm sure the logs will tell.
So the dots are being connected. The behavior of the White House Press Corp today surprised me. For the first time, they showed a hint of backbone.
It's obvious McClellan, White House spokesman, either lied to the US public or was lied to by White House principals.
Bush proclaimed anyone leaking classified info would be fired. Rove is still on the public payroll.
The information in that report was classified since it named an undercover CIA agent. That information was made public by White House staffers to reporters, either purposely or inadvertently as part of a political hatchet job.
They were criminal or horribly incompetent in handling classified
information. Which do you choose?
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/11/215143/824
Precedent Shows why Rove's Security Clearance Must be Revoked Immediately
It is appalling that during an ongoing investigation, a White House adviser who has acknowledged helping leak classified information to the media still has access to the government's most secret information. That's right - Karl Rove still can peer into all the secret material he wants, maybe even to punish another honest opponent of the Bush administration. It's why critics are rightfully demanding that, short of firing Rove, President Bush must at least immediately revoke Rove's government security clearance. And if the past is any guide, that request has historical precedent.
As a brief review of the last decade of news shows, the government has quickly revoked the security clearance of lower-profile figures that Rove when they have become embroiled in allegations of leaking or mishandling classified/sensitive material:
SECURITY CLEARANCE REVOKED FOR ALLEGATIONS OF PASSING CLASSIFIED INFO TO MEDIA: "Mr. Maloof's Pentagon career was damaged in December 2001, when his security clearances were revoked. He was accused of having unauthorized contact with a foreign national, a woman he had met while traveling in the Republic of Georgia and eventually married. Mr. Maloof said he complied with all requirements to disclose the relationship. Several intelligence professionals say he came under scrutiny because of suspicions that he had leaked classified information in the past to the news media..." [NY Times, 4/28/04]
SECURITY CLEARANCE REVOKED FOR REVEALING CIA SECRETS TO MEDIA: "Richard Nuccio, a former State Department specialist on Guatemala whose top-secret security clearance was revoked last year for allegedly exposing CIA secrets" to the New York Times. [AP, 3/20/97]
SECURITY CLEARANCE REVOKED FOR MISUSE OF SECRET INFO: "[Former CIA Director] Deutch's intelligence clearances were revoked last year because he had violated security rules by keeping classified information on computers at his house." [NY Times, 2/6/00]
These past examples were very serious matters. That's why the government moved to revoke security clearances - and that's why Rove's clearance also need to be revoked. Clearly, these past examples are in the same league of seriousness as a top White House official leaking classified information to the media and compromising national security in order to punish a political opponent. That's why the exact same response is warranted. No person - even the President's top political guru - should be above the law, and above historical precedent in protecting America's national security.
http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=0BAEB792-BA3F-C214-D922343BE521FE52
PLAMEGATE
It's the Cover-Up
Now who's ridiculous? On October 1, 2003, during the "ongoing investigation" of
the Valerie Plame leak scandal, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said
it was a "ridiculous suggestion" that Rove was "involved in leaking classified
information." Following the recent revelations that Rove identified the
undercover CIA agent in an e-mail to a Time magazine reporter, McClellan refused
to answer any questions about Rove. NBC White House news correspondent David
Gregory exclaimed, "this is ridiculous" in response to McClellan's silence. The
leaking scandal, similar to Watergate before it, demonstrates that the cover-up
is sometimes worse than the crime.
WHITE HOUSE STONEWALL: McClellan noted 23 times yesterday that he could not
comment because there was an "ongoing investigation." But McClellan has
previously cited that same investigation and then gone on to answer the
questions as they pertained to Rove. For example, on October 1, 2003, he said,
"There's an investigation going on ... you brought up Karl's name. Let's be very
clear. I thought -- I said it was a ridiculous suggestion, I said it's simply
not true that he was involved in leaking classified information, and -- nor, did
he condone that kind of activity." Similarly, on October 10, 2003, McClellan
said, "I think it's important to keep in mind that this is an ongoing
investigation." But he then added with regard to a question about Rove's
involvement, "I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those
individuals assured me they were not involved in this."
MORE THAN A LEGAL MATTER, IT'S ABOUT CREDIBILITY: As the legal investigation
continues and the grand jury pores over evidence, any determination that an
individual has acted unlawfully is yet to be officially announced. What is clear
is that the White House has plenty of explaining to do about their own cover-up.
Yesterday, McClellan noted five times that it was the prosecutor's "preference"
that the White House not comment on the ongoing investigation, clearly
indicating that he could have answered the questions. Refusing to comment has
never been a problem for the White House before. As the Washington Post reports
today, "Asked about the matter on nine occasions over the years, Bush has said
he welcomed the investigation, called the name disclosure 'a very serious
matter,' and declared that the sooner investigators 'find out the truth, the
better, as far as I'm concerned.'" The fact that the White House seems unwilling
to even stand by bland assertions that the leak is a "serious matter" (which
McClellan did not say yesterday) or that the White House wants to find out the
"truth" (which also wasn't stated) indicates how this matter has become one of
credibility for the Bush White House. The inability to stand behind those
statements yields little confidence that Bush will hold to his pledge to fire
anybody who leaked the agent's name.
THE COVER-UP CONTINUES: McClellan only sunk the White House's credibility
further by choosing not to answer questions that he most certainly could have
and should have. As Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, "The lesson of history for
George Bush and Karl Rove is that the best way to help themselves is to bring
out all the facts, on their own, quickly." With so many outstanding questions
lingering about the leak case, the White House has turned to crafty word games
and carefully parsed statements to avoid any accountability on this issue. The
White House, in attempting to turn conventional wisdom on its head by engaging
in a cover-up rather than disclosing, is failing to learn from history and is
now repeating it. The Associated Press notes today, "Even if Rove didn't violate
the law, proof that he disclosed Plame's identity could damage his effectiveness
in public life and tarnish the president for tolerating it."
SOME UNANSWERED QUESTIONS: Even though the White House isn't answering, there
are still important questions to be asked. When President Bush and Chief of
Staff Andrew Card elevated Rove to his position of deputy chief of staff earlier
this year, did they know he had leaked this information? As Bush campaigned on
security and character last year, did he know of Rove's involvement? Has Bush or
Card never discussed the leak scandal with Rove, including the day the Cooper
e-mail was revealed?
www.progressreport.org
Finally, After Five Years, the Associated Press Gets a Headline Right About the White House: On Rove's Behalf, the White House Issued Denials, Which Have Now Fallen Apart
Rove's Lawyer: Time "Burned" Rove
by Armando
Tue Jul 12th, 2005 at 14:36:49 PDT
Update [2005-7-12 17:41:56 by Armando]: Title Changed, cuz article is ambiguous on what the "burning" meant. BTW, read the whole article, Luskin destroys a heap of GOP talking points, i.e., the nonsense about Rove not having named Plame.
I kid you not. The stories change by the hour for the GOP. Via TPM, Byron York:
The lawyer for top White House adviser Karl Rove says that Time reporter Matthew Cooper "burned" Rove after a conversation between the two men concerning former ambassador Joseph Wilson's fact-finding mission to Niger and the role Wilson's wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, played in arranging that trip. Nevertheless, attorney Robert Luskin says Rove long ago gave his permission for all reporters, including Cooper, to tell prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald about their conversations with Rove.
Got permission and "burned" him anyway? Maybe Cooper needed "double secret permission?" Or a permission slip from the UN?
The part that is really confusing is Ken Mehlman says Rove was doing his patriotic duty when he outed Plame's identity, as a covert CIA operative working on preventing the spread of WMD, to Cooper. So which is it fellas? Has the line failed already?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/12/173649/452
Rove's Lawyer "Declines to Say" Whether Rove Knew Plame was Covert
by Hunter
Tue Jul 12th, 2005 at 14:29:24 PDT
Well, that kicks things up another notch. Yesterday Atrios noted this New York Times story which strongly hints that Cooper decided to testify because Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, was declaring in the press that Cooper should feel free to testify about Rove, because Rove had nothing to hide -- so Cooper took him up on the offer, much to Luskin's apparent surprise.
Now Jesse Lee at The Stakeholder points everyone to this LA Times story which states:
Luskin declined to say whether Rove knew that Plame was a covert agent, even if he did not know her name, which analysts said was a crucial factor in determining whether the law was broken.
Now that's interesting. Luskin was more than willing to speak to reporters about other particulars of the case that he felt helped his client: he's said Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information", and that "Rove never identified Plame by name and never intended to reveal her identity."
But when asked that very simple, very central point -- whether or not Rove knew Plame was "covert" -- he suddenly declines to answer?
Basic rule of loudmouthed lawyering in high-profile cases: if you have something that helps your client, you make sure it's known. Luskin is only clamming up because he either (a) has made it a point not to ask his client the question, or (b) doesn't think the answer is in his client's interests.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/12/172924/674
hahahaha...the simple fact that ERIK was the first guy to respond to this (and that he commenced a giant ERIK SPAM afterwards) proves that the left is so afraid of Karl Rove that they'll do or try anything to get him fired.
If leftists like Erik bothered to read up on this issue, they'd know that Rove didn't reveal the name of anybody.
Karl Rove is to the Democrats and liberals like Erik what Michael Jordan was to all other NBA teams back in the 1990s. He just kicks so much a** that the opponents just can't compete.
Just because you got ROVED in November, doesn't mean you have to spam this thread, Erik.
By the way, if Rove must go for mentioning things about our intelligence services (aka national security) without mentioning actual names or details, perhaps many Democrats in the Senate must go as well- like John Kerry, who brought up privileged national security material during the hearings for John Bolton a few weeks back.
You're a 30%er who beleives that treasonous act is okay as long as a Republicans is involved. Keep listening to the right wing echo chamber so they can tell you what to say.
