babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the best of babble   » The Plame Game: Rematch

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The Plame Game: Rematch
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 10 July 2005 10:33 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
David Corn says Newsweek will post story on evidence about Rove as source.
quote:
...Yet tonight I received this as-solid-as-it-gets tip: on Sunday Newsweek is posting a story that nails Rove. The newsmagazine has obtained documentary evidence that Rove was indeed a key source for Time magazine's Matt Cooper and that Rove--prior to the publication of the Bob Novak column that first publicly disclosed Valerie Wilson/Plame as a CIA official--told Cooper that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife apparently worked at the CIA and was involved in Joseph Wilson's now-controversial trip to Niger.

To be clear, this new evidence does not necessarily mean slammer-time for Rove...


And here's the Newsweek article. Not quite a smoking gun, I think.

[ 10 July 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 10 July 2005 10:55 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It doesn't matter. The White House and the right-wing bloggers will find something suspicious about the font used in the documents and the majority of Americans will go on living their lives as if nothing had happened.
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 11 July 2005 12:06 AM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, an indictment and conviction would straighten things out. The guy breached national security for a smear - even the right wingers will have trouble standing behind that.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 11 July 2005 03:02 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:
Well, an indictment and conviction would straighten things out. The guy breached national security for a smear - even the right wingers will have trouble standing behind that.

Haven't seen too much of them in action, have you?


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 11 July 2005 08:34 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just wanted to mention that I've moved the old thread to the best of babble archive because I knew skdadl would want that.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 11 July 2005 04:10 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From today's White House press gaggle:


quote:

QUESTION: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than: We're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

QUESTION: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"?

QUESTION: Do you stand by that statement?

MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.

QUESTION: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk.

You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?

MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation...

QUESTION: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.

QUESTION: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything.

You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?

MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

QUESTION: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?


Link


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 11 July 2005 04:20 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm guessing that somebody won't be invited to the White House press briefings any more.
From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 11 July 2005 04:20 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Over the weekend, it became clear that Rove was the source for the Time Reporter at least. Rove's defence now seems to be that while he said that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent, he didn't use her NAME.

(That won't fly in a court of law, because the word in the statute is "identify", and also because the intention of the law is clearly to prevent them from becoming known. If you pointed at someone, and said "He's CIA", you would have committed the wrong the statute attempts to prevent.)

All of a sudden, the US press corps is on the case! Read today's press conference, and one can see that this is metastatizing quickly!

The press seldom shows this much backbone in going after the powerful.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/11/briefing-711/


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 11 July 2005 05:22 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, y'know, the thing about someone like Rove is that while many on the right love him for sticking it to the Democrats, he's the type who'll stick it to anyone he sees as in the way. I'm sure there's plenty Republicans he's hosed, not even counting people like McCain. And pretty much nobody likes or trusts him, I expect. And it's unlikely anyone will feel much loyalty.
A guy like him, as soon as there's some confidence the tide is turning against him, there's plenty of sharks around will be very happy to smell his blood instead of the people he wounded.

From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 July 2005 05:39 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
We're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

Ok: that's not quite up (or down) to the standard of Rumsfeld's "known unknowns," but it is approaching, eh?

Ooh. To watch two Republican presidents facing impeachment in one lifetime: I would feel truly blessed.

[ 11 July 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 July 2005 05:42 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Just wanted to mention that I've moved the old thread to the best of babble archive because I knew skdadl would want that.


Michelle, ta very much, but I think we all have to recognize that, on babble, it has been pogge who has almost single-handedly and heroically kept this story alive for almost two years.

Let's hear it for pogge!


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 11 July 2005 08:00 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Those folks in the press corps have had to put up with a lot for the last 6 years. I'm sure much of the bull was accepted more or less voluntarily. However, reporters do have some pride.

The other thing they have is the Piranha Syndrome. When one starts to feed, the others soon start grabbing just to make sure they get some.

Looks like this story is finally grabbing legs.

[ 12 July 2005: Message edited by: maestro ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Melsky
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4748

posted 11 July 2005 10:06 PM      Profile for Melsky   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's on the front page of tommorrow's New York Times!

New York Times Front Page

Rove Comes Under New Scrutiny in C.I.A. Disclosure Case
By DAVID STOUT 5:57 PM ET
The White House faced a barrage of queries about Karl Rove's role in the disclosure of a C.I.A. operative's identity.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
gunnar gunnarson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8547

posted 11 July 2005 11:35 PM      Profile for gunnar gunnarson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
John Gibson to Bob Beckel, a few minutes ago (my transcription):

Were you ever in any of those receiving lines where Joe Wilson brought his CIA operative wife out into public view in front of cameras to meet the president and such? If he brings her out in public to be photographed by tv, hasn't he outed her?
Well, no, John, not unless he also hung a big 'CIA AGENT' sign around her neck. Look, I understand that Fox hires for ideology, not intelligence, so I'll try to explain this slowly: Karl Rove is not accused of exposing the fact that Joe Wilson has a wife. He stands accused of exposing Valerie Wilson's status as a clandestine CIA operative. I know it's complicated, but if you try really, really hard, you might be able to grasp the distinction.


This Modern World

Everyone remember Gibson's Canada-bashing essay from a couple of weeks ago? Are all Faux's Canada-haters this dumb?


From: audra's corner | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 12 July 2005 12:37 AM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by gunnar gunnarson:

Are all Faux's Canada-haters this dumb?

They are dumber and more immoral than our imaginations can ever imagine.

[ 12 July 2005: Message edited by: mary123 ]


From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 12 July 2005 03:34 AM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rove's Leak Points to Bush Conspiracy
quote:

A key national security principle for dealing with top-secret information, such as the identity of undercover CIA officers, is strict compartmentalization, often called “the need to know” – which raises the question why George W. Bush’s chief political adviser Karl Rove would know anything about the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame.


--------------------------------------------------

In a healthy democracy, the news media would have demanded answers before Election 2004, rather than focusing primarily on the plight of several journalists caught up in demands for testimony from prosecutor Fitzgerald.

Ironically, it was the caving in by Time magazine last week that has opened the door slightly into the long-running White House cover-up of the Plame case. But still the major news media misses the bigger picture.

The answer to the Plame mystery is not the Watergate advice of “follow the money” or even the obvious question of who spilled the beans to Novak. Instead, the route to the heart of this mystery is to follow the trail from who knew Plame’s identity at the CIA through the White House meetings to Karl Rove.


--------------------------------------------------

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.


It seemed like this story was simmering last week just before the London attacks started consuming the news reports. Now the intensity appears to be picking up again and is moving towards the boiling point.

Now the LA Times is interested:

Democrats Take Aim at Rove in Leak Case

quote:
Still, the new information about Rove's role was emerging as a potential embarrassment for a White House that had scrupulously sought to avoid the kinds of investigations that plagued the Clinton administration.

It has also given Democrats a political issue.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman of Los Angeles, the top Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, called for a congressional hearing, contending that the disclosure raised questions about "whether there was conspiracy with other White House staff to use classified information for the political purpose" of discrediting former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.


[ 12 July 2005: Message edited by: leftcoastguy ]


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Melsky
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4748

posted 12 July 2005 07:28 AM      Profile for Melsky   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by mary123:

They are dumber and more immoral than our imaginations can ever imagine.

