07-10-2005, 10:40 PM | #201 |
College Prospect
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Tempe, AZ
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071001000.html
Rove Told Reporter About Plame But Didn't Name Her, Attorney Says By Josh White Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, July 11, 2005; A01 White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified as a covert agent in a newspaper column two years ago, but Rove's lawyer said yesterday that his client did not identify her by name. Rove had a short conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper on July 11, 2003, three days before Robert D. Novak publicly exposed Plame in a column about her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV. Wilson had come under attack from the White House for his assertions that he found no evidence Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger and that he reported those findings to top administration officials. Wilson publicly accused the administration of leaking his wife's identity as a means of retaliation. The leak of Plame's name to the news media spawned a federal grand jury investigation that has been seeking to find the origin of the disclosure. Cooper avoided jail time last week by agreeing to testify before the grand jury about conversations with his sources, while New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for refusing to discuss her confidential sources. 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. Cooper, according to an internal Time e-mail obtained by Newsweek magazine, spoke with Rove before Novak's column was published. In the conversation, Rove gave Cooper a "big warning" that Wilson's assertions might not be entirely accurate and that it was not the director of the CIA or the vice president who sent Wilson on his trip. Rove apparently told Cooper that it was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip," according to a story in Newsweek's July 18 issue. Rove's conversation with Cooper could be significant because it indicates a White House official was discussing Plame prior to her being publicly named and could lead to evidence of how Novak learned her name. Although the information is revelatory, it is still unknown whether Rove is a focus of the investigation. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has said that Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has told him that Rove is not a target of the probe. Luskin said yesterday that Rove did not know Plame's name and was not actively trying to push the information into the public realm. Instead, Luskin said, Rove discussed the matter -- under the cloak of secrecy -- with Cooper at the tail end of a conversation about a different issue. Cooper had called Rove to discuss other matters on a Friday before deadline, and the topic of Wilson came up briefly. Luskin said Cooper raised the question. "Rove did not mention her name to Cooper," Luskin said. "This was not an effort to encourage Time to disclose her identity. What he was doing was discouraging Time from perpetuating some statements that had been made publicly and weren't true." In particular, Rove was urging caution because then-CIA Director George J. Tenet was about to issue a statement regarding Iraq's alleged interest in African uranium and its inaccurate inclusion in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. Tenet took the blame for allowing a misleading paragraph into the speech, but Tenet also said that the president, vice president and other senior officials were never briefed on Wilson's report. After the investigation into the leak began, Luskin said, Rove signed a waiver in December 2003 or January 2004 authorizing prosecutors to speak to any reporters Rove had previously engaged in discussion, which included Cooper. "His written waiver included the world," Luskin said. "It was intended to be a global waiver. . . . He wants to make sure that the special prosecutor has everyone's evidence. That reflects someone who has nothing to hide." Cooper had indicated he would go to jail rather than expose a confidential source, but he agreed last week to cooperate with the grand jury after getting clearance from his source to testify. Luskin said Cooper had been clear to testify all along -- because of the waiver signed 18 months ago -- but that the waiver was "reaffirmed" on Wednesday, the day of a hearing to decide whether he and Miller would go to jail. |
07-10-2005, 10:57 PM | #202 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Quote:
In the Newsweek article YOU posted and Arles highlighted, it doesn't give any direct proof of wrong doing. THE key line from that article is: Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative. Unless it can be proven Rove DID know she was a covert operative and that he intentionally outed her, this story is about to die. Personally, I think Rove is a slimeball and it wouldn't bother me in the least if he went away. But in this country, you need more proof than "I think the guy is a dirtbag, he's therefore guilty of high treason" to lay a conviction on someone. Again, the key line there is in Newsweek's own article. The key will be if the prosecution can prove that Rove really did know she was an undercover operative before he leaked the name. (and there is no doubt he leaked the name, intentionally or not) If he did know she was undercover and it was an intentional move on his part, he should fry. |
|
07-10-2005, 11:26 PM | #203 |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Again, if Rove would have mentioned to Cooper that Plame was a CIA agent, you would think atleast one reference to Plame being a CIA agent would have been in Cooper's notes regarding his conversation with Rove. As it stands now, there is no mention of Plame being associated with the CIA in any of Cooper's notes.
If I am a reporter and a key White House aide tells me that the wife of a guy sent to investigate WMD is an agent in the CIA, I sure as heck would have written that down in my notes. So, either Cooper decided to write everything down from the conversation except the fact that Rove stated Plame was in the CIA (certainly the most newsworthy item), or Rove didn't state that. Those are the two conclusions one can take from the Newsweek article. Last edited by Arles : 07-10-2005 at 11:27 PM. |
07-10-2005, 11:59 PM | #204 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jun 2003
|
Quote:
The Newsweek article quotes Cooper's email as saying, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip." Then again, in the eyes of a dedicated apologist that probably doesn't qualify as a mention of Plame being associated with the CIA. |
|
07-11-2005, 12:19 AM | #205 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
Both Rove and Cooper are on the record as saying the above. So, if I am wrong and what Rove stated is a crime - then he will be easily convicted given the record above. Last edited by Arles : 07-11-2005 at 12:28 AM. |
|
07-11-2005, 12:48 AM | #206 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Edinburg,TX
|
how about everyone wait until the grand jury is done and see who has charges filed against them...... 5 pages about speculation, gees.
__________________
You Stole Fizzy Lifting drinks! You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and steralized, so you get NOTHING! You lose! |
07-11-2005, 03:12 AM | #207 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jun 2003
|
Quote:
First, that's not the issue I was addressing. I was addressing your patently false statement that "[a]s it stands now, there is no mention of Plame being associated with the CIA in any of Cooper's notes." To the contrary, that's exactly what Cooper's email says and you are spreading misinformation by stating otherwise. Second, it doesn't matter whether or not he used her name. Joe Wilson's marriage to Valerie Plame wasn't a secret. Consequently, saying that Joe Wilson's wife is a CIA agent is the same thing as saying Valarie Plame is a CIA agent. This game of "he didn't identify her by name" is intellectually dishonest. Third, you assume that because Cooper didn't say in his email that Rove knew she was a covert op, Rove must not have known. That's a false assumption and does not logically follow. Maybe he knew or maybe he didn't know. We (the public) don't have enough facts to make any kind of determination on that issue. That's what the investigation is for. As someone else pointed out, it's all speculation at this point. |
|
07-11-2005, 06:48 AM | #208 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
Woah, I had to duck that curveball since it came out of left field. Lets stick on point and try not to start diverting attention to things that are completely irrelevent. Rove gave up Plame. His defense, according to Arles, is that he didnt know she was covert. Perhaps he was just outing, and "out" Cia Agent...well done sir. Well worth your time in an effort to shut her husband up...wouldnt work if she was not undercover but apparently some of the right believe there might be some frut there. Im now going to out my 4th grade teacher as a 4th grade teacher because I didnt like her...Mrs. Cebeck, you are out!! ROve is a genius and a mastermind. Is eriously doubt at any point Rove didn't know exactly what he was doing.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL Last edited by Flasch186 : 07-11-2005 at 06:50 AM. |
|
07-11-2005, 07:20 AM | #209 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Quote:
Look, I lean right, but the above is a bunch of BS. It would still work if she wasn't an undercover agent. The reason being is that it's Rove's insinuation that she authorized the trip. That has nothing to do with her being an undercover operative. There are many faces at the CIA who make critical decisions. Not all of them are undercover operatives. I'm someone from the right who despises Karl Rove. That doesn't mean I get to avoid looking at the facts to convinct and fry him before he has the right to a fair trial. If he did know (and if it's so easy to prove, it shoud be a slam dunk case), he should fry. My guess is that it isn't as slam dunk as you are making it out to be Flasch. The first indication of that is how Rove apparently has been the one allowing Cooper to give his notes up and in the final case, letting him testify. Cooper, like any journalist worth his salt, would go to jail before he'd allow a court to view his notes or before he'd give up his source. Most of the time the court throws the reporter into jail and lets him sit for about three months before giving up. Even WITH the notes, there is nothing fully damning without the actual testimony of the reporter. Were this case to be so open and shut, there is no way in hell Rove gives the OK for Cooper to testify. Rove would either: 