I see where you anonymous trolls are coming from now. Freepers. Hans the majority of the trolls on your site are hear for partisan political purposes and not to honestly debate anything at all. The troll who just said that John Kerry outed a CIA agaent during the Bolton hearings is info that was posted at the far right wing conspiracy nut website freerepublic. You can't see the difference between the two because you are a far right wing nut 30%er. Keep listening to the right wing echo chamber as it shows that your head is up your ass.
Read this and then everytime you hear a Republican pundit speak on the talking head shows see how many talking points you can connect to this RNC memo(probably from Rove himself) You will also see many of the 30%er's repeating these talking points here because they don't think for themselves and just repeat what they heard in the right wing echo chamber.
Exclusive: GOP talking points on Rove seek to discredit Wilson
Here we go with the "echo chamber" again.
I thought Democratic talking points were redundant, but then I met Erik.
This guy actually makes the Democratic Party look classy and moderate.
Hey Erik, if you believe in liberalism so much, why not just move to Canada, France, or Germany? They don't just talk about your far left ideology over in those places, they actually implement them. From what I see, you live in the northeast- moving to Canada wouldn't be expensive for you. In fact, the American dollar is worth more up in Canada, so you could actually make a gain out of it.
Why not? You know as much as I do that as long as the left continues to dominate the Democratic Party, the Dems are not going to make any political gains. The more you run your mouth about "right wing echo chambers" and the more you shill whenever anything about Republicans is brought up, the worse you make the left look. You have pushed countless people I know to supporting the GOP or at the very least ditching the Democrats, just by having me show them your diatribes.
Keep it up, but you're only defeating your own cause. You'd be better off in Canada.
Funny that polls don't back your claims since Bush's numbers are going down. The truth is actually causing his numbers to go down. So I'll continue doing what I'm. And since you don't like it, I consider what I'm doing a success.
actually the polls showed his numbers went up today.
pwnd
Before this post (#18) only FOUR of the SEVENTEEN posts were by someone other than erik. Stop spamming the thread erik, say what you want in ONE post, add links in that ONE post and let it go for someone else to comment on. Three pages of of non-stop erik is ridiculous.
I applaud Sam Buffone for attempting to keep a non-partisan tone to his post. Unlike erik, Sam did a good job of presenting the case as it has to be proven by the Justice department in order for Rove to be found guilty of anything. And again, until all of the facts come to light accusing Rove of treason is a bit out of place. This reminds me of the Republican hoopla over Clinton the first time they found out he was taking advantage of an intern, wait for the facts before convicting the man, doesn't matter what their political affiliation.
I think this whole mess needs further clarification, if Rove knew Plame was a covert agent then he should be canned and sent to jail, on the other hand if the only information he knew was that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent who approved his mission to Niger then he was not the one who disclosed her covert identity. Just because you know someone works at the CIA doesn't mean they're a covert agent, and its quite possible that Rove wasn't the leak of her covert status (if she even had one, which has yet to be proven). Who told Novak? Who talked to Miller? Like I said before, just because Rove was the person who talked to Cooper doesn't mean he talked to all three.
Wait until the facts come out and the investigation is over, and erik, if it turns out Rove knowingly leaked the identity of a covert agent then I'll pitch in and bring the marshmallows while he fries.
Following ads on blogs can be fun. Today, for instance, if you follow a Fire Rove ad on the sidebar of the TPM Cafe, you find that Rep. Louise Slaughter of NY is trying to take Karl Rove down (a tiny sliver of a district near Niagara Falls and Buffalo along the Canadian border). She actually has a related action on her campaign site. That's interesting.
erik needs a job
I thought wilsons' wife worked in the office at the CIA, That hardly makes her a colvert op. Hope no one leaks the names of the janitors that work at the cia offices.
From Erik:
Funny that polls don't back your claims since Bush's numbers are going down.
From CNN/USAToday/Gallup:
Bush approval rating June 29-30: 46%
Bush approval rating today: 49%
Incidentally, today's result is the highest number since May.
"Down" indeed, Erik.
"I thought wilsons' wife worked in the office at the CIA, That hardly makes her a colvert op. Hope no one leaks the names of the janitors that work at the cia offices."
If you listen to the right wing echo chamber you will learn nothing when repeating what you hear there. The following was written from Larry Johnson who were classmates in the CIA:
The Big Lie About Valerie Plame
By Larry Johnson
From: TPMCafe Special Guests
The misinformation being spread in the media about the Plame affair is alarming and damaging to the longterm security interests of the United States. Republicans' talking points are trying to savage Joe Wilson and, by implication, his wife, Valerie Plame as liars. That is the truly big lie.
For starters, Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak. Novak's column was not an isolated attack. It was in fact part of a coordinated, orchestrated smear that we now know includes at least Karl Rove.
Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.
I urge you to read the rest of the post.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340
The bounce came from the London bombings. If you want to beleive that Bush's numbers are going up go ahead, I'll stop laughing.
And Sean here is something that you need to munch on. The Big Lie About Valerie Plame. And Remember as the Grand Hypocrisy Party Parrots Message Points Written by Rove, IT WAS THE CIA WHO REQUESTED THE CULPRIT(S) WHO OUTED VALERIE PLAME BE FOUND AND PROSECUTED. Rove, Among Other White House Staffers, Are Continuing to Betray the National Interests of the United States of America.
GOP Says We Should Credit Rove for 'Having Guts' & Then Advocates 'Shooting' the Media
New York Rep. Peter King (R) is the latest example of how the modern-day Republican Paty is dominated by wild-eyed right-wing lunatics determined to hold onto power, no matter how indefensible their behavior is. On television and in newspapers, King is trying to make Karl Rove's treasonous leak of classified information into a positive for the White House, while once again resorting to making physically threatening statements about retribution.
As Atrios notes, on the right-wing cable show Scarborough Country, King said the media "who gave [Ambassador Joe Wilson] such a free ride...they're the ones to be shot." Right, we shouldn't thank Wilson for exposing the fact that the Iraq War, which has caused so many casualties, was based on lies. We should shoot reporters.
King went on to then say "maybe Karl Rove was not perfect [but] we live in an imperfect world, and I give him credit for having the guts." To out of touch hacks like King, people who sell out America's security, as long as they are Republican, should get "credit for having the guts" to compromise our national security as long as they are doing it to grind a political axe against somebody like Wilson who had the guts to tell the truth.
King followed up this disgusting screed with another one to the Washington Post. He told the paper that "Republicans should stop holding back and go on the offense: Fire enough bullets the other way until the Supreme Court [nomination] overtakes" the Rove story. Exactly: because there is absolutely no defense for Rove's behavior, Republicans are now admitting that all they can do is try to change the subject.
Let's not forget that all of these comments are once again laced with references to violence. That's a tactic the GOP has frighteningly resorted to more and more as its hold on power becomes increasingly tenuous.
E-mail or call Peter King - he's from the blue state of New York, and the blue town of New York City. Tell this no-talent, no-principle, unpatriotic freakshow to shut his mouth unless he has something serious to contribute, and unless he is willing to stand up like other ordinary Americans and say that compromising America's national security as Karl Rove did is unacceptable, no matter what party the perpetrator hails from.
Sources:
Atrios' post on Peter King: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_07_10_atrios_archive.html#112127618015717282
Transcript of King's comments on Scarborough Country:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8551822
GOP resorts to more and more violent language:
http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/04/gop-changing-tone-to-violence.html
King advocates "firing bullets" in the Washington Post:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002377281_rove13.html
E-mail or call Peter King:
http://peteking.house.gov/index.cfm?SectionID=3&ParentID=0&SectionTree=3&SectionTypeID=2
Silent Now, GOP Used to Talk Tough About Leaks
With Republicans and the White House now refusing to answer questions about what should be done now that we know Karl Rove was involved in leaking classified information, it is instructive to go back and look at their previous ideas about how they claimed to despise national security leaks.
WHITE HOUSE SAID THERE WILL BE NO TOLERANCE FOR ANY LEAKS: "The president does have very deep concerns about anything that would be inappropriately leaked that could in any way endanger America's ability to gather intelligence information, and even that could harm our ability to maintain sources and methods and anything that could interfere with America's ability to fight the war on terrorism." - White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 6/21/02
Source link: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/06/20/911.warning/
GEORGE H.W. BUSH CALLED LEAKERS 'TRAITORS': "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the names of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." - President George H.W. Bush, 4/26/99
Source link: http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/1999/bush_speech_042699.html
RUMSFELD SAID LEAKERS SHOULD BE JAILED: "[Leakers] are disgraceful. They're unprofessional. They're dangerous. They put people's lives at risk. I would also add that I think it's the obligation of people who find people leaking to tell responsible authorities because folks that do it and put people's lives at risk ought to be in jail." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 2/13/03
Source link: http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/transcripts/2003/feb/030213.gjelten.html
ASHCROFT SAID LEAKS DAMAGE NATIONAL SECURITY: "Leaks of classified information do substantial damage to the security interests of the nation.” - Attorney General John Ashcroft, 12/14/01, upon creating a task force to investigate government leaks
One simple question: where are these tough talkers now when it comes to Karl Rove?
Was Plame A Covert Agent?
How about this:
The CIA declined to discuss Plame's intelligence work, but an agency official disputed suggestions that she was a mere analyst whose public exposure would have little consequence. "If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral," the CIA official said, insisting on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation.
I guess that answers all the questions that you 30%er's need to know. Will you continue to beleive the right wing echo chamber?
Rove outed a covert CIA agent working on keeping WMD out of the hands of terrorists.
How many left wing blogs has Erik quoted already?
This is HILARIOUS coming from a guy who manically charges EVERYONE ELSE of being a part of an "echo chamber." Personally I think this whole thread epitomizes how Erik is living in his own real life echo chamber- where he hears only his own voice and no one else's. It's a shame that ignoramuses like Erik get to hide behind computer screens. There's a reason dolts like him are stuck behind such screens, spamming blogs like this one instead of doing productive things.