[ 12 July 2005: Message edited by: mary123 ]


I agree on the immorality, but I don't think they are dumb. They are very manipulative. The dumb ones are the people who believe they are "fair and balanced".


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 July 2005 08:31 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Even the Grope and Flail is running a report on this story today, so it must have got legs.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
gunnar gunnarson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8547

posted 12 July 2005 09:40 AM      Profile for gunnar gunnarson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah, the Glib and Stale. With its uniquely charming blend of cluelessness and arrogance. "it's not news unless we say it is."
From: audra's corner | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 12 July 2005 01:00 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Look, I understand that Fox hires for ideology, not intelligence, so I'll try to explain this slowly: Karl Rove is not accused of exposing the fact that Joe Wilson has a wife. He stands accused of exposing Valerie Wilson's status as a clandestine CIA operative. I know it's complicated, but if you try really, really hard, you might be able to grasp the distinction.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 12 July 2005 02:45 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We're Not in Watergate Anymore
quote:
WHEN John Dean published his book "Worse Than Watergate" in the spring of 2004, it seemed rank hyperbole: an election-year screed and yet another attempt by a Nixon alumnus to downgrade Watergate crimes by unearthing worse "gates" thereafter. But it's hard to be dismissive now that my colleague Judy Miller has been taken away in shackles for refusing to name the source for a story she never wrote. No reporter went to jail during Watergate. No news organization buckled like Time. No one instigated a war on phony premises. This is worse than Watergate.


One of the major problems here to get at Bush is the Congress which is controlled by the Republicans. What the chances are of the Democrats obtaining a majority of the representation in the House & the Senate in the 2006 congressional elections? I would imagine they are probably quite slim. I mean who would impeach him?


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 12 July 2005 02:49 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Impeachment, hell. I'd settle for hearings at this point. But it won't happen as long as the Republicans control congress. There is very little chance of the Democrats recapturing the Senate in '06. The House is possible, but still less than 50-50.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 12 July 2005 11:42 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For the second day in a row the White House has stonewalled About commenting on anything of significance about Rove.

Bush administration won't discuss Rove's role in CIA leak

The reporter who broke the story about Rove's involvement in Newsweek, Isikof, I think, is his name, was just interviewed by the CBC As It Happens people this evening, and he stated that Cooper's emails to his editor concerning Rove identificating Wilson's wife (Rove did not use her name) as a covert CIA operative, showed that Rove told Cooper about Plame three days before Novak broke his story.

But he was also clear to point out that he did not know if Rove was a target in Fitzgerald's investigation.


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 12 July 2005 11:58 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For the record I'm opposed to any judge compelling a reporter to reveal their sources.

But if they're having at it down there why hasn't the 'Douchebag For Liberty', Robert Novak been skinned in front of a grand jury?


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 13 July 2005 02:04 AM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe Novak has already secretly testified.

Rove's Role in Spy Inquiry Reverberates Throughout Capital

quote:
Rove, 54, has been a key part of Bush's political machine since the president first ran for office in Texas. During Bush's first term Rove was the president's chief political adviser and Bush praised him as the ``architect'' of his successful re- election. Since then, Rove has taken a more public role by giving speeches and raising money for Republican candidates and as Bush's deputy chief of staff.

The investigation by Fitzgerald may hamper that role.

``Karl has been legendary in enforcing party discipline and in being able to pick up the phone and call Congress and get something done,'' said Rick Davis, who managed Republican Senator John McCain's 2000 presidential bid. ``This will make it much harder for him to do that, and there is a lot at stake for this president, in terms of his domestic political agenda, over the next six months.''


Good!.

At least something constructive, albeit it's very small, has finally begun to happen.

Jeez, what's it going to take to get at these suckers?


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 13 July 2005 05:07 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Just wanted to mention that I've moved the old thread to the best of babble archive because I knew skdadl would want that.

Not to start a tift among moderators (especially since my own moderator super-powers are very limited), but could you also leave a copy of the thread here in the USA forum. I heartily agree that the thread is worthy of BOB, but many people may not see it there.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 13 July 2005 08:07 AM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Turd Blossom"
From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 July 2005 08:15 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah. "Turd Blossom" is great. Not only does it apply so well to Rove, but I'm sure that's the sort of inspiring rhetoric the American people always want to think that their presidents are using.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 13 July 2005 09:38 AM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I thought this editorial in Buzzflash yesterday was pretty spot on:

quote:
If a Mob Boss Says to a Hit Man, "Kill Jim Smith's Wife," Can He Claim He Didn't Order the Murder Because He Didn't Mention Her Name? Apparently, That's Karl Rove's Thinking.

snip

However, the Bush Administration is, it appears, adopting a strategy of toughing out their treason by claiming that Karl Rove didn't actually "name" Valerie Plame to Matt Cooper, among other "reporters." Rove did, according to "Time" e-mails, assert that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and specialized in WMD, but he, apparently, will assert that he didn't utter the name "Valerie Plame."

Okay, so I'm a Mafia Don, and I'm upset because one of my "made men's" wives is talking out of school and bad mouthing me around town, and sloppily saying things that could get me indicted. Nothing seems to stop her. So, I tell one of my hit men, "take care of Paoli's wife. Make sure her tongue doesn't talk anymore." But I don't tell the hit man the name of Paoli's wife. So when I am indicted for ordering the murder of Paoli's wife, my lawyer says, "Your Honor, my client never mentioned Mrs. Paoli by name, so he can't be guilty. It was all the hit man's fault, because my client never told him to kill Mrs. Paoli by name."

Okay, no jury or prosecutor would buy that. All things being equal, the Mafia Don would be found guilty of murder for hire and end up with a long sentence in Sing Sing.

Yet, Karl Rove's lawyer -- the one with the checkered past himself -- succeeded in getting the "hair splitting" distinction insinuated into the media that if Rove didn't say Valerie Plame, he can't be guilty, even if he identified her as Joe Wilson's wife. If that's the case, Rove should be fired for idiocy and then tried for treason.

The White House is clearly hoping that Patrick Fitzgerald will succumb to Department of Justice pressure to absolve Rove of legal wrong doing. They are buying for time, as Scott McClellan's pathetic stonewalling indicated on Monday, July 11.

And rest assured, if Rove is not indicted, Bush is not going to fire his Svengali. Bush without Rove would be like Charlie McCarthy without Edgar Bergen. (If you are too young to understand that analogy, Edgar Bergen was Candace Bergen's father and he was a ventriloquist. Charlie McCarthy was his dummy.)



I think this is the best analysis I've read on the situation. Rove is the critical linchpin to the entire Bush administration and they will protect him at all costs. Politically, Bush doesn't wipe his ass without advice from Rove. I have to admit, I didn't think this whole incident would get this far, but I'm surprised. They really screwed the pooch on this one and McClellan's deer in the headlights denials are reminding me of Dan Quayle on a bad day.

Especially wonderful was Helen Thomas questioning how his 2003 denials and what is being said now are damaging McClellan credibility with the press. He literally was stammering "I think. . . everyone here. . . knows me . . . and the kind of person I am. . . "

Oh, I think they do.

And its given John Kerry a chance to look statesman like again with Hillary nodding alongside (interesting that she's not the point person for the dems on this).

Novak is the one that is making my blood boil as a journalist. Why has he not been indicted? I'd like to discuss this over coffee with Pat Fitzgerald. I can only hope there will some reckoning in his case soon.


