Right, and your the same kind of guy that then turns around 180-style and calls Bush a liar for getting us into the Iraq War even though all evidence has proven that the intelligence from numerous countries including the U.S. showed WMD's did exist. Bush was cleared from this, you ever state that one? You just prove my point once again.

Note: Here's the reason you liberals are taking it on the chin so much these days and going down with the ship...you still haven't figured out that the American people are on to you and your methods. By that I mean that for years liberals got away with having a double-standard, one for them and one for conservatives.

But like it or not that has been exposed so now when the typical liberal commentator/news reporter/professor, ect..., trots out the next in the never-ending line of charges against conservatives they really just throw another stone inside of their own glass house and the rest of America sees that.

someone broke the law now we ALL should be working hard to find out who it was....whats funny is in the original thread on this both the right and left agreed that the person should be punished but now that it might be Rove the Right is squirming...halarious. Shall I pull out some posts again from other threads?

from sections A & B
... and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States

from section C
... and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States

The key word in each of those is the "and".

LOL, Double standards!!! HAHAHAHA, youre bubba wheels right!? hahahaha, how's that freedom of religion thing coming and seperation of church and state. Double standards!!1hahahah

...and a blowjob isn't sex.

The CIA called her COVERT, that could be on the phone, it could be in the mail, it could simply be a ddossier. It doesnt have to be James Bond. The CIA used the term to call her covert, that is open and shut.

and its tough to take affirmative actioons to protect her identity when someone close to the cuff is telling reporters stuff to what!? not report!?

Damn Flasch, are you being obtuse on purpose, or are you just not following what you read?

Insisting that "someone broke the law" on this one is like the old McCarthy example of "say something wrong long enough & loud enough & people will believe it". What's next, going to convince the world that Rove was a member of HUAC?

learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally
discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any
individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing
that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that
the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

So by your own logic, should Ted Kennedy by investigated for murder? After all, there is no statute of limitations on murder, and the whole Chappiquiddic thing has never been investigated as one. So, since the law is paramount you have no problem with this?

After that, we can get a new investigation and criminal charges into Clinton's alleged rape of Juanita Broderick. You with us on that one, too?

Rove is a presidential advisor. He talks to media people on a daily basis. So, the fact that he happened to talk to a Washington-based Time Magazine reporter before the story was released doesn't mean a whole lot on its own. Your acting like this is the first time Rove ever talked with this reporter and the only possible subject could be outing this CIA agent.

Come on, Flasch. Take a look back at all the people involved with Bill's "sex scandles" and "Whitewater" and see how many just happened to be audited in the mid to late 90s. Check out Bush I's sandbagging of some ex-military people that tried to sabotage Desert Storm I. And both Reagan and Carter had numerous "questionable activities" involving making life very difficult for political opponents. You are being extremely nieve here. And, let's not forget, even Novak has stated the person that did the leaking asked him twice not to mention Plame's name. Novak could have very well mentioned Plame as a "government worker" instead of CIA agent and avoided this entire debacle.

This is not obvious. Again, if you read the actual law on this issue, there's a very good chance no crime was committed. No one has been able to show "the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States". Given her sloppy "cover job" in Boston, it seems a reach to make that claim. Plus, given she was not involved in any foreign missions at the time that used her cover, it's hard to state the outing of Plame "would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activitiesof the United States". Just the CIA stating she was classified as a "covert agent" is not enough for a violation of the act - otherwise the act would have simply stated "an agent classified as covert" and left it at that.

Flasch, I appreciate the way you view the world in the way you "wish" it would be. It's a very romantic take on life - and I agree that it would be nice if everyone would act with the utmost morality on every issue. But this is the real world and there's a lot of slimy people on both sides and to act "shocked and appauled" at every discretion that occurs is going to give you nothing but high blood pressure. If it can be shown that the leaker broke the law and he can be identified - then he should be punished accordingly. But if he isn't, I'm not going to lose any sleep over the fact that some operative (who's probably done much worse than this in the past) didn't get thrown in jail for playing politics - even if the morality on it was questionable.

to me this is obvious. Most on the right agreed 6 months ago, I would like to know why the change? Why are they now wiggling into "She was behind a desk" camps eventhough thats not applicable. To me this is a straightforward case of someone broke the law and should be punished, regardless of camp. When that Clinton Cronie took those papers I felt that he should be punished too....

