Rekna

Novak has openly admitted that Rove was one of his leakers in the plame case. In light of this what do you think Rove should do? Did Rove break the law by leaking this and did the administration openly lie to the public about it's role in the leak.

In my opinion I think Rove should be fired and possibly prosecuted for misconduct. In addition the administration should be repremanded for directly lieing to the public in many statments that said Rove and the administration in general had nothing to do with the leak. The adminstration used the press to retaliate against someone who critisized them openly. It reaks of dirty politics and since when is it ok for the president to play politics with national security but no one else can?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203051,00.html

Seaver

I would like to see how those supporting open rights for press "uncovering" classified knowledge will justify their desire for Rove to face some sort of punishment.

My stance is equal and non-partisan. If they're guilty take it to the full extent of the law, be it Rove or whoever is leaking the various forms of international monitoring.

host

Seaver, I want to understand your perception of these "leaker" issues.
The identity of an employee of the CIA was considered by the CIA to be classified information. Columnist Robert Novak published that "Joe Wilson's wife works for the CIA". He also publicly stated that two "senior administration officials" confirmed to him that "Joe Wilson's wife works for the CIA".

The CIA complained to the DOJ that classified information that had the effect of revealing to the public that Valerie Plame, (Joe Wilson's wife.....worked for the CIA) appeared in Robert Novak's July, 2003 column. The CIA requested that the DOJ investigate to find and identify those who leaked that information to Robert Novak.

11 months later, the POTUS said:
Now, please explain how the description of the Novak publishing of classified information, confirmed to him by two "senior administration officials, and the POTUS's June, 2004 pledge, when he was asked what he would do if the identities of people working in his administration who leaked classified information to Novak were uncovered....compares to your <b>"equal and non-partisan"</b> stance. For example, let's run through the documentation of the NY Times publishing the report that discloses "SWIFT" monitoring.

<b>Is the Bush administration as "even handed" in it's treatment of the NY Times, as it has been with Lewis "Scooter" Libby and with Karl Rove? Have you ever heard Mr. Bush, or Mr. Cheney, negatively criticize either of the above men, as to their involvment in "confirming" classified information about the employment of "Joe Wilson's wife", to Robert Novak, or to other news reporters?</b>

Please explain how the following "works"....Bush pledged to "fire anyone in my administration", identified by the attorney general as having leaked classified information to Rober Novak, et al. The U.S. attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, investigated the matter, and heard testimony from a number of news reporters that both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby confirmed to them that "Joe Wilson's wife" worked for the CIA. Both men were investigated by and tesitifed before the U.S. attorney. The reporters, Judith Miller, Matt Cooper, Bob Woodward, and finally now, Robert Novak, have all confirmed that Libby and Rove confirmed to them "that "Joe Wilson's wife" worked for the CIA".

Libby was indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald, in Oct., 2005 on five counts of lying to FBI investigators and to Fitzgerald's grand jury. Fitzgerald described his investigation, and Libby's obstruction, as being like a baseball umpire, trying to observe a play in a game, and having "sand thrown in his face", to make it impossible to determine what happened.

Mr. Bush has responded to all of this by keeping Mr. Rove in his white house office, with his security clearance intact. Mr. Libby, after being indicted, was allowed to resign, and it is unclear whether the white house continues to allow him access to classified information.

Seaver, contrast the above description to this discription of events, understand that all of the quotes from the government come from two sites,
the white house and the U.S. treasury websites:

Since 1998, the Washington Post has displayed the following on it's website:
another story about SWIFT monitoring by the U.S. government has been on
the linked pages for 58 months, now:
<b>Seaver, see if you don't agree that I've established that descriptions of SWIFT monitoring have been dispalyed on web pages of 5 Fox Tv affiliates, and two newspapers that, along with the NY Times, published, on June 22, 2006, reports that described SWIFT monitoring by the US government. The NY Times has no history, that I can locate, of ever posting a description or reference to SWIFT on it's website, before June 22.....</b>