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 13 July 2005 09:57 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
White House orchestrates smear counterattack:
http://tinyurl.com/98qdk, which draws this response:
quote:

The misinformation being spread in the media about the Plame affair is alarming and damaging to the longterm security interests of the United States. Republicans' talking points are trying to savage Joe Wilson and, by implication, his wife, Valerie Plame as liars. That is the truly big lie.

For starters, Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak. Novak's column was not an isolated attack. It was in fact part of a coordinated, orchestrated smear that we now know includes at least Karl Rove.


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


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 July 2005 10:02 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"National security." Ha ha. Nixon tried that one too. Tell us another one.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 13 July 2005 12:56 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I do think that Rove's defence so far has been that he didn't know Plame's name, and so he couldn't be guilty of "identifying" her.

And I think Americain Egalitaire makes short work of that one.

But someone dug this out today:

In the FIRST article in which Novak's article was mentioned, he was interviewed by reporters for Newsday, and he said:

quote:
"I didn't dig it out, it was given to me. They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

It is true that he claimed that he got the info on Plame from "two senior White House officials."
So, it could be that the other one, not Rove, was the one who supplied the NAME. Of course, Novak's quote is "THEY gave me the name....."


There is a possibility that Rove told him the basics, without naming Plame, and told him he could confirm the name with some other official.

So, that's a conspiracy.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_07_10.php#006073

[ 13 July 2005: Message edited by: jeff house ]


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 13 July 2005 01:06 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The reporter who broke the story about Rove's involvement in Newsweek, Isikof, I think, is his name,

That'd be the same reporter who who was recently viciously smeared by the White House for his reporting - quite accurate, as it turned out - about the Gitmo abuses. Nice bit of instant karma for him here.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 July 2005 01:09 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, ronb. Mr Isikoff will be having a pleasant week, I think.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Melsky
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4748

posted 13 July 2005 01:25 PM      Profile for Melsky   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rove shouldn't have known the identity of an undercover agent in the first place. That sort of information is on a "need to know" basis, even if you have the security clearance. There's no reason the president's political advisor would need to know that.
From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 July 2005 01:30 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wondered about that too, Melsky.

It would be interesting to see what the precise categories are -- who is allowed to know what. How would a political adviser know about CIA undercover operatives?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 13 July 2005 01:44 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For the third day in a row now the White House press corps have bombarded the White House with questions about Rove's involvement in Plamegate and the White house continues to stonewall on the issue. Now the strategy is for the Republican party to get involved to make Americans think it is just a political dust-up between the Democrats and the Republicans:
Bush Refuses to Discuss Rove's Role
quote:
The RNC's aggressive stance in the face of mounting Democratic criticism suggests that Republicans hope the public will dismiss the complex controversy as a partisan "food fight," in the words of one Republican senator's chief of staff, who requested anonymity. "They're trying to dilute the matter," the aide said.


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 13 July 2005 02:34 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Won't Defend? Then Attack!
quote:
But the furor shows no signs of abating. And all sorts of interesting developments that will keep media coverage at a fever pitch just keep on coming.

Among the latest: Byron York of National Review Online's revealing interview with Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin.

Luskin has previously said that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald had told him that Rove was not a "target" of the criminal investigation. All that would mean, however, is that Fitzgerald was at that point not ready to actually declare his intention to indict Rove.

But Luskin has now told that National Review that Fitzgerald identified Rove, among others, as a "subject."

In grand-jury talk a subject -- unlike an ordinary witness -- is someone who faces possible indictment.

And investigative reporter Murray Waas blogs today that his sources tell him that columnist Robert Novak -- the first person to publish Plame's identity -- has in fact spoken at length to prosecutors.


So Rove does face possible indictment after all.


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 13 July 2005 02:45 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Columnist Robert Novak provided detailed accounts to federal prosecutors of his conversations with Bush administration officials who were sources for his controversial July 11, 2003 column identifying Valerie Plame as a clandestine CIA officer, according to attorneys familiar with the matter.

. . . .

Also of interest to investigators have been a series of telephone contacts between Novak and Rove, and other White House officials, in the days just after press reports first disclosed the existence of a federal criminal investigation as to who leaked Plame's identity. Investigators have been concerned that Novak and his sources might have conceived or co-ordinated a cover story to disguise the nature of their conversations. That concern was a reason-- although only one of many-- that led prosecutors to press for the testimony of Cooper and Miller, sources said.


http://whateveralready.blogspot.com/2005/07/exclusive-novak-co-operated-with.html


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 13 July 2005 03:05 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Melsky and Skdadl may be on to something:

quote:
For two years now, what has been lacking from the White House is a coherent explanation of how the information about Plame’s identity got from the cloistered world of the CIA to White House meetings and then into the hands of political adviser Rove.

Long ago, there should have been answers to the following questions:

--What national security purpose was served by giving Karl Rove a sensitive secret that, if leaked, could endanger the lives of covert intelligence operatives?

--Who attended White House meetings at which Wilson’s disclosures and Plame’s identity were discussed? How was Plame’s identity brought into these talks? By whom?

--Was George W. Bush present at any of these meetings? As the president, who is ultimately responsible for decisions about national security secrets, did Bush say anything about Wilson and Plame? If so, what did he say and to whom?


http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/071105.html


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 13 July 2005 03:22 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And now the Bush/Rove perspective on Valerie Plame. And they say it with a straight face:

Karl Rove, Whistleblower

quote:
If there's any scandal at all here, it is that this entire episode has been allowed to waste so much government time and media attention, not to mention inspire a "special counsel" probe. The Bush Administration is also guilty on this count, since it went along with the appointment of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in an election year in order to punt the issue down the road. But now Mr. Fitzgerald has become an unguided missile, holding reporters in contempt for not disclosing their sources even as it becomes clearer all the time that no underlying crime was at issue.
As for the press corps, rather than calling for Mr. Rove to be fired, they ought to be grateful to him for telling the truth.



From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 13 July 2005 03:45 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ted Rall ups the ante considerably.
quote:
...Karl Rove, on the other hand, has already been found out as a likely traitor to the United States. Now we must work backwards. Does his exposure help to explain some of the Administration's most baffling foreign policy blunders?

No matter how remote, we must now consider the possibility that Karl Rove may in the employ of, and/or receiving money from, a terrorist organization such as Al Qaeda. Alternatively, could he be in the employ of a hostile foreign government? If he betrayed a CIA agent, Rove is a traitor and therefore capable of anything. Only an exhaustive investigation of his and his associates' anti-American activities, up to and including those committed by George W. Bush, can resolve these questions.

Internal sabotage offers a tempting explanation for the fact that so much has gone wrong for the United States since 2001. After 9/11 Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan--which had financed the Taliban and trained the hijackers at its camps--but Bush shocked analysts by attacking Afghanistan and Iraq instead. Was Bush's refusal to search for bin Laden in his nation of residence the result of spectacular incompetence--or a continuing alliance with the same Islamists his father's presidency had armed and funded?...



From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 13 July 2005 04:30 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

The hallmarks of a Rove smear job are always the same: leak, lie, defame, obfuscate, and deny. He did it when he began a whisper campaign about Gov. Ann Richards' sexuality. He did it when he used surrogates in South Carolina to suggest that Sen. John McCain was mentally unstable and may have fathered a black child out of wedlock and he did it in the last election when he used the Swift Boat Veterans as a front group to proffer lies about John Kerry's time in Vietnam.