I guess it upsets me that, unlike what BW says, Im an equal opportunity punisher. I dont even know the party for that rep. out in Cal. in all that trouble but whichever shouldnt matter. Do something wrong...get punished.

yes, now list some republican scandals and we'll be getting closer to agreeing on stuff.

Ill help Bush's ties to the Bin Laden's in Saudi Arabia....His ties to the Taliban when he needed some land they controlled...

maybe Im being too broad there but Im sure you know some republican scandals too since you even handed right? list some.

C'mon Flasch, I know you're smarter than this -- the word "and" in a legal sense is what is sometimes referred to as a "restricting word", meaning that more than one condition has to be met in order for a violation to occur. (There's another/better phrase used to describe this but I haven't had enough coffee yet to remember what it is. One of our legal eagles will be along at some point to fill in the blank I'm sure).

The disclosure alone isn't a violation without the presence of "affirmative measures to conceal".

how can you say there wasn't when the CIA called her "Covert".....what do you think that means? She wasn't getting people coffee :)

Flasch, I believe you're grossly underestimating how things work in the world of covert operations. No, it isn't like Bond, but it isn't quite as simple as you're trying to make it either. For once, trust me on something, I do understand this subject a little better than you're giving me credit for. I could explain that cryptic comment ... but then you know what I'd have to do next ;)

:)

...but then since it doesnt have to be as extreme as bond to be considered covert, then its even more likely that she was and easier to commit crime when exposing her....it simply couldve been the CIA designating her as covert...thats where the responsibility lies NOT in the white house when determining this.

You mean like Trent Lott's comments at Strom Thurmond's birthday party?

Or Newt Gingrich's 'ethical lapse' in taking the book money?

Or Richard Nixon's resigning before being impeached to spare the country from the ordeal? (Nixon wasn't conservative, but his being GOP was enough for some.)

Sorry, my point still stands. Republicans do something 'questionable' and get screwed to the wall for it, or in Nixon's case resign before things become a spectacle and get out of hand.

Nixon in particular, one of the most reviled figures in American political history. Compare his conduct after Watergate to what Clinton put the country through by insisting on fighting his impeachment.

Nixon again, after getting cheated out of the 1960 Presidential elections was originally going to contest the outcome (LBJ and Daily conspired to steal Illinois and Texas for JFK/LBJ along with mob help in West Virginia) but was told not to because it would set off a whole round of recounts and expose rampant voter fraud in other areas, some admittedly helping Republicans.

Compare his conduct to that of Gore, who wanted not only a recount in Florida but wanted the rules changed after the election to count only those counties in Florida Gore thought he might have won. Florida election law clearly stated that a recount must involve ALL counties, and the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the Florida Democratic Supreme Court from allowing this rule change after the fact. Every recount since has also shown Bush the clear winner in vote totals but this makes no difference to the left.

Absolutely! I had been doing some reading on the Andrew Johnson years and I would suspect many would be shocked as to how far from a representative Congress we had, esp. when one person (Thad Stevens) had more power than any single person in the US (including the President). Also, I get a kick out of those recently bringing up the 14th Amendment as if it was some holy writ. If they only knew as to how incredibly and mind-boggling dirty, corrupt and illegal that whole business was!

I guess the ends do justify the means, which is why I don't get riled about ANY details of inter-governmental actions - just a general contempt on the power they increasingly harbor.

Well I grossly disagree and feel that no matter who is in office the opposition tries to attack them, for many many different reasons that span a wide spectrum from job displacement to spectacle. Clinton's crap started over something that was not a crime...go figure that that is the example made. Im sure you'll jump to the perjury stuff, but that only came about as a result of a BJ. Both sides do scandalous stuff and neitrher side should be let off for it...including this time.