On June 23, we have this documentation that Stuart Levey of the treasury told the public the following:
Seaver, what can we conclude from what Mr. Levey said ?
<b>1.)SWIFT was secret until it was disclosed in newspaper reporting on June 22, and that "The terrorists we are pursuing are deadly serious and take every precaution to keep their plans and methods to themselves.".</b>

A few days later, Tony Snow, the press spokesperson for the POTUS speaks:
In the same press briefing, Mr. Snow also answered the following, SWIFT related questions:
Okay Seaver? Please observe, that, even though Mr. Snow and Mr. Levey made it quite clear, in public statements, that "SWIFT" was not known to the "terrorists", before the reporting of the U.S. government's monitoring of it, that very week, and even though reproters of the LA Times and the NY Timee
investigated and reported on SWIFT independently, on or about June 22, and
even though the Washington Post also reported on SWIFT's existence at that time....and....considering that, in the opinion of Levey and Snow, any reporting about the SWIFT monitoring would diminish it's effectiveness, because, as Mr. Levey stated, <b>"The terrorists we are pursuing are deadly serious and take every precaution to keep their plans and methods to themselves. We cannot expect to continue disrupting their activities if our most valuable programs are exposed on the front page of our newspapers .." </b> and Mr. Snow reiterated, <b>"there's a difference between the theoretical constrict, which is we're going to choke off financing, and talking about sources and methods, or ways in which you do it. There's a real difference, because the terrorists -- ......"</b>, why....Seaver....would you suppose that Mr. Cheney stated the following....not about the Washington Post, which displayed an impressive description of "CIA and Treasury agents, plugging into the computerized systems....of SWIFT"....on it's website for 8 fucking years....and not about the LA Times, which posted a description of NSA using SWIFT to try to track Bin Laden's financial activity, and left that report up on it's website for the last 58 months, or.....even about the 5 Fox TV affiliates who display the same report about SWIFT....or about the Baltimore Sun, where the 2001 SWIFT article originated, or about the Orlando Sentinel, or even about the Chicago Tribune, which all displayed the description of SWIFT, for the last 58 months!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seaver, I've taken the time to become an expert on what happened in the Valerie Plame leak investigation. I've tried to do the same thing with regard to the administration's attack on the New York Times.

I don't know what to think, Seaver. I am certain that you don't, either.
I suspect, from what you post, that you haven't realized it yet.

I also believe that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney know exactly what they are saying and doing, and that none of it is worthy of your support, or praise.

Rekna

Seaver to me there is a big differenece between the two situations. First in this case I am calling for action against th e leakers. In the monitoring program the administration is calling for action against the reporters. Second in this case there was no good reason for the public to know this information in the monitoring program it is my view that the public should have known the information because the president was potentially acting illegally beyond his power and WITHOUT congressional oversight. He didn't tell congress what he was doing even though he was required to by law. He took an oath to uphold the laws and the constitution of this nation and he has done neither.

guyy

This is a somewhat complicated isssue. On one hand, the whole idea of state secrets (including secret operations and secret agents) runs counter to democratic principles. How can the people decide on something that they don't even know about. On that basis, I'm inclined to say that a bad law ought not to be enforced, even if I would enjoy the irony of a Bush admin official prosecuted under a state secrets act.

However, these things don't happen in a vacuum. The Plame affair was part of the coverup for the botched campaign to find a pretext for the Iraq war. The consequence of war always includes death and sending civilians and soldiers to their graves for phony reasons is absolutely unpardonable. What the Plame leakers did ought to be seen in this light. The only question is whether prosecuting them for revealing a secret agent's name is sufficient punishment. I tend to think not, but it might be a start.

pan6467

As I have posted before, the press should not be tried but the leaks who put people in harm's way and break security laws should be, but the press should not have to "give up and finger sources".

Rove should be tried and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Redlemon

I hate the bastard, but nonetheless, Rove was not "the leak". He was a source that confirmed the information that was leaked to Novak.