But hell, I don't know how to do anything but laugh about it all because I'm confident he is going to get away with it all again.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/jim-moore/the-knower-of-allknowing_4064.html


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 13 July 2005 06:11 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Remind me not to bother with Ted Rall any more.

quote:
No matter how remote, we must now consider the possibility that Karl Rove may in the employ of, and/or receiving money from, a terrorist organization such as Al Qaeda.

This comment is idiotic, and will probably be used by Republicans to discredit the attempts to get the goods on Rove.


Isn't it far more likely that Rove is "in the employ of and/or receiving money from" George Bush?


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 13 July 2005 09:52 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This comment is idiotic, and will probably be used by Republicans to discredit the attempts to get the goods on Rove.

I thinkt the comment about Rove being in the pay of al-Qaeda was probably supposed to be making a point.

The point being Rove and the other neo-fascists in the administration have, and continue, to call into question people's loyalty and commitment to the 'United States' based on their opposition to the administration.

I'll admit it's much more likely Osama is in the pay of Rove than the other way around. However, it's also true that someone in the administration was feeding highly confidential information to Ahmed Chalabi, which he was passing on to the Iranian government.

Hmmmmm


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 14 July 2005 12:07 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
(For want of a better place to put this...)
quote:
The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed the percentage of Americans who believe Bush is "honest and straightforward" fell to 41 percent from 50 percent in January, while those who say they doubt his veracity climbed to 45 percent from 36 percent. ...

40 percent see Iraq as the top priority for the United States, against 34 percent who view jobs as their main concern. In January, jobs ranked highest among 46 percent to 39 percent for Iraq.

The new poll also showed Bush's overall job approval rating slipping to 46 percent from 47 percent in May, while his disapproval rating crept upward to 49 percent from 47 percent.


Poll suggests drop in Bush's personal credibility

That headline is somewhat amusing: Bush's credibility has not actually dropped. Rather, it is holding steady at zero. It's just that many Americans are starting to catch on.

[ 14 July 2005: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 14 July 2005 01:54 AM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Albireo......thanks for the intriguing poll results.

Does anyone think that the tide may finally be beginning to turn here?

Wilson's Iraq Assertions Hold Up Under Fire From Rove Backers

Manufacturing consent, eh! Maybe that Chomsky fella really does know what he is talking about, after all.


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 14 July 2005 05:21 AM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
It would be interesting to see what the precise categories are -- who is allowed to know what. How would a political adviser know about CIA undercover operatives?

While he generally handles political advice, Rove's official title is Deputy Chief of Staff, i.e., #2 man on the White House staff.

My guess would be that he found out about Plame during a high-level discussion about Joe Wilson's credibility, once Wilson started to be a political problem. At least I hope that's how he found out, because that inches the culpability higher, to Chief of Staff Andy Card... and perhaps to the Oval Office.

The Seattle Times:

quote:
As the Cooper e-mail indicates, Rove has duties beyond his official role of working on foreign and domestic policy development. He has, in fact, the broadest portfolio of any presidential aide in history: He micromanages policy, leads outreach efforts to key GOP constituencies and supervises election strategy down to the precinct level, not only for the president but for congressional candidates.

Rove also maintains contacts at leading news organizations and often provides background guidance to top reporters and editors, as he did for Cooper. These contacts are part of Rove's less-discussed role of crafting Bush's image, enforcing the strict Bush code of discipline and jumping hard on perceived opponents of the president.

...

Rove has found himself at the center of similar controversies before.

The leaking of Plame's identity recalls an incident from the 1992 presidential campaign, in which Rove was fired from the elder Bush's re-election team because of suspicions that he had leaked information to columnist Robert Novak — the same columnist who first reported Plame's CIA role in 2003, citing anonymous administration sources.

At the time, Bush's campaign was in trouble, and there was concern he might not even win his home state of Texas. The Novak column described a Dallas meeting in which the campaign's state manager, Robert Mosbacher, was stripped of his authority, because the Texas effort was viewed as a bust.

Mosbacher complained, expressing his suspicion that Rove was the leaker. Rove denied the charge, but he was fired nevertheless.


[ 14 July 2005: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 14 July 2005 10:40 AM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This comment is idiotic, and will probably be used by Republicans to discredit the attempts to get the goods on Rove.

Well, I admit that it takes more than 5 seconds to explain how essentially true the comment is, and will therefore be a bust on MSNBC, nevertheless it's an excellent point - Plame's beat was WMDs, she was in the business of actually preventing terrorist groups from getting their hands on nuclear weapons, while sabotaging the CIA's counter-terrorist operations and therefore helping terrorist groups get their hands on WMDs appears to be Rove's job.

quote:
Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.

George HW Bush, back in 1999.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 14 July 2005 11:16 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It was two years ago today, that columnist Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA operative. For the last eight months, Ambassador Joe Wilson has let the legal process play out and let the grand jury do its work. But now, as the investigation heats up, gets closer to the White House, and fingers are pointing directly at Karl Rove, Ambassador Wilson is ready to talk.

Interview with Joe Wilson: The president should ‘fire Karl Rove’

quote:
Joe Wilson: What this thing has been for the past two years has been a cover up, a cover up of the web of lies that underpin the justification for going to war in Iraq. And to a certain extent, this cover up is becoming unraveled. That's why you see the White House stonewalling. ...
...
I've never spoken to Karl Rove. What I do know is that — Mr. Rove was talking to the press. And he was saying things like my wife is fair game. That is an outrage. It is abuse of power. ...
...
The president said in— in the middle of 2004 he would fire anybody who was caught leaking in this matter. Karl Rove has now been caught. The president has said repeatedly, I am a man of my word. The president really should stand up and prove to the American people that his word is his bond and fire Karl Rove.

From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 14 July 2005 11:36 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rove's lawyer, and a slew of Rebuplican spinmeisters have once again stressed that Rove didn't pass out Plame's NAME.

Somewhere, Egalitarian American rightly made light of that contention by use of a "mafia" analogy.

But there is an even stronger argument that the
"I didn't name her" defence won't work. It's in the law itself:

quote:
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, 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 under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both.

I think, therefore, that the "no name defence" is simply a public relations strategy to confuse the issue. The real question is, did he "disclose
any information identifying such covert agent"?


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/15/subchapters/iv/sections/section_421.html


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 14 July 2005 12:09 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:
... However, it's also true that someone in the administration was feeding highly confidential information to Ahmed Chalabi, which he was passing on to the Iranian government...

Wasn't there a report a few months ago that someone in the Bush Administration appeared to be giving Israel top-secret information?
Edit: This may be the case I was thinking of.

[ 14 July 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 14 July 2005 12:13 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's the AIPAC case, Contrarian, and I think it is still ongoing. We have a running thread on that as well around here somewhere.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 14 July 2005 12:17 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I thought this extract from the third day of questions about Rove at the White House press briefing showed the new spirit:

quote:
McCLELLAN: I think we've exhausted discussion on this the last couple of days.

Q You haven't even scratched the surface.

Q It hasn't started.


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000978734


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 14 July 2005 12:26 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sydney Blumenthal has a pretty thourough summary here. I enjoyed this part:

quote:
The last word, the only word that matters, will belong to the prosecutor. So far, he has said very, very little. Unlike the unprofessional, inexperienced and weak Ken Starr, he does not leak illegally to the press.

