OT - Karl Rove Named as CIA Agent Leak

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

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.

What do you expect? Your arguments are poorly supported, and when confronted with the facts you refuse to acknowledge your errors. There's not a whole lot left for people to say to you.

Frankly, you'd be a lot more interesting if you actually learned from your mistakes, rather than trusting shady sources of information and believing in your own infallibility.

It shouldn't be a surprise people respond to you as they do. Try taking a step back, put yourself in the shoes of those who are responding negatively to you, and try to figure out whether or not there is any merit to their position. Then, please, grow accordingly.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

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.

I would bet most on here would disagree...would you care to do a poll on it? You wont like the outcome.

I dont proclaim that your religion is a bad thing...in essence it can be good, except when it causes you to be blinded and intolerant. It does effect your stances outside of religious thread...

If youre not a sniper Id like you to go back to all the historical references you made which were subsequently contradicted and either cite where/why you stated your "fact" or acquiesce that you were wrong. I will bet that you wont because what you do is lay out land mines of falsehood and then ignore the rebuttal and move on to placing your next one.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

What do you expect? Your arguments are poorly supported, and when confronted with the facts you refuse to acknowledge your errors. There's not a whole lot left for people to say to you.

Frankly, you'd be a lot more interesting if you actually learned from your mistakes, rather than trusting shady sources of information and believing in your own infallibility.

It shouldn't be a surprise people respond to you as they do. Try taking a step back, put yourself in the shoes of those who are responding negatively to you, and try to figure out whether or not there is any merit to their position. Then, please, grow accordingly.

How are my arguments poorly supported? The general gist is always right, again someone like yourself finds a minor error and thinks the whole argument is bad. The JFK/Nixon thing is well documented and has been for years. The fact that I myself don't get every detail right does not make the analogy less valid, because it does work. But it just continues to prove the overall point, you see what you want to see regardless of postion. Name one unbiased observer you think has every detail right and doesn't take sides. I'll hold my breath on that one.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

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.

I refer you to my above post...if your not blinded than please reply to the posts in which you are wrong historically...it would definitely go against your nature.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

How are my arguments poorly supported? The general gist is always right, again someone like yourself finds a minor error and thinks the whole argument is bad. The JFK/Nixon thing is well documented and has been for years. The fact that I myself don't get every detail right does not make the analogy less valid, because it does work. But it just continues to prove the overall point, you see what you want to see regardless of postion. Name one unbiased observer you think has every detail right and doesn't take sides. I'll hold my breath on that one.

*sigh*

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

How are my arguments poorly supported? The general gist is always right, again someone like yourself finds a minor error and thinks the whole argument is bad. The JFK/Nixon thing is well documented and has been for years. The fact that I myself don't get every detail right does not make the analogy less valid, because it does work. But it just continues to prove the overall point, you see what you want to see regardless of postion. Name one unbiased observer you think has every detail right and doesn't take sides. I'll hold my breath on that one.

when you mix in fallacy into even an accurate argument you poison the entire argument...it simply cannot be trusted. Stick with fact and the argument should stick, mix in opinion and assumption or falsehood and you will be called to respond when corrected...

perhaps you could respond to them by first saying, "Jeez, im sorry, I was wrong." Then try to rework the argument to be accurate, otherwise it is simply spinning and propoganda.

[MrBigglesworth]

BW, here are the factual errors in your first post in this thread:

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Pure partisan politics. How many even remember when Bill and Hillary had all those FBI files on the congressmen? Illegally? And then they 'suddenly' turned up on Hillary's nightstand after a few months of 'looking' for them? And how much did we then hear about that? I think only the 'partisan' news network Fox was even talking about it.

CNN covered the story, perhaps even more than Fox which might explain why you don't know the facts surrounding the case. An easy google search brings up 102 articles from CNN. A similar search of FoxNews.com brings up zero, but that could be a database issue.

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

If a Liberal commits a felony they let him or her walk with a slap on the wrist...

According to one of the afore-mentioned CNN articles, Ms. Clinton was cleared by an independent counsel, who noted that there was absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing. In other words, there was no felony committed, in fact not even a crime, in the case that you use as an example of a liberal figure getting off easy.

hxxp://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/07/28/clinton.filegate/

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

...if its a Conservative committing a misdemenor its suddenly a federal case and all hell breaks loose.

Outing a covert operative is a felony, not a misdemeanor. It's treason.

That is three factual errors in one short paragraph. They are easily shot down, but you don't admit to them or even respond to your critics. That is why people say it is maddening trying to have a conversation with you.

[Bubba Wheels]

Believing that the Clinton's and/or their operatives did not access those FBI files is as believable as the old cannard about "I don't look at the pictures, I just read the articles" in Playboy magazine.http://www.trettel.com/ccrc/essays/essay10.html

Treason? Kind of like selling our ICBM secrets to the Chinese, who now have 13 ICBMs pointed at us?

And how hard a punishment did that guy get for smuggling documents in his pants out of the Library of Congress? Was that a crime?

You just refuse to see how biased your own sources of information are.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

when you mix in fallacy into even an accurate argument you poison the entire argument...it simply cannot be trusted. Stick with fact and the argument should stick, mix in opinion and assumption or falsehood and you will be called to respond when corrected...

perhaps you could respond to them by first saying, "Jeez, im sorry, I was wrong." Then try to rework the argument to be accurate, otherwise it is simply spinning and propoganda.

Wha...? Right! Just go back over every post I ever made and determine the error of my ways. Kind of like going to Pol Pot's re-education camp and finding the 'shining path?" Good luck on that one. Unless you can point out specific errors rather than continue to use broad generalized personal opinions like "mix fallacy into ...an accurate argument..." then your just talking out of your rear orifice.

[NoMyths]

Bubba, you obviously don't believe this, but some of us are trying to help you. Well, sometimes we're fed up and get irritated with you. But the other times we're trying to help you.

When I said your arguments were poorly supported, I meant that you use sites like The Conservative Christian Resource Center as a primary source. "But the writer of the article," you might argue, "published it in the Washington Post!" We'll overlook the fact that your link doesn't work (yes, as you can infer, I actually went searching to find out what you were trying to show us, and was able to). Its author, Gary W. Aldrich, is the founder of the Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, and the author of "Thunder on the Left: An Insider's Report on the Hijacking of the Democratic Party." He is quoted on the site as saying, "We can now reveal the little known fact that in the fall of 1997 I met with Congressman Bob Barr and a few other concerned Americans in Charleston, South Carolina, where we discussed and planned for an impeachment of a corrupted and abusive president." More recently he assisted one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth with legal and financial help. Are you starting to see where adding a less biased source could help bolster your argument? We're not saying you have to completely toss that source (though I'd strongly consider it), we're saying use more independent verification to support your position.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Bubba, you obviously don't believe this, but some of us are trying to help you. Well, sometimes we're fed up and get irritated with you. But the other times we're trying to help you.

When I said your arguments were poorly supported, I meant that you use sites like The Conservative Christian Resource Center as a primary source. "But the writer of the article," you might argue, "published it in the Washington Post!" We'll overlook the fact that your link doesn't work (yes, as you can infer, I actually went searching to find out what you were trying to show us, and was able to). Its author, Gary W. Aldrich, is the founder of the Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, and the author of "Thunder on the Left: An Insider's Report on the Hijacking of the Democratic Party." He is quoted on the site as saying, "We can now reveal the little known fact that in the fall of 1997 I met with Congressman Bob Barr and a few other concerned Americans in Charleston, South Carolina, where we discussed and planned for an impeachment of a corrupted and abusive president." More recently he assisted one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth with legal and financial help. Are you starting to see where adding a less biased source could help bolster your argument? We're not saying you have to completely toss that source (though I'd strongly consider it), we're saying use more independent verification to support your position.

Nomyths, I see what your saying, but your not seeing what I'm saying. There are no unbiased sources of information. You (or anyone) basically pick out the sources that support their arguments in the first place. Some sources may be 'less biased', but even that is open to debate. And it makes sense in that individuals are biased. Like the old saying 'everyone has an opinion."

The one difference that I continue to see is that conservatives and their sources will be open about their point of view at the get-go, whereas liberals and their sources tend to play this game of pretending to be 'unbiased' until they are eventual 'outed' by conservative sources like Limbaugh. And the list of these 'outed' liberals is endless, beginning with Walter Cronkite during the Vietnam War thru Dan Rather, the New York Times, ect....

CNN, the very source you cite in your post, was 'outed' for having made a deal with Saddam before the war broke out 'not to expose' his torture, ect..., in order to remain inside Iraq for their own 'exclusives." Now just how 'unbiased' could CNN have been on Iraq after having made that deal?

[NoMyths]

Wow.

Nevermind, Bubba. Obviously there's nothing that any of us could say that would encourage you to be a little more critical in your thinking.

With that, I'm taking my leave of conversing with you.

[NoMyths]

dola...

Except to say:

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

CNN, the very source you cite in your post, was 'outed' for having made a deal with Saddam before the war broke out 'not to expose' his torture, ect..., in order to remain inside Iraq for their own 'exclusives." Now just how 'unbiased' could CNN have been on Iraq after having made that deal?

I don't see where I've cited CNN in any of my posts in this thread. But please continue to either a) get facts wrong or b) lie to support your position as much as you wish...I'm through with you.

[Swaggs]

Try this: This message is hidden because Bubba Wheels is on your ignore list.
It does wonders.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Yep. Man, I gave up conversing with BW a year or ago or so. What a complete waste of time that was.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Believing that the Clinton's and/or their operatives did not access those FBI files is as believable as the old cannard about "I don't look at the pictures, I just read the articles" in Playboy magazine.http://www.trettel.com/ccrc/essays/essay10.html...You just refuse to see how biased your own sources of information are.

BW, the CNN article that I gave you stated that the independent counsel found no evidence of wrongdoing. For that to be biased, you have to come up with a source that says that the independent counsel did come up with information that it used to indict Hillary. Instead, you show an essay by a GOP operative named Gary Aldrich as a counterbalance, as if that is just as reliable as an independent counsel of the federal government, appointed by a panel of three judges. And then you see fit to lecture others on their biased sources.

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

And how hard a punishment did that guy get for smuggling documents in his pants out of the Library of Congress? Was that a crime?

Since you asked, he got fined $10k and lost his security clearance for 3 years. Whether that is getting off easy or not, I don't know, but I don't see how it could be argued that he got off easy because he was a Democrat, being as he was tried by the US Justice Department under Bush. That's kind of counter-intuitive and totally undercuts your point that liberals let other liberals off.

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Treason? Kind of like selling our ICBM secrets to the Chinese, who now have 13 ICBMs pointed at us?

This is an asinine attempt to avoid the question by attacking something else completely unrelated. But you are short on specifics. Are you talking about Wen Ho Lee? He was released when no evidence was found against him, and I don't even know if he was a liberal or not, and I doubt you do either. If you are talking about the Hughes Space and Communications Company, I don't know if they are liberal either, but being a large defense contractor, I kind of doubt it.

This is another example of your arguments being 'poorly supported'.

[Flasch186]

BW - Im not going to go back and parse all of the times people have pointed out you are wrong, with support. You could do that yourself but Id be willing to bet you wont and youll just continue to lay these falsehood out there, have them blow up on you, and then ignore the fact that you are wrong by ducking your head in the sand. Yes, it is frustrating to see the same thing play out over and over.

Story comes out indicting a republican
BW, denies first, then slithers to a loophole, and eventually compares it to liberals
Story continues to grow
BW, ignores all of the supporting evidence that perhaps something is rotten in denmark
Story is finally published as fact
BW, says publishing agent is biased and begins to list Liberal's wrongdoing(s)..there are plenty.

All throughout you seem blind and unwilling to accept the fact that there could be wrong doing...many of your right wing buddies at least can admit that.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Lawrence O'Donnell on 7/2/05

I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.

Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow.

4 days later and all I hear is .....

cricket, cricket, cricket

Maybe O'Donnell got his information on this story mixed up with his script for the West Wing.

[flere-imsaho]

Well, technically Rove was Cooper's source for something....

Anyway, things could get moving again today given that the judge will rule today on whether or not the journalists will go to jail for contempt. Although I think it's possible the journalists will elect to serve time on principle, I wouldn't blame them for caving at this point and agreeing to testify. We won't really know more until they testify.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Try this: This message is hidden because Bubba Wheels is on your ignore list.
It does wonders.

Word.

[flere-imsaho]

From today's NYT:

Last week, Time magazine provided Mr. Cooper's notes and other documents to the special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, after the United States Supreme Court refused to hear appeals filed by the magazine and the two reporters. In yesterday's filing, Mr. Fitzgerald said he had reviewed the documents and determined that Mr. Cooper's testimony "remains necessary."

The best thing to speculate on, right now, is what Fitzgerald expects to find when questioning Cooper & Miller that he hasn't found in Cooper's notes.

[stevew]

For the Lazy

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...=ignore&u=3337

Now quit quoting him.

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Well, technically Rove was Cooper's source for something....

Anyway, things could get moving again today given that the judge will rule today on whether or not the journalists will go to jail for contempt. Although I think it's possible the journalists will elect to serve time on principle, I wouldn't blame them for caving at this point and agreeing to testify. We won't really know more until they testify.

That's really all we know. I'm interested to see what happens with the journalists as well. Unfortunately, no matter what happens this is going to get swept under the rug of the Supreme Court fight.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There's only illegal activity under fairly specific circumstances ... circumstances that do not appear, based on what has been revealed so far, to have existed.

No one ... repeat ... no one who is engaged in a covert operation is hanging out at a Langley desk job -- that simply flies in the face of logic, reason, and most of all, reality.

She has no "cover" to blow at that point -- she's going to work there for crying out loud, how is she supposed to be "undercover"? That's just asinine.

Sorry Jon, you're bluntly wrong. I know plenty of covert personnel who never left Langley during their entire careers. Next time, try actually learning about a subject before passing an opinion off as fact.

Thanks for playing, please try again!

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by stevew

For the Lazy

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=3337

Now quit quoting him.

You underestimate my laziness.

Cutt and paste for goodness sake!

[timmynausea]

If I add Bubba Wheels to my ignore list, how will I know what is going on with the anti-faith based crowd?

[CamEdwards]

This is an interesting twist:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070500788.html

Sources close to the investigation say there is evidence in some instances that some reporters may have told government officials -- not the other way around -- that Wilson was married to Plame, a CIA employee.

So maybe O'Donnell had his story backwards?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

From today's NYT:



The best thing to speculate on, right now, is what Fitzgerald expects to find when questioning Cooper & Miller that he hasn't found in Cooper's notes.

According to common law, you need two eyewitnesses for a perjury conviction. Documents do not count.

[Bubba Wheels]

Well, glad to see some have discovered the ignore button. But personally, kind of demonstrates the weak-mindedness of those who feel compelled to use it. Seems to me anyone with even a little bit of self-control would just choose not to respond to something. Heck, I don't even have Chubby on ignore, just not that lacking in personal confidence to need to I guess.

[flere-imsaho]

This just in from the NYT:

WASHINGTON -- Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper agreed Wednesday to testify about his sources in a government leak of a CIA agent's identity, a dramatic about-face which came as he faced going to jail.

"I am prepared to testify. I will comply" with the court's order, Cooper told U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan.

Cooper's turnaround came at a hearing at which Hogan was to consider whether to jail Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller for defying his order to testify about their confidential sources in the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity.

Cooper took the podium in the court and told the judge, "Last night I hugged my son good-bye and told him it might be a long time before I see him again."

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

Well, we're going to find out who the source was. I'd have to assume the source believes they won't be prosecuted.

[flere-imsaho]

Another update from the Times:

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

This is not the first time I've heard that basically Fitzgerald already knows everything, but basically wants extra testimonial confirmation. I'm not sure what that suggests about "the leaker", but it does seem to indicate that either a) Novak told all or b) Fitzgerald is really, really good at what he does.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Sorry Jon, you're bluntly wrong. I know plenty of covert personnel who never left Langley during their entire careers. Next time, try actually learning about a subject before passing an opinion off as fact.

Thanks for playing, please try again!

As a follow up to this. If it is so obvious she wasn't covert as Jon claims, why in the heck would Fitzgerald even be investigating this anymore. Determining if she was covert would be pretty easy for him after talking with the CIA. If she wasn't covert, then no need for an investigation. The investigation continues, so obviously Fitzgerald believes she fit the legal definition as covert. I agree, Jon was all wet on this one.

[timmynausea]

If Vinatieri was President, this bullshit would've been taken care of a long time ago.

[Peregrine]

If Vinatieri was President, this bullshit would've been taken care of a long time ago.

Amen to that.

[JPhillips]

Vinatieri: Its more than that. The CIA only requested an investigation because they believed the name of a covert agent had been released maliciously. Both the DOJ and Fitzgerald investigations are based on the original CIA request.

It seems to me that the CIA would have a very good idea of who is/is not a covert agent, but I guess JIMG knows better.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

If Vinatieri was President, this bullshit would've been taken care of a long time ago.

Damn straight!!

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Vinatieri: Its more than that. The CIA only requested an investigation because they believed the name of a covert agent had been released maliciously. Both the DOJ and Fitzgerald investigations are based on the original CIA request.

It seems to me that the CIA would have a very good idea of who is/is not a covert agent, but I guess JIMG knows better.

Even better. Another example of the Bushies attempts to protect all that is Bush. If they would just give in on some obvious things it would add a lot to their credibility when they defend others. As it stands, it is hypocrisy at its best.

[HomerJSimpson]

Newsweek article out, and states the email says specifically that Rove was the leak. Here is the linky: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/


Matt Cooper's Source
What Karl Rove told Time magazine's reporter.

By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek


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

Last week, after Time turned over that e-mail, among other notes and e-mails, Cooper agreed to testify before a grand jury in the Valerie Plame case. Explaining that he had obtained last-minute "personal consent" from his source, Cooper was able to avoid a jail sentence for contempt of court. Another reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, refused to identify her source and chose to go to jail instead.

For two years, a federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been investigating the leak of Plame's identity as an undercover CIA agent. The leak was first reported by columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. Novak apparently made some arrangement with the prosecutor, but Fitzgerald continued to press other reporters for their sources, possibly to show a pattern (to prove intent) or to make a perjury case. (It is illegal to knowingly identify an undercover CIA officer.) Rove's words on the Plame case have always been carefully chosen. "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," Rove told CNN last year when asked if he had anything to do with the Plame leak. Rove has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. But last week, his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Rove did—and that Rove was the secret source who, at the request of both Cooper's lawyer and the prosecutor, gave Cooper permission to testify.

The controversy arose when Wilson wrote an op-ed column in The New York Times saying that he had been sent by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate charges that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from the African country of Niger. Wilson said he had found no evidence to support the claim. Wilson's column was an early attack on the evidence used by the Bush administration to justify going to war in Iraq. The White House wished to discredit Wilson and his attacks. The question for the prosecutor is whether someone in the administration, in an effort to undermine Wilson's credibility, intentionally revealed the covert identity of his wife.


In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson's criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine's corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger ... "

Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative. Nonetheless, it is significant that Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak's column appeared; in other words, before Plame's identity had been published. Fitzgerald has been looking for evidence that Rove spoke to other reporters as well. "Karl Rove has shared with Fitzgerald all the information he has about any potentially relevant contacts he has had with any reporters, including Matt Cooper," Luskin told NEWSWEEK.

A source close to Rove, who declined to be identified because he did not wish to run afoul of the prosecutor or government investigators, added that there was "absolutely no inconsistency" between Cooper's e-mail and what Rove has testified to during his three grand-jury appearances in the case. "A fair reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame's identity, but was an effort to discourage Time from publishing things that turned out to be false," the source said, referring to claims in circulation at the time that Cheney and high-level CIA officials arranged for Wilson's trip to Africa.

Fitzgerald is known as a tenacious, thorough prosecutor. He refused to comment, and it is not clear whether he is pursuing evidence that will result in indictments, or just tying up loose ends in a messy case. But the Cooper e-mail offers one new clue to the mystery of what Fitzgerald is probing—and provides a glimpse of what was unfolding at the highest levels as the administration defended a part of its case for going to war in Iraq.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels
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.

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels
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.


Can't even make this stuff up, too classic...
[/i]

[Arles]

Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative. Nonetheless, it is significant that Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak's column appeared; in other words, before Plame's identity had been published. Fitzgerald has been looking for evidence that Rove spoke to other reporters as well. "Karl Rove has shared with Fitzgerald all the information he has about any potentially relevant contacts he has had with any reporters, including Matt Cooper," Luskin told NEWSWEEK.

A source close to Rove, who declined to be identified because he did not wish to run afoul of the prosecutor or government investigators, added that there was "absolutely no inconsistency" between Cooper's e-mail and what Rove has testified to during his three grand-jury appearances in the case. "A fair reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame's identity, but was an effort to discourage Time from publishing things that turned out to be false," the source said, referring to claims in circulation at the time that Cheney and high-level CIA officials arranged for Wilson's trip to Africa.

Seems like we are right back where we began. Again, just because Rove spoke with Cooper does not mean that he revealed the identity of a CIA agent. This appears to be the meat of the conversation based on the articles I've seen:

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

Not sure how that equals "outing a CIA agent". But maybe I am missing something.

[Arles]

Dola, the more I read on this the more I wonder if there was any leak to begin with. One likely case is that Rove (and maybe other people) mentioned Wilson's wife using her government post to help get Wilson the trip and not Cheney or Tenet (as was rumored). Then Novak, the veteran of numerous parties and DC insider info, remembered that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and added it on his own accord into the article. Again, given all that I've read to this point, this seems to be the most plausible scenerio.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

Seems like we are right back where we began. Again, just because Rove spoke with Cooper does not mean that he revealed the identity of a CIA agent. This appears to be the meat of the conversation based on the articles I've seen:


Not sure how that equals "outing a CIA agent". But maybe I am missing something.

right and until Rove writes an article stating the following:

"I outed Plame as a CIA operative in an attempt to get her husband to shut the fuck up."

Arles wont believe he did anything wrong....


Im sorry arles, just feels like dejavu every single time we go down this path. at least your friends on the right are open minded enough to see the wall before they hit it.

your willingness to duck and dive even when the youre in the crosshairs is noble at best, slimy at worst.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

Dola, the more I read on this the more I wonder if there was any leak to begin with. One likely case is that Rove (and maybe other people) mentioned Wilson's wife using her government post to help get Wilson the trip and not Cheney or Tenet (as was rumored). Then Novak, the veteran of numerous parties and DC insider info, remembered that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and added it on his own accord into the article. Again, given all that I've read to this point, this seems to be the most plausible scenerio.

you crack me up....the entire country knows its a "leak" and you say, "I wonder if there even is a leak"....maybe it should be called something else?? Regardless Arles, OH NO, one of your boys might've done something wrong!! pray that Rove NEVER writes an admission because then you might have to accept it, but until then you just stay with that ship there pardner.

[Arles]

Hey, Flasch, I know you don't require any evidence to convict someone, but what has been presented to show Rove did anything wrong?

All we have is a conversation between him and Cooper where Cooper's notes show he did not out Plame as a CIA agent. Seems like a rock-solid case there

Again, there's been nothing presented (Cooper or Novak's comments, Cooper's notes, other witnesses) to show that Rove ever outed Plame. Until that happens, there's really no case here.

[Flasch186]

A - Plame was "outed" as a CIA operative - a crime

B - The journalists wouldnt release the name of the source

C - Rove is admitetd to being the source

A+B+C = Rove is the source of plame's outing. See if you remember FROM THE BEGINNING, someone outed her. Remember the big brouhaha over it. and see then the journalists wouldnt give up their source. remember how they were threatened with jail time. You can remember that, it wasnt too long ago. Then remember when Rove's Lawyer admitted it was Rove that did it? That was earlier today I think. See if your memory allows you to hold thoughts for awhile you can start to correlate these things. Perhaps thats your problem...you forget what happened int he past so every day you start fresh. I applaud you for that but it still doesnt absolve someone from perjury...remember about 10 years ago. you liked Perjury then, but not now, eh? hmmm, convenient.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

Hey, Flasch, I know you don't require any evidence to convict someone, but what has been presented to show Rove did anything wrong?

All we have is a conversation between him and Cooper where Cooper's notes show he did not out Plame as a CIA agent. Seems like a rock-solid case there

Again, there's been nothing presented (Cooper or Novak's comments, Cooper's notes, other witnesses) to show that Rove ever outed Plame. Until that happens, there's really no case here.

DOLA



well then, I stand by my thoughts on how biased you are. until the culprit admits it, in writing, on this and SOOOOOOOOOO many other things you refuse to believe it. Okay, at least youre consistent. Ill bet there are people behind bars that havnt admitted to their crimes either, wanna let them out?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Arles

Hey, Flasch, I know you don't require any evidence to convict someone, but what has been presented to show Rove did anything wrong?

All we have is a conversation between him and Cooper where Cooper's notes show he did not out Plame as a CIA agent. Seems like a rock-solid case there

Again, there's been nothing presented (Cooper or Novak's comments, Cooper's notes, other witnesses) to show that Rove ever outed Plame. Until that happens, there's really no case here.

oh i see, so it takes a master thief to figure out that "Wilson's wife" = Plame. Just because he didn't specifically say "Plame" doesn't mean he didn't out her by saying "Wilson's wife with the agency"

[sterlingice]

Rove's words on the Plame case have always been carefully chosen. "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," Rove told CNN last year when asked if he had anything to do with the Plame leak. Rove has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. But last week, his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Rove did—and that Rove was the secret source who, at the request of both Cooper's lawyer and the prosecutor, gave Cooper permission to testify.

Regardless of the content of the rest of this, isn't the wording of this part just shoddy journalism. How can he say Rove has chosen his words carefully; I don't see much wiggle room in "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name"- it sounds a lot like a denial. But "his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed to Newsweek that Rove did"- doesn't that mean he flat out lied? Where are the "carefully chosen" words? Doesn't this mean he flat out lied and has since contradicted his previous statement?

SI

[SFL Cat]

Personally, I think the Clinton administration letting China gain 20+ years of progress in their ICBM technology was a lot more "ominous" than this non-event.

I think the Dems are making the same mistakes with Bush that the Repubs made with Clinton. They are just flinging mud at in the hopes that something, anything sticks. But people are so tired of the petty politics that surround the efforts of both sides that even if some legitimate ethical lapses are revealed, the public is desensitized to it. They figure it all boils down to partisan politics.

[JPhillips]

Yeah thank goodness we have a guy that's tough on China. I bet they're still quivering in fear after Bush apologized for their holding our aircrew prisoners.