1) Wait until he testified and then slam Coopers credibility and go on the offensive. or more likely 2) Keep his mouth shut and wait until people got sick of Cooper not talking and then moved on. As has been said in this thread from the start, the American public would probably move away from this story in a few weeks anyway. There is surely a new celebrity crime about to happen. There are a lot more "important" things to think about. Instead he gives the OK for both the notes and the testimony. Why? The left will say it's because he's a devious bastard who is pulling strings as usual. The right will say it's because he's innocent of all wrong doing. And most of the middle won't give a damn or will wait until there is an actual trial that convicts/acquits Rove. As of now, in this specific case, I want to see some proof Rove knew she was an undercover operative. We know where the leak came from, now we need to know if it was an intentional outing of a CIA undercover operative. As of now, there is none of that information available. When you find it, please let me know. That's the point I'll join you in screaming that Karl Rove be put in prison. |
|
07-11-2005, 08:30 AM | #210 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Syracuse, NY
|
I don't see how it matters if he knew she was undercover or not, he still outed an undercover CIA person which is a crime. Saying "whoops I didn't know she was undercover" isn't going to fly.
|
07-11-2005, 08:43 AM | #211 | ||
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Quote:
Here's the crux of the matter, above. You assume Cooper (& Novak, et. al.) already knew that Plame was CIA, and thus Rove wasn't telling them any information (about her status) that they didn't already know. I'd like to point out that your assumption hasn't been proven. Furthermore, if the CIA classified her as "undercover & confidential" and Prosecutor Fitzgerald feels they did enough to support that status, then Cooper & Novak publishing such info, and Rove talking to whomever (whomever didn't have clearance) about such info, are both crimes. At this point, anything else continues to be pure speculation until Fitzgerald makes his report. Last edited by flere-imsaho : 07-11-2005 at 08:45 AM. Reason: Grevious errors in grammar. |
||
07-11-2005, 08:52 AM | #212 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Agreed. Although it may save Rove's bacon in a technically legal manner, the "I didn't know she was undercover" defense strategy is not, in my opinion, a comfortable precedent to set. |
|
07-11-2005, 08:59 AM | #213 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Syracuse, NY
|
Quote:
I doubt it will do that, does saying "oh I didn't know the speed limit was 35" work? |
|
07-11-2005, 09:03 AM | #214 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Again, I have a real problem with this "intentions" argument. "The Leaker", who we can now assume to be Rove, gave Plame's name to reporters, notably Novak, in order to discredit Wilson. What was the "intention" there? Now, that's not criminal, technically. Slimy, and smeary, but certainly consistent with Presidential campaign tactics. Whether or not it's criminal rests on Fitzgerald's assessment of whether or not Plame was a "true" undercover agent with the CIA supporting her undercover status. We'll have to wait and see on that. However, back to the subject of "intention". If it's only a crime to reveal the name of an undercover CIA operative when revelation is your intent, then it's presumably not a crime to reveal the name of an undercover CIA operative for any other reason (mentioned in passing, mentioned in praise, mentioned by mistake, etc...). Do people really think that's a good precedent to set when we're talking about the safety of our CIA operatives? Look, you can go to jail for doing something wrong by accident (some instances of manslaughter spring to mind). If Fitzgerald concludes that Plame was "undercover and confidential" and that the CIA was supporting that status, then "The Leaker" committed a crime, even if it was by accident (though still with an undercurrent of malicious political intent). Which leads me to my final point: Let's take two assumptions: 1. "The Leaker" leaked the information out of malicious political intent. This is pretty well supported by the events surrounding Iraq-Niger-Yellowcake-etc.... 2. "The Leaker" didn't know of the confidential nature of Plame, and so made a mistake this way. Question (rhetorical): How do we feel, as Americans, to have someone in a position of such power and influence acting in such a cavalier manner for political gain? Let's see some of you step up to the plate and answer that. |
|
07-11-2005, 09:04 AM | #215 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: South Bend, IN
|
Quote:
Edit: And to address something raised in the preceding post, it does not appear to matter what the intent is in terms of whether a disclosure is legal under the act.
__________________
Hattrick - Brays Bayou FC (70854) / USA III.4 Hockey Arena - Houston Aeros / USA II.1 Thanks to my FOFC Hattrick supporters - Blackout, Brillig, kingfc22, RPI-fan, Rich1033, antbacker, One_to7, ur_land, KevinNU7, and TonyR (PM me if you support me and I've missed you) Last edited by Mr. Wednesday : 07-11-2005 at 09:06 AM. |
|
07-11-2005, 09:09 AM | #216 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Syracuse, NY
|
Quote:
which would then be exactly why he's saying "I didn't know she was undercover" not because he actually didn't know but because he doesn't want to go to jail. If he truly didn't know, why the drawn out stupidness about not revealing the source? Obviously he didn't know so he should have allowed them to talk long ago, right? |
|
07-11-2005, 10:02 AM | #217 | ||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
Quote:
If you really are upset that someone in a position of power in the US government acted "in such a cavalier manner for political gain", then my advice is to stay clear of US politics - regardless of the party in power. All you will end up with is an ulcer and a great deal of frustration. |
||
07-11-2005, 10:25 AM | #218 | ||
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
So that makes it OK? Besides, I don't think the Bush I, Clinton or Carter administrations approach the level of dirty politics found in the Nixon, Reagan or Bush II administrations. Quote:
You sound tired and world-weary, Arles. Is the provision of apologies for every action of this Administration starting to wear you out? |
||
07-11-2005, 10:31 AM | #219 | ||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Arles : 07-11-2005 at 10:34 AM. |
||
07-11-2005, 10:38 AM | #220 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Conyers GA
|
Quote:
Not exactly. It should read "If it can be proven that he willingly outted a covert CIA agent for political gain then he might get just punishment." I'm not taking a stand on this issue either way, because I have no idea whether or not he outed her. But even if he did, he may very well get away with it. |
|
07-11-2005, 10:49 AM | #221 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
|
|
07-11-2005, 11:00 AM | #222 | ||
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Naive? In the realm of "Abuses of Position & Power": Kennedy: Bay of Pigs, probably "stole" the election (well, Daley stole it for him) Johnson: Plenty of Congressional arm-twisting Nixon: Watergate Ford: Pardons for Watergate Carter: I'm sure you Right-Wingers have something here Reagan: Iran-Contra Bush I: Pardons for Iran-Contra (hmm, see a pattern?) Clinton: Sex with an intern Bush II: No need to rehash this See what you want to see, Arles. Quote:
I gotta say, though, your delusions clearly serve you well. |
||
07-11-2005, 11:24 AM | #223 | |
College Prospect
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Monroe, LA, USA
|
Quote:
An example of your lack of objectivity. You forgot Sudan. You forgot Kosovo. And we haven't even gone into Janet Reno's abuses of power on Clinton's watch. Bill Clinton was no saint who simply had a momentary lapse with an intern. And, btw, lest you lump me in as a conservative Bush-lover, I'm a Democrat who did not vote for Bush in 2000 or 04. Nor did I vote for the weak-ass candidates the Democrats ran against Bush and gave us possibly the worst two choices for president we have ever had in America. I voted third party as a protest in each case. I have little love for Bush but do believe his actions in the war against radical Islamic terrorism are more in keeping with the nature of this war to the death than what his opponents would have us do. |
|
07-11-2005, 11:45 AM | #224 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Quote:
No, it is not a crime to accidently out an undercover agent. Rove knew she worked in the CIA. Thousands of people work at the CIA and are not undercover agents. In fact, as JIMG pointed out, the fact everyone knew she worked at the CIA in a desk position makes her position as an "undercover operative" pretty difficult to stomach. If Rove assumed she was just a desk jockey who had the authority to make decisions, what he did isn't a crime. If he knew she was undercover, it is. Again though. . . if it is a crime as you guys are all saying, this will be the easiest court case in the history of juries. He's admitted what he said. The reporter has given up his notes and will testify. If you guys are right, a Rove conviction is a certainty. (the question is if Bush would pardon him before he left office) |
|
07-11-2005, 11:48 AM | #225 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
|
Quote:
I was critical of Sudan at the time, but wasn't he going after Osama Bin Laden and his people? I know that mistakes were made there (like blowing up the medical building), but it doesn't strike me as a terrible idea to have gone after Bin Laden. |
|
07-11-2005, 12:03 PM | #226 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
JIMG has failed to produce actual evidence of this "fact", which he admits. Perhaps you have some? Don't waste my time with links to right-wing blogs. |
|
07-11-2005, 12:04 PM | #227 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Attempts to stop genocidal massacres in Sudan & Kosovo were abuses of power? That's a new one to me. |
|
07-11-2005, 12:12 PM | #228 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
The defense that Rove didn't identify Plame by name because he referred to her as "Wilson's wife" is akin to President Clinton responding, "That depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
|
07-11-2005, 12:19 PM | #229 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
...and so it is because Im not willing to stand aside when things are sour and say, "Oh well. thats just the way it is." Perhaps Im swimming upstream but when something is wrong i cannot abide.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
07-11-2005, 12:20 PM | #230 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
I find it humorous that we are now arguing the "relative corruption" in US administrations over the past 30-40 years. The only thing that changed in regards to corruption in administrations over the past few decades is the level of media coverage.
As to your assertion that Clinton, Carter and Bush I were much better than others, that's certainly debatable - at a minimum. JW covered Clinton pretty well (add in China for good measure). Bush I was certainly tame compared to Carter, Reagan and Clinton, but he only had one term and did many things involving the Desert Storm war, Contras and others that have been discussed ad-nauseum. Now, to Carter.. In addition to Carter beginning the somewhat troubling practice of sustaining dicators and legitimizing fraudulent elections in his post-presidentcy, he had plenty of very questionable activities during his short reign as president. First, look at the way he handled Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza in the late 70s (privately supported him while feigning public outcry). More importantly, Carter (not Reagan) began the process of supporting Islamic Fundamentalists in Afghanistan against the Soviets. Carter originally armed the "Bin Ladens" and started the organization, financing and training of the Islamic uprising (with CIA help) that helped put Islamic terrorism on the map. Just read some recent quotes by Carter's National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski: Quote:
Each administration has a large number of skeletons in their closet. It just comes down to how many skeletons the media wants to spend time on revealing. Last edited by Arles : 07-11-2005 at 12:24 PM. |
|
07-11-2005, 12:38 PM | #231 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
Puhlease dont mention Kosovo r Sudan....that was a great thing and I hope we will continue to intercede in genocides that are occurring.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL Last edited by Flasch186 : 07-11-2005 at 12:39 PM. |
|
07-11-2005, 01:32 PM | #232 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Back in Houston!
