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

[sgtmac_46]

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]

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]

...

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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

 

[Tgace]

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.

"It's comparable to the Lewinsky thing because it is being driven by partisan reasons - in this case, the Democrats," said Germond, who has charted presidential missteps for 44 years.

Despite news reports which say that Rove did speak to the journalists about the affair - and which refute previous White House claims that he was not involved - it so far seems a stretch to say the White House deputy chief of staff broke the law.

 

[Ray]

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."

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.

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.

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.

I'm not sure I agree that Clinton's issue was less serious than Rove's.

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

It's being investigated, not covered up as far as I can tell.

 

[Phoenix44]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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

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]

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

....

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]

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]

Rove revealed classified information.

You say. And he may have.

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.

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]

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


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

 

[Ray]

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]

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 UNintentional 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]

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.