View Full Version : Karl Rove reportedly Outed Valerie Plume as CIA Undercover
What would it take for you to admit or accept that the administration lied us into a war ?
BTW, I am surprised you would even read the CommonDreams website. Isn't that grounds for the death penalty among folks like you ;)
Melonie
07-16-2005, 06:19 PM
What would it take for you to admit or accept that the administration lied us into a war ?
I'd definitely settle for any sort of 'hard' proof, or even 'soft proof' like British and French intelligence recanting their pre-war assessments as incorrect (which neither has done so far). However, like the coalition's failure to find a 'smoking gun' of WMD's in Iraq, Ambassador Wilson's failure fo find a 'smoking gun' of uranium purchases in Niger does NOT constitute positive proof that the events didn't actually take place prior to the point they started looking.
BTW, I am surprised you would even read the CommonDreams website. Isn't that grounds for the death penalty among folks like you
Again, you shouldn't make assumptions that my 'devil's advocate' posts on SW are totally indicative of my personal opinions or personal pursuits. Believe it or not I am NOT a big supporter of GWB. However, when compared to JFK#2 he appeared to be the lesser of two evils. I won't go tolling for sympathy, but being a New Yorker has tended to make me very serious about national security (i.e. I don't want to lose any more friends to hijacked jets) and about liberal tax and spend policies (i.e. I pay some of the highest fed+state+local taxes in the entire USA)
I do try to use links to websites that are outside the 'conservative' camp whenever possible to avoid partisan criticism, and in this case that CommonDreams piece made all of the historical points I wanted to convey. I'm assuming that even you will admit that LBJ lied us into Vietnam, with abundant 'hard' proof in evidence.
Ambassador Wilson's failure fo find a 'smoking gun' of uranium purchases in Niger does NOT constitute positive proof that the events didn't actually take place
documents alleging Iraq recently sought uranium from Africa were forgeries,
Melonie
07-16-2005, 06:53 PM
yeah yeah yeah they were forgeries ... which prove nothing and may in fact have been deliberately planted for the express purpose of undermining credibility of other intelligence -
"Yes, there were fake documents relating to Niger-Iraq sales. But no, those forgeries were not the evidence that convinced British intelligence that Saddam may have been shopping for "yellowcake" uranium. On the contrary, according to some intelligence sources, the forgery was planted in order to be discovered — as a ruse to discredit the story of a Niger-Iraq link, to persuade people there were no grounds for the charge. If that was the plan, it worked like a charm."
from
If mainstream media had called for an investigation into the source of those forgeries with equal zeal to their call for investigation into the source of the Valerie Plame leak, we might actually start getting to the REAL truth. Of course the last time that forged documents allegedly discrediting GWB were seriously investigated, CBS lost an anchorman !
National Review ? LMFAO ! You have got to be kidding ! That isn't a source, that is extreemist rightwing nutjob propaganda.
If you believe in what they have to say then any meaningful discussion with you is pointless. But I kinda figured that out anyway by reading your posts. I just thought I'd give it a try in hopes I was wrong. Sadly though I see I was not mistaken.
Oh well, Have a good evening anyway.
dlabtot
07-16-2005, 07:12 PM
FItzgerald (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55560-2005Feb1?language=printer) isn't interested in the media spin, he's digging for the facts.... when the indictments come out, it will be funny watching the White House trying to 'spin' them away, lol
During questioning by the FBI about his role in the Plame affair, Rove told federal agents that he only started sharing information about Plame with reporters and White House officials for the first time after conservative columnist Robert Novak identified her covert CIA status in his column on July 14, 2003, according to a report in the American Prospect about Rove's testimony in March 2004.
But Rove wasn't truthful with the FBI what with the recent disclosure of Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper's e-mails, which reveal Rove as the source for Cooper's own July 2003 story identifying Plame as a CIA operative, and show that Rove spoke to Cooper nearly a week before Novak's column was published and, according to previously published news reports, spoke to a half-dozen other reporters about Plame as early as June 2003.
Lying to Federal agents is a crime -- the same crime that put Martha Stewart in jail.
Melonie
07-17-2005, 03:58 AM
If you had actually read the National Review article, you would see that its author is actually a former NY Times reporter. However, if you want to see 'extremist right wing propaganda' on the subject of Rove, try
"RUSH: Since the Democrats are so worried about compromising identities and challenging our national security. So, so, so worried what Karl Rove turned out not to have done as he was accused, the reason why we don't believe it, folks -- for those of you in the audience who are Democrats and liberals -- the reason we don't believe it is because we listen to what your leaders say. Let's go back to May 12th on the floor of the Senate. Here is Dingy Harry Reid sliming a Bush judicial nominee whose name is Henry Saad.
REID: Henry Saad would have been filibustered anyway. He's one of those nominees, all you need to have is have a member go upstairs and look at his confidential report from the FBI and I think we would all agree that there's a problem there.
