Yeah and so what?BillT said:Its a very interesting story...if he did leak the name, should he be tried for treason? If so, imagine the uproar if Bush pardoned him.
Do you need me to draw a picture? I think it's pretty damn obvious what I'm talking about isn't it? Maybe not to a repub...clancy98 said:at least explain yourself chang. identifying smells does not make one an authority.
i deleted it after the stories turned out to be less interesting than the headlines. i still think rove should be jailed for being a sleazeballMikeD said:Hmmmm, what happened to Toshi's thread??
MD
That [Ed:attourney] is kind of glib with the "apparently works at the Agency" part of Rove's statements to Cooper. If Plame didn't work overtly at the CIA at the time of that statement, then in fact, he IS pointing out her identity as a clandestine operative.N8 said:
As it was she was not working for the CIA but Brewster Jennings & Associates, a CIA cover. She wasn't telling her neighbors and friends that it was the CIA and was only able to tell her husband prior to their marriage because of his high security clearance. So I'd say that she wasn't overtly working for the CIA.MikeD said:That [Ed:attourney] is kind of glib with the "apparently works at the Agency" part of Rove's statements to Cooper. If Plame didn't work overtly at the CIA at the time of that statement, then in fact, he IS pointing out her identity as a clandestine operative.
He doesn't name her "by name," true...he calls her "Wilson's wife," which is as specific as using a name, and doesn't explicitly state she's a clandestine operative, but says she "works at the Agency." If she's not openly a CIA employee (analyst, janitor, secretary, whatever, at HQ in Langley), and he's pointing out her CIA connections, his statements have the same effect and intention.
That kind of semantic sleight-of-brain is what Clinton tried to pull, remember? "It depends on what you mean by sex..."
Then again, I'm NOT thoroughly familiar with the case....you'll see my "ifs" above. If Plame WAS working openly for the CIA but was concealing clandestine activities on the side (an odd thing, I'd think, but I'm no secret agent), then Mr. Rove is indeed in the clear.
And Novak's still not in prison. That's REALLY the f'd up part of it all.
MD
I wonder who said this...."Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."
the article said:In 2003, McClellan said it was "a ridiculous suggestion" that Rove was involved. "I've made it very clear he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was," he said. He also said any culprit in the White House should be fired "at a minimum."
At one point, the press secretary vowed: "The president has set high standards, the highest of standards, for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."
Bush replied "yes" when asked in June 2004 if he would fire anyone who leaked the agent's name.
That's a sound logical connection.N8 said:I think there is a very good possibility that it was a democrat who leaked Plame's name to the reporter which is why she is so damn reluctant to give it up...
N8 said:In Case You Missed It: Karl Rove, Whistleblower
From The Wall Street Journal
Review & Outlook
July 13, 2005
Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying for Karl Rove's head over his role in exposing a case of CIA nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. On the contrary, we'd say the White House political guru deserves a prize--perhaps the next iteration of the "Truth-Telling" award that The Nation magazine bestowed upon Mr. Wilson before the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed him as a fraud.
For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real "whistleblower" in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He's the one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility. He's the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove.
Media chants aside, there's no evidence that Mr. Rove broke any laws in telling reporters that Ms. Plame may have played a role in her husband's selection for a 2002 mission to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking uranium ore in Niger. ... But it appears Mr. Rove didn't even know Ms. Plame's name and had only heard about her work at Langley from other journalists.
On the "no underlying crime" point, moreover, no less than the New York Times and Washington Post now agree. So do the 36 major news organizations that filed a legal brief in March aimed at keeping Mr. Cooper and the New York Times's Judith Miller out of jail. ...
In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know.
If there's any scandal at all here, it is that this entire episode has been allowed to waste so much government time and media attention, not to mention inspire a "special counsel" probe. ...
uh huh. Like the Kenneth Star probe, $80m and 3 (4?) years to determine that the pres did in fact, have sexual relations with that woman. i'm sure the conservative rags like the WSJ were jumping up and down protesting that investigation...N8 said:In Case You Missed It: Karl Rove, Whistleblower
From The Wall Street Journal
Review & Outlook
July 13, 2005
...If there's any scandal at all here, it is that this entire episode has been allowed to waste so much government time and media attention, not to mention inspire a "special counsel" probe. ...