Close but not quite. The 1960 election, by the way, makes the 2000 seems non-controversal - except that much of its corruptness was behind the scenes and not played in the press.

In 1960, both JFK and Nixon were in the mob's pocket and there was an internal battle as to who to "support". JFK got the support because of the deal with Joe Kennedy to ease up (or call off) the pressure from DoJ on the mob hearings and trials. The mob absolutely got West Virginia in JFK's column and then Illinois become the deciding state. It was through Giancanna's "influence" with the County Board of Electors (with support from Daly) that "found" the 75,000 votes (I believe that was the number) enough to get JFK the electoral votes from Illinois. I don't think LBJ had much role in this, just like in Nov 1963 after 2 1/2 years of Joe Kennedy welshing on the deal that brought his son to power.

well we can open a can of worms here like Katherine HArris allowing absentee votes from military personnell that was expired beyond the deadline for post marking...so depending on what's important to you, you can find your ammo all over the florida election. Its a shame it ended up in Florida too cuz almost every tate has the errs in the voting, the way its done today.

Please read some of the tape transcripts of the Nixon White House. Nixon didn't resign because he wanted to save the country from the ordeal as you suggest. He only resigned when it became clear that Republicans would overwhelmingly vote for impeachment and removal from office because Nixon's crimes were so clear. He fought tooth and nail against impeachement and only threw in the towel when there was no chance of winning.

isnt it funny how BW's history lessons always turn out to be somewhat off or slanted....but I guarantee he will ignore the retorts...he always does.

I wouldn't expect you to know or understand the facts. He did not want any rules changed. The automatic recount is triggered for every county, but after that the recounts must be requested on a county by county basis. The fact is, they WERE doing recounts on a county by county basis, so he wasn't changing the rules, he was simply using them to his advantage.

And Bubba you also got the Florida recount law wrong. There was a statewide recount and also a hand recount in some counties, but that hand recount was in accordance with Florida law at the time.

Due to the narrow margin of the original vote count, Florida law mandated a statewide recount. In addition, the Gore campaign requested that the votes in three counties be recounted by hand. Florida state law (F.S. Ch. 102.166) at the time allowed the candidate to request a manual recount by protesting the results of at least three precincts. The county canvassing board then decides whether or not to recount (F.S. Ch. 102.166 Part 4) as well as the method of the recount in those three precincts. If the board discovers an error, they are then authorized to recount the ballots (F.S. Ch. 102.166 Part 5). The canvassing board did not discover any errors in the tabulation process in the initial mandated recount. The Bush campaign sued to prevent additional recounts on the basis that no errors were found in the tabulation method until subjective measures were applied in manual recounts. This case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 to stop the vote count, which allowed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to certify the election results. This allowed Florida's electoral votes to be cast for Bush, making him the winner. Seven of the nine Justices agreed that the lack of unified standards in counting votes violated the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection, but five agreed that there was insufficient time to impose a unified standard and that the recounts should therefore be stopped.

Where is Bubba when he gets shot down!! MIA

And one last kick to Bubba's sack.

Look up these Dems and find out how their ethical lapses/scandals got ignored.

Rostenkowski, Wright, Espy, Cisneros, McGreevey, Durbin, Clinton, Gore, Brown, Davis.

You are either shockingly misinformed or willingly blinded by your hatred.

Sorry to go off topic, but here's a collection of quotes from Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin. They further my belief that there is, sadly, nothing to this story:

* Luskin told the LA Times, "The folks in Fitzgerald's office have asked us not to talk about what Karl has had to say" — Really? Because that doesn't sound quite right. As MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell noted, "Prosecutors have absolutely no control over what witnesses say when they leave the grand jury room. Rove can tell us word-for-word what he said to the grand jury and would if he thought it would help him."