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

roachboy

and the debate has been successfully diverted from the relation of this whole thing to the fradulent case for war the bushpeople were then floating and onto the relatively trivial matter of rove's exact role in a leak--so the issue becomes the leak itself and the context fades away. like guy said a couple posts ago.

this is what happens when you simply repeat the ways conservative types frame debates. you repeat the frame, they win.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

powerclown

*what Seaver said

host

Even more curious that you ignore the spectacle of the white house press secretary, and the under secretary of the U.S. Treasury, blatantly telling bold faced lies....not half truths.....brazen lies...to the entire world. Who do you think, instructed them both to do that?
What can we conclude from what Mr. Levey said ?
<b>1.)SWIFT was secret until it was disclosed in newspaper reporting on June 22, and that "The terrorists we are pursuing are deadly serious and take every precaution to keep their plans and methods to themselves.".</b>

A few days later, Tony Snow, the press spokesperson for the POTUS speaks:
But....you "know what you "know".....and what you "know", includes:
but.....not this.....noooooo, not this:

ubertuber

Thread title: Rove was the leak. Can we at least try to discuss that and not send every thread veering off into sweeping generalizations and indictments?

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

host

I've put in too much time, getting to, "knowing what I know", to let these comments pass unanswered:
&

Those "statements" are....I'll leave it up to others to decide what they are.
I take the high road, I present the facts, taking pains to post them, unfiltered, right from the official government pages where accusations against
the press, for disclosing "secrets", were made by officials authorized to speak for the U.S. administration. I then post two news articles, one that is 8 years old, and the other that is 5 years old...both of which describe the specifics of the "secret program". I didn't just put that information here, I detailed it on the other recent "NY Times" thread, too.

This forum is dead....very little new activity. Recent posts are not easily missed. We've descended into a status quo, where one POV simply makes statements like the ones above, and the other carefully documents that the opposite has the higher probability of being accurate...closer to the truth....and why. No amount of effort in this regard, influences those who make statements, like the two examples above, to.....you decide.

powerclown, a suggestion, this is a link to a place that displays information that you, or anyone else, is permitted to edit. The catch is that your edit must be verifiable, and from sources of known, reliable reputation, and your edit must have a POV that is neutral. If you don't agree with this, change it.
The difference between "there" and here, though, is that "there" they'll require you to back up your statements:
powerclown, note that "the press" wasn't the first entity to, in your words,
"herald[ed] her anti-war husband a hero". Apparently, the the POTUS's father, a former POTUS, was the first to do that. If you don't agree with that, c'mon over and edit it out...replace it with your version.

....but you'll have to do it on a playing field that, unlike here, requires you to support what you change or add, with neutral, verifiable information:

magictoy

Points are awarded for honesty in each of these posts:


This quote from the OP interests me greatly:

Since Plame's identity was already known all over the world, and since other countries will now be more reluctant to help us in our fight against terrorism, my decision on which offense was more significant is clear.

It's also clear to me that the Post and the Times have much greater concern about their circulation than the safety of Americans, or the fight against terrorism.

host

Can you please direct us to where we can examine support or documentation that,
,
and from what date that was a reliable (accurate) statment to make?

It's curious that you posted no opinion on the documented revelation that Tony Snow, and Treasury undersecretary Levey told obvious lies about whether or not the U.S. government's monitoring of "SWIFT" was a secret.
They both firmly stated:
&
magictoy, vs. your statement,
Please explain what is "clear" to you....an example of what "the Post and the Times" did, that concerns you more than the reality of Mr. Snow and Mr. Levey, lying and misleading the world. Who were they authorized to speak for, when they made those untrue statements?

roachboy

again, the leak in itself is not that interesting if it gets separated from context. personally, i think that what host is doing in this thread is quite interesting (as it often is) and that one way to look at the difference between his posts, and the logic that runs through them, and responses has to do with the question of frame of reference.

advancing arguments that challenge frames of reference has never been easy in here. folk seem too often content to recycle how infotainment is packaged for them and then move to develop their own positions within the limits set by that packaging. they seem reluctant to consider how information is packaged. they want to trust information presented: they want to trust the administration.

for a long time, i posted here with the idea that you could engender debate about frames of reference and the information shaped by them. i gradually figured out that this kind of discussion very difficult to engender. i started to get bored with it, and with the forum as a whole, and so have distanced myself from all this. i am pleased that host perserveres. it is part of the reason i still hang around here.