There's no evidence that Mr. Rove broke any laws in telling reporters that Ms. Plame may have played a role in her husband's selection for a 2002 mission to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking uranium ore in Niger. ... But it appears Mr. Rove didn't even know Ms. Plame's name and had only heard about her work at Langley from other journalists.
dante said:uh huh. Like the Kenneth Star probe, $80m and 3 (4?) years to determine that the pres did in fact, have sexual relations with that woman. i'm sure the conservative rags like the WSJ were jumping up and down protesting that investigation...
lied under oath about having sexual relations with someone vs. outing the name of a covert CIA operative. Hmmmm, which would YOU think is worse (ya, ya, jackbooted republican response is "of course anything to do with sex is far worse", not surprising)?N8 said:and lied about it under oath, etc, etc, etc....
that wasn't the question, he asked if you thought what Rove did was right, not legal...N8 said:Nope, don't see the crime here unless it was something Mr. Wilson did.
dante said:lied under oath about having sexual relations with someone vs. outing the name of a covert CIA operative. Hmmmm, which would YOU think is worse (ya, ya, jackbooted republican response is "of course anything to do with sex is far worse", not surprising)?
not excusing either, but jeez...
... and who did Rove 'out' again..?it appears Mr. Rove didn't even know Ms. Plame's name and had only heard about her work at Langley from other journalists.
Clear enough for you?Cooper noted he had spoken to Rove on "double super secret background" and that Rove had told him that Wilson's "wife...apparently works at the agency on wmd issues."
Either Rove knew that he was revealing an undercover officer to a reporter or he was identifying a CIA officer without bothering to check on her status and without considering the consequences of outing her.
For Most Analysts, The Information In The Report Lent More Credibility To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Report On The Uranium Deal, But State Department Bureau Of Intelligence And Research (INR) Analysts Believed That The Report Supported Their Assessments That Niger Was Unlikely To Be Willing Or Able To Sell Uranium. (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, Report On The U.S. Intelligence Communitys Prewar Assessments On Iraq, 7/7/04)
You're the Corky of the political forum.N8 said:I think there is a very good possibility that it was a democrat who leaked Plame's name to the reporter which is why she is so damn reluctant to give it up...
You don't come around these parts too often, d'ya stranger?the law said:Hey N8,
you seem to skip the biggest question. Do you think what Karl Rove did was right? Stop posting this drivel and take a stand.
do forgive n8 for not preserving the fontenization of the list, as found on gop.com. why presentation would matter over substance is beyond me. do explain if you feel the need.Toshi said:1) whoever wrote those "summaries" or whatever that drivel should be properly classifed as is severely lacking in capitalization skills. Every Word Should Not Be Capitalized. (yes, i don't capitalize when writing for this audience. bite me.)
redundancy of "repeated verbatim" aside, what paragraphs were repeated? i see sentences within 2 paragraphs that were repeated, as they were germaine to their listing. more misdirection?Toshi said:2) several paragraphs are repeated verbatim.
since you are loathe to artistic license, i look forward to your keen assessment of chang's posts re: cia leak Q&A, & the press pool feeding frenzy, which certainly were bleeding with artistic license.Toshi said:3) there is much "artistic license" in the summary points vs. the material supposedly backing it up. for example, stating that "wilson claimed that the vp" had been briefed is significantly different than "wilson believed that the report would have been distributed to the vp". besides, monkey-no-see is no excuse for cheney.
then you must hold the same position about sting operations that catch would-be child molesters, too, eh?Toshi said:4) even assuming the following quote is not falsified, which i wouldn't put past any self-disrespecting neocon kowtower these days, it only indicates that there was internal debate over the validity of the niger uranium claim, and perhaps that the cia analysts are afraid to go against their hand-picked chief:
You mean Sandy "OOps, the documents accidently fell into my pants" Berger??$tinkle said:do you know who sandy berger is?
It really is amazing how you can write so much and still utterly avoid addressing the main issue. It's almost like you're doing it on purpose. ink:$tinkle said:do forgive n8 for not preserving the fontenization of the list, as found on gop.com. why presentation would matter over substance is beyond me. do explain if you feel the need.
redundancy of "repeated verbatim" aside, what paragraphs were repeated? i see sentences within 2 paragraphs that were repeated, as they were germaine to their listing. more misdirection?since you are loathe to artistic license, i look forward to your keen assessment of chang's posts re: cia leak Q&A, & the press pool feeding frenzy, which certainly were bleeding with artistic license.then you must hold the same position about sting operations that catch would-be child molesters, too, eh?
finally, i've reviewed various threads wrt high ranking officials abusing their positions & access to classified information in order to gain political advantage at the cost of nat'l security, and the one question i have for you is: do you know who sandy berger is?