RUSH: This is not done. Nobody divulges contents of any nominee's FBI raw file. You just don't do it -- and as a nonmember of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Harry Reid is not even legally allowed to see that file. But he apparently has, and so he just slimes a Bush judicial nominee on the basis of a raw FBI file. It's not been vetted. It's just what the FBI's collected from neighbors, ex-wives, ex-girlfriends, whoever. They go out and find the worst they can find about you and then they back it up, follow it up, see how much of it is true. This is what Dingy Harry is referring to. And these people want us to believe that they're concerned about privacy, and national security, and who can have clearance to see private documents and all that? This is why we can't take these people seriously. This is why we laugh. This is why we just belly laugh over these people's complaints. I could give you analogy after analogy if you needed one, but it's preposterous. Here's another example. April 11th of this year, Senate Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, during the questioning of John Bolton, who's Bush's nominee to be ambassador to the UN, Senator Kerry said this.
KERRY: Could I just take one moment, 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman? This is reading from Mr. Flights' interview where he says, "Did Otto Reich share his belief that Fulton Armstrong should be removed from his position?" The answer is yes. Did John Bolton share that view? Mr. Flight said yes.
BOLTON: As I said, I had lost confidence in "Mr. Smith" and I conveyed that. I thought that was the honest thing to do.
RUSH: What you just heard here was John Kerry blowing the cover of a CIA operative in his zeal to attack John Bolton. He identified him by name. This is exactly what Rove is accused of doing and didn't do. Here is John Kerry actually having done it. This is why, when Democrats start making these charges, we know that they can't possibly mean it because they do this times ten themselves, and they don't care about the privacy of individuals who are their enemies. They'll out them and destroy them any way they can. They will lie about people, like George W. Bush and the National Guard, like Karl Rove -- and so I don't think they realize how practically impossible it is for them to be taken seriously by an increasing number of people across the spectrum in this country. "
Melonie
07-17-2005, 08:11 AM
also, the very same former NY Times foreign correspondent has published a follow-up article citing historical references which point to the most likely actual source of Plame's 'outing' ...
Richard_Head
07-17-2005, 09:35 AM
Time correspondent Matthew Cooper said he told a grand jury last week that Rove told him the woman worked at the "agency," or CIA, on weapons of mass destruction issues, and ended the call by saying "I've already said too much."
"So did Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No.
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," Cooper wrote in Time's current edition.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050717/us_nm/bush_leak_dc_5;_ylt=AjEfbgs2I_.zIJKHvhBdSMMGw_IE;_ ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--
There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. If there's leaks out of my administration, I want to know who it is, and if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of. -George W. Bush
Enough said.
dlabtot
07-17-2005, 09:39 AM
Well it seems clear that Rove is not the only one who will be served with an indictment. If the only laws he broke were confirming classified information, violating his non-disclosure agreement, USC 641, lying to Federal investigators, lying to the grand jury, and USC 371, that does still beg the question of who originally provided the classified information to reporters, as well as who was behind the original attempt to introduce false intelligence into our national debate with these forged documents.
But you can rest assured that Patrick Fitzgerald is doggedly pursuing all of those questions, and you won't read about what he's learned in the National Review... you'll have to wait for the indictments. Blowhards on the right can pontificate all they want that "it's over" but the reality is, it's not over till Patrick Fitzgerald says it's over.
dlabtot
07-17-2005, 10:16 AM
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050712/bennett.jpg
Apparently this is finally beginning to dawn on Mr. Bush's fiercest defenders and on Mr. Bush himself. Hence, last week's erection of the stonewall manned by the almost poignantly clownish Mr. McClellan, who abruptly rendered inoperative his previous statements that any suspicions about Mr. Rove are "totally ridiculous." The morning after Mr. McClellan went mano a mano with his tormentors in the White House press room - "We've secretly replaced the White House press corps with actual reporters," observed Jon Stewart - the ardently pro-Bush New York Post ran only five paragraphs of a wire-service story on Page 12. That conspicuous burial of what was front-page news beyond Murdochland speaks loudly about the rising anxiety on the right. Since then, White House surrogates have been desperately babbling talking points attacking Joseph Wilson as a partisan and a liar.
These attacks, too, are red herrings. Let me reiterate: This case is not about Joseph Wilson. He is, in Alfred Hitchcock's parlance, a MacGuffin, which, to quote the Oxford English Dictionary, is "a particular event, object, factor, etc., initially presented as being of great significance to the story, but often having little actual importance for the plot as it develops." Mr. Wilson, his mission to Niger to check out Saddam's supposed attempts to secure uranium that might be used in nuclear weapons and even his wife's outing have as much to do with the real story here as Janet Leigh's theft of office cash has to do with the mayhem that ensues at the Bates Motel in "Psycho."
This case is about Iraq, not Niger. The real victims are the American people, not the Wilsons. The real culprit - the big enchilada, to borrow a 1973 John Ehrlichman phrase from the Nixon tapes - is not Mr. Rove but the gang that sent American sons and daughters to war on trumped-up grounds and in so doing diverted finite resources, human and otherwise, from fighting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. That's why the stakes are so high: this scandal is about the unmasking of an ill-conceived war, not the unmasking of a C.I.A. operative who posed for Vanity Fair.
-snip-
Once we were locked into the war, and no W.M.D.'s could be found, the original plot line was dropped with an alacrity that recalled the "Never mind!" with which Gilda Radner's Emily Litella used to end her misinformed Weekend Update commentaries on "Saturday Night Live." The administration began its dog-ate-my-homework cover-up, asserting that the various warning signs about the uranium claims were lost "in the bowels" of the bureaucracy or that it was all the C.I.A.'s fault or that it didn't matter anyway, because there were new, retroactive rationales to justify the war. But the administration knows how guilty it is. That's why it has so quickly trashed any insider who contradicts its story line about how we got to Iraq, starting with the former Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill and the former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke.
Next to White House courtiers of their rank, Mr. Wilson is at most a Rosencrantz or Guildenstern. The brief against the administration's drumbeat for war would be just as damning if he'd never gone to Africa. But by overreacting in panic to his single Op-Ed piece of two years ago, the White House has opened a Pandora's box it can't slam shut. Seasoned audiences of presidential scandal know that there's only one certainty ahead: the timing of a Karl Rove resignation. As always in this genre, the knight takes the fall at exactly that moment when it's essential to protect the king.
Follow the Uranium (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/opinion/17rich.html)
dlabtot
07-17-2005, 04:03 PM
BTW, here's the Vanity Fair picture taken after her cover was blown. It's funny, apparently, old habits die hard, she's still dressed like a spy, practically in disguise, even though Novak had already published his story.
http://www.jimgilliam.com/images/vf_wilson_plame.jpg
stant
07-18-2005, 03:17 AM
Fortunately or otherwise, this is not 1973 (Watergate) nor is it 1964 (Tonkin Gulf Incident). ...
A comparison of the three is important, and indeed supports a defense in many ways of Dubya as negligent, not malicious. This was the same defense used by Nixon, right up to the point that oval office tapes were revealed to prosecutors, of RN instructing J Erlichman to commit flagrant acts of obstruction of justice and misuse of powers. The precedent of both Nixon and Reagan (Iran-Contra) is that the President is immune from the malicicious misdeeds of his staff unless directly involved.
The Gulf of Tonkin incident and subsequent congressional resolution for stepping up the Vietnam war is a much closer example. In this case, (it appears likely now that was) fabricated or exaggerated evidence of an enemy attack on US forces was used to incite public and congressional support for a major escalation of US forces involved in the conflict. Many (as does Mel) consider this event the start of the war.
The preemptive Iraq invasion is similar to the GOT, however, it appears that the evidence of WMD's in Iraq was not a fabrication of the administration, since they never had any, shy of a few examples that were discounted at the time. Nothing in Colin Powel's presentation to the UN has been called a "lie" other than he made grossly wrong conclusions based on the evidence.
Frankly, I don't give a shit. The preemptive invasion of another country without an overt threat or attack from the "enemy" is grotesquely wrong. The "puffing" of WMD evidence was foolish. The fact that people have simply accepted this new obscene doctrine of preemptive war, however, is the nauseating act of blind submission.
...What would it take for you to admit or accept that the administration lied us into a war ?
Who cares? Preemptive war is wrong. If we want the oil that bad, at least stage some shit to make it look OK.
montythegeek
07-18-2005, 05:03 AM
BTW, here's the Vanity Fair picture taken after her cover was blown. It's funny, apparently, old habits die hard, she's still dressed like a spy, practically in disguise, even though Novak had already published his story.
http://www.jimgilliam.com/images/vf_wilson_plame.jpg
The odds are very high that this is a staged picture. Undercover agents do not look like the stereotype of undercover agents--they look like everyone else so as to not be noticed.
It is your basic "hide in plain sight" principle.
dlabtot
07-18-2005, 08:18 AM
The odds are very high that this is a staged picture. .
Umm.... DUH
We are talking about Vanity Fair, of course it's a staged picture, DUH
Rove's apparent aim was not so much to reveal Plame as to discredit Wilson and thus his commentary. Just why having a CIA wife or being recommended by her marked Wilson as duplicitous and untrustworthy has neer been made clear, but Bush and Rove imply that it does and that is supposed to be good enough for the rest of us.
Criminally liable or not, Rove's nasty and anonymous tattling reveals a spiteful and unhesitatingly vicious presidency, willing to destroy the sound reputations of two federal officials who have devoted their careers to working for this country. And all that just to punish and blunt a defensible dissent.
That, in my book, is worse than criminal.
dlabtot
07-18-2005, 01:12 PM
From todays WH press briefing, 7/17/05:
Q What is his problem? Two years, and he can't call Rove in and find out what the hell is going on? I mean, why is it so difficult to find out the facts? It costs thousands, millions of dollars, two years, it tied up how many lawyers? All he's got to do is call him in.
MR. McCLELLAN: You just heard from the President. He said he doesn't know all the facts. I don't know all the facts.
Q Why?
MR. McCLELLAN: We want to know what the facts are. Because --
Q Why doesn't he ask him?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050718-2.html
THE WHITE HOUSE OBLIGATIONS UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958
Under the executive order, the White House has an affirmative obligation to investigate and take remedial action separate and apart from any ongoing criminal investigation. The executive order specifically provides that when a breach occurs, each agency must "take appropriate and prompt corrective action." (see Reference, below) This includes a determination of whether individual employees improperly disseminated or obtained access to classified information.
The executive order further provides that sanctions for violations are not optional.The executive order expressly provides: "Officers and employees of the United States Government … shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently … disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified."
There is no evidence that the White House complied with these requirements.
Reference: http://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy_documents/executive_order_12958_amendment.html
Destiny
07-19-2005, 11:01 AM
Rove's apparent aim was not so much to reveal Plame as to discredit Wilson and thus his commentary. Just why having a CIA wife or being recommended by her marked Wilson as duplicitous and untrustworthy has neer been made clear, but Bush and Rove imply that it does and that is supposed to be good enough for the rest of us. Not true. Wilson repeatedly claimed that his wife had nothing to do with recomending him for the job. That was a lie. His lying about something as simple as that calls into question his honestly in the entire report. Wilson is duplicitous and untrustworthy, not because Bush or Rove say so, but because the Senate Select Commitee on Intelligence and the CIA say so. When confronted with his lies, Wilson dismissed them as, "a little literary flair". Rove's failings, do not lend veracity to any of Wilson discredited claims.
Joe Wilson's Top Ten Worst Inaccuracies And Misstatements (http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=5630)
dlabtot
07-19-2005, 12:07 PM
Not true. Wilson repeatedly claimed that his wife had nothing to do with recomending him for the job.
THAT IS THE LIE.
you say he's done this repeatedly... please provide ONE example of HIM ACTUALLY SAYING WHAT YOU CLAIM HE SAID.
By the way, the lie you've repeated is totally irrelevant to the question of whether or not anyone in the WH revealed the identity of a CIA agent for political purposes.
Destiny
07-19-2005, 12:22 PM
THAT IS THE LIE.
you say he's done this repeatedly... please provide ONE example of HIM ACTUALLY SAYING WHAT YOU CLAIM HE SAID. Okay, here's one example:
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “Among other things, you had always said, always maintained, still maintain your wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA officer, had nothing to do with the decision to send to you Niger to inspect reports that uranium might be sold from Niger to Iraq. … Did Valerie Plame, your wife, come up with the idea to send you to Niger?” Joe Wilson: “No. My wife served as a conduit, as I put in my book. When her supervisors asked her to contact me for the purposes of coming into the CIA to discuss all the issues surrounding this allegation of Niger selling uranium to Iraq.” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 7/18/04)
Contrast with:
“Some CPD, [CIA Counterproliferation Division] officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife ‘offered up his name’ and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador’s wife says, ‘my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.’” (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)
Again, perhaps you should check your own facts before you start calling people names?
dlabtot
07-19-2005, 12:40 PM
So your statement " Wilson repeatedly claimed that his wife had nothing to do with recomending him for the job." was a lie, since you haven't provided an example of Wilson saying that. You've provided an example of other people claiming he said that., however... ::)
PS, the only name I will ever call you is Destiny, however I will continue to comment on the veracity of your posts.
dlabtot
07-19-2005, 12:45 PM
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2005/07/18/tomo/story.jpg
Richard_Head
07-19-2005, 03:33 PM
How to lose credibility.
"I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." --George W. Bush, September 30, 2003.
Upon learning that Rove leaked classified information:
"I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts and if someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration."
-- George W. Bush, July 18, 2005
Apparently it's now acceptable to leak classified information as long as you can CYA.
Destiny
07-19-2005, 09:09 PM
So your statement " Wilson repeatedly claimed that his wife had nothing to do with recomending him for the job." was a lie, since you haven't provided an example of Wilson saying that. You've provided an example of other people claiming he said that., however... ::)posts. I must say that the tendency of certain members here to label any post they disagree with a lie is getting tiring. If anyone finds a factual error in one of my post, let me know, I'll change it. Or if you have a different view, or a different take on the issue, post that. Otherwise, shut the hell up. Calling someone a liar doesn't add anything to the board and doesn't make your views seem more intelligent by comparison.