From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 14 July 2005 12:38 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Great article, ronb.

The background on Wilson is especially good. I'm glad to see someone keeping that record straight, because, of course, Rove's minions are now trying to smear him again by misrepresenting what happened, how he got the assignment.

In a column this morning that indicates she is at last ready to cut Rove loose, Margaret Wente (yawn -- round up the usual suspects) still manages to slip in a little barb about Wilson being "no hero" either, but it is WSJ misinformation. Someone should send her Blumenthal.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 14 July 2005 10:01 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was wondering what kind of diversion the Bush/Rove duo would come up with to try and get this onto the media's back burner. Here it is: "China is prepared to use N-weapons on the USA"

Anyway stay tuned as apparently more news about this treason story is about to break.

I think now it has gone too far for Rove to be salvaged and Bush is going to have to cut him loose. This should help to give the Democrats a real energy boost for the 2006 Congressional elections.


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 14 July 2005 10:24 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I love this from leftcoastguy's post of the WSJ:

quote:
If there's any scandal at all here, it is that this entire episode has been allowed to waste so much government time and media attention, not to mention inspire a "special counsel" probe. The Bush Administration is also guilty on this count, since it went along with the appointment of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in an election year in order to punt the issue down the road. But now Mr. Fitzgerald has become an unguided missile, holding reporters in contempt for not disclosing their sources even as it becomes clearer all the time that no underlying crime was at issue.
As for the press corps, rather than calling for Mr. Rove to be fired, they ought to be grateful to him for telling the truth.

Does that first sentence remind anyone here of the last personnel scandal in DC? The one with a dress with a stain on it? A delicious irony that the Wall Street Journal, desperate to spin this any way possible, is using almost the exact same language the Dems used to defend Bill Clinton.

All politics is circular, take it to the bank!

Anyway isn't it interesting all this shit is breaking in the SECOND TERM.

Watch the Bushies play to run our the clock until the 2007 campaign primary season. By then we should be fighting in Iran.

I really don't see Rove falling on his sword. Domestically, he's the President for all intents and purposes. He MADE Bush what he is today politically and will be defended at all costs IMO. The pundits are making a lot out of Bush's reluctance yesterday to defend Rove but I think Bush is just playing things cool and hoping it dies down.

The wildcard in this is special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, perhaps the last honest man in Washington. I saw him bring down a corrupt and venal Illinois Governor George Ryan in the license for bribes scandal. This guy is for real - they unleashed a monster, so to speak, on Washington. If anyone can bring down this administration it's Fitzegerald.

This is starting to get interesting.


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 15 July 2005 12:42 AM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
These guys, Novak, Rove, etc., are in it up to their eyeballs. Check this out:

Rove Reportedly Held Phone Talk on C.I.A. Officer

quote:
Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified a C.I.A. officer who was undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said Thursday.


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 15 July 2005 12:57 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jeff House quotes above from the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Mark Kleiman suggests that isn't the only Act that Karl Rove has to worry about.
quote:
But Rove's conduct certainly meets the far less demanding elements of the Espionage Act: (1) possession of (2) information (3) relating to the national defense (4) which the person possessing it has reason to believe could be used to damage the United States or aid a foreign nation and (5) wilful communication of that information to (6) a person not entitled to receive it.

Under the Espionage Act, the person doing the communicating need not actually believe that revelation could be damaging; he needs only "reason to believe." Classification is generally reason to believe, and a security-clearance holder is responsible for knowing what information is classified.

Nor is it necessary that the discloser intend public distribution; if Rove told Cooper -- which he did -- and Cooper didn't have a security clearance -- which he didn't -- the crime would have been complete.

And to be a crime the disclosure need not be intended to damage the national security; it is only the act of communication itself that must be wilful.

It's also a crime to "cause" such information to be communicated, for example by asking someone else to do so.

Open and shut, I'd say.



From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 15 July 2005 02:19 AM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Karl Rove's America
quote:
And now we know just how far he was willing to go with these smear tactics: as part of the effort to discredit Joseph Wilson IV, Mr. Rove leaked the fact that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the C.I.A. I don't know whether Mr. Rove can be convicted of a crime, but there's no question that he damaged national security for partisan advantage. If a Democrat had done that, Republicans would call it treason.

But what we're getting, instead, is yet another impressive demonstration that these days, truth is political. One after another, prominent Republicans and conservative pundits have declared their allegiance to the party line. They haven't just gone along with the diversionary tactics, like the irrelevant questions about whether Mr. Rove used Valerie Wilson's name in identifying her (Robert Novak later identified her by her maiden name, Valerie Plame), or the false, easily refuted claim that Mr. Wilson lied about who sent him to Niger. They're now a chorus, praising Mr. Rove as a patriotic whistle-blower.

Ultimately, this isn't just about Mr. Rove. It's also about Mr. Bush, who has always known that his trusted political adviser - a disciple of the late Lee Atwater, whose smear tactics helped President Bush's father win the 1988 election - is a thug, and obviously made no attempt to find out if he was the leaker.

Most of all, it's about what has happened to America. How did our political system get to this point?


How do we stop these rotten elements that have their hooks into our democracies?


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 15 July 2005 05:21 AM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rove leak is just part of larger scandal
quote:
One can imagine the fury in the White House. We now know from the e-mail traffic of Time's correspondent Matt Cooper that five days after the op-ed appeared, he advised his bureau chief of a supersecret conversation with Karl Rove who alerted him to the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and may have recommended him for the Niger assignment. Three days later, Bob Novak's column appeared giving Wilson's wife's name, Valerie Plame, and the fact she was an undercover CIA officer. Mr. Novak has yet to say, in public, whether Mr. Rove was his source. Enough is known to surmise that the leaks of Rove, or others deputized by him, amounted to retaliation against someone who had the temerity to challenge the president of the United States when he was striving to find some plausible reason for invading Iraq.

The role of Rove and associates added up to a small incident in a very large scandal - the effort to delude America into thinking it faced a threat dire enough to justify a war.



From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 15 July 2005 06:02 AM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by leftcoastguy:
I think now it has gone too far for Rove to be salvaged and Bush is going to have to cut him loose. This should help to give the Democrats a real energy boost for the 2006 Congressional elections.

Alas, I think the only advantage to be gained from this matter re: 2006 is the extent to which it distracts Rove from his ordinary duties of micro-managing Repub campaigns and candidates for 2006.

By and large, unless an individual memeber of Congress says stupid things about this issue, voters in the local races won't connect Rove to their candidates.

As AE put it:

quote:
"Watch the Bushies play to run our the clock until the 2007 campaign primary season."

...

Anyway isn't it interesting all this shit is breaking in the SECOND TERM.


As far as second term scandals are concerned, ain't it always the way? Sigh.

[ 15 July 2005: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 15 July 2005 05:42 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quite a change in MSM reporting within one week. I think Rove is done like dinner:

It doesn't look good for Karl Rove

This article was not written by the recent Democratic presidential candidate but rather a former counsel to President Nixon.


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 15 July 2005 06:54 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Damn, I was just going to link that John Dean article, guy.

So, here's a legally-well-informed-quote:

quote:

Randel leaked the fact that Lord Ashcroft's name was in the DEA files, and this fact soon surfaced in the London news media. Ashcroft sued, and learned the source of the information was Randel. Using his clout, soon Ashcroft had the U.S. attorney in pursuit of Randel for his leak.

