OT - Karl Rove Named as CIA Agent Leak

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

That's not why I do this.

You do this in thinking that you could change anyone's mind???

panerd is right, I believe. People love to play up to the extremes because it gives them an identity or more accurately, an enemy.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Arles on July 10

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.

Originally Posted by New York Times, today

Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.

After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."

The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Mr. Novak, the person who has been briefed on the matter said.

It looks like my hypothesis regarding Rove's involvement may have been correct. So, now the question becomes who was the initial leaker to Novak (probably the same person Miller is protecting)? Again, since it's very doubtful Plame was covert I'm not sure it matters in the long run. But, it would be interesting to see who did the initial leak to Novak since it now seems that Novak was the one who told Rove about Plame (after speaking with someone else).

[gstelmack]

I've mostly stayed out of this, having missed much of the controversy last week, but now that I think I'm caught up, I have two points:

1) When Valerie Plame was initially exposed, my reaction then was "who the heck would do such a thing?" I don't care what the law says, you don't publically name CIA operatives to the press. I agree that there can be mitigating circumstances if it was public knowledge, but if it was then wouldn't reporters have known? If Rove had just said "Wilson's wife recommended him", I'd have nothing negative to say about Rove. But if he really did say something along the lines of "Wilson's wife, a CIA employee, recommended him", I really think he's in the wrong. You just don't expose these people, period. I think people in government are already loose with classified info, and they need to be much more careful. Rove isn't the first to let loose with something he shouldn't (who was the official that was taking classified stuff home to his personal computer a few years back?), and he won't be the last. But I don't like him (and whatever other source(s) were used for this) doing it here.

2) I'm still not sure how the Administration should have handled Wilson, however. His getting the job sure seems like typical Clinton-esque politics (I still think Clinton was slimier than Bush in these types of games, one of the best, although I know they all play them to a certain extent). You have a Clinton appointee being sent to gather intelligence on a controversial point being used for planning a war, getting that job through his wife and back channels, misrepresenting the data he gathered, slanting it towards Bush's opponents, and claiming the Administration itself sent him to gather the info to help bolster the credibility of his "reports". How is the Administration supposed to counter this, when a key aspect of his motiviation is how he got the job in the first place? I think the right answer here is that Rove should have just said "Wilson's wife got him the job, he was not our choice" and let the reporters follow her trail, especially given how public she seems to have been.

So I think Rove's mistake was being too open with classified info, and while that seems like he could have made a minor mistake, there is no such thing as a "minor mistake" with classified data. He's in a position of key responsibility, so he's supposed to be more careful.

Wilson and Plame are just as bad as Rove when it comes to the political games that everyone wants to hang Rove over. Getting a Bush opponent to go gather key intelligence, slanting that intelligences, and then lying about why he was sent to help bolster his credibility sure destroys all semblance of credibility in my eyes.

It's like an episode of Judge Judy or The Peoples' Court, where you think both sides are idiots.

[HerRealName]

I'm close to politically retarded but why is it important how Wilson got the job? If the administration requires that only a hand-picked person gather intelligence like this, doesn't that back up Wilson's original claim that the administration picked and chose among available intelligence to back their claim for war?

The entire issue along with the "Wilson is a liar" claim seems like little more than a Republican effort to confuse the issue.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I've mostly stayed out of this, having missed much of the controversy last week, but now that I think I'm caught up, I have two points:

1) When Valerie Plame was initially exposed, my reaction then was "who the heck would do such a thing?" I don't care what the law says, you don't publically name CIA operatives to the press. I agree that there can be mitigating circumstances if it was public knowledge, but if it was then wouldn't reporters have known? If Rove had just said "Wilson's wife recommended him", I'd have nothing negative to say about Rove. But if he really did say something along the lines of "Wilson's wife, a CIA employee, recommended him", I really think he's in the wrong. You just don't expose these people, period. I think people in government are already loose with classified info, and they need to be much more careful. Rove isn't the first to let loose with something he shouldn't (who was the official that was taking classified stuff home to his personal computer a few years back?), and he won't be the last. But I don't like him (and whatever other source(s) were used for this) doing it here.

thats been my point for awhile...we agree. Rove and the pols up there need to have a higher moral standard...and code of conduct.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

I'm close to politically retarded but why is it important how Wilson got the job? If the administration requires that only a hand-picked person gather intelligence like this, doesn't that back up Wilson's original claim that the administration picked and chose among available intelligence to back their claim for war?

The entire issue along with the "Wilson is a liar" claim seems like little more than a Republican effort to confuse the issue.

To me it's because he exaggerated / lied about the claims in his report. I wouldn't care how he got it, had he just come out with the facts (i.e., done a good job). But right now it smacks of a setup, given how he handled things after he got back.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

thats been my point for awhile...we agree. Rove and the pols up there need to have a higher moral standard...and code of conduct.

All of them. Both parties. I agree. Things have been going downhill for quite some time.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JW

All of them. Both parties. I agree. Things have been going downhill for quite some time.

yup, im an equal opportunity lambaster...and unlike Arles, I will and can say that.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

yup, im an equal opportunity lambaster...and unlike Arles, I will and can say that.

Yeah, like when I refused to call Rumsfeld or Bush a liar above, correct? I didn't notice a response by you on your "assumption" of my opinions. Did you make one?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

Yeah, like when I refused to call Rumsfeld or Bush a liar above, correct? I didn't notice a response by you on your "assumption" of my opinions. Did you make one?

no, i apologize. I completely undertsand your point of view. You feel that all politicians are liars, and anyone involved are rpobably too and so you accept some deception as being status quo. From there you stand by your right sided morals and will not accept any truisms unless they come from the horse's mouth, although recently you havn't applied that to both sides equally.

Is that about right?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

no, i apologize. I completely undertsand your point of view. You feel that all politicians are liars, and anyone involved are rpobably too and so you accept some deception as being status quo.

That's pretty close. By its own nature, politics involves some level of salesmanship and deception.

From there you stand by your right sided morals

I certainly stand by a set of morals, but I don't know if they are lock-step with the right on social issues given I am pro-Choice and have no problem with gay marriage.

and will not accept any truisms unless they come from the horse's mouth, although recently you havn't applied that to both sides equally.

I am very skeptical on "political scandles" from either side. I didn't believe Clinton was involved with Monica until the blue dress (and defended him during the witch-hunt by the right). I think there's a lot of "gotcha politics" that goes on both sides and am leary of serious charges until things get sorted out. I also think that many "outrages" thrown out by both sides end up being molehills (not mountains) once everything is on the table.

Is that about right?

You're doing better. I would be interested to hear who your favorite politician is right now. Given your "truth requirements", I'd be amazed if one exists.

[Flasch186]

i respect Dean's candor, but think hes a quack. I like Lieberman's ideals and willingness to switch sides. I like Flip-flopping if its substantiated by "new" info.

When Its all said and done, I like (b)illary and McCain. I guess but Ill admit...I dont have much knowledge of the newer or smaller pols.

[Arles]

I can see Lieberman, but I think you are missing a lot on McCain. Read back on all the shady deals he's made with the telecommunications industry. He is no more "honest" than any other sentator. In fact, he's been caught on lies regarding bills more than once in public (read his Tim Russert script in 99 for the worst of them).

And that's not even looking into his action during the Charles Keating fiasco. For those of you unaware of this, here's a link:

http://slate.msn.com/id/1004633/

[JW]

More comes out on Rove. Link and excerpt:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050716/...MzBHNlYwM3MDM-

WASHINGTON - After mentioning a CIA operative to a reporter, Bush confidant Karl Rove alerted the president's No. 2 security adviser about the interview and said he tried to steer the journalist away from allegations the operative's husband was making about faulty Iraq intelligence.

The July 11, 2003, e-mail between Rove and then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley is the first showing an intelligence official knew Rove had talked to Matthew Cooper just days before the Time magazine reporter wrote an article identifying Valerie Plame as a CIA officer.

"I didn't take the bait," Rove wrote in an e-mail obtained by The Associated Press, recounting how Cooper tried to question him about whether President Bush had been hurt by the new allegations.

The White House turned the e-mail over to prosecutors, and Rove testified to a grand jury about it last year.

This would imho tend to support Rove's claim that he was not trying to 'out' Plame. Of course there are still several questions here. Who were the other sources? Did Rove or anyone commit perjury. But I think when you start adding things up, it appears Rove and the White House have believed for some time that Rove will not be charged with a crime. Perhaps they have been keeping quiet because they knew the info that has come out today would surface. Of course another question would be who is leaking all this info.

[Flasch186]

Cooper Learned of CIA Wife From Rove Call

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer 6 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Time magazine's Matthew Cooper says a 2003 phone call with White House political adviser Karl Rove was the first he heard about the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson apparently working for the
CIA.
ADVERTISEMENT

Giving a first-person account of his role in a case that nearly landed him in jail, the reporter recalled that Rove told him, "I've already said too much" after revealing that the wife of the former ambassador apparently was with the CIA.

Cooper speculated in the piece, released Sunday, that Rove could have been "worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting or something else."

"I don't know, but that signoff has been in my memory for two years," Cooper wrote. The White House and Rove's lawyer have stressed that Rove never mentioned Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife, by name.

At issue in a federal grand jury investigation into whether someone in the Bush administration violated a federal statute by publicly disclosing the identity of Plame as a CIA operative.

Cooper said the 2003 phone call with Rove was the first time he had heard anything about Wilson's wife.

The White House had insisted for nearly two years that neither Rove nor Vice President
Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, had any connection with the leak of Plame's name. For the last two weeks, however, it has steadfastly declined to comment on the case, citing the ongoing Fitzgerald probe.

It took the same tack Sunday, as spokesman David Almacy declined specifically to comment about Libby, citing an independent counsel's ongoing investigation of the case.

Writing an account of a conversation he had with Libby, Cooper said, "Libby replied, 'Yeah, I've heard that too' or words to that effect" when he asked if Libby had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Africa to investigate the possible sale of uranium to
Iraq for nuclear weapons.

As part of special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's criminal probe of the identity leak, Cooper testified about his conversation with Libby in a deposition at his lawyer's office in August 2004. Libby, as Rove did this month, provided a specific waiver of confidentiality. In a grand jury appearance last Wednesday, Cooper gave his account of what Rove told him.

Cooper also said there may have been other government officials who were sources for his article. Time posted "A War on Wilson?" on its Web site on July 17, 2003.

In an effort to quell a chorus of calls to fire Rove, Republicans said Sunday that he first learned about Plame's identity from the news media.

"The information exonerates and vindicates, it does not implicate" Rove, Republican Party chairman Ken Mehlman said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "Folks involved in this, frankly, owe Karl Rove an apology."

There were no takers.

The White House's assurance in 2003 that Rove was not involved in the leak of the CIA officer's identity "was a lie" and Rove's credibility "is in shreds," said John Podesta, who was chief of staff in the Clinton White House.

It is unclear whether a journalist first revealed the information to Rove, as Mehlman said.

A lawyer familiar with Rove's grand jury testimony said Rove learned about the CIA officer either from the media or from someone in government who said the information came from a journalist. The lawyer spoke on condition of anonymity because the federal investigation is continuing.

Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," Wilson said, "I believe that using the West Wing of the White House to be engaged in a smear campaign is an outrageous abuse of power."

The CIA sent Wilson to check out intelligence that the government of Niger had a deal for the sale of yellowcake uranium to Iraq. Wilson did not find that such a deal took place.

Five days before Cooper's conversation with Rove, an op-ed piece by Wilson had appeared in The New York Times suggesting the Bush administration had manipulated prewar intelligence to justify an invasion of Iraq.

In 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the idea that Rove was involved in leaking information about Wilson's wife was "ridiculous."

"There's no evidence that (Rove has) done anything criminally wrong," Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., said on CBS. He said the American people are taking the controversy "for what it is — politics."

[JW]

And what Cooper actually said to Russert on Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: The piece that you finally ran in Time magazine on July 17th, it says, "And some government officials have noted to Time in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched to Niger..."

"Some government officials"--That is Rove and Libby?

MR. COOPER: Yes, those were among the sources for that, yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: Are there more?

MR. COOPER: I don't want to get into it, but it's possible.

MR. RUSSERT: Have you told the grand jury about that?

MR. COOPER: The grand jury knows what I know, yes.

MR. RUSSERT: That there may have been more sources?

MR. COOPER: Yes.

And speculation by one columnist that Rove may not be the target of the investigation at all. Link and excerpt:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05198/538809.stm

Liberals want Rove's scalp. But the revelation Friday (if true) that Rove learned of Plame's occupation from a journalist makes it most unlikely that he could prosecuted successfully under the Identities Act.

Maybe Rove -- or someone else -- lied to the grand jury. Or maybe Fitzgerald is investigating a different crime.

What if someone in the CIA was leaking classified information to influence the 2004 election? Uncovering a crime like that would be worthy of Inspector Javert's doggedness.

I suspect the biggest shoe in this case has yet to drop, and liberal journalists won't be happy when it does.

Of course it is all just speculation until the results of the investigation become public.

[SFL Cat]

I was doing some research on the Rove-Plame story and came across this little tidbit. I don't remember hearing about it when it happened and wonder if anyone has heard if an investigation was launched, what it concluded, or if it still ongoing?


Justice Asked to Probe Spy Satellite Leak

Senators Slam Mystery Spy Project

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

To me it's because he exaggerated / lied about the claims in his report. I wouldn't care how he got it, had he just come out with the facts (i.e., done a good job). But right now it smacks of a setup, given how he handled things after he got back.

Wait a minute -- wasn't his report accurate, that the Bush administration basically manufactured (whether through outright lies or intelligence cherry picking) the Niger allegations in order to sell the war?

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Wait a minute -- wasn't his report accurate, that the Bush administration basically manufactured (whether through outright lies or intelligence cherry picking) the Niger allegations in order to sell the war?

That's kind of like saying..."yes my story is true, but all the evidence I'm using to prove it's true is based on exaggerations or lies."

[Arles]

Here's a very interesting story explaining how briefs filed by the media (to keep reporters out of jail) explain how Plame was "outed" twice before Novak or Cooper ever entered the picture:

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccart...0507180801.asp

Just four months ago, 36 news organizations confederated to file a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington. At the time, Bush-bashing was (no doubt reluctantly) confined to an unusual backseat. The press had no choice — it was time to close ranks around two of its own, namely, the Times's Judith Miller and Time's Matthew Cooper, who were threatened with jail for defying grand jury subpoenas from the special prosecutor.

The media's brief, fairly short and extremely illuminating, is available here. The Times, which is currently spearheading the campaign against Rove and the Bush administration, encouraged its submission. It was joined by a "who's who" of the current Plame stokers, including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP, Newsweek, Reuters America, the Washington Post, the Tribune Company (which publishes the Los Angeles Times and the Baltimore Sun, among other papers), and the White House Correspondents (the organization which represents the White House press corps in its dealings with the executive branch).

The thrust of the brief was that reporters should not be held in contempt or forced to reveal their sources in the Plame investigation. Why? Because, the media organizations confidently asserted, no crime had been committed. Now, that is stunning enough given the baleful shroud the press has consciously cast over this story. Even more remarkable, though, were the key details these self-styled guardians of the public's right to know stressed as being of the utmost importance for the court to grasp — details those same guardians have assiduously suppressed from the coverage actually presented to the public.

Though you would not know it from watching the news, you learn from reading the news agencies' brief that the 1982 law prohibiting disclosure of undercover agents' identities explicitly sets forth a complete defense to this crime. It is contained in Section 422 (of Title 50, U.S. Code), and it provides that an accused leaker is in the clear if, sometime before the leak, "the United States ha[s] publicly acknowledged or revealed" the covert agent's "intelligence relationship to the United States[.]"

As it happens, the media organizations informed the court that long before the Novak revelation (which, as noted above, did not disclose Plame's classified relationship with the CIA), Plame's cover was blown not once but twice. The media based this contention on reporting by the indefatigable Bill Gertz — an old-school, "let's find out what really happened" kind of journalist. Gertz's relevant article, published a year ago in the Washington Times, can be found here.

Of greater moment to the criminal investigation is the second disclosure urged by the media organizations on the court. They don't place a precise date on this one, but inform the judges that it was "more recent" than the Russian outing but "prior to Novak's publication."

And it is priceless. The press informs the judges that the CIA itself "inadvertently" compromised Plame by not taking appropriate measures to safeguard classified documents that the Agency routed to the Swiss embassy in Havana. In the Washington Times article — you remember, the one the press hypes when it reports to the federal court but not when it reports to consumers of its news coverage — Gertz elaborates that "[t]he documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but [unidentified U.S.] intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them."

Thus, the same media now stampeding on Rove has told a federal court that, to the contrary, they believe the CIA itself blew Plame's cover before Rove or anyone else in the Bush administration ever spoke to Novak about her. Of course, they don't contend the CIA did it on purpose or with malice. But neither did Rove — who, unlike the CIA, appears neither to have known about nor disclosed Plame's classified status. Yet, although the Times and its cohort have a bull's eye on Rove's back, they are breathtakingly silent about an apparent CIA embarrassment — one that seems to be just the type of juicy story they routinely covet.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Arles

Here's a very interesting story explaining how briefs filed by the media (to keep reporters out of jail) explain how Plame was "outed" twice before Novak or Cooper ever entered the picture:

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccart...0507180801.asp

Lol. I was just getting ready to post that. Very interesting story. And I think it is a very interesting point that the very media that filed that brief has neglected to bring up those points in reporting on the controversy. Of course the left will now fall back onto their fallback positions:

1. Rove committed perjury. (Apparently not; he seems to have covered himself very well, like the wily and ruthless political hack he is.)
2. Someone else is the initial leaker, like VP chief of staff Libby. (Not nearly as interesting to the left since that will not lead to Rove's lynching, and, as more info comes out, it appears that the initial 'leak' from the White House apparently was not the initial leak at all.)
3. Bush said he would get rid of the leakers. (Good point. Bush has now qualified that, saying he will get rid of anyone who committed a crime. That of course makes Bush look really wishy-washy imo.)
4. Rove is a bad man even if he did nothing wrong here. (I will concede that point, lol.)

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Wait a minute -- wasn't his report accurate, that the Bush administration basically manufactured (whether through outright lies or intelligence cherry picking) the Niger allegations in order to sell the war?

Well, actually he has been discredited by multiple sources. And, no, I'm not going to provide those because I think this has been discussed over and over again, even in this thread.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

That's kind of like saying..."yes my story is true, but all the evidence I'm using to prove it's true is based on exaggerations or lies."

Well Wilson must be some kind of super genius to come to the right conclusions with lies and exaggerations when the Bush administration supposedly came to the wrong conclusions using facts.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Well Wilson must be some kind of super genius to come to the right conclusions with lies and exaggerations when the Bush administration supposedly came to the wrong conclusions using facts.

When you start with a "yeah or nah" hypothesis that you are married to from the bat, there's a 50% chance you will be right regardless of the data. Wilson was simply spiking any information that could lead others to pursue the matter further to help him have a 100% chance of being right. Remember, the British still hold that the information they received to make that claim on Niger was legit. Bush was the one that backed out without Blair.

[JW]

http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/...0507181123.asp

Here is another view on Wilson's lies. And one the real culprit in this whole matter.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JW

4. Rove is a bad man even if he did nothing wrong here. (I will concede that point, lol.)

my point exactly....all of this stuff is garbage. Rove should've never been a link in the chain. People with that kind of power need to have a higher moral aptitude IMO.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

Here's a very interesting story explaining how briefs filed by the media (to keep reporters out of jail) explain how Plame was "outed" twice before Novak or Cooper ever entered the picture:

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccart...0507180801.asp

You should warn people if you post something this partisan, so that people don't waste time on it. The tone of 'liberal media conspiracies' and the easily debunked rationales don't add anything to the debate.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/...0507181123.asp

Here is another view on Wilson's lies. And one the real culprit in this whole matter.

Seriously, Mark Levin? Just post an article from Rove's lawyer. I can't believe you are putting the blame on Plame for being outed. Whether there was a crime or not committed, one thing is clear: the WH wanted to slime a political opponent, but not get their hands dirty. The moral depravity knows no bounds.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You should warn people if you post something this partisan, so that people don't waste time on it. The tone of 'liberal media conspiracies' and the easily debunked rationales don't add anything to the debate.

The article references all the information. But, since you didn't even click the link, here's the actual brief filed by the media:

http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s1...%20(Final).PDF

Originally Posted by Section B

Moreover, the government may have "publicly acknowledged or revealed" her intelligence relationship prior to publication of Novak's July 14, 2003 column. "The United States has 'revealed' an intelligence relationship if it has discolsed information which names, or leads directly to the identification of...a covert agent." S. Rep. 97-201, at 23. An article in The Washington Times indicated that Plame's identity was compromised twice prior to Novak's publication.

And here's the Times story the media referenced to show that Plame had already been outed:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/...5439-4033r.htm

The identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame was compromised twice before her name appeared in a news column that triggered a federal illegal-disclosure investigation, U.S. officials say.
Mrs. Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a Moscow spy, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
In a second compromise, officials said a more recent inadvertent disclosure resulted in references to Mrs. Plame in confidential documents sent by the CIA to the U.S. Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Havana.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Well Wilson must be some kind of super genius to come to the right conclusions with lies and exaggerations when the Bush administration supposedly came to the wrong conclusions using facts.

Basically what Wilson reported to the CIA appears to have all been correct. However, he said things before the Senate Select Committee that appear to have been confused and/or wrong (in particular what he knew about the forged memo at the time of his trip), therefore the apparent line is that he has been discredited, whatever that means. Critically, nothing he said in his famous NYT "What I Didn't Find In Africa" op-ed has been refuted or appears to be subject to challenge.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

The article references all the information. But, since you didn't even click the link, here's the actual brief filed by the media:

I actually read the whole article. That's where I got pounded by the liberal media conspiracy vibe, in the first couple of paragraphs of the article that you did not quote. As for the information that the article 'references', it could all be true and not mean a thing. As they said, the government never publically admitted that she was a covert agent before this whole Niger mess, so all of that is irrelevant. Furthermore, Cooper's statement to the grand jury:

Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the "agency" on "WMD"? Yes.

hxxp://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1083899-4,00.html

Also, Rove himself is using the defense that he didn't know she was covert. The whole argument made by the article is inane. It tried to make the argument that Plame was already outted, when nobody seems to know she was outed. The two basic defenses for Rove are that 'everybody knew she was covert' and 'nobody knew she was covert'. Interesting doublethink.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Furthermore, Cooper's statement to the grand jury:

What article did Cooper write to "out" Plame? Plus, just because Cooper first learned of it from Rove does not mean that other media members did (ie, Judith Miller and Robert Novak).

Also, Rove himself is using the defense that he didn't know she was covert.

Actually, no defense is needed as it has yet to be shown that Rove committed a crime. Do you have evidence that Rove committed a crime? If so, please cite which law he broke and how.

The whole argument made by the article is inane.

That there are two separate instances where the CIA let it slip that Plame worked for the CIA to international groups (Russia and Cuba)? Seems like a fairly important footnote. It was important enough that the media used this information as a cornerstone in their case to try and get Cooper and Miller out of jail.

It tried to make the argument that Plame was already outted, when nobody seems to know she was outed.

Just because it isn't common knowledge does not mean it isn't the case. If Russia and Cuba know who Plame is because of CIA information, then she's been outted. Even if you didn't read about it in the New York Times.

The two basic defenses for Rove are that 'everybody knew she was covert' and 'nobody knew she was covert'. Interesting doublethink.

Which is ironic since no defense is currently needed. Again, I have yet to see any information showing Rove committed a crime.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

What article did Cooper write to "out" Plame? Plus, just because Cooper first learned of it from Rove does not mean that other media members did (ie, Judith Miller and Robert Novak).

I fail to see the direction of your point here. I didn't that all of them heard it from Rove (although it is very possible).

Originally Posted by Arles

Actually, no defense is needed as it has yet to be shown that Rove committed a crime. Do you have evidence that Rove committed a crime? If so, please cite which law he broke and how.

Actually, yes, a defense is needed because if Rove knew she was covert, then he was in violation of the Intelligence Identity Protection Act of 1982. He could also be guilty of perjury to the grand jury. I was highlighting the fact that Rove was not using the defense that she had been outted already, which is obviously false, but a defense that you are still pushing.

Originally Posted by Arles

It was important enough that the media used this information as a cornerstone in their case to try and get Cooper and Miller out of jail.

And inconsequential enough to not allow them to avoid jail time.

Just because it isn't common knowledge does not mean it isn't the case. If Russia and Cuba know who Plame is because of CIA information, then she's been outted. Even if you didn't read about it in the New York Times.

First off, legally it matters because the Intelligence Identity Protection Act of 1982 says that the United States must disclose the covert status publically for someone to be considered outted. Secondly, practically it matters because Plame was working on the spread of WMD's in countries other than Russia and Cuba.

Arles, regardless of whether or not a crime has been committed, would you agree that what Rove did was grade A douchebaggery?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

Which is ironic since no defense is currently needed. Again, I have yet to see any information showing Rove committed a crime.

For my sake, I just wanted to clarify....youre okay with Rove's behavior even if no law was broken?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

For my sake, I just wanted to clarify....youre okay with Rove's behavior even if no law was broken?

Given what I've read, I'm not all that worked up over what the first leaker to Novak did. First, it seems that (according to Novak) Rove was not the initial leak Novak got. Second, it's obvious that Plame hadn't been covert in practice since 1997 - so she was in no real danger.

I would be much more upset with the initial leaker to Novak if:

A. Plame had not acted politically to get her husband his position by pulling strings in the CIA.
B. Plame was actually working as a covert operative when the comments were made.

As it is now, I don't see much meat to this story. Essentially, we are looking to get all worked up over some leaker (to Novak) that mentioned a CIA agent who used her position to get her husband a cushy job and who hadn't been covert in practice since 1997. I think a yawn is in order.

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Seriously, Mark Levin? Just post an article from Rove's lawyer. I can't believe you are putting the blame on Plame for being outed. Whether there was a crime or not committed, one thing is clear: the WH wanted to slime a political opponent, but not get their hands dirty. The moral depravity knows no bounds.

Well, first, I didn't put the blame on Plame. I just said this was another view on Wilson's lies. And Wilson did lie, several times. Sure the WH wanted to slime a political opponent. That is the way both parties work these days. Rove is an expert at it, but not moreso than many on the Democratic Party side. It is a shame. And it is becomng clear from the evidence that both Wilson and Plame were not above political motivation themselves.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Arles

Second, it's obvious that Plame hadn't been covert in practice since 1997 - so she was in no real danger.

Which does not necessarily mean that leaking her status did not endanger anybody else.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

Which does not necessarily mean that leaking her status did not endanger anybody else.

I think the CIA already took care of that when they blew her cover, twice.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

Sure the WH wanted to slime a political opponent. That is the way both parties work these days.

Can you name some recent legitimate Dem slime tactics, on the same level as the push polling done against McCain in SC, the Swift Boat Vets, and burning an undercover CIA agent?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by JW

Sure the WH wanted to slime a political opponent. That is the way both parties work these days. Rove is an expert at it, but not moreso than many on the Democratic Party side. It is a shame.

Wow. Again, dude, you give the Democratic Party waaaay too much credit. They couldn't hold Rove's jock when it comes to sliming. They aren't even playing the same freakin' sport. I really wish the Democratic Party was half as competent and effective as you seem to believe they are. I really, really do.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Tme to fry FAT BOY!!!

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

Tme to fry FAT BOY!!!

I have been a little hot latel...

oh. you meant Rove.

Yeah, I'd be shocked if he's committed a crime. As for Democratic asshattery, or sliminess (in response to HB)... you're right. The Democrats are pretty amateur. Instead of using anonymous sourcing to get the truth about a story into the press (and in the process perhaps criminally "out" a CIA employee), they'll just compare American troops at Gitmo to Nazis.

Amateurs.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I have been a little hot latel...

oh. you meant Rove.

Yeah, I'd be shocked if he's committed a crime. As for Democratic asshattery, or sliminess (in response to HB)... you're right. The Democrats are pretty amateur. Instead of using anonymous sourcing to get the truth about a story into the press (and in the process perhaps criminally "out" a CIA employee), they'll just compare American troops at Gitmo to Nazis.

Amateurs.

I thought this thread needed a little humor. As for Rove let's just wait till all the facts are out.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I have been a little hot latel...

oh. you meant Rove.

Yeah, I'd be shocked if he's committed a crime. As for Democratic asshattery, or sliminess (in response to HB)... you're right. The Democrats are pretty amateur. Instead of using anonymous sourcing to get the truth about a story into the press (and in the process perhaps criminally "out" a CIA employee), they'll just compare American troops at Gitmo to Nazis.

Amateurs.

Very amature. It's so pathetic and clumsy. Hell, even people on the internet know that bringing out Hitler or Nazis is just stupid and pretty much ends whatever point you're trying to make. They lack any organization and skills besides ineffectual whining.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

...they'll just compare American troops at Gitmo to Nazis.

Even that was a non-issue that was blown out of proportion by the right wing media. Durbin was absolutely right in his comments.

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Can you name some recent legitimate Dem slime tactics, on the same level as the push polling done against McCain in SC, the Swift Boat Vets, and burning an undercover CIA agent?

Well, Rove may be the master of attack politics, but the Clinton administration was superb at it. James Carville might rival Rove at the art of sliming. Paul Begala is still at it. Link and excerpt:

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics...20050715a.html

(CNSNews.com) - Young liberals this week flocked to the nation's capital to hear, among other things, liberal television pundit and Democrat political strategist Paul Begala accuse Republicans of wanting to kill him and his children to preserve tax cuts for the rich.

Begala was featured at the first-ever Campus Progress National Student Conference, which was designed to provide campus liberals with the tools necessary to fight the conservative movement. The event also drew former President Bill Clinton, for whom Begala once worked as an advisor.

A panel discussion entitled "Winning the War of Ideas" centered on topics discussed in the book "What's the Matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank and detailed the challenges that Democrats face in persuading voters in the American heartland and elsewhere to embrace their agenda and support their candidates.

Begala's presence on the panel created a stir when he declared that Republicans had "done a p***-poor job of defending" the U.S.

Republicans, he said, "want to kill us.

"I was driving past the Pentagon when that plane hit" on Sept. 11, 2001. "I had friends on that plane; this is deadly serious to me," Begala said.

"They want to kill me and my children if they can. But if they just kill me and not my children, they want my children to be comforted -- that while they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit," Begala said. "That is bulls*** national defense, and we should say that."....

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Even that was a non-issue that was blown out of proportion by the right wing media. Durbin was absolutely right in his comments.

I'm sorry to hear you believe that. I have a particular affinity for the young American soldiers fighting for our country and often placed in difficult situations. It is my belief that they are not Nazis and that the comparison was one of the most odious and dishonorable things -- speaking of sliming -- spoken by an American Congressman in recent history.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Wow. Again, dude, you give the Democratic Party waaaay too much credit. They couldn't hold Rove's jock when it comes to sliming. They aren't even playing the same freakin' sport. I really wish the Democratic Party was half as competent and effective as you seem to believe they are. I really, really do.

The Clinton administration was very good at attack politics. Don't kid yourself. Carville from Louisiana is a master. Rove may be better. It is really sad. I'm just happy to say I didn't vote for Bush or Gore or Bush or Kerry. I wasted my vote, but I chose not to affirm either major party, because I believe both parties are more interested in partisan political gain than in America's security and future.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JW

I'm sorry to hear you believe that. I have a particular affinity to the young American soldiers fighting for our country and often placed in difficult situations. It is my belief that they are not Nazis.

"Won't someone please think of the children"


I'm sure what he really meant is that all soldiers fighting for America are Nazis and not that a few might have displayed personality traits that we associate with Nazis at some point.

SI

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

I'm sorry to hear you believe that. I have a particular affinity for the young American soldiers fighting for our country and often placed in difficult situations. It is my belief that they are not Nazis and that the comparison was one of the most odious and dishonorable things -- speaking of sliming -- spoken by an American Congressman in recent history.

Anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the English language could see that he was not calling American soldiers Nazi's, and I'm insulted that that point is even up for debate. Reasonable people can disagree on some points, but misconstruing Durbin's words is just a partisan attack.