Now, for those of you who don't want to hear from echo chambers- and that includes blogs of both the right and the left, I present to you a mainstream media column that summarizes the whole Rove situation from a non-liberal perspective. There's 2 sides to every story, and while Erik tried to cover this side up, he will, in the end, be the same failure he has been on here for months. Here's the column:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/?id=110006955
Karl Rove, Whistleblower
He told the truth about Joe Wilson.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005 12:01 a.m.
Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying for Karl Rove's head over his role in exposing a case of CIA nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. On the contrary, we'd say the White House political guru deserves a prize--perhaps the next iteration of the "Truth-Telling" award that The Nation magazine bestowed upon Mr. Wilson before the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed him as a fraud.
For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real "whistleblower" in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He's the one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility. He's the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove.
Media chants aside, there's no evidence that Mr. Rove broke any laws in telling reporters that Ms. Plame may have played a role in her husband's selection for a 2002 mission to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking uranium ore in Niger. To be prosecuted under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Mr. Rove would had to have deliberately and maliciously exposed Ms. Plame knowing that she was an undercover agent and using information he'd obtained in an official capacity. But it appears Mr. Rove didn't even know Ms. Plame's name and had only heard about her work at Langley from other journalists.
On the "no underlying crime" point, moreover, no less than the New York Times and Washington Post now agree. So do the 36 major news organizations that filed a legal brief in March aimed at keeping Mr. Cooper and the New York Times's Judith Miller out of jail.
"While an investigation of the leak was justified, it is far from clear--at least on the public record--that a crime took place," the Post noted the other day. Granted the media have come a bit late to this understanding, and then only to protect their own, but the logic of their argument is that Mr. Rove did nothing wrong either.
The same can't be said for Mr. Wilson, who first "outed" himself as a CIA consultant in a melodramatic New York Times op-ed in July 2003. At the time he claimed to have thoroughly debunked the Iraq-Niger yellowcake uranium connection that President Bush had mentioned in his now famous "16 words" on the subject in that year's State of the Union address.
Mr. Wilson also vehemently denied it when columnist Robert Novak first reported that his wife had played a role in selecting him for the Niger mission. He promptly signed up as adviser to the Kerry campaign and was feted almost everywhere in the media, including repeat appearances on NBC's "Meet the Press" and a photo spread (with Valerie) in Vanity Fair.
But his day in the political sun was short-lived. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report last July cited the note that Ms. Plame had sent recommending her husband for the Niger mission. "Interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD [Counterproliferation Division] employee, suggested his name for the trip," said the report.
The same bipartisan report also pointed out that the forged documents Mr. Wilson claimed to have discredited hadn't even entered intelligence channels until eight months after his trip. And it said the CIA interpreted the information he provided in his debrief as mildly supportive of the suspicion that Iraq had been seeking uranium in Niger.
About the same time, another inquiry headed by Britain's Lord Butler delivered its own verdict on the 16 words: "We conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded."
In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know.
If there's any scandal at all here, it is that this entire episode has been allowed to waste so much government time and media attention, not to mention inspire a "special counsel" probe. The Bush Administration is also guilty on this count, since it went along with the appointment of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in an election year in order to punt the issue down the road. But now Mr. Fitzgerald has become an unguided missile, holding reporters in contempt for not disclosing their sources even as it becomes clearer all the time that no underlying crime was at issue.
As for the press corps, rather than calling for Mr. Rove to be fired, they ought to be grateful to him for telling the truth.
Party Over Country
In Fox News: Anti National Security, Oliver Willis links to a video of a Fox News commentary that says all the needs to be said about "conservatives" and REAL patriotism.
As you watch the video, keep in mind that:
1) In 1991, the acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Joe Wilson, sheltered 800 Americans at the embassy in Baghdad during Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.
2) His wife Valerie Plame was a CIA covert operative working to keep WMD out of the hands of terrorists.
Now, having watched the video, what have you realized about so-called "conservatives" and "patriotism" and maintaining a "strong defense"? Those are just words. Are they words to live by? Not if it gets in the way of the interests of The Party.
Take a lesson in logic, Erik:
The CIA declined to discuss Plame's intelligence work, but an agency official disputed suggestions that she was a mere analyst whose public exposure would have little consequence. "If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral," the CIA official said, insisting on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation.
I like how you use THAT of all things as "evidence" that she was somehow an undercover covert agent. You've just cited evidence that relies on a VERY faulty assumption- that just because one files a legal motion or charge, that what they are accusing that person of doing (or others of doing) indicates that the said person MUST be a criminal/covert/whatever you want to charge.
Terrible assumption. You really have to wonder how old Erik is. Given that he posts on this blog all day, I'd have to say he's probably a high school turbodork who has nothing better to do than to try to promote his "smoke weed man, peace to the world and damn those evil corporations!!!" faulty line of thinking to everyone else.
I think in this entire thread, Erik's cited real news sources about 3 times, while citing left wing echo chamber blogs about 45 times.
I'm glad we have "ECHO CHAMBER ERIK" here to entertain us with his hypocrisy.
From the Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal:
Karl Rove, Whistleblower
He told the truth about Joe Wilson.
The Right is seriously on the ropes here, people...this latest Op-Ed piece in the wingnut friendly Wall Street Journal is just so over-the-top, it's laughable. Go ahead, read it...I dare you! In fact, it's so bad I figured I'd compare it to the "Wilson/Rove Research & Talking Points" recently "outed" by Raw Story, just for kicks.
Let's begin:
1st Talking Point
"Once Again, Democrats Are Engaging In Blatant Partisan Attacks."
1st Paragraph of WSJ op/ed:
"Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying for Karl Rove's head over his role in exposing a case of CIA nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame."
...
2nd Talking Point
"Karl Rove Discouraged A Reporter From Writing A False Story Based On A False Premise."
2nd Paragraph of WSJ op/ed:
"For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real "whistleblower" in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He's the one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility."
...
3rd Talking Point
"The False Premise Was Joe Wilson's Allegation That The Vice President Sent Him To Niger"
2nd Paragraph, 2nd sentence of WSJ op/ed:
"He [Rove] is the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves."
...
And on, and on, and on...it's really hard to read through the whole neurotic piece which ends with this foul little morsel:
"As for the press corps, rather than calling for Mr. Rove to be fired, they ought to be grateful to him for telling the truth."
CONCLUSION: They've got NOTHING folks! Just more of the same dispirited, rehashed talking points lifted verbatim from some crusty fax - most likely assembled in the dead of night - itself based on horribly misconstrued "facts." They can't even be bothered to try to defend Rove anymore, with any real effort. They have now moved on to "blaming the victim" and ignoring the issue at hand, per usual. It's damage-control, nothing more.
So another anony is a confirmed right wing echo chamber parrot.
Day 3: What Did the President Know, and When Did He Know It?
ACTION ALERT: STAND AGAINST THE DEMOCRATIC LYNCHING OF KARL ROVE! SEND A LETTER OF SUPPORT TO AMERICA'S #1 SON!
erik lets go over those horrible 'talking points' and see how false they are:
--------
1st Talking Point
"Once Again, Democrats Are Engaging In Blatant Partisan Attacks."
1st Paragraph of WSJ op/ed:
"Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying for Karl Rove's head over his role in exposing a case of CIA nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame."
--------
The Democrats, the party who accused Republicans of jumping to conclusions during the Clinton affair are now doing the same thing with Rove. Miller and Novak STILL haven't disclosed their sources, who are they protecting (Miller specifically)? If its not Rove THAT's news and possibly the true culprit in this case. So hearing Democrats screaming on the floor of congress for Rove's head seems to qualify this first point.
--------
2nd Talking Point
"Karl Rove Discouraged A Reporter From Writing A False Story Based On A False Premise."
2nd Paragraph of WSJ op/ed:
"For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real "whistleblower" in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He's the one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility."
--------
If you read the report its clear thats exactly what Rove was doing, this wasn't an attack but rather a clarification.
--------
3rd Talking Point
"The False Premise Was Joe Wilson's Allegation That The Vice President Sent Him To Niger"
2nd Paragraph, 2nd sentence of WSJ op/ed:
"He [Rove] is the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves."
--------
The Senate declared this fact, so again this point is valid.
So, considering the three points are true why is this WSJ piece so 'neurotic'?
Also, at this point its the Press Corps and the Democrats who have nothing. Wait for the facts to come out and Miller's source before convicting someone.
His wife did suggest the trip.
Select Committee on Intelligence
7-7-04
chaired by 8 Dems and 9 Repub.
Or is that too Bi-Partisan for Erik?
A couple of comments. Erik I think you do need to try and post links instead of whole articles. Use the blockquote command((carot)blockquote (endcarot) (carot)/blockquote(endcarot) to diferentiate between what you are quoting and what are your ideas.
Also I think the facts do point to Plame being a covert op. The point of the Rove disclosure is to supposidly point out that it was Wilson's wife that sent Wilson to Niger. If she is not an undercover agent and merely a secretary then there are some pretty messed up dealings going on in the Pentagon that secretaries authorizing the spending of government money.
On reporting the incedent to the justice department for investigation. Saying this is a very good sign that Plame was undercover does not point to inocent until proven guilty. The CIA knows who is and is not undercover. They do not need the Justice Department to investigate this. If she was not undercover there would be no crime. The investigation is into who leaked the source. The question to be answered is not if Plame was undercover but who leaked her identity.
Disclamer: I am a Democrat. I do hate and respect Rove for how he consistently destroys democrats in elections. But this is an issue I think transcends partisan politics. Divulging the identity of an undercover CIA agent serves no public good and is a crime. If it was Dean or Clinton I would expect them to be prosecuted for this crime just as if Rove did it I expect him to be prosecuted.
Day 4: What Did the President Know and When Did He Know It?
Day 4: REVEAL YOURSELF, OR KARL ROVE WILL REVEAL YOURSELF FOR US!!!!
This one is for Erik:
Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:48 p.m. EDT
John Kerry Outed Undercover CIA Agent
Sen. John Kerry, who called for Karl Rove to be fired over allegations that he revealed the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame, outed a genuine undercover CIA agent just this past April - even after the Agency asked that his identity be kept secret.
Kerry blew the cover of CIA secret operative Fulton Armstrong during confirmation hearings for U.N. ambassador nominee John Bolton. Questioning Bolton, Kerry asked: "Did Otto Reich share his belief that Fulton Armstrong should be removed for his position?" - according to a transcript excerpted by the New York Times.
"The answer is yes," the top Democrat continued.
In his response to Kerry, Mr. Bolton did his best to maintain the agent's confidentiality, reverting to the Armstrong's pseudonym.
"As I said," he told Kerry, "I had lost confidence in Mr. Smith, and I conveyed that."
Two years earlier, Armstrong had been identified in news reports on his dispute with other officials over intelligence involving Cuba. But he was operating in a different capacity and his identity wasn't secret at the time.
"When the Bolton nomination resurrected the old accounts, however, the C.I.A. asked news organizations to withhold his name," the Times said.
Apparently the CIA directive wasn't good enough for Sen. Kerry - who outed Armstrong anyway and later defended the move by saying his Republican colleague, Senator Richard Lugar, had also mentioned the name.
And besides, said Kerry, the secret agent's name "had already been in the press."
.......oh the hypocrisy. Of course, I'm sure that Erik is a fair person, so he'll clearly join me in calling for John Kerry to resign if Karl Rove has to resign. After all, fair is fair.
Day 9: What does Judith Miller know and why won't she share it?
We have one source out of the three reporters in this story, two yet to be named and the special prosecutor telling us Rove isn't the subject of the investigation. Sounds to me like Miller is protecting the real culprit here, so why isn't the media covering that aspect of this story as well? Miller and Novak still have sources yet to be named, Roved covered both Miller and Cooper in his disclosure agreement a year ago so why won't she talk? Are we really to believe that Judith Miller is going to jail to protect Karl Rove? Also who is this non-partisan source Novak is talking about (non-partisan is his term)?
There is more here than meets the eye. I can't wait until all of the facts are out on this story.
Erik where are you? Since it now looks like Rove didn't do anything wrong you seem to have gotten very quiet. So are you going to go after the journalists that outed the agent with the same enthusiasm as you did Rove?
Anyone check Hillary Clinton's old office? Maybe it was in one of those 900 FBI files that were laying around.
Erik's just scared to speak now that I threatened that I would have Karl Rove reveal Erik's true identity.
Or it might have a little to do with the fact that his precious Democrats like John Kerry did the same thing- if not worse- than what Karl Rove apparently did.
Day 10: What does Judith Miller know and why won't she share it?
And since erik is no where to be found...
Day 5: Karl Rove not guilty... damn.
VOTE ALERT: GOP Supports National Security Leaks
The Senate just finished up voting on the Democratic amendment to crackdown on high government officials who leak classified information and compromise U.S. national security. Incredibly, the self-described "pro-national security" Republican Party voted down the legislation, apparently ignoring all of their previous claims to despise leaks. The GOP also voted down their own amendment, apparently realizing how ridiculous it really was. To see how your Senator voted, see the final roll call votes on both the Democratic and Republican amendments linked below (the links should be active in the next few minutes).
To understand how outrageous this is, re-read the text of the Democratic amendment. This is not an exaggeration: the GOP is now on record voting in support of preserving the security clearance of a "federal employee who discloses or has disclosed classified information, including the identity of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency." Unbelievable.
Sources:
Text of the Democratic amendment cracking down on those who leak classified info:
http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=16980C19-AC21-152C-9658C4116D13406B
Senate roll call vote on the Democratic amendment:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00188
Text of the bogus GOP amendment:
http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=17326780-A8E3-43D1-9BB65588200E3A94
Senate roll call vote on the bogus GOP amendment:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00187
Now we learn that Rove was one of Novak's two sources:
"On Thursday, a person who has been officially briefed on the matter said that Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser, had spoken about Ms. Wilson with Mr. Novak before Mr. Novak published a column on July 14, 2003, identifying the C.I.A. officer by her maiden name, Valerie Plame. Mr. Rove, the person said, told Mr. Novak he had heard much the same information, making him one of two sources Mr. Novak cited for his information."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/16/politics/16memo.html?ei=5094&en=73e6600ab118b6c9&hp=&ex=1121486400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
You 30%er's got to stop getting your news in the right wing echo chamber.
erik, read your own post and go play catchup. We've already been told by the AP that Novak told Rove about Wilson's wife, so that makes Novak Rove's source not the other way around, even your post makes that point:
"Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser, had spoken about Ms. Wilson with Mr. Novak before Mr. Novak published a column on July 14, 2003, identifying the C.I.A. officer by her maiden name, Valerie Plame. Mr. Rove, the person said, told Mr. Novak he had heard much the same information, making him one of two sources Mr. Novak cited for his information."
The above reads exactly as the AP reported, that Novak called Rove, told him about his information from his other, yet unnamed source, and Rove told him he heard the same thing. So Rove heard that information and when Cooper called him restated the information told to him by Novak... so at this point Novak is the leak not Rove.
That's called confirming a report. Rove is the source of Novak. Find out how journalism works and you could be dangerous. The Republicans are playing on people like you being ignorant about how sourcing works. You also need to beleive that this is how it occurred. In fact, here's what Novak said in his first interview that we know of just after he leaked Plame's name in print:
Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."
Not that any of this matters. Rove confirmed the identity of a CIA agent to Novak, he affirmatively outed that agent to TIME, and then he and the White House lied about it to the media and the American public for two years. But it is interesting to note that this new story from Rove's handlers totally contradicts what Novak himself said two years ago.
So who's lying - Novak or Rove?
You trust Karl Rove, who has consistently lied about the events, that it occurred this way? Just like a typical Republican you continue to find ways out for Rove. I thought you were going to fry him. Keep apologizing for Rove because you are a 30%er.
Rove outed a covert CIA NOC as revenge for Wilson's oped denouncing the claims of the Niger document and thus the foundation of the war in iraq which has absolutely nothing to do with Osama Bin Forgotten. Repeat that to yourself a few times and you will rid yourself of the propaganda that has brainwashed you in the right wing echo chamber. Just when I thought you were beginning to think for yourself they pulled you back in Sean. Quit beleiving the WH spin and the right wing echo chamber and start realizing that Rove committed treason and the Republican party and Bush admin are better off just cutting him loose before the cover up gets investigated.
What did Bush know and when did he know it?
erik you need to step back and gain perspective, you are far too focused on Rove to see what is developing. Rove DID NOT give the name of a CIA agent to anyone, so to take that Novak comment you just posted it appears Novak got Plame's name from his other, unnamed source, not Rove.
Strike one against your argument.
Furthermore, the special prosecutor in this case has already stated that Rove is not the target of the investigation, leading many to believe that the source Novak hasn't named and the one Miller is protecting are the focus of this investigation.
Strike two against your argument.
Now Joe Wilson has come out and admitted that his wife WAS NOT working in an undercover position at the CIA when she was 'outed' and it has been confirmed that Rove never knew her status or her name.
Strike three... you're out.
The fact that you can't see that there are three reporters in this story and three sources of which only ONE has been identified illustrates how hung up YOU are on Rove, not us. If you insist that you're the one being rational then I ask you how many times did you post articles and rants about sending Sandy Berger to jail when he got caught red handed stealing documents in his socks? Or how about when John Kerry outed a REAL undercover agent during the Bolton hearings?
No, I think you are obsessed with Rove, and your hatred for all things Bush has killed any objectivity you have. Of course I completely expect you to come back and tell us how much I love Bush because of what I just wrote, so this sort of pissing contest will get us no where. However, there is far more to this story than Rove's conversation to Cooper, and so far you haven't wanted to discuss any of them.
When you get done making that giant wooden cross you so desperately want to nail Rove to, perhaps you'd like to discuss why we should believe any report Wilson gave over the Niger intel when it was his wife who got him the job (that info was confirmed by the Senate)? The same woman who told him that the report that Saddam was trying to buy Yellowcake was "crazy" and had an apparent bias against Bush and the White House. Also, who is Miller protecting? It can't be Rove, so who is it? Also, if Rove didn't give Novak Plame's name, as Novak already confirmed, then who did?
When you're ready to discuss who the real leak is and the implications of Wilson's wife getting him the post to Niger let us know, but I have a feeling we shouldn't hold out breath.
... and now back to your regularly scheduled blog re-posts from erik.
Stop listening to the WH spin. I thought you were ready to fry Rove if he did it. Now you move the goal posts so you can weasel out of what you said previously. Typical 30%er. I've already shone you the RNC talking points that were distributed to Republicans the first day after Scotty got grilled(they were probably made up by Karl Rove himself). And you are repeating them verbatim from what you heard in the right wing echo chamber. Now through these new rnc talking points you are repeating you can excuse your past statements about Rove frying.
Exclusive: GOP talking points on Rove seek to discredit Wilson
So now that everyone knows where you get your info from please explain why you don't think for yourself? Now that we know the RNC, Rush, and Fox do your thinking for you, why do you repeat and not think? I love to hear how you will explain these talking points away. You will probably just ignore them at which point I will just continue to hammer and discredit you as usual. Thus you will eventually have to answer why you repeat instead of think.