By late February 2002, the Department of Justice indicted Randel for his leaking of Lord Ashcroft's name. It was an eighteen count "kitchen sink" indictment; they threw everything they could think of at Randel. Most relevant for Karl Rove's situation, count one of Randel's indictment alleged a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641. This is a law that prohibits theft (or conversion for one's own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes. But its broad language covers leaks, and it has now been used to cover just such actions.

Randel, faced with a life sentence (actually 500 years) if convicted on all counts, on the advice of his attorney, pleaded guilty to violating Section 641. On January 9, 2003, Randel was sentenced to a year in a federal prison, followed by three years probation. This sentence prompted the U.S. attorney to boast that the conviction of Randel made a good example of how the Bush administration would handle leakers.


Oh a mere 500 years? So droll.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 15 July 2005 07:14 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And here's an Orwellian quote from 2004:

quote:
Karl Rove was called to testify before a federal grand jury in 2004 regarding the disclosure of a covert C.I.A. agent's identity. White House spokesman Scott McClellan explained the reason: "Karl went to testify to do his part in finding out who leaked this information."

http://www.cuttersway.com/


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 15 July 2005 07:42 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Billmon on the latest GOP spin which claims that it was actually the media which leaked Plame's identity to Rove.
quote:
What are the implications of this story?

The first is that Judy Miller very well may be the key to the case. If Rove (as well as Scooter Libby) testified that they originally heard about Plame from another journalist, and if Fitzgerald has decided (probably based on phone records) that Miller is that person, then it's easy to see why Judy is sitting in jail right now. She's the only person in the world who can contradict Rove's story. However, if Miller is Rove's original source, she would have many reasons to want to avoid testifying, including:

* protecting her original source

* not being indicted under the espionage statute (if she knew that Plame's relationship with the CIA was classified information)

* not having to admit publicly that she was a cog in Rove's intelligence gathering and sliming operation.

If Miller did tell Rove that Plame was a NOC, then to that list you could add:

* avoiding the need to choose between fingering the most powerful political operative in the country or committing perjury in front of a grand jury.

If Miller actually was Rove's source, then I'm guessing that jail cell in Alexandria probably doesn't seem like such a bad place to be right now, considering the alternatives.

Of course, if Miller (or another journalist) told Rove about Plame, it would raise the enormously interesting question of who told them. Could it have been another journalist, perhaps one surrounded by the stench of his own rotting, undead flesh? (Novak to Miller to Rove back to Novak. A perfect loop of slime.)



From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 15 July 2005 07:48 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
White House spokesman Scott McClellan explained the reason: "Karl went to testify to do his part in finding out who leaked this information."

Jeff....looks like Bush may well be replacing Scott as well as Rove before this is all over. Being completley misled is not going to sit well with the Washington Press Corps I would surmise.


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 15 July 2005 07:51 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree, 'guy.

What is sad is that Bush can lie to the country about Iraq, sending 1750 soldiers to their deaths over that lie, and the press can't get all to excited.

But let someone lie to THEM, and that's serious.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 16 July 2005 02:21 AM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
State Dept. Memo Gets Scrutiny in Leak Inquiry on C.I.A. Officer

The Times editors sure know how to write headlines that are accurate but have impact.


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 16 July 2005 08:32 AM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
WaPo today:

quote:
Two newspapers and the Associated Press have stories this morning -- sparked by what appears to be a strategically crafted leak from Karl Rove's camp -- that shed a little more light on the role the president's chief political strategist played in the disclosure of Valerie Plame's CIA affiliation.

Here's what the stories say:

· Rove was apparently the "second source" for Robert Novak's July 14, 2003, column about Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, in which Plame, Wilson's wife, was first outed.


· While Rove was the first source for Time magazine Matthew Cooper's July 17, 2003, story, in neither case was Rove reportedly pushing the Plame angle aggressively.


· And Rove claims that he initially learned about the role of Wilson's wife from a reporter whose name he can't remember -- and then first learned her actual name from Novak.

The new leak is clearly intended to suggest that Rove's actions were neither criminal nor particularly unethical.



From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 16 July 2005 08:41 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ha. Rove can't remember Judith Miller's name. Hee. Isn't that what the White House has phone logs for?


quote:
(Novak to Miller to Rove back to Novak. A perfect loop of slime.)

This is my favourite conspiracy theory. Another blog link of yours, pogge, was suggesting at least the Miller to Rove part several weeks ago, as I recall.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 July 2005 08:45 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by leftcoastguy:
State Dept. Memo Gets Scrutiny in Leak Inquiry on C.I.A. Officer

The Times editors sure know how to write headlines that are accurate but have impact.


Ha. No kidding. I often think the same thing about the "in cahoots" articles on rabble.

I suppose The Times could go the same route as The Sun. "DAMNING MEMO FOUND!"


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 16 July 2005 08:59 AM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

But let someone lie to THEM, and that's serious.

SF Chronicle is calling for Scott McClellan's head:

quote:
The person who should step down immediately is White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.

Every White House correspondent knows that a press secretary's job involves a good deal of "spin" and administration-friendly interpretations of the facts. But it can't involve what now seem like outright falsehoods. And that is the trap in which McClellan now finds himself.

He insisted on several occasions that Rove played no role in the Plame incident. He ridiculed those who even suggested it. "Totally ridiculous" and "not true," he said. "There is simply no truth to that suggestion," McClellan said on Sept. 29, 2003, in a typical statement. "And I have spoken with Karl about it."

Now McClellan is squirming and stonewalling by saying he won't comment because of the "ongoing investigation" into the mess -- further infuriating a press corps that feels it was had.

What he should have done was simply come out and apologize, and say he had gotten his facts wrong, and that it won't happen again.



From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 16 July 2005 10:48 AM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
John Tierney has a wonderful op-ed piece in Todays New York Times which sums up the whole affair beautifully for what it is, a non -event that has in fact backfired on the Dems and Wilson/Plame. Too bad you have to be a subscriber to read it but you could use Bugmenot.com to bypass registration. I will quote this line from the piece however
quote:
Karl Rove's version of events now looks less like a smear and more like the truth: Mr. Wilson's investigation, far from being requested and then suppressed by a White House afraid of its contents, was a low-level report of not much interest to anyone outside the Wilson household.
. How awful for the Dems.

From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 16 July 2005 10:53 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
babblers can always read the NYTimes (if they really want to):

ID: babblers8
password: audrarules


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
cottonwood
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4839

posted 16 July 2005 11:05 AM      Profile for cottonwood     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
New York Times quote:
Karl Rove's version of events now looks less like a smear and more like the truth: Mr. Wilson's investigation, far from being requested and then suppressed by a White House afraid of its contents, was a low-level report of not much interest to anyone outside the Wilson household.

This is a straight reprint of the Republican Party's talking points, most likely written by Rove himself. Wilson never said that he was sent by anybody at the White House, nor even by CIA Director George Tenet. He said that he was sent by the CIA and that he was told that the Office of the Vice President requested more information on the Niger documents. The argument that the White House never authorized his trip is a pathetic attempt at a diversion. If they are stating that Wilson ever claimed that the White House authorized his trip, it's an outright lie.