* Luskin said Rove had been assured by prosecutors that he is not a target of the investigation — That may or may not be true, but it hardly seems significant. I've never worked in the criminal justice system, but it doesn't seem like a stretch to me that maybe, just maybe, prosecutors wouldn't actually tell a target that he's a target.

* Luskin told the LAT, "It is certainly my understanding that Karl has testified absolutely truthfully about all his conversations about everybody that he has been asked about during that week" — The interesting thing about that quote is the first five words. It's Luskin's "understanding" that Rove is the salt of the earth, but Luskin wasn't actually in the room when Rove testified before the grand jury. Luskin, in other words, doesn't actually know anything beyond what Rove has told him.

* Luskin told Newsweek that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information." — That's not a terribly persuasive defense. The law makes it a crime to deliberately reveal the identity of an undercover CIA agent, as Plame was, but Luskin's comment to Newsweek emphasizes "knowingly." It might make it tough to prosecute Rove on an Intelligence Identities Protection Act violation, but if they're pursuing a perjury charge, this defense won't help.

* On a related note, Luskin has told reporters Rove never "identified" Plame. But as Digby noted in an excellent post, even this is open to some interpretation. "Did he not identify her by name? Or did he not identify her as a CIA operative? In other words, did Karl Rove call up Matt Cooper and say, 'Joe Wilson's wife is a CIA operative and she got him the job,' which technically means that he didn't "identify" her, but he sure put old Matt on the trail."

Sheesh - that post by barkeep is quite amusing. Here's a summary:

"Well, it looks like we might not be able to pin Rove as the leaker, and even if we could it seems that his comments didn't violate the IIPA. So, I wonder if we can get him for perjury. I mean, even if he didn't 'identify' Plame by name, maybe the tone of his voice and time of day he called helped Cooper determine that Plame was a CIA agent. That should be enough for perjury, right?"

as opposed to his anti-lawyer who says, "yeah he did it." again, to quote Arles, I think I'll wait for an unbiased source, thanks.

Well there are denials and then there are denials. There is enough specifics here that that if he did something his lawyer will have walked the line of "depends what the meaning of is is"

You weren't around at the time, were you? By the time Nixon resigned, Watergate had been a spectacle for at least a year and a half.

My position stands the same. IF Rove actually "outed" her, meaning that the fact that she worked for the CIA wasn't common knowledge, then he should be punished. If it was widely known then there really was no harm done. I'm hoping the facts come out to bring this more clearly to light.

Are you, however, completely OK with the practice of attempting to undermine one's credibility by making accusations regarding the profession of one's wife?

certinaly the motivation behind it is shameful but I repsect Glen's answer...as opposed to Jim's or Arles, who seem on one hand to allow anything that attacks anyone non-republican and on the other hand refuses to acknowledge any disparraging evidence if it didn't come from an administration official.

Glad you brought this one up. More partisan politics by the democrats. Military personel aboard ship and some others on military installations overseas followed procedure with their absentee ballots and they were forwarded to the proper polling places.

Democrats then found a technicallity that the absentee ballots had to have 'proper postmarking,' in effect nullifying servicemen's ballots aboard ship and overseas because those ballots were not sent thru the regular post office. All the hypocritical howling from the democrats about others being denied the 'right to vote' like felons and they themselves attempted to deny voting to active service men and women because of the postal procedure.

All Harris did was the same that all before her did without comment, allowed the military votes to count. Wasn't an issue before because the absentee votes were not enough to influence to election.

BW, Im done with you. You ignored everyone else pointdly showing you how wrong you are and jump in to snipe with inaccurate garbage that you only vomit out in order to try and get people to buy in. At least some of the people on the right have minds to think for themselves and some of them even leave the door open that people might've done wrong. But you, simply regurgitate inaccuracies all over the place and then when corrected you ignore those points and continue on your path of darkness.

Well, if you need to create an issue to 'save face' and run for cover go right ahead. You're the only one not seeing these things as partisan politics. Everybody just brings in different facts and phrases it differently.

As for Buccaneer's correction on the JFK/Nixon election, he basically affirmed what I said was right with a couple of minor corrections I am more than willing to conceed to him because he sounds like he has studied the subject.

So what we really have here is you completely losing your argument and then attempting to blow up some minor points to make them sound like major corrections. Good luck putting that one over your other critics.

Well no, I'm not. IF this "outing" was done in a malicious manner, Rove, or whoever, should be dealt with harshly. IF pretty much anyone who knew anything in Washington knew she worked for the CIA, and Rove(or whoever) noted that while connecting the dots to a reporter, then nothing much has happened here. The maliciousness of this act is just as much in question as the seriousness of it.

Pot meet kettle...It has more to do with the fact that Im watching movies. If you havnt learned yet, while you are stuck in your ignorant, blinded, fanatical thoughts I am still here, consistent in my ways AND willing to listen to all, including those I disagree with, learn from corrections and agree with the opposition sometimes. I am open minded, try to respond to everyone and debate.

you snipe, and ignore corrections...it is your modus operandi and everyone, including your religious right wing mates think your a fool.

this may be the most abrasive Ive been but Im tired tonight and youre partisanship and most importantly, most importantly, the falsehoods you vomit out and then refuse to retract or correct have worn thin....tonight. Maybe tomrrow Ill be better at dealing with them, as Im sure you'll continue your unenlightened ways, as usual. Luckily most people here are educated enough to see through your lies, innuendo, and spin.

I respect this of you a great deal....except for allowing the WH to determine what or whom can be "outed". Thats the CIA's job, not the WH's.

Wait, this is a collection of quotes showing that the lawyer is parsing his words in a Clinton 'sexual relations', 'is' way. How does this go to show anything in the way of there being nothing to the story?

It's like Michael Jackson's lawyer saying, "It's my understanding that Michael had some young boys sleeping in his bed, but he never knowingly did anything with them that he would consider inappropriate."

It's almost impossible to have decent discussion here sometimes with some people, because you have to spend half of your time correcting factual errors that are everywhere. For instance, the Grand Jury is not looking into whether or not Plame was covert, they are looking into whether the leaker knew she was covert:
hxxp://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,581456,00.html

This recent story in the NYT goes further in discussing the obviousness of how she was covert:
hxxp://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/politics/05wilson.html?ei=5094&en=df481fba22d3d077&hp=&ex=1120536000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

Your prior posts have given me reason to think that you were a Christian. I apologize if that is incorrect.

Assuming Karl Rove is the one, that is obviously false witness because he told the FBI and the grand jury that he had nothing to do with the leak.

So, if it is Rove, you will be outraged, correct?

whether or not JonG is Christian is irrelevant. Being so is not what makes someone distatsteful.

Fair enough, good to hear.

Well, first off I wish I had a dollar for everytime someone uses that kettle/pot thing on me...almost always done when the user has run out of argument and feels the need to start name-calling.

Don't see where I have made one reference to Christian beliefs here, Biblical principles or any of the like. You I truly believe show your bigotry full tilt in using that as a reason to attack any and all arguments made by any Christian on any subject. Would be like finding out someone is gay and then attacking anything that person posted on any subject whatsoever because you dislike what the person is, not what he or she says.

So stick to your original plan, use the argument you can't refute as your excuse to duck and run. You show yourself as nothing but a bigot. Fanatical, even.

It doesn't matter if she was jockeying a desk at the time she got outed. If she was at any time in her career working covert ops, those people she dealt with get put at risk by her being outed for as long as they are alive. Is it clear now, or do we need to take the logic down to elementary school level for you?

Shorter BW: "Name calling is the last resort for those with no rational argument. You're a fanatical bigot."

Well, not to beat the dead horse, but I was just attempting to understand why the personal attacks came into play. And the fact that those personal attacks were then 'justified' by said attacker on the basis of previous posted beliefs by myself just bears out what I've said. Kinda like "I can no longer argue with you based on facts, so you are a complete (fill in the blank) and everybody else thinks so nah nah nah so I don't have to listen to you anymore." Genius.