Rove outed a covert CIA NOC as revenge for Wilson's oped denouncing the claims of the Niger document and thus the foundation of the war in iraq which has absolutely nothing to do with Osama Bin Forgotten. Repeat that to yourself a few times and you will rid yourself of the propaganda that has brainwashed you in the right wing echo chamber. Just when I thought you were beginning to think for yourself they pulled you back in Sean. Quit beleiving the WH spin and the right wing echo chamber and start realizing that Rove committed treason and the Republican party and Bush admin are better off just cutting him loose before the cover up gets investigated.
What did Bush know and when did he know it?
"sending Sandy Berger to jail when he got caught red handed stealing documents in his socks?"
This is an RNC talking point repepated over and over again. He never put documents in socks. This was made up to make it look as if he were stealing them. This is why he received no jail time. The papers were copies that were taken with his own papers through his stupidity. But again you prove your ignorance of reality by listening to the right wing echo chamber.
As far as what John Kerry did, it is done all the time in committee. If fact here's a story you might quite enjoy about a vote that took place on Thursday:
On defensive about Rove, GOP shoots self in the foot
According to sources on Capitol Hill, Republicans are proposing a counter-amendment to the Democrats upcoming legislation that cracks down on those who leak classified government information. The GOP's amendment, while designed to politicize the issue, hilariously ends up boomeranging and embarrassing their own Senators.
The text of the GOP amendment inserts the following language into the Democrats legislation:
"...or any federal officeholder who makes reference to a classified Federal Bureau of Investigation report on the floor of the United States Senate, or any federal officeholder that makes a statement based on a FBI agent¹s comments which is used as propaganda by terrorist organizations thereby putting our servicemen and women at risk, shall not be permitted access to such information or to hold a security clearance for access to such information."
The amendment is clearly targeted at Senator Dick Durbin's (D) controversial comments about Guantanamo Bay, in which he cited FBI files. But what's funny is that, according to one top Democrat's office, the amendment also strips Orin Hatch of his security clearance because he has in the past referenced judicial nominees' FBI files.
In fact, every Senator who participated in an Armed Services Committee hearing on Gitmo yesterday might lose their clearance because the FBI agents comments were discussed. Those Republicans who participated in that hearing were Sens. John Warner (R-VA), John McCain (R-AZ), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), and John Cornyn (R-TX). Will they vote to strip themselves of their own security clearance?
Of course not, which shows how pathetically juvenile and stupid the GOP's response is. Instead of joining with Democrats to protect America's national security, Republicans are pushing a transparent ploy to allow Karl Rove, a national security threat, to continue working in the White House, and to continue to have access to sensitive material that he could once again use to grind an axe against the GOP's political opponents. It's not going to work - Americans don't like national security risks in the White House, no matter how many GOP hacks in the Senate try to change the subject. Stay tuned.
Frist amendment fails, only 33 votes in favor, which includes some Dems.
Reid amendment fails, 53-44. I don't think a single person broke ranks.
So Republicans vote against "No federal employee who discloses or has disclosed classified information, including the identity of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, to a person not authorized to receive such information shall be entitled to hold a security clearance for access to such information."
It's okay to out a CIA NOC as long as you are Republican.
If Rove were a Democrat, he'd be shot
erik, so its ok to out a REAL covert agent as long as its done in committee? Come on! Furthermore, I've already proven those original 'talking points' were a fact not some made up spin, so go back and reread what I originally posted. BTW this is an interesting quote coming from you:
"Thus you will eventually have to answer why you repeat instead of think."
Considering the shear volume of blog-posts you've repeated here at RTV aren't you afraid of discrediting yourself with such statements? As for my sources let see how many times I've quoted Fox News or the RNC... uh none! If you reread what I posted I made reference to the AP, the US Senate and Wilson's own book. Of course if thats not enough for you then how about USAToday?
The fact remains that after all of you're BS Plame did not qualify as a covert agent under this law and furthermore Rove did not break the law. Now the question remains why all the hoopla over this woman if she did in fact return to the states 6 years earlier (which puts her outside of that 5 year range for covert status under the law) and, as has been discovered by the Senate, was the individual responsible for Wilson going to Niger after calling the initial report about Saddam 'crazy'?
Now lets see those sources shall we:
* AP
* US Senate
* Joseph Wilson
* USA Today
Yup, all four of them are members of the right-wing echo chamber, you got me erik.
You're a 30%er Sean. Follow the Republicans no matter what evidence smacks you in the face. Keep moving those goal posts. Cooper revealed on MTP today that Rove leaked that Plame was in the CIA and worked on WMD. Was also his first source. Rove lied about this previously and yet you continue to parrot right wing echo chamber talking points that appeared in an rnc memo. But don't let facts get in the way of your Republcians spin. Everyone now knows that your mind is useless much like Terri Schiavo's was.
Day 7: What Did The President Know and When Did He Know It?
This is now the most meaningful question of the investigation. Since the President will not keep his word and fire Rove for leaking Wilson's wife to Cooper.
Cooper contradicts Rove spin
The official party line is that Cooper called Rove to talk about welfare reform in a bait-and-switch gambit that quickly evolved into Wilson and Plame. Then, the GOP spinsters say, Rove merely "confirmed" that Wilson's wife was CIA.
Cooper blows that b.s. out of the water, as he reveals what really transpired.
I told the grand jurors that I was curious about Wilson when I called Karl Rove on Friday, July 11...... But then, I recall, she said something like, "Hang on," and I was transferred to him. I recall saying something like, "I'm writing about Wilson," before he interjected. "Don't get too far out on Wilson," he told me. I started taking notes on my computer, and while an e-mail I sent moments after the call has been leaked, my notes have not been [...]
As for Wilson's wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak's column or Googled her, I can't recall which. Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the "agency"--by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred that he obviously meant the CIA and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that she worked on "WMD" (the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction) issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife.
Rove never once indicated to me that she had any kind of covert status. I told the grand jury something else about my conversation with Rove. Although it's not reflected in my notes or subsequent e-mails, I have a distinct memory of Rove ending the call by saying, "I've already said too much." This could have meant he was worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting or something else. I don't know, but that sign-off has been in my memory for two years.
A surprising line of questioning had to do with, of all things, welfare reform. The prosecutor asked if I had ever called Mr. Rove about the topic of welfare reform. Just the day before my grand jury testimony Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, had told journalists that when I telephoned Rove that July, it was about welfare reform and that I suddenly switched topics to the Wilson matter. After my grand jury appearance, I did go back and review my e-mails from that week, and it seems as if I was, at the beginning of the week, hoping to publish an article in TIME on lessons of the 1996 welfare-reform law, but the article got put aside, as often happens when news overtakes story plans. My welfare-reform story ran as a short item two months later, and I was asked about it extensively. To me this suggested that Rove may have testified that we had talked about welfare reform, and indeed earlier in the week, I may have left a message with his office asking if I could talk to him about welfare reform. But I can't find any record of talking about it with him on July 11, and I don't recall doing so.
So now we know the White House lied about Scooter Libby too
That would be Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Scott McClellan lied about him as well when he said Scooter had nothing to do with the leak. Gosh that's a pattern of lies now. One might almost call it a conspiracy of lies.
Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide was among the sources for a Time magazine reporter's story about the identity of a CIA officer, the reporter said Sunday.
Until last week, the White House had insisted for nearly two years that vice presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby and presidential adviser Karl Rove were not involved in the leaks of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity.
Yet Sean and the other 30%er still beleive the WH spin. Unfortunately for Sean and the 30%er and fortunately for us some Republicans are starting to bash Karl Rove.
It's not good news for the White House when Republicans start bashing Karl, even anonymously.
One former Republican official who retains close ties to the White House said there could be a political cost for keeping Mr. Rove on board even if he is found to have done nothing illegal. "If Karl survives, he does so at the president's political expense," said the former official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to be seen as disloyal to Mr. Rove.
"George W. Bush came into office promising two tenets that are in competition now: straight talk, non-parsing - and loyalty," the former official said. "He's either got to choose loyalty or straight talk. He can't do both."....
"The Bush operating style is, you be loyal to me, I'll be loyal back to you - and I'm not going to let my critics think they can prompt a lot of resignations just by pointing out that we said we'd fire them," said Professor Stephen Walt, academic dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.
But, Mr. Walt said: "With Bush now being a lame duck, you start to wonder whether or not he'll have the same clout. At what point does the R.N.C. start weighing in and saying, 'Gee, we know he can't run again. But do we want to be saddled with a scandal that will make it harder for us to win in 2008?' "
Didn't I tell you to repeat this statement to yourself Sean so you could stop the brainwashing of your insane mind. That's why you are getting ridiculed and laughed at by everyone here for continually moving the goal posts and being a 30%er. Repeat this phrase to stop the propapganda that has brainwashed you:
Rove outed a covert CIA NOC as revenge for Wilson's oped denouncing the claims of the Niger document and thus the foundation of the war in iraq which has absolutely nothing to do with Osama Bin Forgotten. Quit beleiving the WH spin and the right wing echo chamber and start realizing that Rove committed treason and the Republican party and Bush admin are better off just cutting him loose before the cover up gets investigated.
What did Bush know and when did he know it?
erik, the only person being laughed at on this blog is you. Care to point to the right-wing echo chamber embodied by my sources?
1) AP
2) Joseph Wilson
3) US Senate
4) USA Today
I've already posted the reason why Rove committed no crime and even Cooper testimony confirms that Rove did not mention any covert status or Plame's name thereby confirming the evidence we already know. The individual who initially told Novak about Plame (was not Rove) is the leak. Besides, why do you keep insisting that Plame was a covert agent when even her husband proved she was not at the time of her outing?
BTW that Shiavo comment was uncalled for, but what can we expect from you erik, thats been your M.O. since you've slithered onto this board, name calling and personal attacks.
Notice how Erik has morphed from TRYING to understand people's rebuttals to actually completely ignoring them?
Erik has become a mindless fool. Before, he used to post his articles from liberal blogs, and people responded with mainstream media and Internet articles contradicting the things he said, or proving that his own side was committing hypocrisy. He then tried to respond, but showed his sheer lack of intelligence in totally missing the point. Now, he doesn't even do that- he just pretends that people's fact-checks of his propaganda do not exist.
I've posted a number of columns in this thread alone that contradict everything Erik says, and furthermore show his very own Democrats to be committing the same "Crimes" they accuse Rove of committing.
And what does Erik do? As a typical ignorant partisan, he ignores them.
Erik lives in his own reality.
Their is no point arguing with a 30%er who blindly follows the republcians and repeats what he heard in the right wing echo chamber and who continues to move the goal posts everytime new revelations surface that prove Karl Rove is liar.
From Newsweek:
Why the Leak Probe Matters
"Was Plame "fair game," as Karl Rove told Chris Matthews? George H.W. Bush didn't think so. Even after Wilson embarrassed the president publicly, Bush Sr. wrote Wilson—whom he had appointed to various ambassadorial posts—to congratulate him for his service and sympathize with him over the outing of his wife. The old man was head of the CIA in the 1970s and knows the consequences of blowing the identities of covert operatives."
For anyone interested in knowing the truth read the whole article and ignore the likes of Sean and the 30%er's who blindly follow the republcians and repeat the right wing echo chamber.
Rove outed a covert CIA NOC as revenge for Wilson's oped denouncing the claims of the Niger document and thus the foundation of the war in iraq which has absolutely nothing to do with Osama Bin Forgotten. The CIA intiated this investigation because they knew that someone in the WH(Karl Rove) outed one of their own. Karl Rove is a national security threat who would use classified information to attack anyone he deems an enemy. Karl Rove considers Americans his enemies if they don't beleive that he should have ultimate power and control.
What did Bush know and when did he know it?
I wonder what you guys will do when the indictments are handed down probably the same as Ken Melhman responded today on MTP. He claimed to have respect and will wait for Fitzgferald's findingsd. Russert then asked will you respect and not attack whatever conclusions he comes too? Mehlman then started to stutter as he knew he was caught the usual republicans bullshit. Mehlman answered...I'll just post the transcripts.
MR. MEHLMAN: Well, you're making an assumption that it's classified information. In fact, what the story on Friday, you pointed out, shows, and what earlier stories have shown is that this information at least came to Mr. Rove from journalists, not from a classified source. But, again, here we are speculating. We should have confidence. I have tremendous confidence in Pat Fitzgerald. He's a career prosecutor. He's a tough prosecutor. That's why he was put in charge of this case, because people want to get to the bottom of it. And that's why it is so outrageous that these partisan smears would occur this past week. The question is this: Do the people that are smearing Karl Rove not have confidence in Mr. Fitzgerald? Do they not think, in fact, he's going to get to the bottom of it? Or would they rather, than getting to the facts, try to make political gain?
MR. RUSSERT: You say you have tremendous confidence in Pat Fitzgerald.
MR. MEHLMAN: I do.
MR. RUSSERT: If, in fact, he indicts White House officials, will you accept that indictment and not fight it?
MR. MEHLMAN: First of all, I'm the chairman of the Republican National Committee. I'm not an attorney for anybody. The fact is I look forward to his getting to the bottom of this. I can't speak for...
MR. RUSSERT: But if he indicts White House officials...
MR. MEHLMAN: Right.
MR. RUSSERT: ...will you pledge today, because you have tremendous confidence in him, that you will not criticize his decision?
MR. MEHLMAN: Again, I'm not going to speculate. I have tremendous confidence in him. I look to getting to the bottom of this. Whatever he does, I can assure you, people are going to follow and are going to look to abide by.
MR. PODESTA: Just say "yes," Ken.
MR. MEHLMAN: But I think it would be inappropriate for me as the RNC chairman to say what legal strategy people may take in the future.
MR. RUSSERT: But if you have tremendous confidence in him, then you will respect and accept his decision.
MR. MEHLMAN: I look forward to hearing what he has to say, and I intend to respect what he has to say, but, again, I'm not going to speculate on what he might do.
So we can rest assured that Ken Mehlman and Sean and the rest of the anony 30%er's that post here will critisize whatever Fitzgerald says should he indict WH officials. That's why you don't argue with mindless fools because they will only move the goal posts to accomodate any new findings.
"...if anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer work in this administration." --Scott McClellan, October 6, 2003
More Bush double speak. 1 - violated the law beyond preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt, or perhaps some higher standard?
2 - be taken care off. Does that mean a consulting job for the Carlyle Group or Halliburton; perhaps a cushy government pension or a platinum parachute, administrative leave without pay, perhaps selling some property at 10 time its market value? We may never know. Casper Weinberger and Oliver North and Kathryn Harris were all taken care of weren’t they.
Like OJ, they will not be able to convict Rove at the criminal level but what about a civil level. Perhaps Common Cause, the Taxpayer’s Union, and other groups should file a taxpayer lawsuit alleging abuse, misuse, and malfeasance in office of government paid for information. Mr. And Mrs. Wilson should also join a suit to get a conviction under the Hatch Act (engaging in political activities) or Federal Privacy Act laws. It is a crime to violate any citizen’s Privacy by divulging information to groups or individuals without a need to know or without the appropriate clearances. Whenever any agency . . . fails to comply with any other provision of this section, or any rule promulgated thereunder, in such a way as to have an adverse effect on an individual [the individual may bring a civil action]." 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)(D).
I do not believe that Mr. Rove was a Federal Government employee at the time he talked to Matt Cooper. He was a political consultant. I assume he did not have the need to know in his official capacity and he did not have the clearance to know about Mr. Wilson’s wife. Whoever provided this information to Mr. Rove should also be investigated. This might be a clue about why Rove was made Chief of Staff of the United States (COSTUS). It appears that he and others working with him and perhaps the RNC had access to information protected by the Privacy Act and National Security regulations while Rove was still a political operative. And were his staff, office, and travel expenses paid for by government funds before he became COSTUS. Now that he is COSUS, it might be easy for his lawyer to confuse whether the actions were taken before or after he was appointed. Can NBC get a copy of the oath of Office of COSTUS and post it to their web site? Since he is now Chief of Staff, does the Hatch Act allow him to be involved in political activities? No matter what the final outcome Rove, the COSTUS, will COST US in the long run. Costs including deaths in Iraq, high gas prices, expenses for lawsuits, and the slow weakening of Freedom of the Press. Which is already on life support. Don’t let them pull the plug on you.
As Daniel Schorr explained in his comments on NPR’s ALL Things Considered on 7/13/05:
...the real issue in the Karl Rove controversy is not a leak, but a war, and how America was misled into that war.
Moreover, the real question is not whether Mr. Rove or anyone at the White House has violated any specific laws; they have betrayed our trust by not answering truthfully when the question of Roves’ involvement was originally posed to them. They could have explained then that Rove made a reference to Mr. Wilson’s wife but did not violate any laws. If it walks like a cover-up, talks like a cover-up, and smells like a cover-up, the American public will assume it is a cover-up.
Finally, a similar civil suit might be in line for the Vice-President. What does his oath of office say? It appears that he may also have violated provisions of the Hatch Act and Privacy Act laws. He has assumed powers well beyond his official duties as VP and had access to information protected by the above laws without the official need to know. Please post his Oath and Position Description.
erik if you think that USA Today, the AP, the US Senate and Joseph Wilson are part of what you call the right-wing echo chamber then you are a fool.
Keep your head in the sand or whatever ever dark crevice it currently resides. You continue to call me a 30%er and an individual who mumbles RNC talking points each time I quote a main stream media source, while you sir continue to re-post liberal blog rantings. You have not once disprove anything I have written and continue to idiotically call Plame a covert agent in the face of evidence from her OWN HUSBAND. Plame was not covert, Rove committed no crime and as such is not the target of this investigation. Now, if those FACTS are too hard for you to comprehend then that would explain why every time I bring them up with confirmation from main stream media outlets you decide to resort to petty name calling and avoid the debate.
So, in the interest of making sure each and every one of you and your delusional hate-filled brethren understand the facts in this case lets walk through them on more time:
1) Plame and her husband Wilson had come back from overseas assignments in 1997, started a family and at which time Plame got a desk job as an analyst at the agency. This source is Wilson himself, written about in his book and again backed up in the story I linked to from USA Today.
2) According to the US Senate, which held hearings on this subject, Wilson's wife, not VP Cheney, recommended him to the position to oversee the intelligence from Niger.
3) According to sources Plame described the report that Saddam was attempting to buy Yellowcake 'crazy' and was known to not like the current administration.
4) Wilson came back from Niger and wrote an op-ed piece in the NYT stating that he found no evidence that Saddam ever bought any yellowcake from that country (NOTE: Wilson never fully answered the intelligence question whether Saddam even tried to buy Yellowcake, only that he didn't. This sort of oversight can best be explained with this analogy... You have a family with children, and you know of a registered serial child molester living a few miles away from you, he's been on house arrest but reports from he local elementary school state he was seen around the school property. the police investigate, but when the report comes back the police tell the parents that there was no evidence that this man molested any of the kids at that school. Would that make you feel any better, do you think the cops did their job in this case? The question wasn't if he molested a kid (or bought yellowcake in the case of Saddam), but if a man restricted from such actions was currently in violation of his parole (just like Saddam's sanctions from the UN)).
