Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Emails Will Reveal that Rove Outed CIA Operative Valerie Plame (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Emails Will Reveal that Rove Outed CIA Operative Valerie Plame
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
[O'Reilly] said that he wanted to know "where the Liberal idea of innocent until proven guilty was in this case."

Nice of him to admit that good ideas like that are ours.
KE

Score, KE! [Big Grin]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well apparently Alzab, according to todays AP, Rove found out that FROM Novak....not the other way around.

Rove Learned CIA Agent's Name From Novak

quote:
Chief presidential adviser Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of an undercover CIA officer but that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not government sources, according to a person briefed on the testimony.

The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, told The Associated Press that Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA.


Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well apparently Alzab, according to todays AP, Rove found out that FROM Novak....not the other way around.

This is the current defense meme, yes. But he still seems to have confirmed her "agent-ness" to Novak without using her name himself -- still a no-no.

[ July 15, 2005, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: A. Alzabo ]

Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John L
Member
Member # 1411

 - posted      Profile for John L   Email John L   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I haven't had a chance to plow through all the pages here, but I will make a statement that the Rove affair is at it's end. If the NY Times, hardly a friend of this administration, has pretty much washed it's hands, you can bet that by the end of the weekend, the leadership of the DNC and Congressional Democrat Leaders will be on to their next evil person to attack.

Probably getting ready to set up the White House Spokesman. They have tried it on everyone higher, so they have to reach down into the bag.

I wonder when they will learn to work on a positive agenda and get off of the losing name calling?

Posts: 885 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Depends. I don't think that technically Rove has committed any crime under existing law.

Not under Section 421 ... not under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982... not even under the Espionage Act of 1917.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I wonder when they will learn to work on a positive agenda and get off of the losing name calling?"

I don't know... name calling worked really well to get the republicans where they are today.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Worked really well to get the Democrats where they are too, cough Bu****ler/Shrub/chimp.
Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thats cause the republicans are sophisticated namecallers. Democrats are too nice to be good at it.

[Big Grin]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If the NY Times, hardly a friend of this administration, has pretty much washed it's hands, you can bet that by the end of the weekend, the leadership of the DNC and Congressional Democrat Leaders will be on to their next evil person to attack.

Remember that the NYT has some self-interest in this going away too.
Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have sort of followed the right wing spin on this (talk radio), and their rhetorical defense of Rove has been to shift the debate to whether he was guilty of a crime or not, which it seemed from early on he wasn't. I never thought that he was, just that he was a creepy bastard. What I will be watching with interest is to see whether Bush follows through on his unequivocable (the man is nothing if not plain-spoken) pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak. It seems tha Karl Rove certainly falls under this heading. Not that Rove would ever really stop working for dubya, but at least an official s**tcanning would warm the hearts of us vindictive lefties. [Wink]

Seriously, Rove is basically a creep. Ask John McCain and his illegitimate black child. The guy (Rove) is reaping what he has sewn.

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course he is. That's his job. Blame Thomas Jefferson for instituting the policy that every president had to have an official character assassin.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TS Elliot
Member
Member # 736

 - posted      Profile for TS Elliot   Email TS Elliot   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You've gadda admire these guys' ruthlessness! I mean, I bet dubya and Rove where going like: "So, you wanna fug with me? Huh!? I'll teach you!" and on they went, selling Plame out to the press, which is no laughing matter these days. It's almost like, or very similar to, the good old days of the Evil Empire. But Dubya is no Reagan and Plame is certainly no Gaddafi. Ya can say what ya want about Reagan, but the man had at least some sense of proportion. And he didn't let himself get suckered into the religious right.)
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/15/225611/396

quote:
By Brent Cavan, Jim Marcinkowski, Larry Johnson, and Jane Doe

We trained and worked at the CIA with Valerie Plame. We presented the following statement at a hearing on Capitol Hill in October 2003. In light of the latest White House sanctioned assault on Valerie Plame and her character, our testimony remains relevant and accurate.

We slogged through the same swamps on patrols, passed clandestine messages to each other, survived a simulated terrorist kidnapping and interrogation, kicked pallets from cargo planes, completed parachute jumps, and literally helped picked ticks off each other after weeks in the woods at a CIA training facility. We knew each other's secrets. We shared our fears, failures, and successes. We came to rely on each other in a way you do not find in normal civilian life. We understood that a slip of the tongue could end in death for those close to us or for people we didn't even know. We were trained by the best, to be the best. We were trained by the Central Intelligence Agency. They may not appreciate what they have created.

Our joint training experience forged a bond of trust and a sense of duty that continues some eighteen years later. It is because of this bond of trust that the authors of this piece and two other colleagues, all former intelligence officers, appeared on ABC's Nightline to speakout on behalf of the wife Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a sensitive undercover operative outed by columnist Robert Novak. The Ambassador's wife (we decline to use her name) is a friend who went through the same training with us. We acknowledge our obligation to protect each other and the intelligence community and the information we used to do our jobs. We are speaking out because someone in the Bush Administration seemingly does not understand this, although they signed the same oaths of allegiance and confidentiality that we did.

Many of us have moved on into the private sector, where this Agency aspect of our lives means little, but we have not forgotten our initial oaths to support the Constitution, our government, and to protect the secrets we learned and to protect each other. We still have friends who serve. We protect them literally by keeping our mouths shut unless we are speaking amongst ourselves. We understand what this bond or the lack of it means.

Clearly some in the Bush Administration do not understand the requirement to protect and shield national security assets. Based on published information we can only conclude that partisan politics by people in the Bush Administration overrode the moral and legal obligations to protect clandestine officers and security assets.

Beyond supporting Mrs. Wilson with our moral support and prayers we want to send a clear message to the political operatives responsible for this. You are a traitor and you are our enemy. You should lose your job and probably should go to jail for blowing the cover of a clandestine intelligence officer.

You have set a sickening precedent. You have warned all U.S. intelligence officers that you may be compromised if you are providing information the White House does not like. A precedent, as one colleague pointed out during our brief appearances, allows you to build out a case based on previous legal actions and court decisions. It's a slippery slope if it lowers the bar.

Ambassador Wilson's political affiliations are irrelevant. Political differences serve as the basis for the give and take of representative government. What is relevant is the damage caused by the exposure that Ambassador Wilson's wife as a political act intended to undermine Wilson's view.

It is shameful on one level that the White House uses the news media, its own leaks, and junior Congressmen from Georgia, among others, to levy attacks on Ambassador Wilson. Moreover they discount what he has to say, his value in the Niger investigation, and suggest his wife's cover is of little value because she was "a low-level CIA employee". If Wilson's comments or analysis have no merit, why does the White House feel the need to launch such a coordinated attack? Why drag his wife into it?

Not only have the Bush Administration leakers damaged the career of our friend but they have put many other people potentially in harm's way. If left unpunished this outing has lowered the bar for official behavior. Further, who in their right mind would ever agree to become a spy for the United States? If we won't protect our own officers how can we reassure foreigners that we will safeguard them? Better human intelligence could prevent any number of terror incidents in the future, but we are unlikely to get foreign recruits to supply it if their safety cannot be somewhat assured. If more cases like Mrs. Wilson's occur, assurances of CIA protection will mean nothing to potential spies.

Politicians must not politicize the intelligence community. President Bush has been a decisive leader in the war on terrorism, at least initially. What about decisiveness now? Where is the accountability he promised us in the wake of Clinton Administration scandals? We find it hard to believe the President lacks the wherewithal to get to bottom of this travesty. It is up to the President to restore the bonds of trust with the intelligence community that have been shattered by this tawdry incident.

We joined the CIA to fight against foreign tyrants who used the threat of incarceration, torture, and murder to achieve their ends. They followed the rule of force, not the rule of law. We now find ourselves with an administration in the United States where some of its members have chosen to act like foreign tyrants. As loyal Americans and registered Republicans we implore President Bush to move quickly and decisively against those who, if not apprehended, will leave his Administration with the legacy of being the first to allow political operatives to out clandestine officers.


Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This case has, I believe, only begun to unravel. Unraveled thread makes SUCH a mess...
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TS Elliot
Member
Member # 736

 - posted      Profile for TS Elliot   Email TS Elliot   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by WarrsawPact:
Depends. I don't think that technically Rove has committed any crime under existing law.

Not under Section 421 ... not under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982... not even under the Espionage Act of 1917.

Warss, I so admire your ability to find absolutely the most detaillistic kinda rules, nitpicking regulations, exceptions, exceptions to exceptions, to support your positions. Ever heard of such a thing as 'spirit of the law'?

Care to paste those sections and Acts here?

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It doesn't have to be a criminal offense for it to be a firing offense. It would be very sad if the only standard for White House employment were the criminal code.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TS Elliot
Member
Member # 736

 - posted      Profile for TS Elliot   Email TS Elliot   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
Thats cause the republicans are sophisticated namecallers. Democrats are too nice to be good at it.

[Big Grin]

At least Democrats are namecallers when it's about presidents lying (WMD in Iraq ... where?) and stealing (giving Halliburton top dog position in rebuilding Iraq, 9 billion? You gotta admit, it's good business, first you use taxpayers money to bomb a country, then you use EVEN MORE taxpayers money to rebuild it.)

While on the other hand, Republicans can only do namecalling when it's about presidents lying about sex. And of course, republicans NEVER lie about sex and never will do so, right?

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TS Eliot -
quote:
Ever heard of such a thing as 'spirit of the law'?
Yes, but unlike some people, I don't massage new meanings out of laws. These laws were written as they were for specific purposes, or even specific cases (in the case of Sec 421, a specific former agent of the CIA).

"Section 421" refers to this: Title 50 USC, Sec 421:
quote:
Section 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents
Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(d) Imposition of consecutive sentences
A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.

That's a damn high bar to have to clear to be convicted.

You'd have to meet all of the following conditions, as supplied by the folks at QandO:
quote:
1. The suspect had to have had access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, or resulted in the suspect learning the identity of a covert agent.

2. The suspect had to have intentionally disclosed the identity, or information that disclosed the identity, of the covert agent.

3. The person to whom the suspect disclosed the identity was not authorized to receive the information.

4. The suspect knew that the information he disclosed identified the covert agent.

5. The suspect knew that the government was actively trying to conceal the covert agent's relationship with the government.

The aforementioned Sec 421 is part of the larger Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.
Under the IIPA, Karl probably can't be charged anyway.

USA Today says why:
quote:
The alleged crime at the heart of a controversy that has consumed official Washington — the "outing" of a CIA officer — may not have been a crime at all under federal law, little-noticed details in a book by the agent's husband suggest.

In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins.

Six years later, in July 2003, the name of the CIA officer — Valerie Plame — was revealed by columnist Robert Novak.

The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a "covert agent" must have been on an overseas assignment "within the last five years." The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say. Wilson's book makes numerous references to the couple's life in Washington over the six years up to July 2003.

"Unless she was really stationed abroad sometime after their marriage," she wasn't a covert agent protected by the law, says Bruce Sanford, an attorney who helped write the 1982 act that protects covert agents' identities.
[...]
Joseph Wilson would not say whether his wife was stationed overseas again after 1997, and he said she would not speak to a reporter. But, he said, "the CIA obviously believes there was reason to believe a crime had been committed" because it referred the case to the Justice Department.

Spokesmen for both the CIA and federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating whether a crime was committed, also would not comment.

Though that key law may not have been broken in leaking the name, Fitzgerald must still be pursuing evidence of some type of wrongdoing, said Victoria Toensing, another of the attorneys who helped draft the 1982 act. Like Sanford, she doubts Valerie Wilson, as she now refers to herself, qualified as a "covert agent" under that law. She and Sanford also doubt Fitzgerald has enough evidence to prosecute anyone under the Espionage Act. That law makes it a crime to divulge "information relating to the national defense" that "the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury" of the nation.

But, Toensing said, "reading between the lines, I'd say he's got a 'Martha Stewart case' " involving perjury or obstruction of justice. In other words, though a crime may not have been committed at the start, one may have occurred during the investigation when someone lied to Fitzgerald or to a federal grand jury.

-=-=-=-=-=-
Now, the Espionage Act of 1917 is not something we normally even use in this country, because it looks bad if the government uses it and it is bad for the press. You'll see why.

The part that would apply to Karl is in 18 USC 793:
quote:
Section 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it
[...] Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

If you read the rest of the law, you'll also see the unpopular part: it's also a crime to even RECEIVE the information, which means that if Rove goes to jail, so do Novak, Cooper and Miller. The Act is an extremely powerful tool and one not terribly difficult to abuse in the case of certain types of whistleblowing.
The questions about Rove being prosecutable, then are:
quote:
1. Mr. Rove must have had access to classified information indicating Ms. Plame was a covert operative.

2. Ms. Plame's covert status with the CIA must have been classified information, and Mr. Rove must have known it to be classified.

3. Mr. Rove must have believed that it could harm the defense of the United States or advantaged another nation to release the information.

4. Mr. Rove must have intentionally released the information to a person not authorized to receive it.


Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Warsaw-
Actually, to me, from what I know right now, would say that Rove is guilty of a violation of 421, if Plame was stationed overseas in the five years leading up to the column. The only question would be whether he knew the CIA was trying to keep her under wraps.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Incidentally, I have a question:
Karl Rove was not deputy white house chief of staff in 2003. What was his job title at the time?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since 2001, Mr. Rove has served as Senior Advisor to the President, overseeing strategic planning, political affairs, public liaison, and intergovernmental affairs at the White House.
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ev, Rove apparantly got the information about Plame from a reporter.
Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ev -
quote:
The only question would be whether he knew the CIA was trying to keep her under wraps.
That's some tough burden-of-proof there. Somewhere someone would have to come up with evidence that he actually knew her status. If she was walking into Langley every morning and members of the press corps knew she had something to do with the CIA, he shouldn't have a hard time arguing the obvious assumption: he didn't know she was a covert agent.