In addition, the White House was obviously interested in his report, since Rove called at least six journalists attempting to discredit it. The fact is that Wilson's report was the truth, and Rove and his gang don't like the truth getting in the way of a good storyline.

My personal wingnut theory is that it was actually Valerie Plame (Wilson's wife, and undercover CIA weapons of mass destruction spy) that was sent to investigate the Niger claims and Wilson was her cover.

[ 16 July 2005: Message edited by: Steve ]


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 16 July 2005 11:23 AM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hi Steve actually he was recommended for the Niger job by his wife Ms. Plame,(Who as a proclaimed undercover operative certainly had no problem "outing" herself to friends and neighbors). The GOP talking points you refer to are just the facts.

My personal wingnut theory on the matter is that Ted Rall orchestrated the whole affair and is in fact on the payroll of Lyndon LaRouche.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
cottonwood
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4839

posted 16 July 2005 11:29 AM      Profile for cottonwood     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by PitaPlatter:
Hi Steve actually he was recommended for the Niger job by his wife Ms. Plame,(Who as a proclaimed undercover operative certainly had no problem "outing" herself to friends and neighbors). The GOP talking points you refer to are just the facts.

See how that dovetails nicely with my wingnut theory there? "Plame, go find out if this stuff has any truth to it" "Sure boss, maybe I should drag my hubby along as cover?"

Even if the GOP talking points are facts, they are all completely irrelevant to the investigation of the outing of an undercover CIA agent.

And this will be the end of my discussion with PitaPatter... as life is far too short.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 16 July 2005 11:34 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There are other errors -- or maybe just slippery ways of putting things? -- in that column.

I don't think anyone ever claimed, eg, that Wilson's report per se was supposed to make it to the White House: the point is that it made it into the original CIA report to the White House that the Niger claim was false, which the White House refused to accept, which refusal Tenet then gave into, which led to Bush's phony mention in his speech, which Tenet was later forced to admit should not have been there, which led to Tenet's losing his job.

So there's another detail parallel to the phony claims that the White House didn't "hire" Wilson: no one ever said they did. Plame made a recommendation to her CIA people; the CIA then hired Wilson (she didn't).

So, yeah: this just looks like more of Rove's obfuscations.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 16 July 2005 11:36 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PS: The rebuttal to Tierney's desperation over which laws apply in this case is made pretty thoroughly in John Dean's last column, linked to above. A good read.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 16 July 2005 12:07 PM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hi skdadl but Wilson himself is on the record as stating the his mission to Niger was initiated by Dick Cheney's office. The CIA was instructed to investigate this very matter.
quote:
The RNC cited Wilson's Times op-ed as evidence that he claimed Cheney sent him to Niger. But the op-ed actually noted that it was "agency officials" from the CIA who "asked if I would travel to Niger" to answer questions Cheney's office had about a particular intelligence report:

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake -- a form of lightly processed ore -- by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.


Media Matters

[ 16 July 2005: Message edited by: PitaPlatter ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 16 July 2005 12:16 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah. So? You have a point?

Rove tried to pretend that Wilson had claimed the White House sent him. But Wilson never said that. He said he was told by the CIA, when they called him in, that this was an assignment from the VP's office (which of course it was ... thereby hangs another tale).

Rove also tried to pretend that Plame hired Wilson herself, but she didn't. She made a recommendation to a CIA committee who well knew the relationship, but they made the contact. It was all on the up and up ... and furthermore, Pita Platter, that information is all in the fine links provided earlier on this thread and at least two that have prededed it.

You're welcome.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 16 July 2005 12:30 PM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Last I checked Dick Cheney still had a job at the White House so how was Rove wrong?
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 16 July 2005 12:58 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cheney asked the CIA to chase this story. The CIA did that, by asking Wilson to chase this story. That's all Wilson ever said.

Rove tried to pretend that Wilson claimed that Cheney hired him directly, but Wilson never did that.

Pita Platter, I don't think I can put it in little words any better than that.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 16 July 2005 02:16 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's look at a few bits from Tierney's op-ed (that's a permanent blog-safe link, by the way).

quote:
Ms. Wilson was compared to James Bond in the early days of the scandal, but it turns out she had been working for years at C.I.A. headquarters, not exactly a deep-cover position. Since being outed, she's hardly been acting like a spy who's worried that her former contacts are in danger.

That doesn't alter the fact that she was an NOC. The fact that she hadn't been overseas in five years may mean that technically the leaker didn't violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act but Larry Johnson contradicts all this blather that Plame was just a desk jockey.

quote:
Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.

A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.


Johnson also reminds us that there was more at stake here than just Plame.

quote:
...until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her.

Back to Tierney.

quote:
Mr. Wilson's investigation, far from being requested and then suppressed by a White House afraid of its contents, was a low-level report of not much interest to anyone outside the Wilson household.

No one inside the Wilson household had the authority to authorize Wilson's mission. Whatever Plame's involvement, someone higher than she was in the CIA command structure had to send him.

quote:
...there's always the chance that the prosecutor will turn up evidence of perjury or obstruction of justice during the investigation, which would just prove once again that the easiest way to uncover corruption in Washington is to create it yourself by investigating nonexistent crimes.

Anyone remember the Clinton years? But he lied!.

Nice bit of initiative here on Tierney's part. If it turns out that Rove or Novak or some other member of the cult of Bush committed perjury, Tierney's already discounted it. It's alright. It wasn't a real scandal. Lying under oath to obstruct an investigation into the outing of a CIA operation isn't nearly as serious as lying under oath about a blow job.

Tierney's carrying water for the Bush administration. It's all designed to distract from the fact that whether or not what happened falls within the narrow definition of a violation of the law, the Bush administration - those brave defenders of America - were quite happy to compromise national security assets in the name of partisan politics and to support their efforts to drag the U.S. into a war of choice based on trumped up charges concerning a threat to American security that didn't exist.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 16 July 2005 05:33 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From Crooks and Liars:
quote:
Lou Dobbs Tonight, (7/15/05) as Lou was introducing a piece on the Rove story.

Lou says, "...Rove testifying that he first learned about Plame from columnist Robert Novak, a CNN contributor. Danna Bash reports." Immediately after that you can clearly hear a female voice on mic whispering "that's bullshit". Then Dana Bash continues with her report.


Link to Windows Media Player video on which the whisper can be heard.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 16 July 2005 06:55 PM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Skdadl sorry I missed your earlier post but I did have to run. Wilson did not say Cheney hired him directly however other media did report it as such- to hang Rove you will need a much less slender thread.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 16 July 2005 07:11 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pita, several of your posts have contained lies which are being spread by the White House slime machine.

And your initial post does in fact simply repeat Republican talking points which became public shortly after being sent out to their propaganda organs.

Nothing I have read would even tempt me to conclude, as you do, that this is "bad for the Dems".

Even according to the Official Story approved by the White House, Rove confirmed the identity of an undercover CIA agent. He did so in order to harm someone who had dissented from the Iraq lies, and was in a position to say so authoritatively.

My guess is that Rove will be indicted. But even if he isn't, nothing good can be said about what he did.

So how could that be "bad for the Dems"?


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 16 July 2005 11:54 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is a great article whicle clearly states what has happened and what kind of a mess Bush & Co are in. I am so looking forward to the grand jury proceedings. I wonder what news tomorrow will bring.