5) After Wilson's op-ed ran (why the CIA allowed that is another question, and who at the CIA checked Wilson's facts before that went public) Robert Novak heard, from a yet unnamed source, that Wilson's wife was the person who got him the job to Niger. Novak calls the WH for information and talks to Rove, whom is then told by Novak what he heard and Rove agrees that he's heard similar things. Not once did Rove tell Novak a name.
6) Cooper calls the WH to talk to Rove on what he calls in an email "double super secret background" (the man must be an Animal House fan). The conversation started out on Welfare and ended up with a brief discussion on Wilson, in which Rove warned Cooper not to get to far out ahead with his story that the VP sent Wilson to Niger. Rove knew that George Tennet, the Director of the CIA, was already working on a statement about Wilson's trip that was coincidentally released later that same day. Based on the information already confirmed to Rove by Novak he told Cooper that Wilson was sent to Niger by his wife whom apparently worked at the CIA. No name given, only what turned out to be fact (remember the Senate findings).
7) Novak is first to publish the story 'outing' Plame as Wilson's husband and a CIA employee in 1993 (NOTE: from the time Wilson and Plame returned to the US to the time Novak published his story over 5 years have passed... thats important).
8) Cooper, running a different angle believes the WH is after Wilson for his report and prints his story after Novak using Rove as his source.
9) Miller, who is currently in jail for protecting her source, apparently never wrote about this subject.
10) A call for an investigation on who the leak of Plame's name begins with the premise that it violated a 1982 law prohibiting the outing of covert agents. This law was passed to protect CIA agents whom the government was actively working to keep their identity hidden, and had a five year statute, meaning the agent in question was protected for five years AFTER they finished undercover duties overseas. Remember Wilson's book? Novak publish his story outing Plame AFTER that five year period had expired, therefore she isn't covered by this law.
11) At the start of the investigation 18 months ago Rove signed an agreement with the prosecutor verbatim, stating that he releases all parties he ever spoke to about this matter from any confidentiality agreements (that includes Cooper's double super secret background). Cooper and Miller both worried that such a blanket agreement was coerced and not the intention of Rove willingly, of course this bit of news isn't shared with Rove until a month ago. Cooper and Miller stall for nearly 18 months, citing first amendment rights (NOTE: the WH did nothing to stall this investigation, it was the reporters).
12) Rove testifies in front of the Grand Jury and is later told that he is NOT the focus of this investigation. Meanwhile Cooper's lawyer calls Rove's lawyer and explains his client' trepidation about the release form Rove signed nearly 18 months ago. Rove's lawyer is said to be surprised that another lawyer would be questioning such a binding agreement but agrees to another agreement clarifying yet again that Cooper is released from all confidentiality agreements. Cooper and Time release his documents and emails on the subject which tell us Rove was the person he spoke to at the WH regarding this matter. Furthermore Cooper's notes and the email followup sent to his boss confirm that Rove NEVER mentioned Plame's name and only gave a warning to Cooper about getting out ahead of everyone else on this story with what he knew to be false information.
13) Miller, still protecting her source goes to jail, Novak's other source has yet to be named and Rove is still not the focus of the investigation.
So, with all of that let analyze the requirements in which Rove would have had to meet in order to be convicted under the 1982 law.
1) First, and most importantly, Plame would have had to been an undercover agent for the CIA within five years prior of Novak's article. As explained above thats not true, but lets continue.
2) Rove would have had to have found out about the covert agent from classified information, he did not, it was Novak that told Rove.
3) Rove would have had to know that Plame was a covert agent at the time he divulged the information. He clearly did not know, and as point one reiterates, she was not.
Now, considering all of this information comes from the sources I already cited (AP, Senate reports, USA Today and Wilson himself) I find it hard to believe erik is still telling us that these are RNC talking points. Of course, I'm sure erik will completely ignore this post entirely and continue to post blog entries and call me a right-wing echo chamber looney.
Oh and BTW erik, I'm not moving the goal posts, because it appears Rove was never on the field to begin with. The investigation isn't going after him, and we still don't know who the real leak was. I will however back up a previous post. If the investigation finds that a law was broken, and if the culprit is in the White House (even if its Bush himself) I will still want to see them held accountable.
sorry everyone for such a long post, but I assure you it is all mine, not some re-post from a blog.
The verdicts are in:
President: Not Guilty
VP: Not Guilty
Rove(COSTUS): Not Guilty
RNC: Not Guilty
David Corn: Not Guilty (But he remains a person of interest)
Myself and every other American out here (a.k.a. suckers) who let the government get us into another GD Vietnam: Guilty
Guilty
Guilty
We evidently learned nothing from watching the kill counts from Vietnam every night while growing up. Too busy enjoying our protected lives here in Pleasantville to protest the war or demand accountability from those in power. But they are all honorable men. We couldn’t even force our representatives in Washington stand up and actually declare WAR or stop any funding related to military action. Please stop referring to what has happened in Iraq twice as a war. We pillage and plunder on behalf of our Dey.
May our children have mercy on our souls.
By the way, it isn't being reported that Cooper's wife is a democratic strategist and that she is working with Hillary on her '08 presidential campaign.
Correction on the last post. She worked on Bill Clinton's presidential campaing bid, and she is working on Hillary's senate bid.
Top Aides Reportedly Set Sights on Wilson
Rove and Cheney chief of staff were intent on discrediting CIA agent's husband, prosecutors have been told.
By Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten, Times Staff Writers
WASHINGTON — Top aides to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were intensely focused on discrediting former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV in the days after he wrote an op-ed article for the New York Times suggesting the administration manipulated intelligence to justify going to war in Iraq, federal investigators have been told.
Prosecutors investigating whether administration officials illegally leaked the identity of Wilson's wife, a CIA officer who had worked undercover, have been told that Bush's top political strategist, Karl Rove, and Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, were especially intent on undercutting Wilson's credibility, according to people familiar with the inquiry.
Although lower-level White House staffers typically handle most contacts with the media, Rove and Libby began personally communicating with reporters about Wilson, prosecutors were told.
A source directly familiar with information provided to prosecutors said Rove's interest was so strong that it prompted questions in the White House. When asked at one point why he was pursuing the diplomat so aggressively, Rove reportedly responded: "He's a Democrat." Rove then cited Wilson's campaign donations, which leaned toward Democrats, the person familiar with the case said.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-leak18jul18,0,4779848.story?coll=la-home-headlines
I urge you al to go read the whole article. Because he's a Democrat. That's Rove's idea for anyone that opposes the administration. They are Democrats. Very haunting words. Joe Wilson, the man that was given a medal during the first gulf war by George HW Bush, exposed the adminsitration as lying about forged niger documents, is a Democrat and thus his wife must be attacked. Karl Rove still lied to the president or the president lied to the american public. Either way someone will be held accountable.
Right and wrong
In the days after the discovery of Deep Throat's identity, many people noted how Watergate would be impossible in today's political climate -- where partisanship trumps the truth inside a GOP machine so deeply entrenched in this country's governance structure that it controls the White House, House, Senate, Supreme Court, most appelate courts, and the media. And where the GOP can do no wrong, regardless of the ethical or criminal transgression.
It is quite instructive and shocking, even with this administration, that the outing of a CIA agent, her front company, and god knows how many other agents and operations, is met with a collective shrug from wingnut circles. While a blow job gave them the vapors, a genuine breach of national security gives them no pause, gives them no reason to abandon "the architect". Political power trumps everything -- even the safety of our nation.
Given what we know of the case, we know that Rove violated his non-disclose agreement. We know that Rove acted unethically, without regard to the consequences of his actions. Whether a crime has been committed remains to be seen, but shouldn't matter a whit.
The technical letter of the law isn't a shield from accountability, an antidote to endangering national security, an amnesiac from the lies McClellan -- and by extension Bush and Co -- spewed to the American people two years ago.
Right-thinking people -- even Republicans -- should look at these unfolding events with horror. I would certainly feel betrayed and angry if a Democratic administration thusly endangered national security and undermined our non-proliferation efforts. I wouldn't make apologies for it. I wouldn't rationalize it, attempt to distract with irrelevant, tangential points. I would demand accountability.
But to modern-day Republicans and their apologists, they can do no wrong. No Republican's action is worthy of scorn or censure. They are perfect. Flawless. Immune to error. Godlike.
How someone could be reduced to that level is beyond me. Republicans have now sent notice that they place allegiance to party and power above their allegiance to the United States of America. To them, the elephant flies above the Stars and Stripes.
The Democratic majorities were undone in large part to the endemic corruption that afflicted the long-entrenched Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. It's the curse of any party that rules for too long, the insidious creep of hubris, corruption, and sense of entitlement which we, as a species, can't seem to avoid.
The GOP is now facing those very same pressures, and exposing that corruption and hubris in spectacular fashion to the American public. A party that believes it holds a "permanent majority" is under no pressure to behave ethically and work for the common good above all else. Their missteps have been big. Their crimes increasingly brazen.
And their own partisans, their foot soldiers, refuse to hold their party accountable. Rather, they join in the rationalizations and embolden their leaders to stay the course. No crime against the nation is bad enough for these guys. No ethical violations too distasteful. They applaud and cheer from the sidelines, as though their nation and their party is somehow well served by such shenanigans. Neither are.
I don't care about the Republican Party. They can continue to rot from within. But I do care about this country and so do a lot of folks who suddenly don't like what they're seeing. The GOP can continue to pretend that rot smells like roses, even as the stench nauseates the rest of us.
That disconnect can only help quicken their eventual exit. The big question, however, is how much damage they will inflict on the nation's national security before they're gone.
What Did the President Know and When Did He Know It?
Bob Schieffer wants to know and reasonably points out all the President needed to do was walk across the hall and ask. Did he? What did Karl say? What does the President know and when did he know it?
He also calls the White House liars. Not exactly in those words . . .
Ex-CIA Agent (and Republican) BLASTS Bush White House
Crooks and Liars has a good audio of a radio interview with Larry Johnson, a one-time CIA agent (under the first President Bush, mostly, I believe) who worked with Valerie Plame. He cuts through the lies, details the damage to our nation's security and is basically gobsmacked that any American -- much less any Republican like himself -- could defend Bush, Rove et al for outing a covert CIA agent. As Johnson points out, this is the first time in our HISTORY that a political operative at the White House has purposefully outed a covert CIA agent.
Well, Erik. Stand by your convictions. Where is your condemnation when Sandy Berger, National Security Advisor to Clinton, was stuffing his pants and socks with classified documents?
Here is a reminder for you:
"The national security adviser under former President Bill Clinton's (search) said he regrets the way he handled classified terrorism documents pertaining to the Sept. 11 commission. Berger told reporters he was not guilty of criminal wrongdoing.
"Last year, when I was in the Archives reviewing documents, I made an honest mistake. It's one that I deeply regret," Berger said late Tuesday. "I dealt with this issue in October 2003 fully and completely. Everything that I have done all along in this process has been for the purpose of aiding and supporting the work of the 9/11 commission, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply, absolutely wrong."
Hmmm. I bet you were silent and gave Sandy Berger the benefit of doubt.
"Where is your condemnation when Sandy Berger, National Security Advisor to Clinton, was stuffing his pants and socks with classified documents?"
Proof that you listen to the right wing echo chamber. He didn't stuff them in his socks or underwear. They were copies taken with his other papers.
As far as the 30%er tag I have given Sean and the gang. Sorry. It looks like you guys are in an even smaller minority. You will now be called the 17%er's that blindly follow the Republicans.
Republicans not buying Rove spin
Rove-themed ABC News poll
Should Karl Rove Be Fired If He Leaked Classified Information?
Yes No
All 75% 15%
Republicans 71 17
Independents 74 17
Democrats 83 12
And then this:
Skepticism about the administration's cooperation has jumped. As the initial investigation began in September 2003, nearly half the public, 47 percent, believed the White House was fully cooperating. That fell to 39 percent a few weeks later, and it's lower still, 25 percent, in this new ABC News poll.
This view is highly partisan; barely over a tenth of Democrats and just a quarter of independents think the White House is fully cooperating. That grows to 47 percent of Republicans -- much higher, but still under half in the president's own party. And doubt about the administration's cooperation has grown as much among Republicans -- by 22 points since September 2003 -- as it has among others.
These results mean two things -- first of all, the efforts by the GOP and their allies to muddy the waters and turn this into a partisan issue are failing.
Second, this illustrates a growing disconnect between the GOP elite and the rest of the country. While the party leadership, conservative punditry and wingnutophere place the elephant above the stars and stripes, it's clear that the vast majority of the Americans still place their country first. And that thankfully goes for the Republican rank and file.
Most people -- Red, Blue, or Independent -- still know the difference between right and wrong, and aren't willing to let partisanship cloud their judgment.
Gee that poll is amazing, what depth and insight. Wait, I've got one, how about this poll?
Should erik be shot if he helped Osama Bin Laden plan the 9/11 attacks?
Now thats not true, but hell, who wouldn't say yes to that poll?
Now, why don't you stop your ridiculous banter and pony up the evidence that points to Plame being a qualified covert agent under the 1982 law? Oh wait, that evidence doesn't exist and her husband even admitted she wasn't covert at the time of her outing? Well damn, there goes your burn Rove at the steak party.
Stick to the facts and not unsubstantiated claims and foolishly asked polls.
How funny Erik. Take Karl Rove's name and replace it with any other name and you would get the same result. Of course Rove should be fired if he leaked the identity of a CIA secret agent not to metion he should go to jail. The question should be the following:
Do you believe Karl Rove leaked the identity of an undercover CIA agent?
The majority of Americans would respond with who is Karl Rove, and most would respond with I don't know yet, I will make my mind up after the investigation is complete and the facts are on the table. Then the far left wingers will respond, torch him.
Lets do another poll.
Who is the minority pary? 100% democrats; 0% Republicans
Who can't win an election? 100% Democrats; 0% Republicans
Who doesn't run on issues? 100% Democrats; 0% Republicans
Does Erik cheer on the terrorists so that Bush will look bad? 100% yes; 0% no
Do democrats want Rove to be guilty so that Bush will look bad because they have nothing else that appeals to the American people? 100% yes; 0% no
Reuters: Supreme Court timing moved up to protect Rove
Reuters reports a Supreme Court nomination could happen as early as today...probably Fifth Circuit Judge Edith Clement. And, the accelerated timing is because of Rove:
Sources said the timing of an announcement had been moved up in part to deflect attention away from a CIA leak controversy that has engulfed Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove.
A Republican strategist with close to the White House described Clement as the leading candidate. "She's pretty untouchable," he said. "Plus, it helps take Rove off the front pages for a week."
No question, Rove really does run the White House...and, they really do think the press can only cover one story at a time.
Trying to recall a time when a Presidency was so beholden to one staff person. I don't think it has ever happened.
I have a friend looking for a job. If you know of any openings, please let me know.
Karl Rove
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
OBJECTIVE
To contribute communication skills in a permanent position as a hatchetman in a rapidly growing political machine.
EXPERIENCE
Deputy White House Chief of Staff, 2004-present
Crafted political strategy and security policy for major industrialized nation
Smeared opposition leaders, members of media through misinformation campaigns
Kept outing of CIA spy scandal out of the media until after reelection campaign
Senior Advisor to the President, 2001-2004
Deceived large diverse nation into war on false pretenses
Managed personal conflicts of interest, including holding shares in Enron, Boeing, General Electric, and Pfizer while crafting policies and meeting with industry lobbyists
Used 9/11 to cement Republican gains in the House and take over the Senate in 2002
Chief Strategist to Governor George W. Bush, 1999-2001
Orchestrated smear campaign against Al Gore, including manufacturing the appearance of Gore being a 'serial liar'
Concocted moderate media image of candidate as 'compassionate conservative' and 'uniter not divider'
Crafted successful whisper campaign against John McCain in South Carolina to win Presidential nomination for George Bush, including questioning McCain's mental health and implying McCain fathered an illegitimate black child
Organized emergency response of Republican politicians and supporters to go to Florida to assist the campaign's position during recount
Oversaw the incitement of riots and the intimidation of vote counters by flying angry Congressional staffers to Florida
Bush-Quayle Texas Campaign, 1992
Sabotaged Bush loyalist and state campaign manager Robert Mosbacher in internal feud over direct mail contracts
Fired for leaking information to journalist Bob Novak
Political Consultant, 1981-1999
In 1986 Texas Governor campaign against Democrat Mark White, Rove bugged own office and blamed it on his opponent
Successfully painted political opponent, respected family court judge, and winner of Champion for Children Award Mark Kennedy as pedophile through sophisticated whisper campaigns
In 1994 Bush defeat of Anne Richards, organized push polls - "Texan voters began receiving calls from "pollsters" asking questions such as: "Would you be more or less likely to vote for Governor Richards if you knew her staff is dominated by lesbians?"
Bush Babysitter, 1977
During elder Bush's political organizing, hired to run a Texas PAC
"It was really to baby-sit Bush back when Bush was drinking".
Chair, College Republicans, 1973-1974
Defeated opponent for College Republican Chairmanship by challenging the credentials of every single Edgeworth delegate to the 1973 College Republican convention and putting forward a rival delegation
Taught Nixonian dirty tricks to leaders around the country: "A report was published in the Washington Post on August 10, 1973, titled "[Republican party] Probes Official as Teacher of Tricks", gave an account, based on tape recordings, of how Rove and a colleague had been touring the country giving young Republicans political combat training, in which they recalled their feats of derring-do, such as Rove's Chicago heist at the Dixon headquarters."
Executive Director, College Republicans 1972-1973
Ran College Republican organization during Nixon reelection campaign
Supported the troops by not serving in Vietnam
Intern, 1970
Hired by Nixon dirty tricks artist Donald Segretti
Stole 1000 pieces of stationary of Democratic candidate Alan Dixon, a Democrat running for state treasurer in Illinois, distributed to Chicago's red-light district and soup kitchens with message inscribed: "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing", ruined Dixon reception
SKILLS
Multichannel rumor spreading (internet, phone, direct mail, broadcast media)
Not getting caught
Smears and whisper campaigns
QUOTE:
A Republican strategist with close to the White House described Clement as the leading candidate. "She's pretty untouchable," he said. "Plus, it helps take Rove off the front pages for a week."
-------
Lets examine this hard evidence further shall we? "Plus, it helps take Rove off the front pages for a week." Does that sound like this source is admitting the President nominated someone to the US Supreme Court to protect Rove, or is this more of an aside? Read it again in context... He's describing the nominee and then enters an aside stating that this news will take Rove off the front page for a week. This is not an admission or an outright leak of information pointing to some coordinated effort on the part of the White House, this is some staffer's comment and opinion and for Reuters to print this as some concrete source for such a ridiculous assertion is just another example of how far the media has fallen.
If a White House Staffer came out and said, "Oh thank goodness its a clear day." The media would have a field day with headlines like "White House concerned about Environment but does nothing!" The media really needs a reality check and get back to reporting news instead of making it up.
BTW erik, I noticed you've completely ignored our posts. Typical.
(NOTE: erik will now enter into some inane argument that because he considers me a '30%er' I'm not worthy of debate and my facts are in fact lies and the reiteration of the right-wing echo chamber)
It got quiet in here all of the sudden.
The ‘evil genius’....did Karl Rove’s mother commit suicide because she couldn't live with the knowledge that she had created evil? Or did little Karl become evil because he was raised with the instability of a suicidal mother?
Or, was his real father's rejection of them both the real cause? We'll probably never know...
Post a Comment
<< Home