Do you know what Rove knew? Let's hear about it.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
[O'Reilly] said that he wanted to know "where the Liberal idea of innocent until proven guilty was in this case."

Nice of him to admit that good ideas like that are ours.

That's retarded. Innocent until proven guilty is a liberal idea, not a Liberal idea.

I don't know what O'Reilly's smoking.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll settle for Novak being given the chair. Who says Dems can't compromise?

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rove and the White House's torturous and Clintonian posturing continues as Matt Cooper reveals that Rove told him that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA on Weapons of Mass Destruction.

The GOP talking points is that Cooper called Rove to chat about welfare reform in a weird trap that quickly evolved into a discussion of Wilson and his wife. Then, as the GOP propagandists put it, Rove merely "confirmed" that Wilson's wife was CIA.

Of course, Cooper throws those lies right back into the faces of the propaganditocracy by disclosing what he told the grand jury:


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1083899,00.html

quote:
I told the grand jurors that I was curious about Wilson when I called Karl Rove on Friday, July 11...... But then, I recall, she said something like, "Hang on," and I was transferred to him. I recall saying something like, "I'm writing about Wilson," before he interjected. "Don't get too far out on Wilson," he told me. I started taking notes on my computer, and while an e-mail I sent moments after the call has been leaked, my notes have not been...

[...]

As for Wilson's wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak's column or Googled her, I can't recall which. Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the "agency"--by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred that he obviously meant the CIA and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that she worked on "WMD" (the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction) issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife.

Rove never once indicated to me that she had any kind of covert status. I told the grand jury something else about my conversation with Rove. Although it's not reflected in my notes or subsequent e-mails, I have a distinct memory of Rove ending the call by saying, "I've already said too much." This could have meant he was worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting or something else. I don't know, but that sign-off has been in my memory for two years.

In other words, Rove told Cooper that Wilson's wife Valerie Plame worked at the CIA on weapons of mass destruction nonproliferation issues, Rove also did not say that Valerie Plame was a covert agent, and then Rove ended the phone call by saying, "I've already said too much."

The key is that Cooper notes that "This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife." -- when Rove decided to detail her role at the CIA as an expert in the WMD field.

Obviously it's apparent that Rove is disclosing sensitive information to the journalists here (that he should not have disclosed), not the other way around as the Rove apologists would have it ( i.e. the "but Rove was only confirming the stuff that reporters were asking him" defense).

[ July 17, 2005, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rove apologists? LMAO

FACT:
quote:
"Joseph C. Wilson IV conceded on CNN the other day, she wasn't a ''clandestine officer'' and, indeed, hadn't been one for six years. So one can only ''leak'' her name in the sense that one can ''leak'' the name of the checkout clerk at Home Depot." - Mark Steyn
How about someone that prefers to see both sides of the story and make an objective judgement. So far there seems to be a lot of smoke, but still NO SUBSTANTIAL fire.

Are you going to sit their and tell us that Judith Miller is in jail right now protecting ROVE?!?!? If you make that case, I got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale just for you.

David, for someone who loves to proclaim he is a "conservative" it's hilarious that you quote well known, liberally biased, Democrat/left-wing sources like Time magazine uncritically.

This is the mental image I get of you everytime I read this thread...

The Angry Left

Give it a rest already. Even if Rove is fired, what is that going to accomplish? How does that improve government or "this administration?" Is not this administration far beyone redemption in your eyes anyway? C'mon...admit it. This is simply scalp-hunting and sour grapes because you are an outraged ABBer.

[ July 18, 2005, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

How about someone that prefers to see both sides of the story and make an objective judgement.

Has someone like that posted to this thread? Who? Where?

quote:

Are you going to sit their and tell us that Judith Miller is in jail right now protecting ROVE?!?!?

No. I think she's grandstanding for a book deal and/or protecting Scooter Libby. [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You want objective?

How about a document showing a filing on behalf of 36 media organizations to the court...

The Amici Brief (PDF) (OA won't allow ( ) in a URL, so you have to cut and paste the URL yourself.) Of course you have to type in your own 'http://' and 'www'

bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s10News/FileUpload44/10159/Amici%20Brief%20032305%20(Final).PDF

quote:
The media organizations that have signed onto this amici brief represent a wide array of television, radio and print news organizations serving the public across the country. The media organizations' interest in this case is that of preserving the right of journalists such as Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper not to be compelled to reveal the identities of their confidential sources absent a heightened degree of searching scrutiny by the Judiciary, and the constitutionally protected role of the news media in America requires such customized procedures when reporters are subpoenaed in government investigations of itself, where the motivations for compulsion may be suspect. In this case, there exists ample evidence on the public record to cast serious doubt as to whether a crime has even been committed under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (the "Act") in the investigation underlying the attempts to secure testimony from Miller and Cooper. If in fact no crime under the Act has been committed, then any need to compel Miller and Cooper to reveal their confidential sources should evaporate.
Now it's plain as day for all to see here.

36 News Media Orgs - included most of the PRIMARY news-content providers via syndication, like Reuters, AP, Knight-Ridder, Gannett, and the trade organizations for Magazines and Newspaper editors and writers, all filed a brief in court claiming that subpeonaes on Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper were unwarranted because most likely no crime has been committed.

Yet all of these same organizations are continually pounding the Democrat party-line that Rove is a criminal mastermind gleefully outing a covert agent to get revenge in all of their newspaper and TV coverage.

And people eager to believe the worst eat it up without reservation or critical analysis.

"There is no liberal media bias..."

[Roll Eyes]

[ July 18, 2005, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"There is no liberal media bias..."

Eventually you'll understand this, Daruma. [Wink]
Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
lol - well Alzabo, ONE of us is the proverbial Ostrich with his head in the sand. [Wink]
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What you didn't do there, daruma, was provide any evidence that they are calling rove a criminal. Are they saying he's guilty of gross moral mis-judgement? are they saying he should be fired because bush said he'd fire anyone involved in the leak? are they concerned over national security? or are they claiming that rove broke the law? If its not the latter, you haven't shown diddly.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
lol - well Alzabo, ONE of us is the proverbial Ostrich with his head in the sand.
Oh Daruma, I only think your head is half in the sand. I know I can count on you to catch what you think are "liberal" instances of bad journalism. You just ignore any and all instances of "conservative" bad journalism.
Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ev, what were Bush's EXACT and PRECISE words? I believe it was "convicted of a crime" not "involved in a leak."

The point is much of the MSM is reporting this by implying criminality of Rove. Much of the reporting is worded like this:

"..for Rove outting covert CIA operative Valerie Plame"

As in Rove is de facto guilty of the crime - yet the same news agencies that report like this are the same ones filing their brief saying there most likely is no crime that has been committed.

But feel free to stick to the semantics of your argument.

I'll believe in the objectivity of the MSM when they give half as much attention to "grave matters of national security" concerning cases of actual criminality - like Sandy Berger's theft and destruction of files.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by A. Alzabo:
quote:
lol - well Alzabo, ONE of us is the proverbial Ostrich with his head in the sand.
Oh Daruma, I only think your head is half in the sand. I know I can count on you to catch what you think are "liberal" instances of bad journalism. You just ignore any and all instances of "conservative" bad journalism.
Au Contraire Alzabo, I know where there are plenty of right wing/conservative bad journalism. I readily point out that Newsmax, WND, FoxNews are generally biased towards the GOP/conservativism. But we all know that. The argument I make is that on the other side of the coin, the MSM (ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/NYT/LAT/CHISUN/AP/Reuters) are primarily liberally/Democrat biased.

You love to point out conservative bias, but still insist that the MSM (as I defined it) is only objective and sensationalistic with no intent to present a biased view towards liberal ideology. THAT is where we disagree, I think. [Smile]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry , Daruma, the original pledge by the president was:
quote:
If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates. That's not the way this president expects people in his administration to conduct their business...
.

But I'm sure this can be Clintoned.

Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" I believe it was "convicted of a crime" not "involved in a leak."

YEs NOW it is. 2 years ago, it was "involved in leaking."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/18/AR2005071800689.html

[ July 18, 2005, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, by Wilson's own statment on CNN, it can hardly be called "classified" since she was not undercover, but merely a desk jockey without covert status?

So what's the point again?

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
my point is that rove was involved in a leak, outting a CIA agent who was not a known agent, president bush said he would fire anyone involved in a leak, and now that its rove, he's raised the standard to convicted. the CIA is concerned enough over the leak to pursue the investigation, so it was not routine name dropping. And it was politically motivated, so rove should lose his security clearance, since he views partisan politics as more important then holding to the intent of security clearance.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Well, by Wilson's own statment on CNN, it can hardly be called "classified" since she was not undercover, but merely a desk jockey without covert status?"

Actually, that statement is false. The information was classified. It doesn't matter whether she was undercover or not, her name was classified information that rove had access to prior to novak because he had security clearance.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1