this thread is not primarily about the technicalities to do with the leak and the role karl rove played in either leaking or confirming. the debate is not a pseudo-legal one aimed at trying rove in public. the leak was part of a tactic devised by the bush administration to discredit a critic of its (obviously false) case for invading iraq. it is about the cavalier attitude of this administration toward even the most superficial dimensions of a democracy. it is about an administration that feels itself authorized to lie to the public, to avoid legal constraints etc etc etc. it is about an illegitimate, unjustified war that has cost thousands of lives. and it is about the simple fact that this administration has not been and seemingly will not be held to account for the war in iraq. that last point is, to me, simply mind-boggling.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Seaver

Host, I know I dont do this much, but I bow to you. You're right.

ubertuber

Nice......

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

guy44

I have to say, with regards to leaks:

There are two kinds of leaks: good ones, and bad ones. Good ones often are divulged by so-called "whistleblowers," because the source is revealing secret wrong-doing by the government. These leaks one essential defense against government overreach. Notice, also, that there are virtually no examples of important, legal government programs essential to national security being leaked to and written about by the press. This is because the press gives great deference to every administration regarding national security, and ensure that they are not actually doing harm to a benevolent program, often by coversing off the record with an adminstration official.

Bad ones can take many forms. One form, that the Bush administration used frequently, is a "leak" from a top official who is releasing select or misleading information to advance a government position. However, this is not to say that one of these leaks is necessarily awful, as they happen all the time (trial balloons, interagency bickering, etc.). Of course, these can be terrible, if they are truly misleading on topics of paramount importance (i.e. how the Bush administration leaked only cherry-picked evidence regarding Saddam's WMDs and al Qaeda connections, and not the important qualifiers, to shills like Judith Miller).

The worst kind of leak is a government official truly violating national security in order to score a political point. Such is the case with Valerie Plame, who as everyone knows was an undercover CIA operative whose identity was revealed by Rove and Libby at the behest of Cheney for no other reason than to "get back" at her husband, Joe Wilson, for alerting everyone to the truth that the Bush administration was making up evidence about Iraq's purchase of yellowcake uranium. Even the CIA requested they not reveal her name. This leak served no national security purpose, revealed no untoward program or action by the government, and did literally nothing to improve anything but the Bush administration's political position - which would be alright, except that it revealed an undercover CIA operative's identity!

So I would ask those who try and make this an issue about "all" leaks to understand that it is by no means hypocritical to praise those who reveal secret government programs of dubious legality while simultaneously attacking those who would endanger national security for naught but political points by leaking the name of a CIA operative.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

host

Thank you, Seaver. Please consider where we are, and our abilities, here, vs.
in prior times. Our great grandfathers gathered in saloons, or parlors, or on the trolley, and, like us, today, they discussed politics. They spoke off the cuff, they read what was reported in their newspapers, and later, heard what was broadcast on the radio. When the USS Maine exploded in Havana harbor, the incident planted the seeds for the expression, "Remember the Maine". People "knew what they knew". In a political discussion, there was not opportunity for anyone, in near "real time" to use a resource...like....the internet, to put something like the following reports, together.

We have this gift...this opportunity. Let us use it...all of us...in as many of our posts as possible. Formerly, something like the following could only be assembled, years later, by scholars using libraries, if it happened at all:

Last night, Robert Novak was caught in a signifigant lie....I'll highlight it in bold. Consider what some Americans are "fed" by "news" outlets, such as foxnews and wizbang. Consider what MSNBC, Murray Waas, and Bloomberg all reported, independently. Consider the comments of foxnews "legal consultant" and former judge, Napolitano.

Seaver, I want to take you at your word. I welcome your comments and analysis of what I've put in this post:
I see nothing in the key points of wizbang's reporting, above, that seems accurate. If you diagree, please state your case, and let's try to have an actual, political discussion on a TFP Politics thread!
<b>AND HERE IT IS, IN MAY, "PICKED UP BY TWO outlets of the "general press", independently, it would seem; MSNBC & Bloomberg....</b>

Elphaba

I applaud you, sir. It *is* possible to have one opinion, consider additional information, and have an altered opinion.