As far as the issue at hand, let's see what that bastion of conservatism the Washington Post says shall we?
Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle)
Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role
Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly...
The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him...
The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.
Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.
"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."
In fact, she was involved and specifically recommended him for the trip.
PS, the only name I will ever call you is Destiny, however I will continue to comment on the veracity of your posts. Calling someone a liar doesn't strike me as meaningful comment. Feel free to check out the veracity of my comments, just get your own facts straight first. As far as what you call me. Considering your poor manners, I'd prefer you call me nothing at all.
dlabtot
07-19-2005, 11:34 PM
What is your source for that quote? I've never seen it before and you haven't referenced it with a link, citation or other identifying characteristic... where did you get it? It is not consistent with anything I've ever seen Wilson quoted as saying before.
I'd like to read the original for myself. Where did it come from?
On edit: ok, I found the Susan Schmidt Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html) and she does indeed say that Wilson said that in a memoir she does not name... she also says Wilson stands by his story but she quotes him so selectively it is hard to tell what he actually said. She falsely claims that a lot of things were in the bipartisan Senate Intelligence report that were in reality only contained in an addendum put in by the Republicans only.
And again, I will repeat, I never called you any name, I did say that you were repeating a lie. If you are not willing to see the distinction I can't make you see it.
As to whether it is true that " Wilson repeatedly claimed that his wife had nothing to do with recomending him for the job.", The only such assertion I've ever seen is the one Schmidt quotes... what Wilson said in his Op-Ed is that the CIA sent him at the request of the VP's office - the truth.
But whether the smear of Wilson is a lie, the gospel truth, or merely a misleading obfuscation, it is totally irrelevant to Patrick Fitzgerald's criminal investigation into the Bush administration blowing the cover of a CIA agent for political purposes. It's just spin -- a lot of BS meant to distract from the criminal scandal that is unfolding.
dlabtot
07-20-2005, 12:01 AM
On another front, did you see Bush flip-flop on whether he would fire anyone who was involved? You just can't trust him to keep his word...
Destiny
07-20-2005, 08:04 AM
What is your source for that quote? I've never seen it before and you haven't referenced it with a link, citation or other identifying characteristic... where did you get it? It is not consistent with anything I've ever seen Wilson quoted as saying before. Well gee, I'm sorry the truth doesn't fit your view. Perhaps you should broaden your outlook?
I'd like to read the original for myself. Where did it come from? Learn to use the hyperlinks. If a computer illiterate like me can, you shold be able to figure it out.
On edit: ok, I found the Susan Schmidt Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html) and she does indeed say that Wilson said that in a memoir she does not name... she also says Wilson stands by his story but she quotes him so selectively it is hard to tell what he actually said. She falsely claims that a lot of things were in the bipartisan Senate Intelligence report that were in reality only contained in an addendum put in by the Republicans only. You refuse to believe anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions anyway. And here I've always thought it was conservatives that were supposed to be narrow-minded. You asked me to, "please provide ONE example of HIM ACTUALLY SAYING WHAT YOU CLAIM HE SAID." I've now provided you two. I'm done doing your research for you.
Do your own damn research for a change here (http://www.google.com/).
And again, I will repeat, I never called you any name, I did say that you were repeating a lie. If you are not willing to see the distinction I can't make you see it. You quoted me and then screamed, "THAT IS THE LIE." liar (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liar) n : a person who has lied or who lies repeatedly. You said my statement was a lie. That is calling me a liar. My statement is a fact, I've backed it up. Now apologize.
As to whether it is true that " Wilson repeatedly claimed that his wife had nothing to do with recomending him for the job.", The only such assertion I've ever seen is the one Schmidt quotes... what Wilson said in his Op-Ed is that the CIA sent him at the request of the VP's office - the truth. Oh I see, so I suppose the Washington Post is helping the Bush Administration cover Karl Rove's ass? Please. Again, you asked for one example, I've provided you with two. I'd hardly call CNN and The Washington Post friends of the Bush Administration. If you deny the facts as reported by two of the leading media organizations in the country, I can only assume your ego is so fragile that you find it impossible to admit when you make a mistake. Furthermore, the fact is that the Vice-President did not send Joe Wilson to Niger. That was yet another of his misstatements. But again, I'm done doing your research for you.
But whether the smear of Wilson is a lie, the gospel truth, or merely a misleading obfuscation, it is totally irrelevant to Patrick Fitzgerald's criminal investigation into the Bush administration blowing the cover of a CIA agent for political purposes. It's just spin -- a lot of BS meant to distract from the criminal scandal that is unfolding. No more obfuscating than your continued refusal to acknowledge well established facts.
I don't know what your deal is, perhaps you feel threatened by women that think for themselves? Perhaps you are so insecure in your own beliefs that any opposition is unsettling? I really don't give a damn one way or the other. If you want a girl to nod and giggle while you pontificate on the issues of the day, I'd suggest you take your $40 to your little titty bar. I'm sure as long as you keep slipping one of your precious dollar bills into her garter, you can find a girl to sit on your lap and pretend to listen while you blast the Bush Administration. So go and have some fun. On the other hand, if you want some reasoned debate with women that actually think for themselves, you are welcome here. But stop the calling of names and check your own facts first. You only undermine your own arguments that way.
dlabtot
07-20-2005, 08:44 AM
^ YOU are accusing ME of ad hominems?? lol
Back to the topic of the discussion,. which is the criminal exposing of an undercover CIA agent, what is your view on Bush's latest flip-flop?
threlayer
07-20-2005, 08:49 AM
It doesn't matter if Plame offered up her husband's name or not. Even if she did, she probably knew his contacts were good and that is likely part of her job. If it had been a neighbor with those Niger contacts instead of her husband, that would have been part of her job as also. I'm sure the CIA knew her husband's name and thoroughly considered any conflict of interest issues. IMO that is a NON-ISSUE (in bureaucratese)
Further that doesn't entitle Novak, alone or via Rove, to publicize the fact that Wilson's wife works as an undercover agent for the CIA. Her name is a matter of public record and would be easily obtained by any spy chaser. Even if Rove didn't specifically user her name literally, he gave a strong lead to anyone who wants to find a list of CIA undercover operatives. There is the ISSUE.
It is a LOT more significant to consider whether Rove violated one of Bush's conditions and ethics for employment and if/how Bush may try to wiggle out of this tight spot Rove got Rove and GWB into. That's what this thread was about originally, after all. Of course it is a public discussion forum.
Melonie
07-20-2005, 02:29 PM
actually, it is the press that is 'moving the goalposts', not GWB.
Be that as it may, the nomination of Roberts for Supreme Court Justice has now relegated Rove stories to the last page, right next to Sandy Berger's stolen National Archive 'sock-warmers' !
dlabtot
07-20-2005, 03:03 PM
Fantasy:
actually, it is the press that is 'moving the goalposts', not GWB.
Reality:
Scott McClellan at a briefing Sept. 29, 2003.
Q. All right, let me just follow up. You said this morning, quote, "The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved." How does he know that?
A. Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. I saw some comments this morning from the person who made that suggestion backing away from that. And I said it is simply not true. So - I mean, it's public knowledge I've said that it's not true.
Q. Well, how …
A. And I have spoken with Karl Rove. I'm not going to get into conversations that the president has with advisers or staff, or anything of that nature. That's not my practice.
Q. But the president has a factual basis for knowing that Karl Rove …
A. Well, I said it publicly. I said that - and so, I've made it very clear.
Q. I'm not asking what you said, I'm asking if the president has a factual basis for saying - for your statement that he knows Karl Rove …
A. He's aware of what I said, that there is simply no truth to that suggestion. And I have - I have spoken with Karl about it.…
Q. But, Scott, it gets to the question, if you know - if the president knows that Karl Rove was not involved, then maybe you can tell us more about what the president specifically is doing to get to the bottom of this, or what has he ordered to be done within the White House to get to the bottom …
A. The president wants anyone, anyone who has information relating to this to report that information to the appropriate agency, the Department of Justice. That's what the president wants, and I've been very clear about that. If …
Q. So he's convinced that there was no White House involvement …
A. You know, if I could get - well, if I could get anonymous to fess up, that would make my life a whole lot easier. But there's been nothing - there has been absolutely …
Q. My question is, does he know, is he convinced that no one in the White House was involved with this?
A. There has been absolutely nothing brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement. All we've seen is what is in the media reports. Media reports cite senior administration official, or senior administration officials.
Q. So they're wrong?
A. But I haven't seen anything before that. That's why it's appropriate for the Department of Justice, if something like this happened, to look into it.
Q. So those media reports are wrong, as far as the White House is concerned?
A. Well, we have nothing beyond those media reports to suggest there is White House involvement. And so …
Q. And the president …
A. There's been no specific information brought to my attention to suggest …
Q. He's not doing anything proactive?
Q. Let me - let me follow up on …
A. No, he's making it clear that this is a serious - through his spokesman, me, that this is a serious matter, and if someone did this, it should be looked into and it should be pursued to the fullest extent.…
Q. What do you say to people out there who are watching this and must be saying, you know, I voted for George Bush because he promised to change the way things work in Washington, and yet his spokesman …
A. And he has.
Q. … and yet his spokesman is saying that there's no internal even questioning of whether or not people were involved in this, and he's just letting that be handled at the Justice Department, letting it pursue more of a criminal investigation as opposed to almost an ethical
A. Dana, think about what you're asking. Do you have specific information to bring to our attention that suggests White House involvement?
Q. No, but - (off mike) -
A. There are anonymous reports all the time in the media. 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.…
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html
7-19-2005:
"I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts and if someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration," Bush said at a news conference with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
Asked on June 10, 2004, whether he stood by his earlier pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked the officer's name, Bush replied: "Yes." He did not add the qualification that the person would have to be found to have committed a crime.
http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-07-18T161429Z_01_N18259368_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-LEAK-DC.XML
Richard_Head
07-20-2005, 04:20 PM
Be that as it may, the nomination of Roberts for Supreme Court Justice has now relegated Rove stories to the last page, right next to Sandy Berger's stolen National Archive 'sock-warmers' !Interesting coincidence? I think not. That move has Rove's name all over it (i.e. distort and distract).
dlabtot
07-21-2005, 12:29 AM
Plame's Identity Marked As Secret
Memo Central to Probe Of Leak Was Written By State Dept. Analyst
By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 21, 2005; A01
A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.
Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.
The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002517_pf.html
oops... How did Rove put it in the conversation in which he leaked to Matt Cooper... "I've already said too much." (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071705X.shtml)
yeah, you did.
montythegeek
07-21-2005, 05:19 AM
The mere existence of a memo (sent to Colin Powell BTW not Rove) does not make a chain of evidence for it having had a role in the controversy. I am sure CP got hundreds if not thousands of memos a day as Sec of State. I am also sure that CP did not take each one to KR for his perusal.
The memo "could" have played a role, as could a leak from the author of the memo. Given the fact that Wilson and Plame no longer wanted to work in the Bush White House, they could have outed themselves to the NYTimes to establish their bonefides. Both sides have lied so neither needs to be believed on the surface. Wait for the facts.
Speculation without evidence serves no purpose.
threlayer
07-21-2005, 08:06 PM
Be that as it may, the nomination of Roberts for Supreme Court Justice has now relegated Rove stories to the last page, right next to Sandy Berger's stolen National Archive 'sock-warmers' !
This story will NOT just go away. It is a matter of national security vs presidential privilege. I thought that Monica's blow jobs would go away too, but that help on almost for the life of the term. And this is far more consequential to the country that a sexual indiscretion or ten. And easier to explain to the kids too.
dlabtot
07-22-2005, 01:09 AM
I haven't heard Patrick Fitzgerald speculating about anything... he's gathering evidence...
Melonie
07-22-2005, 03:55 AM
I thought that Monica's blow jobs would go away too, but that help on almost for the life of the term.
Ah yes ... but unfortunately from your point of view there is an immense difference between the two situations. In Clinton's case there was 'hard' evidence of exactly who did what. In Clinton's case there was the issue of his lying to a grand jury. So far the only 'hard' evidence in the Plame situation are lies on the part of Amb. Wilson and Plame. If/when indibtments are issued I'll take the Rove matter seriously. Of course, I'm still waiting for an indibtment to be issued against John Kerry, who outed a covert CIA agent during a Senate confirmation hearing earlier this year !!!
In regard to the consequences of both situations to America and average americans, it is entirely possible that if Clinton hadn't been so 'distracted' that he would have accepted Sudan's offer to extradite Osama Bin Laden.
dlabtot
07-22-2005, 02:50 PM
In 200 years, the nutjob wingnuts will probably still be trying to distract the American people from their crimes (http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl=en&lr=lang_en%7Clang_fr&c2coff=1&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=plame&btnG=Search+News) by blaming the Clenis.
Madcap
07-22-2005, 03:08 PM
it is entirely possible that if Clinton hadn't been so 'distracted' that he would have accepted Sudan's offer to extradite Osama Bin Laden.
You CAN'T be serious! You just CAN'T be!
Melonie
07-22-2005, 04:01 PM
(snip)"(1) Part of what was offered to the Clinton Administration were several hundred Sudanese files on al-Qaeda and its members.
(2) The Administration also passed up the opportunity of interrogating two al-Qaeda members who had clearly been involved in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in east Africa. In keeping with its very questionable Sudan policy
(3), the Clinton Administration rejected all of Sudan's repeated offers. The implications of this studied indifference are clear. As 'Vanity Fair' stated: "September 11 might have been prevented if the U.S. had accepted Sudan's offers to share its intelligence files on Osama bin Laden and the growing al-Qaeda files."
It had also earlier been revealed that in addition to offering the Clinton Administration intelligence on al-Qaeda, the Sudanese government had in 1996 also offered to extradite Osama bin-Laden - just as Khartoum had extradited the international terrorism known as "Carlos the Jackal" to France.
(4) This offer was also rejected by the Clinton Administration."(snip)
dlabtot
07-22-2005, 04:12 PM
Isn't this thread about the fact that Karl Rove revealed the identity of an undercover CIA agent to Matt Cooper of Time magazine, and perhaps others?
I mean that is the title of the thread, that is what the original poster wrote about, etc.... I wonder why some would rather steer the conversation to a different topic?
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050719/morin.gif
Madcap
07-22-2005, 04:42 PM
(snip)"(1) Part of what was offered to the Clinton Administration were several hundred Sudanese files on al-Qaeda and its members.
(2) The Administration also passed up the opportunity of interrogating two al-Qaeda members who had clearly been involved in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in east Africa. In keeping with its very questionable Sudan policy
(3), the Clinton Administration rejected all of Sudan's repeated offers. The implications of this studied indifference are clear. As 'Vanity Fair' stated: "September 11 might have been prevented if the U.S. had accepted Sudan's offers to share its intelligence files on Osama bin Laden and the growing al-Qaeda files."
It had also earlier been revealed that in addition to offering the Clinton Administration intelligence on al-Qaeda, the Sudanese government had in 1996 also offered to extradite Osama bin-Laden - just as Khartoum had extradited the international terrorism known as "Carlos the Jackal" to France.
(4) This offer was also rejected by the Clinton Administration."(snip)
Yes, i'm aware of all that. But you ACTUALLY think Osama got the brush off because Clinton was too busy getting his cock sucked? That's absurd! Clinton says he didn't see any legal way of getting him. Personally, i'd have just whipped out the ol' US wallet (it is the Sudan, after all, some broken down third world nation), told them to shut their traps, popped Osama on a ship and dropped him off in the middle of the ocean and told him to either pray or doggie paddle his way home.
But that's just me.
Talk about one for the tin foil hat crowd!
threlayer
07-22-2005, 05:18 PM
Yes, i'm aware of all that. But you ACTUALLY think Osama got the brush off because Clinton was too busy getting his cock sucked? That's absurd! Talk about one for the tin foil hat crowd!
One would have to be self-deluding to believe that 3 years of trying to defend against an impeachment for anything would have no effects on their focus on many subjects (not to target the Osama thing)? At least I don't think that presidents are political supermen. (Well, maybe GWB is, but I doubt it.)
Fitzgerald has been reviewing discrepancies and gaps in witness testimony. He has spent considerable time since the summer of 2004 looking at possible conflicts between what White House senior adviser Karl Rove and vice presidential staff chief "Scooter" Libby told a grand jury and investigators, and the accounts of reporters who talked with the two men, according to various sources in the case.
Fitzgerald's review of apparent discrepancies are further evidence that his investigation has ranged beyond his original mission to determine if someone broke the law by knowingly revealing the identity of a covert operative.The leaks case centers on the Bush administration's response in the days after Wilson accused the Bush administration in the New York Times and The Washington Post of twisting intelligence to justify a war with Iraq.
Madcap
07-23-2005, 10:24 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163390,00.html
Melonie
07-23-2005, 03:41 PM
yeah yeah yeah a special hearing called by senate Democrats, with hand picked witnesses. IMHO the regular Senate Intelligence Committee hearing carried a great deal more weight and balance ... remember this is the committee which concluded that Wilson fed them a pile of tripe, and that Wilson's testimony actually reinforced the conclusion that Iraq WAS attempting to purchase yellow cake uranium ?
But you ACTUALLY think Osama got the brush off because Clinton was too busy getting his cock sucked? That's absurd! Clinton says he didn't see any legal way of getting him.
As somebody who has personal experience with the behavior of politicians and businessmen in VIP rooms, such a conclusion isn't all that absurd !
Back on topic, other than news on the special hearing called by democrats and the regular weekly democratic radio address, between the second round of Islamic Terrorist bombings and the Roberts nomination, the Rove story has now pretty well slid toward page 101 in most mainstream news media.
Richard_Head
07-23-2005, 05:20 PM
Back on topic, other than news on the special hearing called by democrats and the regular weekly democratic radio address, between the second round of Islamic Terrorist bombings and the Roberts nomination, the Rove story has now pretty well slid toward page 101 in most mainstream news media......for now.
Yes for now, but intentionally putting a person's family in danger as punishment for telling the truth about this war and those who created it isn't something that is just going to be brushed under the rug, sorry.
I predict jail time for at least one Bush admin. member prior to 08 elections.
dlabtot
07-24-2005, 12:39 PM
It really doesn't matter to Patrick Fitzgerald on what page the corporate media tries to bury th story.... that won't change the evidence.... this is a criminal investigation.
Destiny
07-24-2005, 01:23 PM
Yes for now, but intentionally putting a person's family in danger as punishment for telling the truth about this war and those who created it isn't something that is just going to be brushed under the rug, sorry. Whose family was put in danger?