White House mum on CIA leak, Rove

[Mr.Vicchio]

She had no contacts to protect, so your arguements mean nothing.

[lsbskins1]

But what about the rest of what I said? That was not the sum total of my point. Are you going to adress the other points, or ignore them? If it was so bleeding obvious no crime was committed, such an unassailable point of law, why did the investigation go on? On what grounds were the reporters compelled to give up their sources or go to jail? No crime, no contempt of court. If the Judge and the prosecutor did not know she was a "desk jockey", why were they not told? Why were they allowed to pursue a moot case all the way to the Supreme Court? Explain that to me please.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Isbskins1,

Have you considered the possibility that this is a Media Fed frenzy with only thier zeal powering it?

I have posted the law, the facts... when Wilson made his charges the media went berserk, and ignored everything but the chance to hurt Bush. Perhaps, you can look at it from that angle.

[lsbskins1]

So your contention is that both the Judge and the prosecutor were too busy watching the news to find out if an actual law had been broken, and the lawyers for the reporters and their media giant employers did not bother to actually find out if a law had been broken because they, too, were too caught up in the media hype to do their jobs? And nobody at CIA could turn Hardball off long enough to pick up the phone and disabuse all these poor, lazy people of these silly notions? And don't you find it a little odd that the media would so willingly feed a frenzy that actually weakens their power, what with the court holding that they were wrong in their privilege contentions and that they could not protect those confidential sources? Does any of that really make any sense to you?

[lsbskins1]

"If Mr Rove is cleared of breaking the law by the special prosecutor—perhaps because it cannot be proved that he knew Ms Plame was undercover—Mr Bush may decide that the “appropriate action” for leaking secret information is no action at all. The administration that prides itself on its discipline would then look weaselly. But that might seem a better option than admitting any wrongdoing with a sacking, especially of someone as important as Mr Rove. After all, no further investigation into the matter is likely to come from a Republican-dominated Congress. And the battle over Mr Bush’s first Supreme Court nominee—following the retirement of Sandra Day O’Connor—has far more long-term political importance than Mr Rove’s fate, and may divert Democrats’ attention from the Plame affair."

Complete article : http://www.economist.com/agenda/disp...ory_id=4173001

And here we have it MR. V.-
His ignorance is what may save his ass, not the "fact" that she was not undercover or that she had been "exposed" long before. The CIA still considers her work covert, and people very well could have been endangered. But all that aside, doesn't it bother you that Bush, who claimed some moral high ground during the election, implying that there would be no legal hair splitting during his administration, in now splitting them? I'm sure it will be just as impossible to "prove" that Rove knew she was covert as it was to "prove" Clinton knew damn good and well what the definition of "is" was...

But lets put that aside as well and look at how potentially damaging the two "crimes" were. Paula Jones looses a fishing expedition in pursuit of a politically motivated law suit v. potential loss of life of covert sources in the WMD battle...


You tell me what matters more?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Was she undercover at all? As one of my links stated "You aren't undercover if you go back and forth to Langely."


Kinda hard to run a covert ops when your leaving langley daily.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Was she undercover at all? As one of my links stated "You aren't undercover if you go back and forth to Langely." Kinda hard to run a covert ops when your leaving langley daily.

So glad to see that you are an expert on CIA procedures as well as being so good at defending lying scoundrels. Interesting set of skills.

Funny how conservatives talk about patriotism and then are willing to stab good folks in the back if they dare step out of line.

[PatrickHenry]

It's fake patriotism, IMO. They paint themselves red, white and blue and then sell it all for the green. Or in the case of the clueless right, for the syrup dripping from their heroes' lips in Washington. Wait til they take one in the short hairs personally from the America they thought they knew. Like the Kelo v New London situation, heh.

[Whodoe!]

Book deal, book deal, book deal. Wilson claimed the VP sent him on behalf of the CIA when it was really his wife who sent him in this unpaid, fact-finding mission. He knew what would happen when he claimed to be sent by the VP. The ruse was intended to circle back and identify his wife. Wilson (not Rove or the White House) outed his wife by design because it will sell books. Thus - book deal, book deal, book deal.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Whodoe! book deal

BS. Prove your allegation or hang your head in shame.

[Whodoe!]

Tis a theory and as strong as any! Whose media fu is stronger? He made the book deal about the leak before the leak went public. Just Google it.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Whodoe! Just Google it

Heh. That's YOUR job! Make a case for your preposterous theory.

Well, anyhow here's the story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99510,00.html

[Whodoe!]

Fox media fu weak here ... try this one:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/foo...seph_wils.html

It gives an old timeline but long read. Can I make a preposterous theory stand better if I start by saying Bush is a treacherous liar and Hitler incarnate? I am no great fan of any politician but trendy theories don't make them better theories. Of course, that is just another theory.