White House in panic over spy scandal


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 17 July 2005 01:21 AM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sounds like Time magazine is in a real internal mess over revealing sources. The fallout over this issue is going to be huge. I just hope the Democrats can capitalize on it:

Lawyers Secured Rove's Waiver


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 17 July 2005 02:14 AM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I just hope they finally have these dirty birds, both politically and legally, I really do.

Follow the Uranium

quote:
"I am saying that if anyone was involved in that type of activity which I referred to, they would not be working here."
- Ron Ziegler, press secretary to Richard Nixon, defending the presidential aide Dwight Chapin on Oct. 18, 1972. Chapin was convicted in April 1974 of perjury in connection with his relationship to the political saboteur Donald Segretti.

"Any individual who works here at the White House has the confidence of the president. They wouldn't be working here at the White House if they didn't have the president's confidence."
- Scott McClellan, press secretary to George W. Bush, defending Karl Rove on Tuesday.
-----------------------------------------

AS if this weren't enough, a State Department intelligence analyst questioned the legitimacy of some mysterious documents that had surfaced in Italy that fall and were supposed proof of the Iraq-Niger uranium transaction. In fact, they were blatant forgeries. When Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said as much publicly in the days just before "shock and awe," his announcement made none of the three evening newscasts. The administration's apocalyptic uranium rhetoric, sprinkled with mushroom clouds, had been hammered incessantly for more than five months by then - not merely in the State of the Union address - and could not be dislodged. As scenarios go, this one was about as subtle as "Independence Day" and just as unstoppable a crowd-pleaser.

Once we were locked into the war, and no W.M.D.'s could be found, the original plot line was dropped with an alacrity that recalled the "Never mind!" with which Gilda Radner's Emily Litella used to end her misinformed Weekend Update commentaries on "Saturday Night Live." The administration began its dog-ate-my-homework cover-up, asserting that the various warning signs about the uranium claims were lost "in the bowels" of the bureaucracy or that it was all the C.I.A.'s fault or that it didn't matter anyway, because there were new, retroactive rationales to justify the war. But the administration knows how guilty it is. That's why it has so quickly trashed any insider who contradicts its story line about how we got to Iraq, starting with the former Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill and the former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke.

Next to White House courtiers of their rank, Mr. Wilson is at most a Rosencrantz or Guildenstern. The brief against the administration's drumbeat for war would be just as damning if he'd never gone to Africa. But by overreacting in panic to his single Op-Ed piece of two years ago, the White House has opened a Pandora's box it can't slam shut. Seasoned audiences of presidential scandal know that there's only one certainty ahead: the timing of a Karl Rove resignation. As always in this genre, the knight takes the fall at exactly that moment when it's essential to protect the king.


In Plame Leaks, Long Shadows


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 17 July 2005 03:39 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
...that had surfaced in Italy that fall and were supposed proof of the Iraq-Niger uranium transaction. In fact, they were blatant forgeries.

One of the things that interests me is that no one has asked where those forgeries came from.

That's gotta be a pretty short list, in that it was in almost no one's interest except the US to have that 'evidence'.

I'll put my money on the Iraqi National Congress as the source, which of course means the US was complicit in the manufacturer of the papers.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 17 July 2005 03:59 AM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nobody seems to know for sure.

Follow That Story: The Nuclear Whodunit, Part 4


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 17 July 2005 08:59 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fascinating.

Where was I just reading about the only senior USian intelligence guy who is considered an Italian expert? Just thinking out loud; never mind.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 17 July 2005 10:00 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

This case is not about Joseph Wilson. He is, in Alfred Hitchcock's parlance, a MacGuffin, which, to quote the Oxford English Dictionary, is "a particular event, object, factor, etc., initially presented as being of great significance to the story, but often having little actual importance for the plot as it develops." Mr. Wilson, his mission to Niger to check out Saddam's supposed attempts to secure uranium that might be used in nuclear weapons and even his wife's outing have as much to do with the real story here as Janet Leigh's theft of office cash has to do with the mayhem that ensues at the Bates Motel in "Psycho."

This case is about Iraq, not Niger. The real victims are the American people, not the Wilsons. The real culprit - the big enchilada, to borrow a 1973 John Ehrlichman phrase from the Nixon tapes - is not Mr. Rove but the gang that sent American sons and daughters to war on trumped-up grounds and in so doing diverted finite resources, human and otherwise, from fighting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. That's why the stakes are so high: this scandal is about the unmasking of an ill-conceived war, not the unmasking of a C.I.A. operative who posed for Vanity Fair.


http://nytimes.com/2005/07/17/opinion/17rich.html?pagewanted=2&hp


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 17 July 2005 10:26 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
josh, the link to Frank Rich's column appears above as well, in leftcoastguy's post.

But what the hey -- Frank Rich is always worth reading twice.

The American people are the victim, and in the case of Iraq, yes, it is Bush/Cheney who are the main villains.

I still think that having Karl Rove act in their name makes them victims all on its own.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Yvon Thivierge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9405

posted 17 July 2005 01:11 PM      Profile for Yvon Thivierge     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sarola suggests asking Dick Cheney if he's the leaker and especially Condi Rice, since she has both ideological and personal motives to hurt ambassador Wilson.

If they are involved with the leak, that puts the Bush administration in an even more difficult predicament being they are even harder to fire than Rove is!


From: Sault-Sainte-Marie ON Canada | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 17 July 2005 02:05 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Nobody seems to know for sure.
Follow That Story: The Nuclear Whodunit, Part 4

Thanks for posting that leftcoastguy, very interesting...


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 17 July 2005 03:21 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A tactic that seems to work well when one is trying to hide the truth is to put so much information out there it is almost impossible to follow the chain of events. It is overwhelming how many articles there are out there, including a vast array of reports that are designed specifically to divert and take you off course.

It will be a real credit to the investigative abilities of Fitzgerald if the grand jury is able to come up an indictment in October.


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 17 July 2005 03:42 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now why are we NOT surprised to find out that Dick Cheney is involved in this up to his eyeballs?

Top Cheney Aide Among Sources in CIA Story

This is one massive attempt at a cover-up the likes of which certainly reminds me of Watergate.

[ 17 July 2005: Message edited by: leftcoastguy ]


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 17 July 2005 05:15 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting how the Washington Post changed their headline for this story from what was posted here previously to what they have on their website at the moment:

quote:
Reporter: Top Cheney Aide Among Sources

[ 17 July 2005: Message edited by: leftcoastguy ]


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 17 July 2005 05:28 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Verra interesting, from 'top cheney aide' to: 'top cheney aide according to reporter'

I wonder how vicious the Whitehouse is prepared to get in order to bring this under control.

I suspect very vicious, in that two of the people involved, Cheney and Rove are part of the 'gang of five' (Cheney, Rove, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld) that have been around since the days of Reagan.

I see Cheney as the informal 'leader' of this group, and I suspect all efforts - legal and otherwise - will be made to protect him.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 17 July 2005 06:03 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow, does this remid you of Watergate or what, eh!


Cheney's office linked to Rove affair

[ 17 July 2005: Message edited by: leftcoastguy ]


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 17 July 2005 06:04 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
However their hardball tactics may finally be backfiring although as the this reporter says: "Never bet against Karl Rove".

Rove at War


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 18 July 2005 01:58 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Whoah... That was quick.

I'm closing this, moving a copy to the Best of babble and inviting y'all to start a yet another new Plame thread.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca