# Karl Rove - Valerie Plame - Joseph Wilson - Exposing a CIA covert operative



## michaeledward (Jul 11, 2005)

I'm a bit surprised to see several commentators call for Karl Rove's dismissal after Newsweek confirmed that Time's emails named him as a source to Matt Cooper. While it was widely speculated that Mr. Rove was the source of information to Robert Novak, it had been denied by White House spokesperson Scott McClellan.

There is now no doubt that Mr. Rove indicated that Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA agent involved in Mr. Wilson's trip to Niger. The emails to Mr. Cooper indicate this 3 days prior to Mr. Novak's original column. 

From a Media that has supported the Presidents 'War on Terror', with little questioning, or analysis of consequence or cost, calling for Mr. Rove's dismissal or resignation seems a bold step. 

What do you think? 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8504290/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

http://www.slate.com/id/2122393/


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 11, 2005)

Too bad that real life doesn't play out as nicely as the 'West Wing'.

Do you suppose Scott McClellan earned his pay during this briefing?

Reading it is amazing ... but watching it is breathtaking...


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050711-3.html#


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 12, 2005)

Scott McClellan is having another difficult day...



http://www.whitehouse.gov/#


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 12, 2005)

Rove has to go.


----------



## ginshun (Jul 13, 2005)

Bush said that Rove is gone if it turns out that he broke the law.  So far as the evidence that I have seen thus far goes, it doesn't appear that he did.

 We'll have to wait and see I guess.


 Honestly, the story seems pretty trivial at this point to be getting the attention that it is.  Not to say that it is not newsworthy, but sheesh.

 I suppose though, anything that makes republicans look bad is automatically front page stuff.


----------



## DngrRuss (Jul 13, 2005)

Since Republicans are the first to demonize the other side of the aisle as immoral and beneath contempt, it is refreshing that, from time to time, they are reminded that they are also fallable.

 Although, since Rove is, IMHO, the Devil, I don't think that Bush will fire him since that would be a clear seperation of Church and State.  And that is something that Republicans are not that good at.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 13, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Honestly, the story seems pretty trivial at this point to be getting the attention that it is. Not to say that it is not newsworthy, but sheesh.
> 
> I suppose though, anything that makes republicans look bad is automatically front page stuff.


Trivial? From the party of 'National Security', you think releasing the identity of a covert operative is Trivial?

How many hundreds of thousands of dollars does it cost to train and place a covert operative? How many other covert operative covers may have been exposed by exposing this operative? Ms. Wilson was said to be employed by a ficticious company located in the greater Boston area, were any other CIA operatives sharing that cover, that were in turn exposed? How many operations were conducted by the operative in the past, which puts how many lives at stake overseas? 



			
				President George W. Bush said:
			
		

> _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._


Do you suppose the President knew that Mr. Rove had disclosed classified information to a reporter prior to promoting him in his second administration?

But, I suppose it's not a lie about ********.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 13, 2005)

I have no problem with him being booted if needs be. 

However I do find it amusing how everyone is now so concerned with the safety of government agents. Guess you have to have the right head on the chopping block.


----------



## ginshun (Jul 13, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I have no problem with him being booted if needs be.
> 
> However I do find it amusing how everyone is now so concerned with the safety of government agents. Guess you have to have the right head on the chopping block.


  Exactly.

 Would there be the same media outrage at this situation if the person in question were a prominent democrat as opposed to Rove? Maybe, but I doubt it. I have a strong feeling that if that were the case the only place you would hear about it was on talk radio and maybe the back page of a newspaper or two.

 Where was the outrage when it was found out that Sandy Berger was caught smuggling top secret documents out of the National Archives? That story was big time news for about a day before it was backpaged and only talked about by Rush, Hannity, Savage, ect.



  I am not implying that there has been no wrongdoing here, but why does this story seem to be so much more newsworthy?





> Do you suppose the President knew that Mr. Rove had disclosed classified information to a reporter prior to promoting him in his second administration?


 That sounds like an accusation to me.  Proof?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 13, 2005)

Exposing an American undercover agent ISN'T a crime???  Valerie Plame's assignment involved intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, which was America's stated purpose in going to war in Iraq.  Exposing her was an overt act of betrayal during a time of war.  That is the definition of "treason" which is a high crime.  It isn't trivial, and it isn't a Democratic, Republican, liberal or conservative issue.  I don't see how any loyal American can justify or trivialize that act for any reason.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 13, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I have no problem with him being booted if needs be.
> 
> However I do find it amusing how everyone is now so concerned with the safety of government agents. Guess you have to have the right head on the chopping block.


 
When, was Who, not interested in the security of Government Covert Operatives?


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 13, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> Would there be the same media outrage at this situation if the person in question were a prominent democrat as opposed to Rove? Maybe, but I doubt it. I have a strong feeling that if that were the case the only place you would hear about it was on talk radio and maybe the back page of a newspaper or two.
> Where was the outrage when it was found out that Sandy Berger was caught smuggling top secret documents out of the National Archives? That story was big time news for about a day before it was backpaged and only talked about by Rush, Hannity, Savage, ect.
> I am not implying that there has been no wrongdoing here, but why does this story seem to be so much more newsworthy?
> That sounds like an accusation to me. Proof?


In case you hadn't heard, Mr. Berger was convicted in the National Archives case.

Mr. Rove communicated to Mr. Cooper three days before Mr. Novak's column was published. In that communication Mr. Rove erroneously, by the way, identified Ambassador Wilson's Wife as the person at the CIA who authorized the ambassador's trip to Niger. This information is not an accusation, but proof reported by Newsweek Magazine. Wilson's Wife, in case you weren't aware, was a covert operative. Mr. Rove gave information related to her position to a reporter.  

As to the crime aspect, you are correct, that Mr. Rove needed to know that Plame was covert, and needed to intend to disclose that covertness for it to be a crime. While it is 'criminal', it remains to be seen if it reaches the point of indictment. However, either the President is a man of resolve, who stands by his word, or he is not. The President stated he would fire anyone involved in the leak. It is clear that Rove was *invovled* in the leak. The issue, at this time and from me, is not whether it was a crime or not. Although, that is not far away. 

Further, Mr. Rove was very prominantly given a promotion by the President early in his second administration. (Which for those with a calendar, is after Mr. Novak's column).

Here's the sequence:
A - Rove told Cooper about a Wilson's Wife.
B - The President said he would fire anyone involved in the leak of a CIA operative's cover.
C - The President promoted Rove.

The question -- not an accusation -- is, was the President aware of 'A' at the time of 'C'.


----------



## Roger Tibbets (Jul 13, 2005)

The amount of press and attention is not just due to the apparent felony committed, but due to the fact that this appeared to be an act of political corruption and abuse of power/knowledge.

It is not at all difficult to see why folks are so interested in this, unless you happen to think that this administration does no wrong.  

Not that you are one of those people.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 13, 2005)

As to the "law breaking" issue...

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mariani/2005/mariani071305.htm


> Knowingly revealing the identity of a covert agent is illegal under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. If that's what Rove or anyone else did, he ought to be hung out for the crows. (I wonder whether Liberals will wail about such a violation of the Geneva Conventions, as they do when terrorists get too much or too little air conditioning?) In order for Rove (or whoever the source was) to have broken the law, he would have to know and reveal that Plame was a covert operative for the CIA. The problem is... she wasn't one anymore.
> 
> Apparently, Valerie Plame ceased to be a covert agent when her cover was blown years earlier. The CIA believed that Aldrich Ames (CIA agent/KGB spy/traitor) revealed her role, along with many other operatives, to the KGB before his arrest in 1994. Plame's former existence as a secret agent became little more than cocktail party chatter with which to thrill the uninitiated. Since her identity was not classified, not secret, and she had not been assigned to duty outside the US in the last five years, revealing her mundane desk job with the CIA was simply not a crime. Lots of people work for the CIA, after all.



As I understand it, this issue isnt all black/white. This seems to be far more political than it is "security minded". Theres probably a lot of people from both sides of the aisle that should be shown the door for political games like these.

Now if Rove was shown to have lied in Grand Jury testimony, or in tesitmony to the FBI,  that is a crime and he should face justice for that.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 13, 2005)

If it turns out she was a "covert agent" and Rove intentionally burned her. Throw him to the dogs. Would an American reporter who intentionally "burns" an operative be subject to the same law?


----------



## Roger Tibbets (Jul 13, 2005)

Tgace -

Are you saying that the criminal investigation is political, or that the public's response is political?  Or something else?  I'm confused.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 13, 2005)

The hype...from the political parties more than anywhere else.From the Dem lynch mob to the Rep "stonewall"


----------



## Roger Tibbets (Jul 13, 2005)

Oh, right.  I agree.  It reminds me of Clinton's impeachment in that sense.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> The hype...from the political parties more than anywhere else.From the Dem lynch mob to the Rep "stonewall"


----------



## Tgace (Jul 13, 2005)

Yes. While I am no Clinton fan, basing an Impeachment case over a ******* was stupid.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 13, 2005)

At this point, I will even conceed that Mr. Rove did not break any laws. He might very well been unaware of Ms. Plame's 'covert' status, which means he would not have broken the law.

The issue is, will the White House do what it said it would do? 

The President said he would fire anyone involved in the leak. It is apparent that Mr. Rove was invovled in the leak. Seems like 'Firin' time' to me.

Add to that Mr. McClellan's comments of September '03 and the President's comments of June '04 and compare them to what has been said over the past three days. 

So much for Mr. Bush bringing dignity back to the White House.

P.S. ... and if it is shown that Mr. Rove broke the law, which only time will tell, then throw the latest Harry Potter book at him.

P.P.S. ... and it isn't often that we can be privy to these things, but, the current Republican Party talking points memo is available under this link .... http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Exclusive_GOP_talking_points_on_Rove_seek_to_discre_0712.html .... so, if you to know about what 'spin' you'll be hearing from the loyalists this week .... you can be prepared.

P.P.P.S. ... oh, yeah, and some of the talking points are out right '*fabrications*'. For instance, Ambassador Wilson did not state or claim that Vice President Cheney selected him to go to Niger. So, watch carefully these statements, when you hear them parrotted.


----------



## ginshun (Jul 14, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The President said he would fire anyone involved in the leak.


 When did he say this?  I have only heard him quoted recently as saying that he will fire anyone who broke the law.  Did he say that a long time ago?  Is one of us hearing the president being misquoted or did he actually say both at different times?

 I agree, that if Rove intentionally expoosed a covert operative, that he should be throuwn out on his tail.  At this point though, that doesn't seem to be the case.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 14, 2005)

Look at the Q &A's from June '04. The President was asked, directly,if he would fire anyone involved in leaking Valerie Plame's name. He answered very quickly "Yes". 







From the Washington Post:"I want to know the truth," Bush told reporters in September 2003 after news of the investigation had burst into headlines. "If anybody has got any information, inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business."



​Apparently, Mr. Rove didn't feel like coming forward and informing the President of what information he was in possession of after this statement. That didn't stop his promotion in term 2, though.



This from the same article:



Bush replied "*yes*" when asked in June 2004 if he would fire anyone who leaked the agent's name.




​This from a different report:





Previously, McClellan had told reporters that the president expected everyone in his administration to "adhere to the highest standards of conduct," adding, "If *anyone in this administration was involved* in it, they would *no longer be in this administration*."


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031006-5.html# 

​Here is the wording of the law.



*50 USC 421(b) *

Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identity 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 not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 14, 2005)

So what's the argument, that Karl Rove UNintentionally exposed Plame to a reporter?  The Clueless Defense?  A White House insider for years somehow was able to find out that Valerie Plame was CIA, but didn't know she was covert?  For me, that requires a real suspense of disbelief.  Plus, it's EXACTLY Rove's modus operandi.  

What in the world was he doing talking to a reporter about Wilson's wife, a CIA agent, anyway?

Time for Rove to go.  The president assured us that he'd fire anyone involved in this, and Rove admitted he was involved.  The charges can be sorted out later.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 14, 2005)

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45266



> Democrat leaders and editorialists accusing Karl Rove of treason for referring to CIA agent Valerie Plame in an off-the-record interview are ignorant of the law, according to the Washington attorney who spearheaded the legislation at the center of the controversy.
> 
> Plame's circumstances don't meet several of the criteria spelled out in a 1982 statute designed not only to protect the identity of intelligence agents but to maintain the media's ability to hold government accountable, Victoria Toensing told WorldNetDaily.



I believe the defense is that she was not "covert" any longer and simply an office agent like many others. Even if thats true, this was "dirty politics", but "he without sin"..yadda yadda..on that one.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 14, 2005)

A simple test to determine if Ms. Wilson-Plame was still functioning as a covert agent ....* Did her neighbors know she was employed at the CIA?* .... this question has been answered; they did not. 


Further, Mr. Novak has, in the past, been very, very clear about the use of the term 'operative'. This term is used strictly for clandestine and covert agents.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 14, 2005)

Not sure of the validity of that test, I dont know what some of my neighbors do for a living....

What did the CIA say about her status? I havent been able to find any info on that...
Again, if he did "burn" a covert agent, punishment is in order. The blatant partisanship and politics around this though seem more like gamesmanship than a search for justice.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 14, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Not sure of the validity of that test, I dont know what some of my neighbors do for a living....
> 
> What did the CIA say about her status? I havent been able to find any info on that...
> Again, if he did "burn" a covert agent, punishment is in order. The blatant partisanship and politics around this though seem more like gamesmanship than a search for justice.


Let the Games Begin! ...

After the crap the 42nd President had to deal with, this is nothing. Except, that it is quite possibly the beginning of the unraveling of the most secretive, and, quite possibly, criminal adminstration in history. 

And incidently, if he did 'burn' a covert agent, we need to be clear that the action was undertaken for political revenge against someone who spoke out against the war in Iraq. 

And who cares about the security of the united states while we are in the midst of a so called war on terror? Especially, when you can show that someone was supporting Kerry. 

and .. this article, located beneath a wikipedia link, suggests what the CIA might actually think of her....

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340


----------



## MisterMike (Jul 14, 2005)

This about sums it up.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=108&e=1&u=/ucac/20050714/cm_ucac/missionimplausible



> Democrats believe that because Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, the White House should not have been allowed to mention that it was she who sent him to Niger. But meanwhile, Clown Wilson was free to puff up his apocryphal credentials by implying he had been sent to Niger on an important mission for the vice president by the CIA.
> 
> Despite the colloquialism being used on TV to describe the relevant criminal offense, the law does not criminalize "revealing the name" of a covert operative. If it did, every introduction of an operative at a cocktail party or a neighborhood picnic would constitute a felony. "Revealing the name of" is shorthand to describe what the law does criminalize: Intentionally revealing a covert operative as a covert operative, knowing it will blow the operative's cover.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Jul 14, 2005)

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/7/14/134416/939



> 7. Is Wilson a partisan? (SOLID) Yes. I'll leave out the dispute over the campaign contributions and the position on Gore's foreign policy team, and just note that he's using the Kossacks to carry his water. Sorry, Joe, you shot your own self in the foot on that one.
> 
> 8. Did Karl Rove intend to out Valerie Plame? (SHAKY) As best as I can tell from the Cooper email, the answer is no. It seems clear that he instructed Cooper to keep this as a "super secret", and the focus of the conversation was clearly not on Plame, but rather to steer Cooper away from a bogus story. I'm leaving this one open-ended, because it may come out in the future, if Rove talked with either Novak or Miller (or both), he may have done something more deliberate. So, from the basis of the evidence we have thus far, I give it a SOLID no, but I'm willing to credit that there may be more evidence out there.
> 
> ...


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 14, 2005)

MisterMike and Tgace, you are both apparently are getting news from the Republican National Party's talking points (which can be seen at a link I posted earlier (Rawstory, I think). 

As example, Point 13 from Tgace, has been disputed from this link to Scott McClellan.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031006-5.html#6





Q Scott, the President just expressed his desire to get to the bottom of this CIA leak issue. And he said he wanted to hold accountable whoever was responsible -- 

MR. McCLELLAN: *Absolutely.* 

Q -- responsible for this. _*But can you confirm that the President would fire anyone on his staff found to have leaked classified information*_? MR. McCLELLAN: I think I made that very clear last week. The topic came up, and *I said that if anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer work in this administration.* This is a very serious matter. The President made it very clear just a short time ago in the East Room, and he has always said that leaking of classified information is a serious matter. And that's why he wants to get to the bottom of this. And the sooner we get to the bottom of it, the better. 

​I also referenced a direct question posed to the President, at which he answered 'YES'.


----------



## ginshun (Jul 15, 2005)

The more this gets discussed, the more it seems to be purely political.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 15, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> The more this gets discussed, the more it seems to be purely political.


Please feel free to defend the actions of Karl Rove. Take it out of the 'purely political' realm.

Joseph Wilson is a life-long public servant, who was attacked because he disagreed publicly with the President's rational for war. And he was correct in his disagreement. 

In this 'purely political' move by "two senior White House officials", national security was compromised. A covert CIA agent was exposed; destroying a National security asset, possibly placing her life, and the lives of her family members in jeapordy, as well as potentially exposing foreign and domestic covert contacts overseas, with expertise in Weapons of Mass Destruction. 
 
Please - defend Karl Rove.


----------



## Ray (Jul 15, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Please feel free to defend the actions of Karl Rove.
> 
> Take it out of the 'purely political' realm.
> 
> ...


It would appear more legit if we finish the investigation before we find a tree to hang him from.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 15, 2005)

Why?

The president stated, through his words and those of his spokesperson, Scott McClellan, that anyone invovled in leaking covert information would no longer be part of the administration.

Karl Rove has been shown to have been involved in the leak of covert information to the press.

President Bush is a man of his word, or he isn't.

His words mean things, or they don't.


----------



## ginshun (Jul 15, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> It would appear more legit if we finish the investigation before we find a tree to hang him from.


  Why indeed.

  Since when do conservatives deserve investigation?  Just go along with the media and hang the guy.  Screw the investigation.

 I am not defending Rove, and I don't intend to, but Michael, don't sit there and tell me that you are worried about this case because of national security. You and the rest of the libs are all fired up about it because it might be a chance to take down a prominent Republican and make the president look bad in the process, nothing less, nothing more. The national security conserns that it brings up are secondary if anything.

 If the person accused of the same things as Rove was unknown person that was not a member of either party, we would never have even heard about it, and nobody would care. There is nothing that anybody is going to tell me that will make me believe different.

  This issue is *purely* political.


----------



## DngrRuss (Jul 15, 2005)

Karl Rove said he was not involved in this situation...
 Now he says he is involved...

 Doesn't that make him a "flip-flopper"?


----------



## Ray (Jul 15, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Karl Rove has been shown to have been involved in the leak of covert information to the press.


If the investigation isn't done, and all we know is what the newspapers are saying about it then it's not enough for me to throw the guy in jail.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 15, 2005)

It is not about jail. It is not about a crime. 

It is about the cover-up. It is about the integrity of the White House.

And ginshun, it is not just us 'liberals' who are fired up about this. If you look at the polls, you will find approximately 75% of Americans think that Karl Rove should be out of the adminstration. Even given the unscientific nature of instant polls, that's saying something. Also, for the first time, more Americans are saying that President Bush is not Honest and Trustworthy (45% to 38% - I think the numbers were). 

And, ginshun, why can't I be fired up about National Security? That assumption on your part speaks volumes about how much you buy into the talk-radio chatter.

And, by the way, Karl Rove was never elected to any position. There is no way for the majority of Americans, who are displeased with his traitorous actions, to vote him out of office. For that, we must depend on our elected officials, and, as I am sure you have heard, this sneak works for the President of the united States. 


Ray --- you can claim to want to wait until the investigation is complete (or like most in the Administration - hope that  a bigger news story comes along) -- but you will notice that no one in the Adminstration is disputing the fact that Karl Rove passed information about 'Wilson's Wife' to Mr. Cooper. They are saying he learned it from someone else. Yet, he is still involved. 

*The President set the bar*: "anyone involved" would no longer be in the administration. 

As I see it, he can fire Rove, or ask for his resignation. But, Nooooo, the President *promoted* Karl Rove, after, we must assume, learning that he was involved in the leak. 

Anything else, and the President is not living up to the standard he set for himself. So much for restoring honor and dignity to the White House.


----------



## ginshun (Jul 15, 2005)

Political.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050715/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_rove_10

 Republicans say Rove didn't do anything wrong, Democrats say that it is all a big cover up and that Rove should be removed. Niether side can prove anything.

  Political.

 And I still never said that I think Rove shouldn't be taken out of his position if it is proved that he did something worng.  I just haven't had that proven to me yet.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 15, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> *The President set the bar*: "anyone involved" would no longer be in the administration.





> 13. Did President Bush promise to fire anyone involved in the leak? (SOLID) No. As we have discussed ad nauseam here, the President said no such thing, but only that anyone who was found to have "violated the law" would be taken care of. Captain Ed has further slain the contention that Bush's remarks during the G8 questionaire were even directed to the firing question, and even if they were, his "pledge" to fire anyone involved still specifically was predicated on lawbreaking. Expect Reid and Wilson to studiously ignore this during their press conference this afternoon. It is true, however, that Scott McClellan did promise that the leaker would be fired, but it is also the perogative of the President to overrule or correct the statements of his press secretary, who has one of the most difficult jobs in the world.


:idunno:


----------



## Ray (Jul 15, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Ray --- you can claim to want to wait until the investigation is complete (or like most in the Administration - hope that a bigger news story comes along) -- but you will notice that no one in the Adminstration is disputing the fact that Karl Rove passed information about 'Wilson's Wife' to Mr. Cooper. They are saying he learned it from someone else. Yet, he is still involved.


According to Fox news today Karl Rove was approached by the reporter; the reporter new the name of Wilson's wife and that she was a CIA agent.  When a state secret is no longer secret, one can hardly be accused of leaking it.  FoxNews is accused of right-leaning, and they may be; but if this comment originated at the White House, then it would be a disputation.  On the other hand, did the White House confirm that Rove leaked the info?

If the investigation finds that Rove did something illegal, then he should be tried and sentanced.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 15, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> :idunno:


http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/

"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of. 
​Tom - keep buying that spin. Keep defending the indefensible. By the way, what is the definition of 'is'?

Ray - you are arguing that this leak is a good leak? It took the Administration close to a week to find some way to spin the story, and to find someone willing to leak it with their spin. 

And just to review the timing, Mr. Rove spoke to Mr. Cooper before Mr. Novak released his column, which means before the secret wasn't secret any longer.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 15, 2005)

Perhaps we should wait for the special prosecutors report to see if any laws have been broken?  :idunno:

Before we "buy into" the partisan politics.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 15, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> It is not about jail. It is not about a crime.
> 
> It is about the cover-up. It is about the integrity of the White House.


:idunno:


----------



## Tgace (Jul 15, 2005)

Hmmm... seems like that was an issue a couple of administrations ago too.....hmmm.

The game of pointing fingers at each other over dirty politics continues. "He without sin..."

Partisan politics.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 15, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Hmmm... seems like that was an issue a couple of administrations ago too.....hmmm.
> 
> The game of pointing fingers at each other over dirty politics continues. "He without sin..."
> 
> Partisan politics.


 
But, this administration came to town pledging to be 'without sin' (restore honor and dignity - I think is how they put it).


----------



## Ray (Jul 15, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Ray - you are arguing that this leak is a good leak? It took the Administration close to a week to find some way to spin the story, and to find someone willing to leak it with their spin.


In no way am I saying that this leak is a good leak.  I'm saying: give the guy a trial before putting him in prison, that's my point.

The side note was a media report today that Rove didn't tell the reporter the name of the wife and what her job was; the reporter said it all in the conversation.  Not that I believe that report any more [or any less] than the other reports that stated it the other way around.


----------



## Ray (Jul 15, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> But, this administration came to town pledging to be 'without sin' (restore honor and dignity - I think is how they put it).


I'd like to see/hear the original quote, in context.  Where can I find it?


"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."


----------



## ginshun (Jul 15, 2005)

"without sin" doesn't seem like a quote that would come form the president.

 I personally don't think that Bush is any less crooked than Clinton. He's not as good at explaining himself and doublespeak though, that is for sure.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 15, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> I'd like to see/hear the original quote, in context. Where can I find it?
> 
> 
> "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."


Republican National Convention - August 3, 2000
Acceptance Speech - Governor George W. Bush. - excerpt



So many of us held our first child and saw a better self reflected in her eyes. And in that family love, many have found the sign and symbol of an even greater love, and have been touched by faith. 

We discovered that who we are is more than important than what we have. And we know we must renew our values to restore our country.

This is the vision of America's founders. They never saw our nation's greatness in rising wealth or in advancing armies, but in small, unnumbered acts of caring and courage and self-denial. Their highest hope, as Robert Frost described it, was to occupy the land with character. And that, 13 generations later, is still our goal, to occupy the land with character.

In a responsibility era, each of us has important tasks, work that only we can do. Each of us is responsible to love and guide our children and to help a neighbor in need. Synagogues, churches and mosques are responsible, not only to worship, but to serve. Corporations are responsible to treat their workers fairly and to leave the air and waters clean. 

And our nation's leaders our responsible to confront problems, not pass them onto others. 

And to lead this nation to a responsibility era, *that president himself must be responsible*. So when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not only uphold the laws of our land, *I will swear to uphold the honor and dignity of the office to which I have been elected*, so help me God. 
​


----------



## Tgace (Jul 15, 2005)

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."



Partisan Politics.....

Easier to stick to things that can be proven, like the law. If he broke the law, even of he lied to investigators, than can him. This other crap is a witch hunt.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 15, 2005)

I'm amazed at the new found love for CIA operatives by the left. Before this, the CIA was another word for "SATAN" by leftists. Very interesting.

Seriously, though, rarely has so much been made of so little. Boiled down, Rove's statements amounted to stating that Joseph Wilson lied when he made the statement that his wife had nothing to do with his assignment in Niger. 

According to columnist Robert Novac: 

"
_I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment. Wilson had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one._ _During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife."_ The whole thing has been best described as a "Tempest in a teapot". It's a political issue designed solely to damage the administration spread mostly by folks who could care less about CIA operatives.

Furthermore, it's no more an issue of national security than Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinski.  Both issues were invented by political hacks to divert attention from the real issues.  

That's not to say an investigation shoudn't be conducted, and if someone broke the law, prosecuted.  However, someone explain to me how this type of political opportunism is of any real issue to everyday American's.  

As far as "leaks" are concerned, Washington has more leaks than the Titanic.  Rare is the Congressman, on both sides, who hasn't leaked "sensitive" information for political gain.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 15, 2005)

Until evidence comes out proving otherwise, thats how Im seeing it too. And the political dimension (without the "security" smoke screen) of this was alluded to way back when this story first broke.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20031005-120005-7859r.htm


> The Democrats haven't been doing too well lately.
> They're on the brink of losing the California governorship. The economy, their strongest issue against President Bush, appears to be recovering. And their sudden front-runner for the presidential nomination is a general who admired Nixon and Reagan  and appears in no hurry to register as a Democrat.
> 
> The Democrats' biggest problem during Mr. Bush's presidency has been an inability to gain lasting political traction for their issues, from the Bush tax cuts to the corporate accounting scandal to the war in Iraq and its aftermath.
> ...


:shrug:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 15, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Until evidence comes out proving otherwise, thats how Im seeing it too. And the political dimension (without the "security" smoke screen) of this was alluded to way back when this story first broke.
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20031005-120005-7859r.htm
> 
> :shrug:


I'd say the Democrats might want to bring their A game...but this IS apparently their A game.  If the Democrats had anything better, they'd use it.  I find it comforting that this is the biggest smoking gun they could come up with.  If this is all they have, there must not be too much there TO have.


----------



## DngrRuss (Jul 16, 2005)

Geez...
 I'm jsut racking up the neg points...
 So much for free speech and a little sarcasm...


----------



## Ray (Jul 16, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Republican National Convention - August 3, 2000
> Acceptance Speech - Governor George W. Bush. - excerpt
> 
> 
> ...


​Actually I mean the quote that said the administration would be "without sin."  I find that to be an interesting boast that one could be "without sin" - especially one who professes to be Christian.

Anyway...If Rove is guilty then let him pay the penalty.  If he's not, then let's find something else to talk about.  But let the investigation get finished, and not use the media reports to determine guilt.  After all, if my opinion had been used in a number of instances then several "free people" would now be in jail and visa versa.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 16, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> [/indent][/indent]Actually I mean the quote that said the administration would be "without sin." I find that to be an interesting boast that one could be "without sin" - especially one who professes to be Christian.
> 
> Anyway...If Rove is guilty then let him pay the penalty. If he's not, then let's find something else to talk about. But let the investigation get finished, and not use the media reports to determine guilt. After all, if my opinion had been used in a number of instances then several "free people" would now be in jail and visa versa.


Hey, I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough for you to follow along. Let me recap.

You see, Tgace made a reference to the New Testament.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> The game of pointing fingers at each other over dirty politics continues. "He without sin..."


Then I picked up on that phrase ... you see, I am an athiest, who is pretty familiar with the Bible.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> But, this administration came to town pledging to be 'without sin' (*restore honor and dignity - I think is how they put it*).


This time, I made the reference a bit more clear for you, right after the 'without sin' part, I explained, apparently not clearly enough, what was meant by the 'without sin' phrase. It's in the bold font.




I will repeat myself again. The noise (if that is how you want to describe it) has very little to do with criminal guilt or innocence. It is not about the criminal statute.

Yes, the investigation should continue. Yes, if Rove broke the law he should face trial, verdict and if appropriate punishment.

The issue is YOUR PRESIDENT LIED TO YOU. He said if anyone was involved, they would be taken care of. 

Mr. Rove was involved. Confirming the facts with Mr. Novak, and attempting to steer Mr. Cooper away from a false story (these are the best Republican National Committee offerings on the undisputed activities) is *involved*.

Please, spin the definition of 'involved' in such a way that Karl Rove is free from it. The President's spokesperson has told us that he, personally, spoke with Karl Rove and Mr. Rove was not invovled.


I was betrayed by President Clinton, when he swore to America that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski". I was angry and upset when I learned I was lied to. 

And so many here, are attempting to give Mr. Bush, Mr. McClellan and Mr. Rove a pass on a similar, if much more serious, matter.

It's not the crime - It's the cover up.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 16, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Hey, I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough for you to follow along. Let me recap.
> 
> You see, Tgace made a reference to the New Testament.
> 
> ...


 So, in short, it's about holding Bush to a higher standard because he's supposedly a christian and said he would return honor and dignity to the office? And here I thought this was just political opportunism.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 16, 2005)

> 13. Did President Bush promise to fire anyone involved in the leak? (SOLID) No. As we have discussed ad nauseam here, *the President said no such thing, but only that anyone who was found to have "violated the law" would be taken care of. *Captain Ed has further slain the contention that Bush's remarks during the G8 questionaire were even directed to the firing question, and even if they were, his "pledge" to fire anyone involved still specifically was predicated on lawbreaking. Expect Reid and Wilson to studiously ignore this during their press conference this afternoon. It is true, however, that Scott McClellan did promise that the leaker would be fired, but it is also the perogative of the President to overrule or correct the statements of his press secretary, who has one of the most difficult jobs in the world.



Seems dependant on legality to me. If this is about "dirty politics" the last person out of DC please turn off the lights.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 16, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> 13. Did President Bush promise to fire anyone involved in the leak? (SOLID) No. As we have discussed ad nauseam here, *the President said no such thing, but only that anyone who was found to have "violated the law" would be taken care of. *Captain Ed has further slain the contention that Bush's remarks during the G8 questionaire were even directed to the firing question, and even if they were, his "pledge" to fire anyone involved still specifically was predicated on lawbreaking. Expect Reid and Wilson to studiously ignore this during their press conference this afternoon. It is true, however, that Scott McClellan did promise that the leaker would be fired, but it is also the perogative of the President to overrule or correct the statements of his press secretary, who has one of the most difficult jobs in the world
> 
> Seems dependant on legality to me. If this is about "dirty politics" the last person out of DC please turn off the lights.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031006-5.html#6



			
				Press Briefing said:
			
		

> Q Scott, the President just expressed his desire to get to the bottom of this CIA leak issue. And he said he wanted to hold accountable whoever was responsible --
> 
> MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely.
> 
> ...


Hey, as long as words don't mean anything.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 16, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031006-5.html#6
> 
> Hey, as long as words don't mean anything.


  Words are cheap in Washington DC.  As far as "leaking classified material", first they have to show that he leaked any material, then it has to be shown that he leaked classified material, which is a crime.  If they can't do so, then the point is moot.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 16, 2005)

> It is true, however, that Scott McClellan did promise that the leaker would be fired, but it is also the perogative of the President to overrule or correct the statements of his press secretary, who has one of the most difficult jobs in the world.


...


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 16, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> ...


Yes, Tom, I have seen that sentence - each and every time you have posted. And, I disagree with the premise.

Further, it has been reported that the President was asked in June '04 if he would fire anyone involved, and he answered 'Yes'. I am continuing to attempt to find the exact transcript, until I do, I accept the possibility that this is an erroneous report. I am not connected to Lexis Nexis over here.

It ain't the crime (although, in this case, it may very well be the crime), it's the cover-up.

But, maybe you are comfortable with a White House that lies to you. Of course, these lies are only invovled with 1762 dead American Soldiers, eh?


----------



## Tgace (Jul 16, 2005)

I also find it amusing under what conditions people become suddenly concerned about soldier welfare...when the right heads are on the chopping block.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 16, 2005)

I find it repulsive that for some reason you seem to think that 'people' are not concerned with soldiers welfare; and how you interpret it as 'sudden'.

However, I suppose it is typical, rather than think, it is easier just to accept the right wing spin that all athiest, liberal, democratic, Kerry supporters hate their country, hate the soldiers who serve their country.

And I am wondering who's head you think is on the chopping block.

You know, that whole sentence is really a pretty big non-sequitur.

The White House lied. 
A Covert Agent was exposed. 
The White House continues to lie, deceive and obfuscate.
And you are arguing with me about whether this deciet warrants action.

I suppose morality is only important when its a weapon used against the 'other'. 

Who's priorities are messed up?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 17, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I find it repulsive that for some reason you seem to think that 'people' are not concerned with soldiers welfare; and how you interpret it as 'sudden'.
> 
> However, I suppose it is typical, rather than think, it is easier just to accept the right wing spin that all athiest, liberal, democratic, Kerry supporters hate their country, hate the soldiers who serve their country.
> 
> ...


  That's not the only thing I find repulsive.  I don't get your link between this issue and 1762 dead soldiers.  It sounds more like an emotional, false argument than anything of substance.  Invoke 1762 dead soldiers, and suddenly you proved your point? I hardly think so.

I guess it's also easier to believe that all republicans are war-mongering, lying, fascists.  

It certainly isn't clear that the White House lied.  
It's also not clear that the White House continues to lie.  
It also not clear whether the issue warrants any sort action.  

Again, the whole topic appears to be nothing more than political opportunism at it's "finest".  A tempest in a tea-pot.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 17, 2005)

I guess its not "innocent until proven guilty"...when the right head is on the chopping block.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 17, 2005)

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,6119,2-10-1462_1738888,00.html



> Despite the brouhaha, veteran observers say the current drama pales in comparison to past intrigues like the Iran Contra affair during president Ronald Reagan's administration or president Richard Nixon's demise in Watergate.
> 
> In terms of political bile, if not scale, the Plame affair does recall the scandal which engulfed president Bill Clinton after his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, said veteran reporter Jack Germond.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ray (Jul 19, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Hey, I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough for you to follow along. Let me recap.
> 
> You see, Tgace made a reference to the New Testament.


The reference probably was "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."  



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Then I picked up on that phrase ... you see, I am an athiest, who is pretty familiar with the Bible.
> 
> This time, I made the reference a bit more clear for you, right after the 'without sin' part, I explained, apparently not clearly enough, what was meant by the 'without sin' phrase. It's in the bold font.


I think you're using the "without sin" quote out of context.  The account of the adultress being taken to Christ for judgment is more of a warning to us about judging unrighteously.  Calling for the head of Rove, without a trial, without a finished investigation, is probably similar to those who took the adultress to Jesus in the same account.

But I think, once the investigation is finished a trial should be conducted and appropriate penalties extracted if found guilty.  

Bush had some amount of trust that his subordinates would do the proper job; we all have trust in people and we all get let down once in a while.  No one can absolutely guarentee the actions of his subordinates, but they can take the appropriate action once that trust is violated.  Bush is right to wait for the investigation to be finished first.


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I will repeat myself again. The noise (if that is how you want to describe it) has very little to do with criminal guilt or innocence. It is not about the criminal statute.
> 
> Yes, the investigation should continue. Yes, if Rove broke the law he should face trial, verdict and if appropriate punishment.
> 
> The issue is YOUR PRESIDENT LIED TO YOU. He said if anyone was involved, they would be taken care of.


On the one hand you say the investigation should continue and punishment meted out; on the other hand Rove should be "taken care of" with or without establishing the facts of the matter.  



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I was betrayed by President Clinton, when he swore to America that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski". I was angry and upset when I learned I was lied to.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 19, 2005)

Argue and obfuscate all you want. This has nothing to do with political affiliation or leanings. And you don't even need to address Rove's motivation, or whether it was even deliberate.

Karl Rove discussed the identity of American covert agent with the press. He admitted this. President George Bush vowed that anyone who was involved in this would no longer be in his administration.

So what's the problem?

It's very disturbing to me that a president who was elected based on his resolve is now reneguing on his promise (and his duty) to fire Karl Rove.

I'd suggest you look into Executive Order 12958, which discusses classified national security information, which includes intelligence operatives and activity. It clearly states that sanctions are appropriate *whether or not the exposure was deliberate*, and the individual *need not be convicted of a crime* in order for sanctions to be indicated.

Some of the excerpts of the Executive Order _(bold lettering is my emphasis):_

Officers and employees of the United States Government...shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they *knowingly, willfully, or negligently*: 

(1) disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified...

c) Sanctions may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions...
(d) The agency head, senior agency official, or other supervisory official shall, *at a minimum, promptly remove the classification authority* of any individual who demonstrates reckless disregard or a pattern of error in applying the classification standards of this order.


----------



## Ray (Jul 19, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Argue and obfuscate all you want...
> 
> Karl Rove discussed the identity of American covert agent with the press. He admitted this. President George Bush vowed that anyone who was involved in this would no longer be in his administration.
> 
> So what's the problem?


For me the problem is this:  I don't know whether her identify & job were known before the July 2003 article.  There are plenty of "public figures" that I don't know of.  For example, I don't recall hearing of John Kerry until before he ran for Pres; and he was a known public figure.  So, how do I know that Rove leaked a secret or if Rove "leaked" public information?  


			
				Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> It's very disturbing to me that a president who was elected based on his resolve is now reneguing on his promise (and his duty) to fire Karl Rove.


What are we after: Rove's job, justice, revenge, or just republicans in general?


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 19, 2005)

Well, no need to worry ... 

The President will just keep changing where the goal posts are, for another 3.5 years. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/arianna-huffington/the-new-bush-doctrine_4363.html

So we now officially have a direct statement of what will come to be known as The New Bush Doctrine:

"If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

In this instance, the president is talking about the leaking of Valerie Plame's status at the C.I.A.

Of course, it would be hard for this "someone" to continue to work in Bush's administration, since this someone would be in prison. But I guess the "restoring integrity to the White House" President is assuring us that, were it even possible to work out an arrangement whereby the offender could continue to fulfill his White House duties from a federal penitentiary, this president just cares too much about integrity to allow that kind of thing.

So listen up convicted traitors, murderers, armed robbers, and other lawbreakers: you have no place in the Bush administration.

Now if youve lied about your involvement in a crime but got off on a technicality... then, fine, welcome aboard the Bush White House.

If, on the other hand, you've been found to have "committed a crime" -- that is to say, once you are actually on your way to the slammer -- well then, you are no longer welcome.

Got that?

If you are still unclear on this (or Scooter Libby), check out more from TalkLeft, JustOneMinute, Daily Kos, Atrios, and HuffPosts own Bill Diamond, Tom Watson, and Steve Brant.
​


----------



## Ray (Jul 19, 2005)

ray said:
			
		

> There are plenty of "public figures" that I don't know of.





			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Well, no need to worry ...
> 
> The President will just keep changing where the goal posts are, for another 3.5 years.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/arianna-huffington/the-new-bush-doctrine_4363.html


Oh, Huffington...Her, I've heard of.  I've heard her give her opinions on a few programs.


----------



## Roger Tibbets (Jul 19, 2005)

Do you really believe that GWB has kept all of his promises up to now?



			
				Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> It's very disturbing to me that a president who was elected based on his resolve is now reneguing on his promise (and his duty) to fire Karl Rove.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 20, 2005)

> What are we after: Rove's job, justice, revenge, or just republicans in general?


Rove revealed classified information. He should be fired. If Scooter Libby was involved, he should be fired, too. And I would feel the same about Howard Dean or Ralph Nader or Sam Webb or John Seehusen if they were responsible. As I said before, I don't consider this an issue of political party. I don't understand why anyone is making a partisan issue out of it. 

Anyone who says they "don't know whether Valerie Plame's name had been revealed earlier" should really look a little closer. The CIA filed a *crimes report* with the Justice Department after this incident. They don't file crimes reports for operatives whose identities were already public.


----------



## Ray (Jul 20, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Rove revealed classified information.


You say.  And he may have.


			
				Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> As I said before, I don't consider this an issue of political party. I don't understand why anyone is making a partisan issue out of it.


Sorry to have said you were hunting republicans.   


			
				Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Anyone who says they "don't know whether Valerie Plame's name had been revealed earlier" should really look a little closer. The CIA filed a *crimes report* with the Justice Department after this incident. They don't file crimes reports for operatives whose identities were already public.


  Can you give me a link on a gov website that give info on this?  Filing a report isn't the same as a conviction; neither is an indicment a guilty verdict.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 20, 2005)

Representative Henry Waxman has produced and interesting article on this subject.


http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/story.asp?ID=887


----------



## Ray (Jul 20, 2005)

http://www.antimedia.us/posts/1121317604.shtml
Using links in from here, I can find stories from other newspapers that say Plame's identification as a cia operative was public knowledge before 2003.  I can also find newspaper accounts that say Rove exposed her in 2003.  

Who to believe?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 20, 2005)

> Filing a report isn't the same as a conviction; neither is an indicment a guilty verdict.


Absolutely true. But is that the standard to maintain your high security goverment position? That you haven't been convicted of a crime? 

Suppose Rove is never convicted of a crime. Suppose Rove, who is widely regarded as a genius, had absolutely no idea that Plame was covert (this is a real stretch for me, but let's suppose). Well then, in speaking to the media about Plame, at the very least he demonstrated such spectacularly bad judgment that he does not deserve his position as Deputy Chief of Staff of the President of the United States. 

The Executive Order dealing with this issue makes it clear that even *UN*intentional exposure of an American agent is grounds for sanctions, including immediate revocation of security clearance and dismissal. He needn't be guilty of a crime.

The President made it clear years ago that he would not have such a person in his administration. He should make good on his word. Rove should resign. He is an embarrassment to the president and a threat to the credibility of the president.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 20, 2005)

I looked at the "medialies" blog, I really can't find links to reputable newpaper articles indicating that Plame's status had been previously revealed (though I find lots of opinion posts about newspapers).  This website also links to "Righttalk.com" and a photo of Senator Clinton with a giant fake nose.  It doesn't instill in me any faith in the quality or objectivity of that blog.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 20, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> http://www.antimedia.us/posts/1121317604.shtml
> Using links in from here, I can find stories from other newspapers that say Plame's identification as a cia operative was public knowledge before 2003. I can also find newspaper accounts that say Rove exposed her in 2003.
> 
> Who to believe?


As someone else indicated earlier ... if Ms. Plames covert status was public knowledge prior to Mr. Novak's column (and Mr. Rove's and Mr. Libby's confirmations), why would the CIA ask the Justice Department to being an investigation into who released the information? 

Answering this question, allows us to begin to understand the other news reports.

But, regardless of what was common knowledge when, did Mr. Rove have the authority to confirm the information to a reporter. No - not according to the agreement he signed when given Top Secret Security Clearances.

Also, when the President asked for those in his administration to come forward with any information about the leak (20 months ago), did Mr. Rove inform the President that he confirmed Ms. Plame's employment to Mr. Novak or that he informed Mr. Cooper of Mrs. Wilson's employment - as the President demanded? If so, what actions has the President taken based on that knowledge? (I mean, other than promoting Mr. Rove?)

Oh, and Pheonix44 --- be sure to check out David Corn's blog. The Right Wing smear machine is not trying to spin the story that David Corn (writer for 'The Nation') actually broke Ms. Plames 'covert' status. Mr. Corn slices and dices the accusations into a fine salsa, but, that doesn't stop the story from being repeated. Over and Over and Over.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 20, 2005)

Not Partisan Politics?



> George W. Bush won reelection in 2004 because the American people believed he represented a morally superior brand of American. Karl Rove successfully branded President Bush as a man of integrity, a morally upright, dependable and honest Christian man who could be trusted to run the nation. Other than terrorism, the morally upright image that the Republicans have fostered continues to be one issue on which they cannot be beat.
> 
> In April, I attended a private lecture Bill Clinton gave to a small group of Democrats in New England. In the lecture, Clinton outlined a plan for how his party could take away Republican moral superiority, and take back power in Washington. He explained that Democrats must be willing to play dirty if they are going to succeed. Republicans will keep winning, Clinton explained, as long as Democrats are unwilling to go on the attack, to undermine Republicans, and to discredit their opponents.
> 
> It is in accordance with Clintons political calculus, then, that a campaign be formulated in which a series of Republican figureheads are brought down in scandalous moral failures. Republicans lose their moral superiority, and can no longer use it to win elections. Democrats may be no better, but theyll be the only alternative. And perhaps, after ten years of being on the losing team, the Democrats will, once again, be able to run at least the House, the Senate, or the White House.


Please....:shrug:


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 20, 2005)

Let us all remember, that Bill Clinton has two ex-wives less then Newt Gingrich. 

Bill Clinton never had to drive his mistress to an abortion clinic (at least that we know) like Henry Hyde. 

The number of 'Republican' moral failings is big enough not to need the President's say-so on anything. 


Referring to the article you link too ... 

Of course, 'Ethan Wingfield' is one of the prime thinkers' in the American community today. You would think a company that publishes a magazine, would have its address somewhere on its web page ... .Nope !

Ethan Wingfield appears to be some low-level employee at Brown university, perhaps only a student, perhaps not. 

How long and far did you have to search to find this drivel? Good Grief.


----------



## Marginal (Jul 21, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Oh, and Pheonix44 --- be sure to check out David Corn's blog. The Right Wing smear machine is not trying to spin the story that David Corn (writer for 'The Nation') actually broke Ms. Plames 'covert' status. Mr. Corn slices and dices the accusations into a fine salsa, but, that doesn't stop the story from being repeated. Over and Over and Over.


Classic Rovian logic. Repeat something enough, and it's suddenly true.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 21, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Classic Rovian logic. Repeat something enough, and it's suddenly true.


It's a good thing there is so much 'Media Bias', and all those in the Media are so 'Liberal'; that way, all the Rovian repetition gets edited out of the stories and . . . oh, wait.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 21, 2005)

Hmmm...poor caricature of Bush below.  



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Ray (Jul 21, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Let us all remember, that Bill Clinton has two ex-wives less then Newt Gingrich.


You have to give Hillary credit for standing by her man.


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Bill Clinton never had to drive his mistress to an abortion clinic (at least that we know) like Henry Hyde.


Maybe that's because cigars don't cause pregnancy?


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> The number of 'Republican' moral failings is big enough not to need the President's say-so on anything.


Republicans may have moral failings, but Bill Clinton is not the guy to hold up as an example.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 21, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Republicans may have moral failings, but Bill Clinton is not the guy to hold up as an example.


Well, Mr. Tgace, quoted from an article stating that President Clinton is offering grand designs to take over the world by having the Democratic people in the Northeast attack Republican 'moral values'. 

The article was written by, what appears to be, a semi-successful web designer, campus Christian leader from Ashville, North Carolina, and was published on what Al Franken refers to as the 'prestigious internet'. 

As, the attack was directed at the former President, I thought it best to discuss moral values from the point of view of the attacked. 

Maybe you're right though, a better example might be a Vietnam war hero, with multiple Purple Hearts and a Silver Star, someone who fought crime and corruption as a district attorney, someone who has served in the most prestigious club in the world (the Senate) for 18 years ... ahhh ... naw.

Bill Clinton oversaw the largest peacetime expansion of the economy ever. Bill Clinton (with the help of some morally flawed Republicans) created the largest government surplus in the history of the country. What's not to love? 

Good Policy....???


----------



## TonyM. (Jul 21, 2005)

I believe that they'll throw Rove to the wolves in a deal to stop impeachment proceedings against Cheney.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 22, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Republicans may have moral failings, but Bill Clinton is not the guy to hold up as an example.


Maybe I could hold up a fine, outstanding Congressman as comparison. Hmmm, I'm thinking, maybe Representative Donald Sherwood (R-Pa). Sure, maybe he screwed around on his wife for five years, but, he never 'abused', Miss Ore (Cynthia Ore, his mistress, not Miss Oregon).

Of course, the comparisons to Clinton .. Representative Sherwood was 58 when the affair began; Miss Ore was 23. 

Got to love it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8663594/


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jul 22, 2005)

How many people that vote democrat or republican do you personally know that have affairs?  I don't know many, myself.  I think this is just an example where those involved in politics, on both sides, don't really represent the people they represent.  Or maybe they do, I dunno...in any random population of 535 people, how many are cheating on their spouses?

 Not that it really has much to do with the matter at hand.

 What saddens me is that someone died, and rather than try to find out how and why, the focus is on how to use it for political advantage.  Some desperately want Karl Rove to have done something wrong and some desperately want him not to have done anything wrong and it's all based on what political damage it does to or doesn't do to the President.


----------



## DngrRuss (Jul 22, 2005)

First- the serious part of this post:
 With all this hubbub surrounding "who said what" and "well, innocent before proven guilty" and whatnot, Rove should simply man-up and resign for the good of the administration.  Since he was instrumental in portraying GWB and this administration as having a higher moral standard, even the hint of impropriety should be looked at with great scrutiny.  Whether what was done constitutes a crime or not, it was simply grossly innapropriate and arrogant of Rove to make such statements to the press and then allow the White House and the Republican machine to try to cover his tracks and spin it to the point it is now- confusing and seeming like a cover-up.

 Second- the sarcastic part:
 Scooter Libby should be removed from this administration for one reason- how can we as a country be taken seriously with a guy named _Scooter _hanging around the White House?  I mean, c'mon... what's next- Billy-Bob, Skeeter, Cletus, and Stinky?  Are Banjos going to be mandatory at staff meetings?  Will there be a maximum tooth count of 8 per head?  Will the hound dogs be allowed to run around the oval office 'til Laura Bush yells, "get them dawgs outta here"?

 Eight years of Bubba- now eight years of Snuffy Smith.  No wonder noone takes us seriously.


----------



## Ray (Jul 22, 2005)

DngrRuss said:
			
		

> First- the serious part of this post:
> With all this hubbub surrounding "who said what" and "well, innocent before proven guilty" and whatnot, Rove should simply man-up and resign for the good of the administration.


Good idea...And OJ should have pled guilty and Michael Jackson should have pled guilty.  And US Grant should have resigned his commision as a general (a womanizer, drunkard, etc) even though he was a "battle-winner" (horrible president though).  And Clinton should have resigned for lying.  And Hillary should have been shot for the white-house travel office fiasco.  In fact, anyone who gets criticized should just give in and give up.  

If you aren't  being criticized by someone, then you're not doing anything.



			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> Second- the sarcastic part:
> how can we as a country be taken seriously with a guy named _Scooter _hanging around the White House? I mean, c'mon... what's next- Billy-Bob, Skeeter, Cletus, and Stinky?...


Were you describing Scooter Libby or James Carvell?


----------



## DngrRuss (Jul 22, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Good idea...And OJ should have pled guilty and Michael Jackson should have pled guilty. And US Grant should have resigned his commision as a general (a womanizer, drunkard, etc) even though he was a "battle-winner" (horrible president though). And Clinton should have resigned for lying. And Hillary should have been shot for the white-house travel office fiasco. In fact, anyone who gets criticized should just give in and give up.
> 
> If you aren't  being criticized by someone, then you're not doing anything.
> 
> Were you describing Scooter Libby or James Carvell?


 OJ and Michael Jackson are not part of a government elected based upon the "higher moral standard" they supposedly set.  They are celebrities.  I let my dollars speak for me when it comes to celebrities.  I didn't put Michael Jackson into the position he is in now as a pop culture icon since I have never purchased his records or gone to his concerts.  I am not affected by anything he says or does and my opinion as to his guilt or innocence is irrelevant since I was not on the jury.  I will say, that if Jacko were on the board of directors of some corporation- say a record company- it would not be wrong for other members of the board and the stockholders to ask ofr his resignation to protect the company's assets and reputation at the onset of the criminal charges and before trial.  

 I can not "boycott" the President or his administration.  They make decisions that do affect me and, whether I voted for him or not, I cannot ignore their words and actions like I can a celebrity's.  It's not like Rove would be out in the cold and destitute if he resigned.  Bush, Rove, and their cronies have made morality, ethics, and honesty the cornerstones of their talking points and stump speeches.  That being said, when it even appears that someone in the administration has not lived up to the standards that they themselves set, they should not be surprised or cry "foul" when the jackals start nipping at their heels.

 My suggestion of resignation has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.  I said that it would be for the good of the administration.  It would help to take the spotlight off this issue and maybe put it back where it belongs- the war, torrorism, the economy, the environment, etc.

 As for James Carvell- while I agree that he comes off like a carnival barker- at least his name is James, not "Cooter" or "Zippy" or "Goober".


----------



## Ray (Jul 22, 2005)

DngrRuss said:
			
		

> OJ and Michael Jackson are not part of a government elected based upon the "higher moral standard" they supposedly set. They are celebrities. I let my dollars speak for me when it comes to celebrities.


 Your right. If OJ is indeed a killer and Jackson is indeed an abuser of children, then let's let our dollars speak for us.


			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> and my opinion as to his guilt or innocence is irrelevant since I was not on the jury.


Likewise with Rove.


			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> It's not like Rove would be out in the cold and destitute if he resigned.


How compassionate. Let's take the newspaper account, Plame's public statements and make Rove resign - forget about the investigation...he'll be okay. Hey, if Rove did bad, maybe he did more bad that the investigation will uncover---we might want to know what other security issues have been compromised?


			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> Bush, Rove, and their cronies have made morality, ethics, and honesty the cornerstones of their talking points and stump speeches. That being said, when it even appears that someone in the administration has not lived up to the standards that they themselves set, they should not be surprised or cry "foul" when the jackals start nipping at their heels.


Or even accused of not living up to the standards they set.


			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> My suggestion of resignation has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.


That's a relief. And why should it have anything to do with being guilty or being innocent? If someone's accused, then let's hang 'em.


			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> As for James Carvell- while I agree that he comes off like a carnival barker- at least his name is James, not "Cooter" or "Zippy" or "Goober".


Oddly enough, whenever I listen to Carvell, I'm almost tempted to go to the dark side; until I give it a good think.


----------



## DngrRuss (Jul 22, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Your right. If OJ is indeed a killer and Jackson is indeed an abuser of children, then let's let our dollars speak for us.
> Likewise with Rove.
> How compassionate. Let's take the newspaper account, Plame's public statements and make Rove resign - forget about the investigation...he'll be okay. Hey, if Rove did bad, maybe he did more bad that the investigation will uncover---we might want to know what other security issues have been compromised?
> Or even accused of not living up to the standards they set.
> ...


 I just love bing taken out of context- makes me feel all tingly inside.  Or is that gas?

 Though, Darth Carvell has a nice ring to it.


----------



## Ray (Jul 22, 2005)

DngrRuss said:
			
		

> I just love bing taken out of context-...


I didn't think I did; I guess what I read from it may not have been what you intended.


			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> makes me feel all tingly inside. Or is that gas?


Although I'm very tempted to respond...


			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> Though, Darth Carvell has a nice ring to it.


It does, doesn't it.


----------



## Marginal (Jul 22, 2005)

If Rove did resign, would it mean anything? He's Bush's own amoral Yoda. I doubt it would weaken his influence or somehow make him less than 2000% evil. (Meaning, he's very good at what he does, twisting fact, negating personal responsibility, relabeling bad things to make them seem neutral or even good, blaming others for his failings all to further his own agenda.) Somehow I doubt even a straight up conviction complete with death sentence for treasonous acts of treason would amount to anything.


----------



## DngrRuss (Jul 22, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> If Rove did resign, would it mean anything? He's Bush's own amoral Yoda. I doubt it would weaken his influence or somehow make him less than 2000% evil. (Meaning, he's very good at what he does, twisting fact, negating personal responsibility, relabeling bad things to make them seem neutral or even good, blaming others for his failings all to further his own agenda.) Somehow I doubt even a straight up conviction complete with death sentence for treasonous acts of treason would amount to anything.


 Mean anything?  Probably not in the big picture.  But, it would help the administration save face and get back to business.  I am not a fan of this administration (as if you couldn't tell), but I do want them to get back to business and worry less about spin and politics.

_Shhh- okay, are the right-wingers not looking?  Here's how I see it.  If the administration gets "back to business", they will continue to stick to us and piss us off.  This Rove thing is small potatos compared to the truly evil crap going on.  Let's not get distracted from the real issues and keep stabbing at the administration until they can't take it anymore.  This Plame thing has been spun and spun until it's so convoluted that it really should be left to the courts.  

 If Rove would resign thogh, it would help to lessen their credability (can anyone say Spiro Agnew) and roust them out in '08.  This is just between us- Don't tell the Republicans about our little scheme._


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 22, 2005)

Some very interesting testimony today before the Democrats on Capital Hill (House Government Reform Committee). One James Marcinkowski, a former CIA case officer, and former prosecutor put forth some pretty damning thoughts about what 'under cover' means, and how the CIA views the outing of Ms. Plame.




			
				excerpt said:
			
		

> So how is the Valerie Plame incident perceived by any current or potential agent of the CIA? I will guarantee you that if the local police chief identified the names of the department's undercover officers, any half-way sophisticated undercover operation would come to a halt and *if he survived that accidental discharge of a weapon in police headquarters*, would be asked to retire.
> 
> And so the real issues before this Congress and this country today is not partisan politics, not even the loss of secrets. The secrets of Valerie Plame's cover are long gone. What has suffered *perhaps irreversible damage is the credibility of our case officers* when they try to convince our overseas contact that their safety is of primary importance to us. How are our case officers supposed to build and maintain that confidence when their own government cannot even guarantee the personal protection of the home team? While the loss of secrets in the world of espionage may be damaging, *the stealing of the credibility of our CIA officers is unforgivable*....
> 
> And so we are left with only one fundamental truth, the U.S. government exposed the identity of a covert operative. _I am not convinced that the toothpaste can be put back into the tube_. Great damage has been done and that damage has been increasing every single day for more than two years. The problem of the refusal to accept responsibility by senior government officials is ongoing and causing greater damage to our national security and our ability to collect human intelligence. But the problem lies not only with government officials but also with the media, commentators and other apologists who have no clue as to the workings of the intelligence community. Think about what we are doing from the perspective of our overseas human intelligence assets or potential assets.


The full article is here:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=7948

P.S. - Tom, did you get that first paragraph?


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 25, 2005)

A 12 hour head start ... Nice 

And, don't you just love the fact that Mr. Luskin (Mr. Rove's attorney) is now an 'un-named source'. 

This now appears significant: in pursuing Russert's testimony, Fitzgerald was testing statements by White House aidesreportedly including Libbythat they learned about Wilson's wife from reporters, not classified documents. Libby's lawyer did not respond to requests for comment. A *source close to Karl Rove*, who requested anonymity because the FBI asked participants not to comment publicly, says the White House aidewho passed info about Wilson's wife to Time's Matt Cooperonly knew about her CIA job from either a reporter or "somebody" who heard it from a reporter; he can't remember which or who. Rove did not initially discuss his talk with Cooper with the FBI, but later volunteered info about it and called agents' attention to a subpoenaed e-mail he had written to national-security aide Stephen Hadley mentioning the conversation, the source said.
​Can anyone imagine who might be 'leaking' this specific information .... and isn't it nice that the story continues to change, seemingly every day.

Mr. Rove wasn't invovled
Mr. Rove didn't know her name
Mr. Rove didn't know she worked at the CIA
Mr. Rove didn't know her identity was secret
Mr. Rove only confirmed what a reporter said
Mr. Rove learned her name from a reporter
Mr. Rove learned her name from a reporter - or someone else
Mr. Rove learned her name from a reporter - or someone else who learned her name from a reporter


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 28, 2005)

This probably deserves a thread of its own ... but for now... here is appropriate.

Mr. Bush, is Karl Rove going to resign?


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 4, 2005)

Robert Novak has just seen his stock go down. He has been suspended from CNN. He walked off a set during an interview, and left/right discussion with Carville. 

Beautiful. 

Hopefully, it is the last we see of him.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 11, 2005)

For those following this National Security debacle. 

It seems that reports of Ms. Plame's involvement in Mr. Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger are greatly exaggerated. Several news reports today are confirming earlier, hard to find statements, that officials higher up in the CIA chose Mr. Wilson for the investigation into claims of Iraqi uranium purchases in Niger. 

The Ambassador had been on a similar investigative mission to Africa in 1999. Ms. Plame apparently did suggest Mr. Wilson for the 1999 mission. When Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby were attempting to discredit Mr. Wilson, they apparently were given incorrect information as to whom was involved in organizing the mission. 

1999 - Plame suggests Wilson for fact finding trip to Africa - Yes.

2002 - Plame suggests Wilson for fact finding trip to Africa - No. 

Recall, the White House reports that Mr. Rove was trying to 'set the record straight' with Mr. Cooper during the phone call which exposed Ms. Plame's covert status to the reporter (a violation of rules Mr. Rove agreed to when attaining access to classified information). Apparently, Mr. Rove was incompetent when setting the record straight.


----------



## qizmoduis (Aug 11, 2005)

From Salon.com:

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html



> On Plame, the dots connect and a picture fades into view
> ...
> And why does it matter? Two reasons. First, if the information came from the State Department report, that means it didn't come -- at least not initially -- from some vaguely remembered journalist, as Karl Rove has suggested. Second, if the information came from the report, whoever was leaking it ought to have known that it shouldn't be leaked. As Pincus and his colleague Jim VandeHei have written previously, the section of the report dealing with Plame's identity was marked with an "(S)" for secret, "a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified."



Go to Salon to read the whole article.  Apparently, Rove revealed information that was *explicitly* marked as secret.  Also apparently, Bush and his cronies are above the law.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 12, 2005)

Watch for the upcoming Wolff article in Vanity Fair. It looks terribly interesting.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 15, 2005)

The United States House of Representatives, largely along party lines, has suppressed a 'Resolution of Inquiry' concerning the Valerie Plame outing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/14/AR2005091401704_pf.html


House Republicans, from the party of 'security', apparently feel it is not important to investigate how the identity of CIA covert agents get revealed to the world. 

Boy, I feel safer already.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 29, 2005)

Judy Miller was released from prison today. She will testify before Mr. Fitzpatrick's Grand Jury on Friday. 

Ms. Miller's release came about after confirming that I. Lewis Libby's blanket waiver included permission for her to testify. Mr. Libby's confirmation apparently was given to Ms. Miller a couple of weeks ago by telephone.

I. Lewis Libby is the Cheif of Staff to the Vice President of the United States, Richard Cheney.



One thing that is odd, is the list of 'visitors' Ms. Miller received during her 80 days in jail. There were some pretty big names visiting the jailed journalist; one of the more interesting John Bolton, appointed Ambassador to the United Nations.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 15, 2005)

The Vice President's Chief of Staff, I. Lewis Libby, in conversations with Ms. Miller (of the New York Times - All the News that's fit to Print), asked that information he conveyed to Ms. Miller be attributed to a 'Former Hill Staffer'.

Ms. Miller (The New York Times) agreed to attribute information in this manner. 

Apparently, at some point in his history, served on Capital Hill (as a Legal Advisor - it is unclear for whom). 

Ms. Miller's first person version of recent events are published on the New York Times website and will be in tomorrow's edition of the Times. Also, an article written by three New York Times is also published on the web, and assumingly will be in print tomorrow, that details the events from the Times point of view.


When a Newspaper agrees to attribute information in a manner intended to dilute and diffuse that information, it is my belief it is doing a disservice to its readers. 

Shame on the New York Times.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 22, 2005)

This week could be 'Zero Hour' for the outing of Valerie Plame, initiated over two years ago by Robert Novak. There will be a great deal of spin coming from all directions. 

Media Matters has compiled many of the existing spin falsehoods concerning this issue for those who wish to know the truth. I will abbreviate them here:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510210008

*It is legally significant whether the leakers disclosed Plame's name in their conversations with reporters*
*Wilson said that Cheney sent him to Niger*
*Plame suggested Wilson for the trip to Niger*
*Wilson was not qualified to investigate the Niger claims*
*Plame's CIA employment was widely known*
*Fitzgerald must prove that Plame's covert status was leaked*
*Fitzgerald's investigation was originally limited to possible violation of 1982 law*
*Leak investigation is the result of partisan motivations*
*Leaks go on all the time in Washington*
The extent of this issue is actually beginning to scare me. There is every indication that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney have been aware of, and participated in the cover-up. Cheney may actually be shown to be involved in the crime. 

Suggestions have been made that all of those close to the President resign. Speculation has been put forward that Elaine Chao, Karen Hughes, or Jeb Bush end up as the Vice President.

The Executive Branch of government may be a non-functional entity for the next 3 years.


----------



## qizmoduis (Oct 24, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The Executive Branch of government may be a non-functional entity for the next 3 years.



Given it's behavior for the past 5 years (almost), that would be a good thing.  Assuming, of course, you considering it "functional" at the moment.  It's certainly debatable.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 24, 2005)

It is now being reported that Vice President Richard Cheney disclosed to I. Lewis Libby Mrs. Wilson's employment at the Central Intelligence Agency more than one month before Robert Novak reported about her.

That Mr. Libby learned of Mrs. Wilson's (Plame's) employment from the Vice President is not necessarily a violation of any laws. It is assumed that both men have appropriate security clearances for conversations about 'Classified', 'Secret', and 'Top Secret' information. 

As Mr. Fitzgerald's grand jury term is set to expire on Friday, it is expected any indictments will be issued this week. The number of reports, and leaks has grown dramatically in the last two weeks. Many of those questioned seem to be pointing fingers at others. (Rove pointing at Libby - Libby Pointing at Rove - Hannah pointing at Wurmser - now, Libby pointing at Cheney). 

This is a dangerous time for the Executive Branch of government. 

Nervously, 

Mike

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/p...age&adxnnlx=1130203281-yacbZ5382iTsI03SJ7ks9Q


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 28, 2005)

I'm thinking that an awful lot of people must have added me to their 'Ignore Lists' .... it seems awfully quiet from the right the past few weeks. 


I. Lewis Libby was indicted on five charges today. He promptly resigned.

Two counts of Perjury
Two counts of providing False Testimony
One count of Obstruction of Justice


The grand jury investigation remains open. Further indictments may still be coming. There are many unanswered questions. 

The indictment can be read here:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 29, 2005)

Today I listened for about 20 minutes of a combination of Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh talking about this subject.

I swear it was really hard to tell that they were actually talking about the same people.  Really bizarre.  

No, I'm not taking sides, I don't know enough to take sides and don't really honestly trust much of anyone on the subject to actually tell me 'the truth' yet, anyway.  It's just weird hearing two different people with very obvious[ly different] poltical agendas talk about the same events


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 29, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> No, I'm not taking sides, I don't know enough to take sides and don't really honestly trust much of anyone on the subject to actually tell me 'the truth' yet, anyway. It's just weird hearing two different people with very obvious[ly different] poltical agendas talk about the same events


 
If, at any time, you were motivated to learn 'the truth', at least as objectively as you might be able to find, a good place to start is with the Special Prosecutor's web page. 

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/

This web page includes a copy of the indictment. The indictment against Mr. Libby is 22 pages long, double spaced and very easy to read.

Be aware the indictment is very limited in its scope. It explains when Mr. Libby gave false statements investigating FBI officers. It explains when Mr. Libby gave perjurious statements to the Federal Grand Jury, it explains how these items impeded Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation.

What the indictment doesn't tell you, is the context around those alleged activities. For that information, you could ask me.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 30, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> No, I'm not taking sides, I don't know enough to take sides and don't really honestly trust much of anyone on the subject to actually tell me 'the truth' yet, anyway. It's just weird hearing two different people with very obvious[ly different] poltical agendas talk about the same events


 
FearlessFreep .... this came out of an article in the Washington Post. It is decidedly *not *what happened.



> Ellen Mulligan, 34, a Republican and part-time art teacher who lives in Hamden, Conn., was one of these. *"If I understood what happened, Vice President Cheney's adviser spoke to his wife and then she leaked the secret,"* Mulligan said.
> 
> That is not an allegation in the indictment, but though Mulligan may not know exactly what happened, the scandal for her is both typical Washington and part of a broader pattern of ethical challenges in this administration. "My actual opinion is more, 'Here we go again.' Every administration has their secrets and has some corruption," she said. But she is disappointed with Bush on the ethics front. "I think Bush's actions in certain situations are pretty much unethical, [though] not illegal. . . .


 
Wow .... one man, one vote, indeed.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 31, 2005)

Ed Bradley had a nice report on the exposing of a CIA covert operative last night. 

http://dissent.blogspot.com/#113072194899662296


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 17, 2005)

Short thoughts on the last three weeks.

* Woodward knew - but didn't say. For someone so much on the 'inside', that is an interesting circumstance.

* Libby's lawyers are claiming this, obviously, exonerates Libby. But, actually not so much. Libby's indictment is because he claimed Russert told him. Russert denies that.

* One argument is: 'This shows Fitzgerald didn't know everything when he indicted Libby'. Fitzgerald has said he doesn't know everything, he can't know everything because Libby obstructed justice, perjured himself, and gave false statements to prevent Fitzgerald from knowing everything. 'The Truth' is the fundamental element of the American Justice system. 

* Rove is still in Fitzgerald's cross hairs. - He's got to be sweating.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 19, 2005)

The Times of London is reporting that Steven Hadley, the current National Security Advisor, is the Administration Official that first leaked Valerie Wilson's name and employer to Bob Woodward. 

At the time, Mr. Hadley was assistant to National Security Advisor Rice.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 12, 2005)

For those who are not uncurious about the 'fabrication' the Bush administration pushed on the American public, there is a new name ... 

Alain Chouet

Alain Chouet is French for Joseph Wilson, apparently.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 13, 2006)

Reports are appearing today that Valerie Plame's work at the CIA dealt largely with Iran's nuclear weapon development programs. 


If these reports end up being true, as the Nation gets more concerned Iran's program, it could be that by releasing Ms. Plame's name and status to the media does damage to our national security in a very tangible manner.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 6, 2006)

Prosecutor Fitzpatrick filed some papers with the court today that indicate that it was President Bush who authorized Lewis Libby to leak classified information. 

It is nearing time for the President to answer questions under oath on this topic.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Apr 6, 2006)

That information does not, apparently, include the release of this woman's name.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 9, 2006)

This article is a calmer version of this week's events concerning this issue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800916.html

Notable, is this paragraph near the end of the article



> They were not alone. Fitzgerald reported for the first time this week that "multiple officials in the White House"-- not only Libby and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who have previously been identified -- discussed Plame's CIA employment with reporters before and after publication of her name on July 14, 2003, in a column by Robert D. Novak. Fitzgerald said the grand jury has collected so much testimony and so many documents that "it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish' Wilson."


 
The Spin from the White House has been that by revealing information from the classified document, the National Intelligence Estimate, was done to rebut claims and allegations in the media in the late Spring / early Summer of 2003.

The evidence suggests that the secret information revealed had already been disproved by the time Mr. Libby indicated he was directed, by the President through the Vice President, to leak the secret information to the reporters Woodward and Miller.

Another spin item seen this week, was the floating of a trial balloon that President Bush had left the operational details of 'getting the information out' to the Vice President. Being 'out of the loop' seemed to work for the first President Bush visa vie Iran-Contra. I think this line of defense will disappear quickly. I don't think Vice President Cheney will be willing to play the part of sacrificial lamb.


----------



## Marginal (Apr 9, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> That information does not, apparently, include the release of this woman's name.


 
Don't know why it'd matter. Bush would simply state that he had power to waive security clearances as the presidency is all powerful anyway so nothing he did was illegal even if the document had directly named her.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 10, 2006)

This from David Sanger and David Johnson from the New York Times.



> A senior administration official confirmed for the first time on Sunday that President Bush had ordered the declassification of parts of a prewar intelligence report on Iraq in an effort to rebut critics who said the administration had exaggerated the nuclear threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
> . . .
> The disclosure appeared intended to bolster the White House argument that Mr. Bush was acting well within his legal authority when he ordered that key conclusions of the classified National Intelligence Estimate, which was completed in the fall of 2002, should be revealed to make clear that intelligence agencies believed Mr. Hussein was seeking uranium in Africa.


 
We know that President Bush did not read the 90 plus page National Intelligence Estimate in its entirety.

With the numerous caveats included in the NIE summary President Bush is reported to have read, one must wonder if the President comprehended those caveats.

It does not seem to make sense, amid accusations of skepticism about Iraq's nuclear intentions, to release / leak / declassify a document that clearly states we should be skeptical of intelligence on the issue.


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 2, 2006)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html

I don't expect that the damage will be undone. So many people have heard this story, got worked up over it and now look on things in a biased way that even though they hear the truth won't change their opinions of the administration.



> End of an Affair
> It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband.
> Friday, September 1, 2006; A20
> 
> ...


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 2, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I don't expect that the damage will be undone. So many people have heard this story, got worked up over it and now look on things in a biased way that even though they hear the truth won't change their opinions of the administration.


 
Explain for me, if you can, the Josephy Wilson New York Times Article, in the possession of Special Prosecutor Fitzgerads, upon which there are Vice President Cheney's handwritten notes? And what are the significance of those handwritten notes?

That Richard Armitage was Mr. Novak's first source *does not negate* the actions of intent of Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove, and Irving Lewis Libby.

The damage that was done, could easily have not been done, had Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby honored the oath they signed when accepting responsibility for handling classified information.

The truth is, Armitage, is at fault. The leak served both him, and his boss, Secretary of State Powell, despite the current story's pleas of accidental release of covert information.

The truth also is - and your comment here indicates that you are unwilling to change an opinion because of your bias - that the Vice President's office orchestrated a smear campaign to destroy a political enemy using tactics that included releasing classified information to an additional six reporters before Mr. Novak's story broke.

And, didn't the President of the United States say something about, whoever leaked the information would no longer work in his Administration? 

Mr. Rove? Mr. Rove? Paging Mr. Rove?


EDIT - P.S. The news that Richard Armitage was Mr. Novak's original source for Valerie Plame's name and occupation has been widely speculated since March of this year. The first people to confirm and print this fact are David Corn of The Nation magazine, and Michael Isikoff of Newsweek Magazine in the soon-to-be-released book 'HUBRIS'. From the hints of the content of this book Mr. Corn has released on his blog, I wonder if those who view the 'sourcing' of Armitage will be willing to embrace all of the facts and content included in this book. Or, as Mr. Corn speculates, there will be much selected cherry picking of information from the book. 

http://www.amazon.com/Hubris-Inside...=pd_bbs_1/102-3093505-3891320?ie=UTF8&s=books

END EDIT


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 2, 2006)

Micheal,
I hardly expect _you_ to change your tone.

I was posting for others. Someone else has been identified as the initial leak and there was never an intent to destroy someone's career. 

No one tried to destroy someone by knowingly leaking classified information. But I do not expect that to make you change your tune.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 2, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Micheal,
> I hardly expect _you_ to change your tone.
> 
> I was posting for others. Someone else has been identified as the initial leak and there was never an intent to destroy someone's career.
> ...


 
Don Roley ... I too often post for to put the information out for lurkers. 

Your reply, however, does not address those items that I mention. 

1 - Richard Armitage and Colin Powell also had motivation and received benefit from leaking Valerie Plame's name and status - remember they were the reluctant warriors. 

2 - That Richard Armitage apparently had no malice, does not change the apparent facts that the Vice President's office did act with malice. Your last sentence, denies this fact, and is incorrect.  It does serve to muddy the waters a bit, though, doesn't it?


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 2, 2006)

Nope.

You are trying to convict Richard Amritage of being part of a conspiracy without facts- and the few facts we do know seem to be that he would not be part of something like this. Nor is there proof of malice from the vice presidents office in knowingly trying to reveal Valarie's status. There was ill feeling towards her husband who had attacked them, but not a single bit of proof that the white house knowingly tried to expose her as the commonly made accusation goes.

The facts are there that her status was revealed by mistake by someone who did not support the war and was not trying to ruin her career. Later Rove was confronted with her status and responded with the comment, "so you heard that too." Which is not exactly a confirmation and more of something you come up with after being surprised. It is in far contrast to the stories that Rove went around and called reporters to try to get them to carry the story as has been charged.

Of course, by now most people have heard the accusation that the Bush white house broke the law in trying to expose Valerie Plame so often that they have accepted it. Repeat something often enough and people will believe it.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 2, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Nope.
> 
> You are trying to convict Richard Amritage of being part of a conspiracy without facts- and the few facts we do know seem to be that he would not be part of something like this. Nor is there proof of malice from the vice presidents office in knowingly trying to reveal Valarie's status. There was ill feeling towards her husband who had attacked them, but not a single bit of proof that the white house knowingly tried to expose her as the commonly made accusation goes.
> 
> ...


 
Did Karl Rove tell Tim Russert "Valerie Plame is Fair Game" or not?


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 2, 2006)

Don't know, and it is not relevant to the *false* idea that someone was out to punish Valerie by illeagally exposing her.

Interesting read,

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansa...84.htm?source=rss&channel=kansascity_politics



> Novak first revealed that Plame worked for the CIA in a July 14, 2003, column.
> 
> Novak&#8217;s article was published eight days after a column by Wilson appeared in the in The New York Times describing a trip he took to Niger for the CIA in February 2002 to assess a report that the African nation was selling nuclear bomb-making material to Iraq.





> By the authors&#8217; account, Armitage disclosed at the end of a July 8, 2003, interview with Novak in his State Department office that Plame worked for the CIA. He later contacted State Department officials about his role after reading the October Novak column, fearing, as he reportedly told one colleague, that &#8220;I may be the guy who caused this whole thing.&#8221;



So the Novak article came out July 14th and the Wilson article came out eight days before that- i.e. July 6th. So by July 8th they had convinced Armatige- a guy who opposed the war and was on the other side of the opinion- to arrange to reveal information to punish a woman for what her husband said. Yeah, right..... And for benefits that I can't see.

I find it interesting that some of the people that have said that we should have waited until we knew with 100 percent certainty if Hussein had WMDs or not before acting went out and made accusations without all the facts being known.

More sources

http://www.unionleader.com/article....+of+the+affair:+No+blame+in+Plame+game"'%<>:$
http://www.record-eagle.com/2006/sep/02editc.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/30/politics/main1949676.shtml


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 2, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> So the Novak article came out July 14th and the Wilson article came out eight days before that- i.e. July 6th. So by July 8th they had convinced Armatige- a guy who opposed the war and was on the other side of the opinion- to arrange to reveal information to punish a woman for what her husband said. Yeah, right..... And for benefits that I can't see.


 
Why can't you conceive of the idea that Armitage's disclosure was either, designed to insulate the State Department from the bad press the invasion was beginning to receive concerning pre-war intelligence or an innocent oversight, and at the same time, the Vice President's office was attempting to destroy a political critic. 

I don't think it is that difficult a concept; different people, different motivations.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that some of the people that have said that we should have waited until we knew with 100 percent certainty if Hussein had WMDs or not before acting went out and made accusations without all the facts being known.


 
Now, isnt' that a great example of ... "The Big Lie" ... didn't you reference that a few posts back .... let me check. 



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Repeat something often enough and people will believe it.


 
So, what was the Big Lie being repeated before the war, that Ambassador Wilson disputed in that article ....



			
				President George W. Bush said:
			
		

> *"The British government has learned that **Saddam Hussein** recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."*


 
And, the day after Mr. Wilson's article, the government did say it was inappropriate to include this language in the State of the Union. 
So if the language was incorrect, why did Rove disclose Plame's identity to Mr. Novak and Mr. Cooper. Why did Mr. Libby disclose Plame's identity to Ms. Miller? Why was Wilson's Wife "Fair Game"?


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 2, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Why can't you conceive of the idea that Armitage's disclosure was either, designed to insulate the State Department from the bad press the invasion was beginning to receive concerning pre-war intelligence or an innocent oversight, and at the same time, the Vice President's office was attempting to destroy a political critic.



Because the idea is silly and one of the biggest reaches in logic that I have ever seen and there is no proof. Armitage had no real motivation nor reward for pulling off that type of smear campeign. Armitage made the leak by mistake and Rove was caught by Novak and outside of outright lying to the press (a bad thing) anything he would have said would have tipped that it was true. Even the comment "so you heard that too" was enough for Novak to know that his original source was correct.

Up to now we have heard that the white house went out of its way to destroy a CIA operative. Now we see that it was an unintential leak by one person in sympathy with the anti- war side of things and damn good work by a reporter. But the conspiracy theories will continue on.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 2, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Because the idea is silly and one of the biggest reaches in logic that I have ever seen and there is no proof. Armitage had no real motivation nor reward for pulling off that type of smear campeign. Armitage made the leak by mistake and Rove was caught by Novak and outside of outright lying to the press (a bad thing) anything he would have said would have tipped that it was true. Even the comment "so you heard that too" was enough for Novak to know that his original source was correct.
> 
> Up to now we have heard that the white house went out of its way to destroy a CIA operative. Now we see that it was an unintential leak by one person in sympathy with the anti- war side of things and damn good work by a reporter. But the conspiracy theories will continue on.


 
You seem to be unware of Mr. Rove and Mr. Novaks' prior history. To assume that Rove accidentally or unitentionally was the second source for Novak just ignores their history. 

You also continue to ignore Rove's conversations with Cooper and Russert and Libby's conversations with Miller. 

Whether the White House went 'out of its way' to destroy a CIA operative or whether it was 'offhand', members of the White House violated their oaths concerning classified information. The President stated that if someone in his White House leaked the information, they would no longer be working in the White House. 

Rove was Cooper's first source. 
Libby was Miller's first source. 

Armitage is no longer working for the Federal government. 
Libby is no longer working for the Federal government. 
Rove is still employed in the White House. 

I'm sorry, Mr. President, didn't you say something about those responsible wouldn't be working for you?

You were aware that Ms. Plame was working on Nuclear proliferation concerns in Iran prior to her outing. Gee, I'm sure we don't need any experts in that field now do we?


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 2, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You seem to be unware of Mr. Rove and Mr. Novaks' prior history. To assume that Rove accidentally or unitentionally was the second source for Novak just ignores their history.



I am not assuming anything. We have the word of Novak and Armatige that your conjecture about a ocastrated campeign is without merit.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 2, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I am not assuming anything. We have the word of Novak and Armatige that your conjecture about a ocastrated campeign is without merit.


 
Don Roley ... I have not stated that Armitage's role in revealing Plame's name to Woodward and Novak was part of an orchestrated campaign. 

I have said that such a revalation served the interests of the State Department. Follow along ... the probability of finding WMD in Iraq was getting lower; State was the reluctant warrior, although Powell presented the Administration's argument before the world, showing a nepotistic CIA was a benefit to the State Department.

The White House, at Cheney's direction, and Libby's specific request, assembled a dossier on Wilson, and Plame. The Vice President's office had every reason to attempt to tear down the credibility of Wilson; he was publically saying things that put pressure on pre-invasion claims. 

Why can't Armitage's role be minor, *AT THE SAME TIME AS *Cheney, Rove & Libby's roles are nefarious? 

For evidence of this possibility; there are handwritten notes by the V.P. on Wilson's New York Times Article, there is Matthew Cooper, there is Judith Miller, there is Tim Russert,

Why did Libby lie to the FBI and to Prosecutor Fitzpatrick about hearing Plame's name from Reporters - when, in fact, he was giving her name and status to reporters? 

I do not want to give Armitage a pass on this. He is reported as being a common gossip. It is further reported that he was unaware of Ms. Plame's covert status when revealing that information - although I am not certain I believe that assertion. However, Armitage left the government by his own choice. Armitage cooperated completely and fully with the investigation, even providing his wife's laptop computer to the office of Special Council. 

But, regardless of what Armitage did or did not do ... it does not absolve the actions of Rove, Libby and Cheney ... no matter how the Right Wing media mouthpieces for the Administration try to spin this news.


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 2, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Why can't Armitage's role be minor, *AT THE SAME TIME AS *Cheney, Rove & Libby's roles are nefarious?



Why can't there be no conspiracy of any sort? The "proof" you give is about the same as you can find for me killing my mother in law. Less in fact. Possible (note- possible) motivation and a few notes.....

Considering that the accusations are that federal law was broken knowingly and the security of America was comprimised you had better have more proof from a reliable source than what you show.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 2, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Why can't there be no conspiracy of any sort? The "proof" you give is about the same as you can find for me killing my mother in law. Less in fact. Possible (note- possible) motivation and a few notes.....
> 
> Considering that the accusations are that federal law was broken knowingly and the security of America was comprimised you had better have more proof from a reliable source than what you show.


 
Don Roley, you are now getting into an absolutely ridiculous argument. 

You make no attempt to answer any of the questions I raise .... Matthew Cooper? Judith Miller? You dismiss them. 

I have made no claim of federal law being broken ... Straw Man Argument. 

My statement is that the Rove & Libby (& Armitage) violated the oaths they signed when given access to classified information. 

My statement is that the President said that any persons in his White House found to be violating those oaths would be dismissed. 

My statement is that the White House - specifically, the Vice President's office, - has made America less safe in the ability to track nuclear materials in Iraq because of a personal vendetta against Ambassodor Wilson. 

My sources are *confirmed*.

Rove did reveal Plame's name and occupation to Matthew Cooper, and did tell Tim Russert that she was 'Fair Game'. 

Libby did reveal Plame's occupation to Judith Miller. 



Have you admitted to the Special Prosecutor that you killed your mother in law? Because Karl Rove has admitted to the Special Prosecutor that he did expose a covert agent to reporters.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 2, 2006)

There just HAS TO BE a way to implicate Bush. Even if you have to make it up.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 2, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> There just HAS TO BE a way to implicate Bush. Even if you have to make it up.


 
Why? 

I mean, why other than for you to build a false 'Straw Man Argument'... 

The only thing of which I accuse President Bush is that he failed to honor his commitment to the American People that if someone who worked in his White House leaked classified information, that person would no longer work in the White House. 

Karl Rove continues to draw a salary at the taxpayers expense. 

http://newsmine.org/archive/cabal-elite/w-administration/cia-identity-leak


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You make no attempt to answer any of the questions I raise .... Matthew Cooper? Judith Miller? You dismiss them.



Because this is something that a friend sent to me a while ago.



> A lot of times, people will interject stuff into arguments that have
> nothing to do with the subject at hand, but if you try to follow their logic
> then you fall into their trap.



So in regards to the idea that the  white house tried to smear and expose a CIA operative, your comments are not on topic. You have no proof for your theory that there was a conspiracy. There is not even any good indications of intent other than what could be used against me if my mother in law fell off her broom to her death.

And my sources for the white house not being involved are *confirmed.*


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 3, 2006)

Now keep in mind I'm neither a republican nor a democrat.

As of late, it seems everything bad is due to right wing negligence or conspiracy, and everything good is due to the virtuous left wing.

Then again, ten years ago, it was just the opposite.

Jeff


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 3, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> You have no proof for your theory that there was a conspiracy. There is not even any good indications of intent other than what could be used against me if my mother in law fell off her broom to her death.


 
Well, there you go again ... Being a TROLL. 

It is not whether *I *have any proof. What prosecutor Fitzgerald has is *evidence*. I quote:

_. . . The annotated Wilson Op Ed is relevant and admissible for two principle reasons. First, the article itself lies at the center of the sequence of events leading to the defendant's alleged criminal conduct. The article, and the fact that it contained certain criticism of the administration, including criticisms regarding issues delath with by the Office of the Vice President ("OVP"), serve both to explain the context of, and provide a motive for, many of the defendan'ts statements and actions at issue in this case. In particular, admission of the Wilson Op Ed is necessary to assist jurors in understanding how, beginning on July 6, 2003, and continuing through the following week, the attention of the defendant, his colleagues, and the media was heavily focused on responding to the issues raised in the article. Although the substance of the Wilson Op Ed is relevant and admissible was required, and to provide context for the defendant's statements and actions, the government will propose an instruction to the jury that the statements made in the Wilson Op Ed may not be considered as proof of the truth of the matters asserted but, rather, may be considered solely as evidence that the statements in the article were made and published, and may have cause others to take action in response. _
_. . . The second principal reason for the admissibility of the annotated Wilson Op Ed lies in the annotations placed on a copy of the article by the defendant's immediate superior, the Vice President. Those annotation support the proposition that publication of the Wilson Op Ed acutely focused the attention of the Vice President and the defendant - his chief of staff - on Mr. Wilson, on the assertions made in his article, and on responding to those assertions. The annotated version of the reflects the contemporaneous reacton of the Vice President to Mr. Wilson's Op Ed article, and thus is relevant to establishing some of the facts that were viewed as important by the defendant's immediate superior, including whether Mr. Wilson's wife had "sen[t] him on a junket."_​Again, Are you responsible for your Mother-in-law's fall to her death?


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Well, there you go again ... Being a TROLL.



Well that is a little over the top and rude.

And the stuff that you posted seems to be no proof of any sort. Merely it is an argument to include the article in the *possibility* that it may have led others to take action.

And of course, Fitzgerald has not filed against Rove or anyone else. If he had proof and the will to prosecute as you say then he would have. Or you can say that he did not file because of a conspiracy to stop and silence him. But that would kind of blow your theory of him presenting proof out of the water.

It is kind of like the fact that when my mother in law dies I will get part of her estate- and in the logic you use that would seem to convict me in her death.



> . . . The annotated Wilson Op Ed is relevant and admissible for two principle reasons. First, the article itself lies at the center of the sequence of events leading to the defendant's alleged criminal conduct. The article, and the fact that it contained certain criticism of the administration, including criticisms regarding issues delath with by the Office of the Vice President ("OVP"), serve both to explain the context of, and provide a motive for, many of the defendan'ts statements and actions at issue in this case. In particular, admission of the Wilson Op Ed is necessary to assist jurors in understanding how, beginning on July 6, 2003, and continuing through the following week, the attention of the defendant, his colleagues, and the media was heavily focused on responding to the issues raised in the article. Although the substance of the Wilson Op Ed is relevant and admissible was required, and to provide context for the defendant's statements and actions, the government will propose an instruction to the jury that the statements made in the Wilson Op Ed may not be considered as proof of the truth of the matters asserted but, rather, may be considered solely as evidence that the statements in the article were made and published, and may have cause others to take action in response.
> . . . The second principal reason for the admissibility of the annotated Wilson Op Ed lies in the annotations placed on a copy of the article by the defendant's immediate superior, the Vice President. Those annotation support the proposition that publication of the Wilson Op Ed acutely focused the attention of the Vice President and the defendant - his chief of staff - on Mr. Wilson, on the assertions made in his article, and on responding to those assertions. The annotated version of the reflects the contemporaneous reacton of the Vice President to Mr. Wilson's Op Ed article, and thus is relevant to establishing some of the facts that were viewed as important by the defendant's immediate superior, including whether Mr. Wilson's wife had "sen[t] him on a junket."



Where in the above is the smoking gun?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 3, 2006)

JeffJ said:
			
		

> Now keep in mind I'm neither a republican nor a democrat.
> 
> As of late, it seems everything bad is due to right wing negligence or conspiracy, and everything good is due to the virtuous left wing.
> 
> Then again, ten years ago, it was just the opposite.


 
JeffJ, 

Which party occupies the White House?
Which party holds the majority, and thus controls all of the conferences, and thus sets the agenda, in the House of Representatives and Senate? 
On the Supreme Court of the United States, there sit nine federal judges. Those judges are appointed by the President of the United States. Which political party was the appointing President from, for each of those judges? 

One last question to ponder --- the current President has vetoed exactly one Congressional bill --- have the past three sessions of Congress been so virtuous that no Executive restraint via a veto was required ... or might there be something else to keeping the number of vetos to a minimum? 

I'll answer my own question JeffJ.

If the Republican Party controls all of the levers of government, everything will be laid upon them - good or bad. So, if there is a lot of bad going on .... well, there you have it. 

I'm wondering also, specifically, what '_everything good_' you are meaning when you call upon the _virtuous left wing_. I would tell you the Democratic Party has been neutered for the past six years. So there is little for which they can be responsible.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 3, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Well that is a little over the top and rude.
> 
> And the stuff that you posted seems to be no proof of any sort. Merely it is an argument to include the article in the *possibility* that it may have led others to take action.
> 
> And of course, Fitzgerald has not filed against Rove or anyone else. If he had proof and the will to prosecute as you say then he would have. Or you can say that he did not file because of a conspiracy to stop and silence him. But that would kind of blow your theory of him presenting proof out of the water.


 
Don Roley .. I have not offered it as proof. I have offered it as evidence. And how exactly do you wish me to characterize your continued and repeated misrepresentation of what I state?

Don Roley .. in the American System of Criminal Justice Prosecutors bring *evidence* before juries, not *proof*. 

Don Roley ... it is established and undisputed fact that Mr. Rove revealed classified information to Matthew Cooper, who was not authorized to received that classified information, which is a violation of the law, and of the oath he swore. 

Don Roley, as to why Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald did or did not bring an indictment against members of the Administration - by the way, I am not a special prosecutor, so what I feel is irrelevant - but he has stated that Libby's perjury has prevented him from gathering appropriate evidence to file indictment.


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Don Roley .. I have not offered it as proof.



So you have no proof. You have nothing to support your theory aside from *possible* motive.

Rove was asked directly by someone if Valerie Plame was a CIA operative and he said, "So you heard that too?" Aside from outright lying to the press (a bad thing) or suddenly clamming up (sure sign that it was on the mark) it was about the only thing he could probably do. It is not even usable as a confirmation unless you have another good source.

So it is far from someone calling someone up to let them know that someone was a CIA operative as has been portrayed.


----------



## Swordlady (Sep 3, 2006)

*Moderator Note:*

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=427486 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Jennifer Yabut/Swordlady
-MT Moderator


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I'm wondering also, specifically, what '_everything good_' you are meaning when you call upon the _virtuous left wing_. I would tell you the Democratic Party has been neutered for the past six years. So there is little for which they can be responsible.



Sorry, I should have been more clear.  I was thinking more along the lines of a "historical" everything good.  It looks like I am guilty of subconsciously going for the good "sound byte" there.

Jeff


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 3, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> So you have no proof. You have nothing to support your theory aside from *possible* motive.
> 
> Rove was asked directly by someone if Valerie Plame was a CIA operative and he said, "So you heard that too?" Aside from outright lying to the press (a bad thing) or suddenly clamming up (sure sign that it was on the mark) it was about the only thing he could probably do. It is not even usable as a confirmation unless you have another good source.
> 
> So it is far from someone calling someone up to let them know that someone was a CIA operative as has been portrayed.


 
you continue to ignore the other evidence all around you ... don't step in that pool of blood, as you look for your missing car keys.


Karl Rove = Matthew Cooper
Irving Libby = Judith Miller


----------



## TonyMac (Sep 4, 2006)

So Karl Rove will get a television show like Ollie North and the message we will be sending young people will be commit high treason and get your own TV show.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 5, 2006)

New News hit the streets today from the upcoming book HUBRIS. 

It seems that Valerie Wilson joined the CIA Counter Proliferation Division in 1997. Prior to 2001, she was given the opportunity to choose to work on North Korea or Iraq. She chose to work on Iraq with the CPD. 

In the summer of 2001, apparently, Iraq was becoming a point of interest in the government and her little unit became bigger, as policy makers were working to determine Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction capabilities. 

Ms. Wilson was in charge of the 50 person Joint Task Force on Iraq. 

Nice work if the President wants to invade that country. 

So, let's see: 

VP Cheney cherry picked and stove piped information around the CIA
Invasion launched because of Iraq WMD's
No WMD's are found
Head of the CIA Iraqi group's husband - is embarrassing the White House.
Kill two birds with one stone, right?
Seems like a good target for a vengeful Adminstration, don'tcha think?


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 6, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> [*]Kill two birds with one stone, right?[/LIST]Seems like a good target for a vengeful Adminstration, don'tcha think?



Well as long as we are talking about *possible* motives without any sort of proof, what about the idea that the Bush white house was behind 9-11? Or that I will be involved in the death of my mother-in-law? Seems to be about as much proof that I will kill her as I see here. Actually, there is more to show that I will kill her based on just my statements here on martialtalk.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 6, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Well as long as we are talking about *possible* motives without any sort of proof, what about the idea that the Bush white house was behind 9-11? Or that I will be involved in the death of my mother-in-law? Seems to be about as much proof that I will kill her as I see here. Actually, there is more to show that I will kill her based on just my statements here on martialtalk.


 
Karl Rove = Matthew Cooper
Irving Libby = Judith Miller
Karl Rove = Tim Russert

http://www.observer.com/20060911/20060911_Joe_Conason_politics_joeconason.asp


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 6, 2006)

That is a pretty laughable source. Well, not really a source, more of an opinion.

When someone is confronted with a yes/no situation by a reporter, I suppose that saying something uncommital like, "so you heard that too?" is now high treason. Instead, people are expected to lie outright to the press. Disinformation to the press is now required....


----------



## crushing (Sep 6, 2006)

Would someone please explain how being the spouse of a CIA employee  discredits Mr. Wilson?

I've been critical of the Bush administration.  I would hate to think that my credibility depends on my wife having, or not having, a government job.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 6, 2006)

crushing said:


> Would someone please explain how being the spouse of a CIA employee discredits Mr. Wilson?
> 
> I've been critical of the Bush administration. I would hate to think that my credibility depends on my wife having, or not having, a government job.


 
I think the thinking is that Ambassador Wilson would not have been selected to go on the trip to Niger had his wife not selected / recommended him for the job - a greatly exaggerated claim by the way. 

Nepotism is going to provide a credible source?

Of course, having been a former Ambassador to Africa and Iraq could be some measure of credibility.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 6, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> That is a pretty laughable source. Well, not really a source, more of an opinion.
> 
> When someone is confronted with a yes/no situation by a reporter, I suppose that saying something uncommital like, "so you heard that too?" is now high treason. Instead, people are expected to lie outright to the press. Disinformation to the press is now required....


 
So, the source is good enough to accept Armitage as the original source, but not good enough to recognize elsewhere.

Karl Rove = Matthew Cooper, Tim Russert, Robert Novak
Irving Libby = Judith Miller, Matthew Cooper


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 6, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> So, the source is good enough to accept Armitage as the original source, but not good enough to recognize elsewhere.



Surely you don't expect for me to fall for that old trick?

If someone lays out A B and C which are known facts, it *does not mean* that D is also true. But it is a trick used in cases like this.

Crushing has it right in saying that being the wife of a CIA operative does not discredit Wilson in any way. In fact, it would bolster his accusations if made known. So the idea that Valerie was outed to discredit Wilson is silly. The only reason you have left is vengence. And you have to be pretty much a part of the "hate Bush for any excuse" crowd to think that people would be willing to risk federal law and put together a conspiracy of several people (some of whom oppose the Iraq war) in only a few days between the article and Armitage's goof.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 6, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Surely you don't expect for me to fall for that old trick?
> 
> If someone lays out A B and C which are known facts, it *does not mean* that D is also true. But it is a trick used in cases like this.
> 
> Crushing has it right in saying that being the wife of a CIA operative does not discredit Wilson in any way. In fact, it would bolster his accusations if made known. So the idea that Valerie was outed to discredit Wilson is silly. The only reason you have left is vengence. And you have to be pretty much a part of the "hate Bush for any excuse" crowd to think that people would be willing to risk federal law and put together a conspiracy of several people (some of whom oppose the Iraq war) in only a few days between the article and Armitage's goof.


 

Karl Rove revealed Valerie Plame to Matthew Cooper, Robert Novak, and called her 'fair game' to Tim Russert.

Irving Libby revealed Valerie Plame to Judith Miller, and Matthew Cooper.

These are not in dispute. They are not theory. They are facts.

Oh, and Armitage only learned of Ms. Plame's identity because he saw a report prepared for, and at the request of Irving Libby and Vice President Cheney.


EDIT 

This just in from the Press Release for HUBRIS



> Rove even told MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews that the Wilsons "were trying to screw the White House so the White House was going to screw them back."



END EDIT


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 7, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> These are not in dispute. They are not theory. They are facts.



Oh please...... So the *whole* conspiracy theory is based on something that silly? And Wilson told the entire world his wife was a spy- shall we prosecute him as well?

I really can't see how a healthy mind can hold some of the contradictory thoughts you need to believe in to make this work at the same time.

On one hand you want people to believe that the white house wanted to expose Plame to discredit any information she may or may not have gotten as part of her work on Iraq. Yet you did not know that she was part of that task force until a few days ago!

So, how did the white house expect to discredit her task force when they didn't leak that she worked for it? But otherwise it would mean that you want us to think that in a few days they would slap together this whole conspiracy just to be vengeful- but place themselves in a lot of danger and open to legal trouble if found out like all conspiracies seem to be. The whole risk outweighs the rewards for something as petty as vengence.

And the whole idea that exposing his wife as a CIA agent would make it look like Wilson had bad sources and information is one of those things I just can't fathom anyone believing. It would be much more in their self interest to keep secret her CIA status.

And interesting read,

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=12648&R=EDE91B8D6


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 7, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Oh please...... So the *whole* conspiracy theory is based on something that silly? And Wilson told the entire world his wife was a spy- shall we prosecute him as well?
> 
> I really can't see how a healthy mind can hold some of the contradictory thoughts you need to believe in to make this work at the same time.
> 
> ...


 
What Conspiracy Theory?

Karl Rove told Robert Novak
Karl Rove told Tim Russert
Karl Rove told Matthew Cooper
Karl Rove to Chris Matthews
Irving Libby told Judith Miller
Irving Libby told Matthew Cooper

Which of these are you disputing?


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 7, 2006)

I can see that you did not read the article I linked to. Sigh....


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 7, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> I can see that you did not read the article I linked to. Sigh....


 
I got part way through it, up until the point where the author demonstrated he is not aware of the facts. 

Of course, Fred Barnes has been a shill since the early days of the McLaughlin Group.

Mr. Barnes is intentially ignorant of this letter:



> Dear Patrick:
> 
> At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General's authority to impose or pursue.
> 
> ...


 
This letter clarifies the scope of Special Prosecutor Fitzgeralds investigation.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 23, 2007)

Scooter Libby's trial started today. 

Both the Prosecuting attorney and the Defense attorner are pointing some pretty big guns at the White House. The defense is telling us that Libby is a sacrificial lamb to protect Karl Rove. The prosecutor is telling us that Vice President Cheney was involved in directing Libby to leak information concerning Ms. Plame *and destroying evidence* of such direction prior to Mr. Libby's first appearance before the FBI.


----------



## jazkiljok (Jan 23, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Scooter Libby's trial started today.
> 
> Both the Prosecuting attorney and the Defense attorner are pointing some pretty big guns at the White House. The defense is telling us that Libby is a sacrificial lamb to protect Karl Rove. The prosecutor is telling us that Vice President Cheney was involved in directing Libby to leak information concerning Ms. Plame *and destroying evidence* of such direction prior to Mr. Libby's first appearance before the FBI.



libby is steamed that the white house try to throw him under the press truck to protect rove. he's going to drag everyone in the mud to defend himself from jail time. the prosecution however is going to go after cheney's neck cause that's a neck that can now be sacrificed with bush's popularity in the gutter -- so it's bush's brain vs cheney's left temporal lobe. 

get the popcorn out.opcorn:


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 4, 2007)

From the evidence and testimony presented so far, Mr. Libby's trial does not appear to be going well for him. The government has presented some pretty credible witnesses that informed the court that they each had made Mr. Libby of Ms. Plames employ prior to it being publicly shared. 

Although this thread was started and argued that the primary culprit in releasing information on a covert agent from the Central Intelligence Agency was the Special Assistant to the President, Karl Rove, it is becoming more clear that the prosecution is pointing the largest threat in the direction of the Vice President of the United States, Richard Cheney.

It may be that the events of this trial are taking place below the radar screen of the majority of Americans. When the verdict is announced, there may be an awakening in the public. Such an awakening may pose some awkward choices for the Republican Party and the President of the United States. 

Perhaps the most compelling issue still unresolved, is whether the defense is going to present any witnesses. With the testimony received to date, it may be a very risky proposition to let the presumption of innocence be the deciding factor in the trial. Some possibly witnesses the defense may call include both Mr. Rove and Mr. Cheney. Even with a pre-agree to scope of questioning, having one, or both of these men under oath presents an opportunity to see the current administration 'face-to-face', as oppposed to 'through-a-glass'. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/03/AR2007020301344.html


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 19, 2007)

For those not paying attention, another shoe may drop in a big way later this week. 

The trial of Mr. Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice case is set for closing arguments tomorrow morning. The deliberations will quite probably be short. 

Mr. Libby has repeatedly claimed that he learned about Ms. Plame from NBC News reporter Tim Russert in a conversation on July 10, 2003.

Several government officials and several reporters testified under oath that they were told by Mr. Libby that Ms. Plame worked for the CIA prior to Mr. Novak's article announced to the world that she was an 'operative'. Under oath, Mr. Russert informed the court that on July 10th, he was unaware of Ms. Plame's existance, and did not learn of it until Mr. Novak's column of July 13, 2003.

I expect that Mr. Libby is going to be found guilty.

From testimony in the trial, we have learned several facts that I think are relevent, even if they are not criminal. 

Karl Rove did leak Valerie Plame's name to Robert Novak.
Ari Fleisher did leak Valerie Plame's name to two reporters.
Vice President Cheney was intimately involved with orchestrating the attack on Ambassador Wilson; directing specific responses for Mr. Libby to answer specific reporters' questions. 

Everyone involved in the trial has been avoiding any mention of President Bush in any capacity. That has been interesting. 

And one interesting point, is the Vice President was made aware that Mr. Libby was going to tell the FBI, and later the Special Prosecutor, that he learned about Ms. Plame from Tim Russert; a statement the Vice President knew to be false; but made no statement to suggest a different course of action. 


A guilty verdict now. Perhaps more investigations to come. A pardon on January 19, 2009 - from the man who promised to restore Honor and Dignity to the White House.


----------



## jazkiljok (Feb 23, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Everyone involved in the trial has been avoiding any mention of President Bush in any capacity. That has been interesting.



George W. i'm sure was out of the loop-- like most things. 

When will you learn that Dick Cheney is the hand up the sock puppet president?

Dick is the guy behind the attacks on Wilson-- and that's why his name is everywhere in this trial.

and just like another infamous Dick, by tossing Libby to the courts, he first cut off one limb then... hey, does Dick have any other limbs to cut off?


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 6, 2007)

Guilty !

Irving Lewis Libby was found Guilty on four of the five charges brought against him.

Expect an immediate appeal. Watch the for the deal making.


----------



## Carol (Mar 6, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Guilty !
> 
> Irving Lewis Libby was found Guilty on four of the five charges brought against him.
> 
> Expect an immediate appeal. Watch the for the deal making.



I'll be danged...


----------



## jazkiljok (Mar 6, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Guilty !
> 
> Irving Lewis Libby was found Guilty on four of the five charges brought against him.
> 
> Expect an immediate appeal. Watch the for the deal making.



yes... unless a pardon sits in the wings... then.. fuggehdaboutit.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 6, 2007)

jazkiljok said:


> yes... unless a pardon sits in the wings... then.. fuggehdaboutit.


 
A Pardon is an interesting possibility. Didn't the person with pardon power come to office promising to restore honor and dignity to the White House? How would a pardon square with that? 

Of course, the real target may be a bit higher than Mr. Libby. The Vice President was very closely involved in all of the activities leading to this conviction. 

The question is, does President Bush have that amount of loyalty toward Vice President "Last Throes", "Pretty Well Confirmed Atta met Iraqi intelligence in Prague" Cheney. Much of the President's legacy is being tarnished by the frustrated "success" in Iraq; an undertaking that could well be ascribed to the Vice President. There may be a bit of bitterness in the Oval Office toward the Vice President.


----------



## jazkiljok (Mar 6, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> A Pardon is an interesting possibility. Didn't the person with pardon power come to office promising to restore honor and dignity to the White House? How would a pardon square with that?
> 
> Of course, the real target may be a bit higher than Mr. Libby. The Vice President was very closely involved in all of the activities leading to this conviction.
> 
> The question is, does President Bush have that amount of loyalty toward Vice President "Last Throes", "Pretty Well Confirmed Atta met Iraqi intelligence in Prague" Cheney. Much of the President's legacy is being tarnished by the frustrated "success" in Iraq; an undertaking that could well be ascribed to the Vice President. There may be a bit of bitterness in the Oval Office toward the Vice President.



libby got thrown out the back door--- but his role in this is pathetic. scooter was scooting for cheney who scoots to his own tin drum. bush may be waiting for a timely blood clot to untangle from the Dickster or perhaps he will simply watch the geezer resign for health reasons...(not the same two thoughts:uhyeah: )

side note:  have you notice the phenomenal lack of interest the public has in all of this?


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 6, 2007)

jazkiljok said:


> side note: have you notice the phenomenal lack of interest the public has in all of this?


 
I think there is more interest in the public than one might anticipate. There is a dilemma about news coverage on this topic. How do people like Tim Russert and Matt Cooper cover this story? They are up to their eyeballs in the story. There is no way they can cover it honestly. 

The *one* mention Russert made about his role in the story was made in the third person "Russert of NBC". 

If the public isn't hearing about it in the news reports, how can we measure the interest? I think you should watch over the next few days, perhaps two weeks. This may unfold like, was it, the "Plumbers"?


----------



## jazkiljok (Mar 7, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> If the public isn't hearing about it in the news reports, how can we measure the interest? I think you should watch over the next few days, perhaps two weeks. This may unfold like, was it, the "Plumbers"?



plumbers. ah, the memories...  the president escalates a war which the american people are against, scandal ensnares the VP, the judicial branch suffers "the saturday night massacre" .... or was that the morning paper i was reading?


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 16, 2007)

Ms. Plame is, at this moment, testifying before the United States House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee. 

The Chairman's opening statement, as authorized by the Central Intelligence Agency, should end the erroneous claim that Ms. Plame was not covert when her name and position was exposed. 

Despite that, the ranking member of the minority party is beating that drum ... completely ignoring the guilty verdict in an Obstruction of Justice trial just a couple of weeks back.


----------



## jdinca (Mar 16, 2007)

Outing her was in poor judgement, imo. Regardless, even if she was covert, the law as written was not violated.

Libby was a scapegoat and will be pardoned in due time as repayment. However, this type of issue is a political reality that infects the full range of the political/ideological spectrum.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 16, 2007)

jdinca said:


> Outing her was in poor judgement, imo. Regardless, even if she was covert, the law as written was not violated.
> 
> Libby was a scapegoat and will be pardoned in due time as repayment. However, this type of issue is a political reality that infects the full range of the political/ideological spectrum.


 
To which law are you referring? 

And what of the oaths all persons sign, when they receive security clearances?

And what of the Administrations statement that any person involved would no longer work in the Adminstration? 

And ... what do you think the *obstruction of justice* conviction is all about? Irve Lewis Libby lied to the FBI and to the Grand Jury, which prevented the special prosecutor from determining if the "law as written" was violated? The very term defines the issue --- Obstruction of Justice. 

You're blanket statement that the law was not violated has not been proved ... or disproved.


----------



## Ray (Mar 16, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> To which law are you referring?
> 
> And what of the oaths all persons sign, when they receive security clearances?
> 
> ...


No one was charged with spilling the beans.  No one has been convicted of spilling the beans.  Spilling the beans was what the whole thing was about...of course the Pres has the authority to spill the beans, it looks like he may not have commissioned Rove to spill the beans.

Big deal... Val was on NPR today talking about Congress's duty for National Security.  Doesn't she know that the legislative branch's job is to author non-binding resolutions and whine...everybody knows that  the  Pres is the command-in-chief and that the legislative branch has the power of funding or not funding the military.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 16, 2007)

Ray, the Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States, who was simultaneously held the job title Special Assistant to the President, was accused and convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. 

These charges were the reason why no one was "charged with spilling the beans". The special prosecutor said that when senior government officials do not tell the truth under oath, it is impossible to determine if the other laws were broken. He analogized it to 'kicking sand in the umpire's eyes'. 


An interesting fact that came out of today's hearing. 


Even until today, the White House has not started any investigation into who on staff leaked Ms. Plame's name. There has been no internal review or report. There has been no official sanction against anyone in the White House. 

Didn't I hear somebody say nobody wants to get to the bottom of the leak more than the President? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/11/AR2005071101568.html

Today we learn, *nothing* was done inside the White House.


----------



## jdinca (Mar 16, 2007)

And how do you square your point of view with the fact that Armitage, the self confessed man who DID initiate the leak is still walking free and has not been charged with anything?


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 16, 2007)

jdinca said:


> And how do you square your point of view with the fact that Armitage, the self confessed man who DID initiate the leak is still walking free and has not been charged with anything?


 
I see you haven't answered, or even addressed my question. 

I will point out that Mr. Armitage is subject to a civil suit currently filed by Ambassador Wilson and his wife. 

Are you arguing that because Mr. Armitage revealed Ms. Plame's identity first, that Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rove, Mr. Libby, Ms. Martin and Mr. Fleischer are free to reveal classified information with impunity? 

The argument you seem to be proposing is that "because Armitage was not part of the White House, there could be no White House conspiracy to discredit Josepeh Wilson."  To which, my response is ... why not? 

It seems that talking point is especially weak. Because Armitage started it ... Libby is innocent --- Please. 

Mr. Armitage did not lie to the FBI.
Mr. Armitage did not lie to the Grand Jury.
Mr. Armitage did not, almost miraculously, find an email before his fifth Grand Jury appearance that prompted his memory that he did speak to Matthew Cooper and reveal Ms. Plame's employment status (see Rove).
Mr. Armitage did not mark up Ambassador Wilson's Op-Ed.
Mr. Armitage did not give direction to his Chief of Staff as to whom the leak should be given (see Cheney).
Mr. Armitage, because he disclosed classified information should be penalized, whether that disclosure was intentional or unintentional. According to today's testimony, such penalizations vary from verbal warnings, to written warnings, to loss of security clearances, and more. I believe at this point, Mr. Armitage no longer has access to classified information (I am making this assumption based on his retirement from the State Department - with retirement the security clearance is revoked). If you have other information on this matter, I'm listening.


----------



## crushing (Mar 16, 2007)

Something I don't grok about this is:  What is it about being married to someone in the CIA that automatically brings discredit, and why doesn't this seem to matter to anyone?


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 16, 2007)

I agree, Crushing, it is a lousy argument. 

But, Ambassador Wilson essentially called the President a liar in the New York Times. And the Vice President (and the WHIG - White House Iraq Group) were at the root of the President's statements and policies. If Ambassador Wilson was seen to be credible, it would be a horrible strike against President Bush and Vice President Cheney; especially as those Weapons of Mass Destruction that they said they knew were in Iraq weren't showing up. 

Therefore, Ambassador Wilson could not allowed to be seen as a credible voice. So, the Vice President, using every tool in his tool kit, got the vibe that if the Ambassador travelled to Africa because of his wife, that would kind of make him a girly-man.

And one thing is true in Republican politics; a girly-man is not to be taken seriously; not with tough-guys like Cheney, Rove and Libby on the job. 

Because it is such a lousy argument, it is almost sad that Mr. Libby is going to go to jail because he made this argument. Almost sad. Almost, that is.


----------



## crushing (Mar 16, 2007)

Thank you Michael,

I've only heard the media make the 'to discredit Ambassador Wilson' arguement.

I guess I can start to see how a spouse being able to send their other half around the world at taxpayers expense can give the appearance of a conflict of interest.  Unfortunately, the media doesn't bother at all with exploring that.  And I don't say unfortunately because that's the way I think it went down, or that they should only report that angle; but, because I think the media missed an opportunity to really get deeper into the issues around this case.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 16, 2007)

It may be a question of what source is referenced when we say 'The Media'. 

Television has some real constraints on it that make a thorough explaination difficult, especially with a story as convoluted as the Plame leak, or the current U.S. Attorney firings. For proper foundation and examination of the story, it would probably take 10 to 12 minutes. Television - outside of the news magazine shows - doesn't afford that amount of time to a topic. 

Newspapers are pretty good about including more than just a sound-bite, but even then, how foundation facts are presented is sometimes more confusing than helpful. A newspaper report will usually have 'new' information along with 'previously known and discussed' information. Often the line between the two is difficult to discern ... and sometimes assumptions about what is previously known, take in too much. 

At this point, the Valerie Plame leak case has three and a half years of reporting. There is alot of information about this case that is known. And sometimes, I assume everybody knows all of it.

Honestly, I almost got snarky with you ... because for me, as I have followed this case ... so much is so obvious. 

The five bullet points I mentioned a few posts back, are all accurate questions about real, known facts in the case. But, some of those are a bit obscure to anyone who is not as familiar with the case as I am. I post them to drive the unfamiliar to research further those questions. 

If you are interested in this story, a great source is the book Hubris by Isikoff and Corn. They cover the story in detail. David Corn has been following it closely since mid-July of '03.


----------



## jazkiljok (Mar 16, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I agree, Crushing, it is a lousy argument.
> 
> But, Ambassador Wilson essentially called the President a liar in the New York Times. And the Vice President (and the WHIG - White House Iraq Group) were at the root of the President's statements and policies. If Ambassador Wilson was seen to be credible, it would be a horrible strike against President Bush and Vice President Cheney; especially as those Weapons of Mass Destruction that they said they knew were in Iraq weren't showing up.
> 
> ...



actually the more you think about it the more you wonder what the heck the discredit campaign was based on-- wilson was a nonpartisan career diplomat who won praise during his career from George W. Sr. no less, and that was for being a tough sob with Saddam while he was stationed in Baghdad. now his wife was a spy... for the CIA. the type of folks who join the agency aren't known for their liberal leanings.

but for the discredit to have some power the implication is not the Wilson was a girly man (i mean the doughboy team of rove and cheney isn't much to contend with)-- but that his spy wife was some liberal lover who wanted to undermine the president for who knows what reason. the fact is that Wilson came back with same view that other intel agencies concluded about the whole uranium buying hokem. in his report he had to present real evidence that he was drawing that conclusion from. so even if Plame was a liberal loving democrat who hated bush-- who cared who sent him?-- don't shoot the messenger-sender. 

that this blew up in their faces goes to show how desperate and stupid their discredit campaign was. all it did was remind people of the article that most american's probably never read and kept the focus on Bush's big lie during his infamous SOTU speech.

And this isn't over with Libby. Not with Democrats controlling both houses.


----------



## jdinca (Mar 17, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I see you haven't answered, or even addressed my question.
> 
> I will point out that Mr. Armitage is subject to a civil suit currently filed by Ambassador Wilson and his wife.
> 
> ...



Sigh. Please quit twisting my words. This investigation was about who leaked her name and whether or not it violated the law. Libby got nailed for lying, a seperate law after the fact that was broken that he was convicted for. You said that that obstruction has prevented Fitzgerald from completing his investigation into the initial leak and whether or not it was an illegal act. My response is that when the person who actually did the leak fully admits it, he would/should be charged almost immediately if a law was broken. We're not talking reprimands here, we're talking a violation of federal law, criminal charges filed, trial, conviction, jail time. As for civil suits, anybody can sue anybody for anything.

I never said Libby was innocent of lying, nor am I exonerating anyone else who may have been involved. I was making the point that person who leaked has yet to be charged with breaking the law, hence my question about the whether the disclosure was truly against the law, or just poor judgement on the administrations part. Period. 

If Armitage is charged, tried and convicted, then we'll have that answer. At that point, I'll be more than happy to agree that a law was broken. What I'm wondering is if he is never charged, or is charged and found innocent, if you're willing to admit that the law was not violated? Somehow, I don't think so.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 17, 2007)

jdinca said:


> Sigh. Please quit twisting my words. This investigation was about who leaked her name and whether or not it violated the law. Libby got nailed for lying, a seperate law after the fact that was broken that he was convicted for. You said that that obstruction has prevented Fitzgerald from completing his investigation into the initial leak and whether or not it was an illegal act. My response is that when the person who actually did the leak fully admits it, he would/should be charged almost immediately if a law was broken. We're not talking reprimands here, we're talking a violation of federal law, criminal charges filed, trial, conviction, jail time. As for civil suits, anybody can sue anybody for anything.
> 
> I never said Libby was innocent of lying, nor am I exonerating anyone else who may have been involved. I was making the point that person who leaked has yet to be charged with breaking the law, hence my question about the whether the disclosure was truly against the law, or just poor judgement on the administrations part. Period.
> 
> If Armitage is charged, tried and convicted, then we'll have that answer. At that point, I'll be more than happy to agree that a law was broken. What I'm wondering is if he is never charged, or is charged and found innocent, if you're willing to admit that the law was not violated? Somehow, I don't think so.


 
I have not twisted your words. I have responded to your assertions. 

As for why, or why not Armitage has not been criminally charged. This is directly connected to *which law* you were referring. If you were referring to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, then there are possibilities as to why he was not charged. 

The most basic is that in order for the IIPA to have been violated, the person must have knowledge that the agent was covert, and this must be able to be proven. The Special Prosecutor may have concluded that a) Mr. Armitage did not have that knowledge, or b) that he would not be able to prove foreknowledge of the fact in a court of law. 

Incidently it was the Special Prosecutor who said Libby's lies and deceptions prevented him from determining if the IIPA was broken or not, not me as you assert. That is why there was an Obstruction of Justice charge against Mr. Libby. 

Mr. Armitage did violate an Executive Order 12958 and the penalties I referred to were based on that Executive Order. Those penalties can be applied regardless of whether a criminal law was broken or not. 

People who receive clearance to receive classified information have obligations under that Executive Order. Some people have violated the rules of that Executive Order and continue to serve, undisciplined inside the White House. 

When I asked what law you were referring to earlier, it was because I am working under the assumption that everyone here knows the laws and rules in question.


----------



## jdinca (Mar 17, 2007)

Okay, Mike. Does violation of said Executive Order constitute a criminal act with criminal penalties? Will Dick Armitage have a criminal record? 

I like how you've found a way to "have your cake and eat it too" regardless of the outcome of the investigation. "Well, he didn't violate the law, but he did violate an EO."


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 17, 2007)

jdinca said:


> Okay, Mike. Does violation of said Executive Order constitute a criminal act with criminal penalties? Will Dick Armitage have a criminal record?
> 
> I like how you've found a way to "have your cake and eat it too" regardless of the outcome of the investigation. "Well, he didn't violate the law, but he did violate an EO."


 
jdinca, why are you making this about me? This is not about me. It is not about me finding a way to have my cake and eat it too. 

At the very top of this page, I asked which law are you referring to? It was not a wise-*** question. If you don't understand that there is a difference - not because I say so, but because of the way our government makes laws - then you may have a mis-understanding of the events and consequences. 

As I understand it, an unauthorized release of classified information, whether intentional or unintentional is not necessarily a criminal violation. The penalties and remedies have been applied in various ways across agencies in the United States Government. There is little uniformity in application. 

If you are interested in hearing professionals who know discuss the wheres, and whyfores, I suggest the complete House Committee meeting in which Ms. Plame spoke yesterday. You can probably catch it on CSPAN this weekend. After Ms. Plame was interviewed (under oath), a representative from the Office of Security in the White House was interviewed - Mr. Knodell, I believe. His testimony was criminal, I think and may lead to the unravelling of the Bush Adminstration. After Mr. Knodell's interview, the committee interviewed a Mr. Azaid and a Ms, Toensing. The second and third boards before the committee were especially enlightening. 

Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has said that his investigation is complete. He expects to file no more charges against any of the others who had leaked information. So:

Mr. Armitage will not have a criminal record from this matter.
Mr. Rove will not have a criminal record from this matter.
Mr. Fleischer will not have a criminal record from this matter. 
Ms. Martin will not have a criminal record from this matter. 
Mr. Cheney will not have a criminal record from this matter. 

If you were not aware, each of these individuals, except for Cheney, shared Ms. Plames name and employment with reporters. Cheney, however, directed Ms. Martin and Mr. Libby on specifics of what should be leaked and to whom.


----------



## jazkiljok (Mar 18, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> If you are interested in hearing professionals who know discuss the wheres, and whyfores, I suggest the complete House Committee meeting in which Ms. Plame spoke yesterday. You can probably catch it on CSPAN this weekend. After Ms. Plame was interviewed (under oath), a representative from the Office of Security in the White House was interviewed - Mr. Knodell, I believe. His testimony was criminal, I think and may lead to the unravelling of the Bush Adminstration. After Mr. Knodell's interview, the committee interviewed a Mr. Azaid and a Ms, Toensing. The second and third boards before the committee were especially enlightening.



Bush & Co. unravelled years ago-- but i doubt they will leave until the next election shows them the door. Very "WTF?" testimony from Knodell..


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/17/13535/5644


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 26, 2007)

This comes from today's Washington Post .... 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/25/AR2007032500934_pf.html


> "When a person is about to be sentenced in federal court it is proper and very common for the judge to receive letters from friends of the accused attesting to his character, integrity, and service to his country, community and family."
> "Many friends and admirers of Scooter Libby have asked how they may submit letters of this kind.
> "So address but do not send your letter" ... _{instructions to foward the letter to Mr. Libby's attorneys_}
> "Identify yourself in the . . . opening paragraph," _give_ "your personal background." _For example_, "president," "vice president" _and so on_. "This is essential if the judge is to give your observations the weight they deserve." _So add_ "former governor of Texas," "Decider," "Uniter," "former secretary of defense" _and so on_.
> ...


 
Italics represent language not exactly as included in Mr. Jeffries letter. 

Were I to send a letter along, I would be certain to point out that Mr. Libby is an attorney and should understand more clearly than most the importance of truthfullness under oath. As such, his penalty should be harsher than most. 

As others have pointed out (Bill Maher did a wonderful job Friday evening), revealing the identity of a covert agent is an act of treason; and while this is not the crime which was charged, it is now an indisputable fact that Mr. Libby did reveal the identity of a covert agent.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 22, 2007)

I just watched last evening's 60 Minutes report. 

The most interesting question for me was the choice to edit the interview to include the second asking of a question .... 



> COURIC: You never for a moment thought this could potentially jeopardize my career?
> PLAME: It&#8217;s called &#8216;living your cover.&#8217; This had nothing to do with what I was doing. He was part of the debate.
> COURIC: But admit it, it comes awfully close to what you were doing, even covertly. I mean, you were trying to ascertain if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He&#8217;s writing an article saying &#8216;it&#8217;s really not valid, this one assertion.&#8217; I mean, can&#8217;t you see how those two things might collide and in a very dangerous way?


 
Ms. Couric presses the question here, with a second iteration. I would have preferred to see a more in depth analysis of the phrase 'living your cover'. 

To me ~ an obvious partisan on this issue (to which there is a right and wrong, not a left and right, by the way) ~ understanding that Mr. Wilson's article should have no bearing on Ms. Plame's career, the second round of this question is a political talking point.

This idea gets revisited in the interview when Ms. Couric tells us that Mr. Rove's wife and Mr. Libby's wife do not work for the CIA. Mr. Wilson correctly counters "how do you know"?  

That is the idea of being covert ... that people don't know. 

Until they do.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 21, 2007)

Mr. Libby was *convicted* of Obstruction of Justice. 

We learn now for whom Mr. Libby was obstructing justice. An excerpt from an upcoming book was displayed on the publishing company's web site. 

http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/publicaffairsbooks-cgi-bin/display?book=9781586485566&view=excerpt



> The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.
> 
> 
> There was one problem. *It was not true*.
> I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: _Rove_, _Libby_, the _vice President_, the President's chief of staff, and the _*President*_ himself.


 

So, Mr. McClellan may be a rat ... but at least the rat's self-preservation instinct has kicked in enough to realize the ship, if not already sunk, is sinking. 

Now, we will see if the new Attorney General, Mr. Mukasey, will be as independent as he claimed to be in his Senate Confirmation hearings.


----------



## Ray (Nov 21, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> So, Mr. McClellan may be a rat ... but at least the rat's self-preservation instinct has kicked in enough to realize the ship, if not already sunk, is sinking.


We can't believe everything we read, only the things that agree with our preconceived notions.

He [McClellan] claims to have no motive to writing what he has other than to record his insights and experiences for the benefit of history.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 21, 2007)

Ray, 

are you saying that a citizen that has a preconcieved notion, that President Bush could not possibly be involved in the deliberate exposition of an United States spy, nor in the intentional cover up of that exposition with lies to the from the White House Press Briefing room, will not be able to find Mr. McClellan credible? 

Why then, do you suppose, does Scott McClellan hate America?


----------



## Ray (Nov 21, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Ray,
> 
> are you saying that a citizen that has a preconcieved notion, that President Bush could not possibly be involved in the deliberate exposition of an United States spy, nor in the intentional cover up of that exposition with lies to the from the White House Press Briefing room, will not be able to find Mr. McClellan credible?
> 
> Why then, do you suppose, does Scott McClellan hate America?


As previously established, Bush has the authority to make a deliberate exposition.  And I'm surmising that Bush has the authority to information about the exposition a state secret.  

Lots of press about how Val and her hub were harmed by the release of information, but I haven't heard of any foreign agents shooting at them (now that they know Val was the 007 who made their lives miserable).  Heck, they made the talk show rounds and published books...how else has their income been increased?



All I'm saying is


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 21, 2007)

Because it was the President who took an action, it's legal? That is the Nixon defense. The President is above the law. 

The Central Intelligence Agency did create a damage report. The findings of that report have not been released. The United States government spends millions of dollars training operatives, and providing credible backround dossier's on operatives. At the time of her exposition, Ms. Plame was busily tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction, and their alleged movements in Iraq and Iran. 

The morning Mr. Novak printed Ms. Plame's name, intelligence agencies across the globe were checking the VISA files for their countries. Every entrance and exit to a foreign country by Ms. Plame was scruitinized. Any person with whom Ms. Plame had contact was in jeopardy.

The White House, through an official spokesperson, lied to the YOU and I when they told us that Mr. Rove, and Mr. Libby were not invovled. Mr. McClellan now tells us that Mr. Card, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush were also complicate in the lie told to the American People by the White House. 

All I'm sayin' is ... if you are willing to let your President weaken national security at this time, for a political vendetta . . . 


Oh, and talk shows don't usually pay guests for appearing. As for book royalties, yes, they exist. I recommend 'Fair Game', by Ms. Plame. It is a very sad book. Sad for our country, I mean.


----------



## Ray (Nov 21, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Because it was the President who took an action, it's legal? That is the Nixon defense. The President is above the law.
> 
> Oh, and talk shows don't usually pay guests for appearing. As for book royalties, yes, they exist. I recommend 'Fair Game', by Ms. Plame. It is a very sad book. Sad for our country, I mean.


Certain powers, responsibilities and authorities are granted to people in certain positions.  Example: most businesses - some people have authority to take action (approve overtime, make purchases, fire people, etc).  Another Example: Congress has the responsibility to declare war.  As has been established, Bush has the legal authority to do what he did.  Nixon, bless his heart, did not have the legal authority to do what he did.  So really, no one is above the law, but not everyone has the same job to do--I can't legally detain someone right now, but I once held a job that I legally did and was required to do daily.

I haven't read Plame's book yet.  I'm sure it's a good book.  It's not on my list of things to read at the moment.  I didn't know that talk shows don't pay guests for appearing...I thought Johnny Carson paid people $50.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 21, 2007)

Interesting thought concerning Carson. I believe you are correct, that he does pay appearance fees ... consistant with Screen Actor Guild union requirements, I believe. 

But, when you mention media appearances, I think about '60 Minutes', 'Meet the Press', and the like. Because these programs are 'news programs', it is my understanding that they do not pay for appearances. They might provide the travel for a guest. Don't really know. 

But, there are other media appearances that I did not think about ... such as NPR's 'Wait, Wait ... ' quiz show and the 'Daily Show'. These media appearances are, no doubt, organized by the book publisher, and part of the 'Book Tour'. I don't know if there is any additional compensation, beyond the travel, and hopeful book royalties.

There are private speaking fees that a personality can receive from institutions who choose to host them. Although, those can not be called media appearances ~ even if the media does cover the event (See Alberto Gonzales - http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004738.php). 

But, all of that really smack of 'The Wilsons are in it for the fame'. Which really has nothing to do with National Security, or the allegations of Mr. McClellan.


----------



## Ray (Nov 21, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Interesting thought concerning Carson. I believe you are correct, that he does pay appearance fees ... consistant with Screen Actor Guild union requirements, I believe.
> ...
> But, all of that really smack of 'The Wilsons are in it for the fame'. Which really has nothing to do with National Security, or the allegations of Mr. McClellan.


I should have said "Carson used to pay" (I think he's either dead or retired; or retired and dead.  But I get my Boolean operators mixed up).

I don't think the Wilsons are into it for the fame nor the money; just taking advantage of the opportunity to make a little and to get their point across.  They can disagree with anyone they want to, including the Prez, it's their right.

The bottom line is either the Prez has the legal authority to do what he did; or he didn't have it.  Just as the Congress had the authority to declare war in Iraq but gave didn't, They merely gave the Prez the authority to make war without a declaration (and then congress can complain about it with righteous indignation).


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 21, 2007)

Can you please tell me what the President did?

Can you tell my why you believe he had the right to do it?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 22, 2007)

Can't believe this ... .

And, we still don't know what people think Bush did. 

And we don't know why they think it is OK? 

[yt]d4nw-AG3-2U[/yt]


----------



## Big Don (Nov 22, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Can you please tell me what the President did?
> 
> Can you tell my why you believe he had the right to do it?


You do know Richard Armitage owned up to being the leak, right?
If the President leaks it is ok, he is the ultimate classifying authority...


----------



## Ray (Nov 22, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Can't believe this ... .
> 
> And, we still don't know what people think Bush did.
> 
> And we don't know why they think it is OK?


Mr. Edward - I'm certain that you are not specifically targeting me.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 22, 2007)

So you're saying that if the President commits treason it can't be treason because he's the President?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 23, 2007)

Big Don said:


> You do know Richard Armitage owned up to being the leak, right?
> If the President leaks it is ok, he is the ultimate classifying authority...


 
So, if the President chose to expose a covert operative to a member of a foreign intelligence service, that would be OK. 

"_My President, right or wrong._" - eh? Really? 

We have become country of man, and not of laws. Is that what you are saying?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 23, 2007)

Ray said:


> Mr. Edward - I'm certain that you are not specifically targeting me.


 
Ray, You can call me Mr. Atkinson, or Mike. Edward is my middle name. 

But, yes, I did ask you specifically those two questions in the previous post. I am wondering if you know and understand what happened? As Phoenix44 asks, Treason is not Treason if the President commits it? 

And, the video clip, Ray, was not directed toward you. 

I would remind Mr. Gibson of this President Bush, and his words

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/28/video-bush-i/



> 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.


 
And, I will note that this earlier version of President Bush, was the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, and would therefore, know of that which he speaks.


----------



## Ray (Nov 23, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> But, yes, I did ask you specifically those two questions in the previous post. I am wondering if you know and understand what happened? As Phoenix44 asks, Treason is not Treason if the President commits it?


Thanks Mike.


----------