So, you don't think the book deal timing is odd?

[PatrickHenry]

heh, Whodoe! I found this: http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...spin_cycle.htm

The GOP-bought disinformation spin machine is in hyperdrive right now over the Valerie Plame Treasongate so it is crucial that we all keep focused and remember the salient points, lest we get confused with the smoke and mirrors being brought out to distract and confound. These are the facts. 1) Under section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the disclosure of “ANY INFORMATION identifying a covert agent” is illegal. 2) In the released Cooper email, it is quite clear that Karl Rove stated that Joseph Wilson’s wife was an agent working for the CIA on WMD. The rest of the garbage you are hearing is nothing but window dressing to distract you from these two facts. Once you put these two facts together, you can reach only one conclusion and that is that Karl Rove is a traitor to this country and he needs to be prosecuted for treason against the Untied States of America. Period, end of story. What is convenient about these two facts is that you can summarize them simply and apply them as an answer to any spin you might hear. To summarize: Karl Rove committed treason against the United States of America by violating section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, by revealing the secret identity of a covert operative to a reporter. Now to the spin: Spin-Cycle # 1 – Valerie Plame was not covert.

Read the article. I can't post it all here. Fall on your sword, "TurdBlossom" Rove!

[Dirty Name]

These are the facts. 1) Under section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the disclosure of “ANY INFORMATION identifying a covert agent” is illegal. 2) In the released Cooper email, it is quite clear that Karl Rove stated that Joseph Wilson’s wife was an agent working for the CIA on WMD.

Your "Fact #2" is lacking one very important word - "covert." In order to be a violation of the law listed in your fact #1, fact #2 should read:

"In the released Cooper email, it is quite clear that Karl Rove stated that Joseph Wilson’s wife was a COVERT agent working for the CIA on WMD."

It doesn't.

Anyone who jumps up and down like an organ-grinder monkey and labels someone a traitor over something as flimsy as this has got to be one of those kooky MoveOn.org desperados.

I suggest we wait for all the evidence.

[Blackrain]

In recent weeks, the flap over Karl Rove's alleged 'outing' of a covert CIA agent (supposedly as a means of retribution against that agent's husband for his anti-Iraq War comments) has dominated the internet. It seems the leftists' Darth Vader would fall. People called for his resignation, wrote laws just to remove the one man's security clearance, demonized him further in the press, some called for his impeachment (believe it or not!), and there was even an internet site that gave directions to his residence as part of a campaign that encouraged people to go there and dump their excrement on his lawn. All this, and the man hadn't been found guilty of a crime, hadn't been charged with a crime, and most agree acted at least within the letter of the law-just perhaps not its spirit. Hopefully Mr Rove will call the ACLU for support soon.

But there are problems for the conspiracy theorists who see Rove as Dr Evil and master manipulator of the President, the world, and all things political that are right of Hillary Clinton.....

1) Amb Wilson's wife lost her status as a covert agent 5yrs before the incident when she married her husband
2) Amb Wilson acknowledges that she was not a covert agent (ie, not one who could have been 'outed') at the time of the alleged wrong-doing
3) Columnist Bob Novak-who first reported Ms Plame's name openly-has long said that Karl Rove was not his source, and despite that straight-from-the-horse's-mouth comment...those who believe the article do not believe the writer on that point. Another case of selective acceptance, mental editing, pseudo-censorship, or just another case of denial?
4) One reporter from TIME Magazine revealed an email in which he told his editor that Rove confirmed Ms Plame's name, and this is what's really brought out the anti-Bush droves, but a subsequent email from the investigating body has shown that Rove was being baited by the TIME reporter, and immediately called Deputy NSA advisor Stephen Hadley to tell him about the call, and to let him know that he didn't "take the bait." So, Rove at most confirmed something, but apparently didn't even do that. Still, they prepare their bags for the excrement runs.
5) It very well may be that Amb Wilson is the one who 'outed' his wife's name-according to the New York Times which found State Dept documents from Wilson describing a trip to Niger at the suggestion and support of his wife (the same words Karl Rove used as reported in the TIME magazine email 'his wife'). Odd that no one's calling for Wilson's impeachment?
6) There are semantic issues with the claim that Bob Novak 'outed' the former covert operative by simply saying she worked for the CIA in the WMD department, but it wasn't until 2 days later that David Corn of the leftist The Nation magazine published an article saying she was a covert agent, and not just some secretary or analyst etc. Misleading? Oh yeah! Why? Because it ignores the fact that she-according to her husband-no longer had covert status, and the issue is moot to begin with.
7) Many claim that since there seems to have been wrong-doing in the 'outing' of a possible covert agent, there had to be an investigation, but as facts come out...the anti-Bush droves are now asking, "If Rove's not guilty, then why is there an investigation." Circular logic, denial, witchunt, or political assassination. Any way you slice it, it's not what this nation deserves.
8) EVERYONE knows that this entire affair is not about Valerie Plume's career. Few cared before, and fewer after. This affair is about hating Karl Rove, hating the Bush Administration in general, and a venting of political frustrations on the left side of the aisle.
9) The duplicity shown by those who rave about Rove now, is proof positive that their motivations are political, and not ethical. For example, Sen Chuck Shumer (D-NY) voted against the act which made it illegal to reveal the name of a covert CIA agent, and now he's among those investigating if it's possible to impeach a Presidential advisor. The NY Times was adamantly against that act because it wanted the media and the public to be able to monitor and act as a check/balance to the CIA, but now....the NYT is filled with editorials and spun articles demanding Karl Rove's removal from the Bush Admin in no uncertain or unclear terms.
10) The most likely reality is that the entire Rove Affair has resurfaced-not because of some sort of new evidence that will appease the drool of the left as they tighten their nooses, and build a gallows for their nemises. No, the Bush Admin has often and openly said that since before they took office in 2001, they'd had a list of Supreme Court candidates being prepared, and strategies to present their nominations. Then, as soon as one justice announces her retirement, and another who is slowly dying appears to be doing so faster than expected....as soon as that happens, what is fed to the media on a Friday trash-toss (the White House term for releasing stories to be lost in weekend media reports)? None other than a legal example of special prosecutors being used for political purposes; ie abuse of the legal system by the political system. How interesting that the dead horse of 2003 has re-emerged within hours of the supreme court nomination process starting-a process that the Bush Admin admitted to planning years ago. How odd that the process comes on the heels of the Bush Admin's very public demand that federal judge nominees be given a vote in the Senate and not blocked by a filibuster?

This entire thing with Karl Rove is just another political dance choreographed by the right for their agenda (for right or wrong), and reacted towards by the left in typical fashion: disorganized, dishonest, half-truthed, spirited rather than logical, and completely lacking unity of message or purpose of opposition and resistance.

Once again, Karl Rove dodged the left's bait, and is fracturing the Democratic Party while making it look more and more divisive. Distraction and opposition for opposition's sake are the mantra-replacing The Party of the People and The Party with Open Arms.

I'm no fan of Karl Roves. If he's guilty of outing a covert agent, then I say hang him high, but if not, then I equally ask of his accusers

why?

[Blackrain]

Oh, I forgot one thing-one 'fact':
nteresting thing about the now lost DSM debate is that it's cancelled out by the Karl Rovegate affair. The big issue about the Karl Rove thing centers on a 7/7/02 State Dept memo that Wilson sent out in which he outs his own wife as an intel operative at the CIA. The White House had that memo on AF1, and the question is who had access to it for confirming to Cooper that she was an intel agent? But, the problem is, that the memo also describes Wilsons's claim that he was sent to Niger by the VP Office to investigate WMD claims on Iraq, and the DSM says that at the same time, the Bush Admin was ignoring intel and 'fixing intel to fit policy'. Specific claims from the left have always centered on the VP office, but it's a complete irony that the same office accused of fixing intel is the same one going out of its way to investigate intel that the CIA wasn't. LOL! Ya gotta love the conspiracy theorists who ignore dates. Sorry boys and girls, but the nail is now in the coffin for the DSM's authenticity-and at least for its accuracy.

[snow cone]

Fitzgerald has several times presented documentation to judges to show that a serious crime took place. Judges have repeatedly said that, if the evidence of the serious crime had not presented to them they would not be so insistent that the reporters testify. The CIA filed a complaint of a crime. If the spin offered by our Rove supporters were sound, why would judges and the CIA and the WH be taking this so seriously?

[Blackrain]

Because reporters rely on more than one source for sources, and because the WH can use this for political hay just as the left thinks it can. It was the perfect distraction from the Supreme Court spin for weeks.

[walton]

   Blackrain, I don't see how being one of several lawbreakers would immunize any of them.


A law prohibiting the theft or conversion for personal use of governmental records, Section 641 of Title 18, was used to prosecute J. Randel of the DEA in 2002. John Dean wrote explaining why Rove is in trouble with this law, which the Ashcroft Justice Department boasted was the tool it would use against leakers.

   But don't worry. Bush can pardon anyone for anything. Bush doesn't care what harm is done, as long as it isn't harm done to those loyal to him.