|
Quote:
People are now arguing the relative corrupting in US administrations because YOU brought it up. Remember, 30 posts ago when you used it as your defense for this action? "Oh, it's just the way things are and have always been so accept it" SI
__________________
Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out! Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!" Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!" |
|
07-11-2005, 01:47 PM | #233 |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
White House won't comment on Rove and leak investigation
Monday, July 11, 2005; Posted: 2:28 p.m. EDT (18:28 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- For two years, the White House has insisted that presidential adviser Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak of a CIA officer's identity. And President Bush said the leaker would be fired. But Bush's spokesman wouldn't repeat any of those assertions Monday in the face of Rove's own lawyer saying his client spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified in a newspaper column. Rove described the woman to a reporter as someone who "apparently works" at the CIA, according to an e-mail obtained by Newsweek magazine. White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to discuss the matter at two news briefings Monday. He said he would not comment because the leak is the focus of a federal criminal investigation. "The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium," McClellan said in response to a barrage of questions about Rove and the previous White House denials. "I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said," McClellan said. "And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time." He said the appropriate time would be when the investigation is completed.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
07-11-2005, 02:32 PM | #234 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
From this morning (I've bolded my favorite bit):
Quote:
|
|
07-11-2005, 03:13 PM | #235 |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
scott mclellan has the worst job in the country.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
07-11-2005, 03:22 PM | #236 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
|
|
07-11-2005, 05:34 PM | #237 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springfield, USA
|
Quote:
Yup. Both defenses are asinine. |
|
07-11-2005, 05:53 PM | #238 | |
College Prospect
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Monroe, LA, USA
|
Quote:
I am heartened to see that you support attempts to stop 'genocidal massacres'. I would think then that you and others are glad we stopped Saddam before he had an opportunity to commit more 'genocidal massacres' than he did. Or is that different? Sudan was the bombing of a pharmaceutical factory that was supposedly doubling as a chemical weapons plant. The consensus of current opinion is that it was just a pharmaceutical factory. And many believe that Clinton ordered it to divert attention away from Monica. The Sudan operation had nothing to do with the genocide being committed by the Muslim government against Christian and traditional tribal groups in the south of Sudan. As for Kosovo, this was a remarkably botched operation, with Clinton ruling out the use of ground troops from the start and attempting to conduct a surgical bombing campaign at high altitude so no one would actually get killed, thus providing ample time for those committing 'genocidal massacres' to finish what they were doing. Clinton's decisions probably resulted in more deaths than would otherwise have occurred. |
|
07-11-2005, 06:36 PM | #239 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado
|
I find it funny those that are bringing up the past as if they knew anything that went on more than 5 years ago. Flere's list of "corruptions" shows no understanding of history or events that went on at the time - just a rehash of recent blogs or chat rooms. Folks like JW should be listented to because more than me, he had lived through and understood events as they were happening in the past 30 years.
|
07-11-2005, 06:45 PM | #240 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
|
Quote:
Clinton was going after terrorists in Sudan. Apparently there was bad intelligence about the pharmaceutical factory, but he was going after Osama. They wanted Kosovo to be a NATO project, but the other NATO countries wouldn't agree to use ground troops. I agree that it was a flawed strategy, but there were diplomatic reasons. I personally disagreed with them and still do, but it's not like Clinton just randomly decided to only strike through the air. The real truth is that it was an attempt to make NATO relevant again, since it has had little use since the USSR dissolved. In any case, those are hardly examples of corruption at all. Mistakes to varying degrees? Yes. Corruption? Not so much. |
|
07-11-2005, 06:54 PM | #241 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
Action in all cases is better than none. Yes, some of us on the left were and are for the actions in Iraq and will continue to be in times where genocides are occurring or on the cusp of occurring. I wish we would do more to stop ALL genocidal leaders, or rebels.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
07-11-2005, 07:14 PM | #242 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
2. "The Leaker" didn't know of the confidential nature of Plame, and so made a mistake this way.
Question (rhetorical): How do we feel, as Americans, to have someone in a position of such power and influence acting in such a cavalier manner for political gain? Let's see some of you step up to the plate and answer that. How do I feel about it? Pissed off. It's ridiculous for a man in his position to do some of the things he's done. But I'm not willing to support frying the guy until I see he knew. For me there is a major difference between knowingly outing an undercover operative and not knowing all of the facts. As has been said earlier, this is a darned easy prosecution. They have everything they need. The reporters notes. The reporter. Rove giving the reporter the OK to do both of those things. The thing I'm more worried about isn't a conviction of Rove, it would be Bush pardoning Rove on his last day. . . as Clinton did to Susan McDougal (his Whitewater partner), Henry Cisneros (who lied to the FBI), John Deutch (who was convicted of mishandling secret information at the CIA, the same charge I would guess Rove would be convicted of) and Fife Symington (who was convicted of bank fraud). If you guys are correct and this is so open and shut, we'll find out when it gets to the courtroom. My guess is you are wrong, but that's only my opinion, nothing more/nothing less. As I've said before, I wouldn't shed a tear for Rove if he goes down. On the other hand, I think you'd have to be blind not to see some flaws with the record here. Based on the information given at this time, I fail to see how a charge of treason would stick. I'm doubtful that there could even be a charge of mishandled information unless it can be proven he knew she was undercover. |
07-11-2005, 07:38 PM | #243 | |
College Prospect
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Monroe, LA, USA
|
Quote:
I think the topic was abuse of position and power rather than corruption. Clinton failed to go after Osama on several occasions when he had good opportunities to do so. Sudan was about the supposed production of WMDs. The missile strike on the factory was not directed at Osama personally. The motives for the Kosovo intervention were multi-fold. One reason is that Clinton wanted to appear strong. What you say is also correct. |
|
07-11-2005, 07:40 PM | #244 | |
College Prospect
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Monroe, LA, USA
|
Quote:
And I can agree with that. However, military actions are rarely if ever done for purely altruistic reasons. There is always a political motivation, both a domestic and foreign motivation. I assume you would then criticize Clinton as well as Bush for not intervening in the sub-Saharan African genocide de jeur. |
|
07-11-2005, 07:42 PM | #245 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
yup, damn skippy. For standing aside and not intervening I criticize all able countries.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
07-11-2005, 09:36 PM | #246 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
QUESTION: The Robert Novak column last week . . . has now given rise to accusations that the administration deliberatively blew the cover of an undercover CIA operative, and in so doing, violated a federal law that prohibits revealing the identity of undercover CIA operatives. Can you respond to that?
McCLELLAN: Thank you for bringing that up. That is not the way this President or this White House operates. And there is absolutely no information that has come to my attention or that I have seen that suggests that there is any truth to that suggestion. And, certainly, no one in this White House would have given authority to take such a step. Scott McClellan Press Briefing July 22, 2003 QUESTION: Scott, has there ever been an attempt or effort on the part of anyone here at the White House to discredit the reputations or reporting of former Ambassador Joe Wilson, his wife, or ABC correspondent Jeffrey Kofman? McCLELLAN: John, I think I answered that yesterday. That is not the way that this White House operates. That's not the way the President operates . . . No one would be authorized to do that within this White House. That is simply not the way we operate, and that's simply not the way the President operates. QUESTION: In all of those cases? McCLELLAN: Well, go down -- which two? QUESTION: Joe Wilson and his wife? McCLELLAN: No. Scott McClellan Press Briefing July 23, 2003 QUESTION: Wilson now believes that the person who did this was Karl Rove . . . Did Karl Rove tell that . . . McCLELLAN: I haven't heard that. That's just totally ridiculous. But we've already addressed this issue. If I could find out who anonymous people were, I would. I just said, it's totally ridiculous. QUESTION: But did Karl Rove do it? McCLELLAN: I said, it's totally ridiculous. Scott McClellan Press Briefing September 16, 2003 This morning, ABC News producer Andrea Owen happened to find herself near Karl Rove (who was walking to his car), and an ABC camera. Owen: "Did you have any knowledge or did you leak the name of the CIA agent to the press?" Rove: "No." At which point, Mr. Rove shut his car door as Ms. Owen asked, "What is your response to the fact that Justice is looking into the matter?" ABC News The Note September 29, 2003 (courtesy of Think Progress) QUESTION: Has the President either asked Karl Rove to assure him that he had nothing to do with this; or did Karl Rove go to the President to assure him that he . . . McCLELLAN: I don't think he needs that. I think I've spoken clearly to this publicly . . . I've just said there's no truth to it. QUESTION: Yes, but I'm just wondering if there was a conversation between Karl Rove and the President, or if he just talked to you, and you're here at this . . . McCLELLAN: He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved. QUESTION: How does he know that? McCLELLAN: The President knows. Scott McClellan Press Gaggle September 29, 2003 QUESTION: Weeks ago, when you were first asked whether Mr. Rove had the conversation with Robert Novak that produced the column, you dismissed it as ridiculous. And I wanted just to make sure, at that time, had you talked to Karl? McCLELLAN: I've made it very clear, from the beginning, that it is totally ridiculous. I've known Karl for a long time, and I didn't even need to go ask Karl, because I know the kind of person that he is, and he is someone that is committed to the highest standards of conduct. QUESTION: Can you say for the record whether Mr. Rove possessed the information about Mr. Wilson's wife, but merely did not talk to anybody about it? McCLELLAN: I don't know whether or not -- I mean, I'm sure he probably saw the same media reports everybody else in this room has. QUESTION: When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, did you ever have this information? McCLELLAN: We're going down a lot of different roads here. I've made it very clear that he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was. Scott McClellan Press Briefing September 29, 2003 QUESTION: Yesterday we were told that Karl Rove had no role in it. . . THE PRESIDENT: Yes. QUESTION: Have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him . . . THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. George W. Bush Remarks to Reporters September 30, 2003 McCLELLAN: Let me make it very clear. As I said previously, he [Karl Rove] was not involved, and that allegation is not true in terms of leaking classified information, nor would he condone it. QUESTION: He does not condone people pointing reporters toward classified information that's been released; he would not condone that either? Is that what you're saying? McCLELLAN: The President doesn't condone the activity that you're suggesting, absolutely he does not. Scott McClellan Press Briefing October 1, 2003 QUESTION: Scott, you have said that you, personally, went to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliot Abrams to ask them if they were the leakers . . . Why did you do that, and can you describe the conversations you had with them? McCLELLAN: They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt of that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did. QUESTION: So you're saying -- you're saying categorically those three individuals were not the leakers or did not authorize the leaks; is that what you're saying? McCLELLAN: That's correct. Scott McClellan Press Briefing October 7, 2003 QUESTION: Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA? McCLELLAN: I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands. QUESTION: So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA? McCLELLAN: They assured me that they were not involved in this. Scott McClellan Press Briefing October 10, 2003 Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column. The American Prospect Plugging Leaks March 8, 2004 I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name. Karl Rove CNN Interview August 31, 2004 "Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn't disclose Valerie Plame's identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else . . . Who outed this woman? . . . It wasn't Karl." Luskin said Rove "certainly did not disclose to Matt Cooper or anybody else any confidential information." Rove attorney Robert Luskin CNN Interview July 4, 2005 Luskin confirmed that Rove and Cooper had spoken prior to the publication of the original Time article, but said that Rove “did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA” nor did he “knowingly disclose classified information.” Newsweek Turning Up the Heat July 6, 2005 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 . . . Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak's column appeared; in other words, before Plame's identity had been published Newsweek Matt Cooper's Source July 10, 2005 |
07-11-2005, 10:00 PM | #247 | |
Poet in Residence
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Charleston, SC
|
Quote:
|
|
07-11-2005, 10:44 PM | #248 |
Poet in Residence
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Charleston, SC
|
"I can't take the lying anymore! Who wants to help me lynch the fuckers?" |
07-12-2005, 09:07 AM | #249 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Florida
|
Quote:
BAD INTELLIGENCE? There's no such thing. CLINTON LIED! Going after Osama? Was he at the pharmaceutical company factory at the time? In Clinton's corruption ledger you can add campaign "funny money" with Communist Chinese ties. Plus you can add all those quid pro quo pardons (140 pardons, 36 sentence commutations) at the end of his presidency, in particular billionaire Marc Rich -- whose wife Denise "donated" several hundred thousand dollars to the Clinton Library Foundation (and perhaps a presidential hummer to boot!). Last edited by SFL Cat : 07-12-2005 at 09:34 AM. |
|
07-12-2005, 09:20 AM | #250 | ||
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Look, I didn't intend for this to derail into a discussion on the merits of previous presidents. I was responding to this: Quote:
I'll make it very simple for you all. In response to Arles, I make the following two points, both of which are merely my opinion: 1. I think it's a gross overgeneralization to say that the politics of the White House have been uniformly dirty since Kennedy. Gross generalizations lead to sloppy conclusions (i.e. it's always been this way, we can't change it - which is essentially Arles' point). 2. In my (partisan) opinion, misuse of the power of the White House for partisan political gain, has been worse under Republicans (save Bush I), than under Democrats (save Kennedy). Read #2 carefully, folks. It's a nuanced point, not a blinding gross overgeneralization. I don't want to have to come back here in 10 posts and re-explain it to you again, OK? |
||
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|