Aiding and Abetting a Traitor: Conspiracy to "Save" Rove via Repub's NEPOTISM "Op"
 

<h3>UPDATE July 15....if You Would Rather "Skim Through" the material presented in the 2- Post "Starter" here, go to the "condensed" version:</h3> http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=15

Here's the drill....."this thread starter" is spread over two consecutive posts.
The premise is that the common denominator to the "outing" of CIA employee Valerie Plame and the investigation that it triggered, is the seed of Karl Rove's demise. We start with examples of the "NEPOTISM" accusation, first connected directly to Rove by Newsweek's article about Matt Cooper's conversation with Rove in early July, 2003. (BOLD letters, scroll down....) Every Republican whoi has tried to discredit Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, and his 2002 factfinding trip to Niger, has followed Rove's example of playing the "NEPOTISM" card, even in this week's disinformation media blitz. Part II of this thread starter, IMO, is sensational. Read on....you owe it to yourself ! Near the bottom of Part I, you will discover that Dan Froomkin of washingtonpost.com , endorses a story by independent blog reporter, Murray Waas, that Rove is now a "subject" of prosecutor Fitzpatrick's investigation. MSM still will not cover this story, even to the extent that I am, now.
<h3>Part I of II ---- The following post continues the exposure of Rove's NEPOTISM "OP"....Classic Rove.....everybody using the same talking points...
Rove to Novak, to Matt Cooper, to Guckert (Gannon), to Sen. Pat Robertson, et al, to RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman.....and even</H3>...our own powerclown:

and....if you've followed along, this far.....here is PART II.....

IMO, if you compare this Newsday, July 22, 2003 news report, to what Novak
told Wolf Blitzer in the interview displayed above in PART I, Novak looks like the lying, Rove "puppet" that I suspect he actually is. This is a window into prosecutor Fitzgerald's world, and I'm assuming that he's at least as thorough as I'm trying to be. This is going to be a bumpy year, I suspect.
Copyright 2005 PART I & II (Consists of intellectual property that includes the linkage of the news reports displayed here, with the opinions and theory of the relationships between public figures Karl Rove and others associated herebby the author, TFP Forum Project member, Host. TFP Forum Project owners and managers are not responsuble for the content of this thread, and had no previous knowledge of it's creation.) The author makes no claim on any news articles and other information items contained in "quote" boxes that are displayed on this thread. This notice in no way attempts to interfere with any prior claim that tfproject.org may be entitled to, relating to ideas, opinions, or comments that I, as a member, post on their forum.

Fair Use Notice
This site may at times contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this thread is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

United States Code: Title 17, Section 107
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/unframed/17/107.html

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include - (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

These "folks" may yet "kill off" the real story here. If they fail, it won't be from a lack of trying. IBD.com attempts to discredit Wilson and blame our traitors' smear campaign on "partisan politics. There is not mention in their editorial that Wilson was praised for his service in Iraq under Bush '41, or that the "senate committee" did not agree that Wilson "lied". Sen. Pat Robertson and two other Republican senators on the intelligence committee participated in the Rove NEPOTISM "OP", as Novak earlier did, all of them, IMO, aiding and abetting a traitorous act. The future freedom and wellbeing of you and your family may rest now in the hands of prosecutor Fitzgerald. Pray for him, and for the country.
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/glandrith_20050714.html
and.... more from the Rove NEPOTSIM "OP"....will it work for them ?

Here is another example of Karl and Novak at work on Jan. 12, 2005:
<h3>Are these just the "stragglers" of Karl's "OP", trickling in, or is this only the beginning of a massive wave of desperate, transparent, disinformation?</h3>
64 "items" in google news....and counting:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...nG=Search+News

I think this may be a bit of informational overload.

:)

Mr Mephisto

Yeah, it's been said before. Seriously, I don't think the "no links" should apply to you hose. Perhaps you could write your thoughts, and provide the links to the articles that apply/support your thoughts wherever appropriate. I find myself trying to page down to what you are actually saying, but trying to find that in a book of articles, that never seems to stop - i just give up. In all honest, i gave up a long long time ago. But i'd probably start reading if just links were provided.

Perhaps if you posted exerpts from the articles? I'd think 2-3 paragraphs would suffice to make the point.

it is obviously difficult to present anything like a depth of research or complexity of argument on a messageboard.

sometimes, you simply have to applaud someone--in particular host---who tries to push at what i take to be formal limitations of this type of forum and present a detailed case for a given position.
there is alot of material above--it is organized quite well and you can use the organization to sort it. the only problem with the organization is that it centers on migration of rhetoric, of moves, on highlighting forms of repetition across a number of sources in order to emphasize the co-ordinated nature of the far right's defense of their boy karl.

i usually post here when i am drinking coffee in the morning and/or when i decide to avoid other projects that i should be doing. my worklife is such that much of it finds me sitting at home in front of my computer writing. i mention this because on the other side of the mirror, there is another limitation on debates in these forums:
the ways in whcih folk interact with the board--when they do it, whre they do it---many are wedging interaction with this space into a work day and are necessarily distracted, or have short timepsans in which they feel like they can divert attention from what they are doing in 3-d to this.

these amount to limitations on the quality of political discussion that can be had---particularly if the content of that discussion diverges from the packaged narratives you get in the press. they are not limitations that i see any use in complaining about, and i am not doing so here: they simply outline some of the conditions that shape what transpires on this board (and others like it)

from time to time it is good to run into these limits--it is good to know them, and to consider their effects on debate here. and maybe these limts explain why it seems that positions do not move. maybe they do not move because the whole space--and spaces like this--is based on recycling truncated information, rehearsing positions based on truncated information and so are less debates than exchanges of coded messages based on antagonistic sets of truncated information/sources.

on the material posted above:
it is interesting to see the extent and detail of the right's ability to co-ordinate the political line of its operatives. they work in a way that i think lenin would have approved of--what mattered for him, in a pre-revolutionary situation, was clarity of line and--in particular--drawing a clear distinction between inside and outside the vanguard. the idea was that as conditions slid into crisis, what would matter was less the content of the line (which should be internally consistent) than the clear distinction inside/outside.
it is funny to see such a comprehensive usage of lenin on the part of reactionaries--such is the danger of publishing texts in revolutionary organization--anyone can read them.

funnier still to think of the "left" in the states falling into the traps that the mensheviks did.

I read most of what you posted, host, not all of it, but the entirety of a few articles and all of the bold quotes. My favorite is the second one you posted.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110006955

The entire article

Rove did nothing wrong. Nothing illegal, nothing immoral, nothing wrong at all.

And more on nepotisim: Matt Cooper is married to Mandy Grunwald, and Mandy Grunwald is a high ranking Democratic Party operative, currently is on Hillary's staff.

host, I have no idea what you're point is here. None. Sorry.

Any coherent argument you might have made was lost (on me, anyway) in the deluge of confusing and seemingly contradictory links.

I'm almost afraid to ask you a question, for fear of another incomprehensible filibuster.

I agree with stevo above, though. No legal basis here.

powerclown, stevo:

are either of you lawyers?
do you practice?
in what field?

if not, then why exactly should anyone take your pronouncements about what is and is not an adequate legal basis for prosecuting rove seriously?

it appears that rove is the object of an investigation. but you do not even know that for sure. all you know is that there is an investigation and that this investigation threatens your boy karl rove.
there is as yet no indictment, so there is no trial, but you pretend that the trial is happening now.

eliminate political scandal by pretending the political does not exist: a pretty ominous strategy coming from this administration--pretty telling too, in that it provides a backhanded view into the underpinnings of the sense of total impunity that has animated these people from 9/11/2001 on. this administration does not feel itself politically accountable to anyone.
you dutifully repeat this logic, which is what a conservative seems to do above and beyond all else: repeat the party line...repeat the party line with particular relish when it comes wrapped in the trappings of pseduo-precision..

frankly, i see little more of interest in your defenses of rove than i find listening to sports talk radio and hearing the metaphysics of sports being debated
....and certainly nothing compelling in that i fundamentally do not believe that the terms you are using are your own.

and what terms might those be? Where I said rove did nothing wrong? You find it hard to believe that I came up with that on my own?

There is a trial, its a trial of public opinion, and that is the only trial, because, as you see, rove did nothing wrong.

I think that you confuse the "partisan" portion of the "bi-partisan" senate report, in citing the editorial you are using to make your argument, stevo.
It is in the first quote box in the first post on this thread.

I'm going to leave it to this mediamatters.org rebuttal of Rove's "fake reporter", Gannon/Guckert's foray into this controversy, waving his "secret memo" at Wilson. The beauty of all this, is that special prosecutor Fitzgerald will report his findings, and events will then determine who is "aiding and abetting". You have to overlook or ignore a bunch, if you claim that you read "most of what I posted, and you sitll cite a classic "mis-information" piece in your disagreement. Read Wilson's letter to the Republicans on the Senate Committee, read the sections of the committee report, cited below. Consider that Cooper, only this week, lays the origin of the NEPOTISM "OP", at Rove's feet.

Does it bother you that you are defending a high government official who outed a CIA agent, how can you justify doing that, stevo?

Yeah....Wilson is a Clinton "tool".....right ?? Wrong !

Um, mr. Stevo this thread and investigation are not about Wilson's credibility so you can stop waving that red herring like it's some kind of "get out of jail" card for Karl. I imagine if we do ever see a Rove perp. walk from the Whitehouse we'll find Stevo curled up in a dark corner of his basement, hands over ears, chanting, "Rove did nothing wrong Rove did nothing wrong Rove did nothing wrong..."

"...Faith does not offer the least support for a proof of objective truth. Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe, if you with to be a devotee of truth, then inquire..." -Nietzsche

"Condensed" Edition of "Rove via Repub's Nepotism OP" thread.
 

I am responding to feedback in the first thread on this subject, by condensing the material presented and adding a short description of the points supported in quote box numbers 3 thru 8.

To better illustrate how far Karl Rove's NEPOTISM "OP", his "talking point" that was created in July 2003 in an attempt to undermine the claims by former Ambassador Joe Wilson that he was "sent to Niger" by the CIA, has morphed into a <h4>"refuge of denial"</h4>, for "the believers". Wilson must be branded a "liar" to justify Rove's "outing" of Wilson's CIA, WMD Analyst, wife,
I offer the first two quote boxes, the views of Bush admin "believer",Rep King.

Contrast what is displayed below the first two, "Rep. Peter King" quote boxes, in this post, with Rep. King's "talking point".

Quote Box - 3: On Oct. 1, 2003 <h4>Even Novak</h4> tells CNN's Blitzer that senior Bush admin. officials told him that Wilson's wife suggested that he be sent to NIGER, but his source at the CIA said, "to their knowledge, he did not -- that the mission was not suggested by Ambassador Wilson's wife."

Quote Box - 4: In Wilson's July 6, 2003 Op-Ed column in the NY Times, he writes, "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".
<h3>Wilson does NOT write that "Vice President Cheney sent him to Niger.</h3>

Quote Box - 5 : Wilson's July 15, 2004 letter to Sen. Pat Roberts, concerning the distortion of facts by the Republican senators that they inserted in their intelligence report, that did not agree with opinions of other senate democrats and republicans on the senate intelligence committee. It is this addendum that the "NEPOTISM" "OP" quotes as a "finding" in the senate report. It is not in the report, read Wilson's letter and decide for yourself.

Quote Box - 6: July 22, 2003 Newsday's D.C. news bureau reporters filed a report that, "A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked "alongside" the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger.
But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment."

Quote Box - 7: Nov. 25, 2004 WaPo runs a report that, "Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell would tell Wilson they had heard from administration aides that the real story was not what Wilson found in Niger but his wife's role in selecting him for the trip"

Quote Box - 8: March 10, 2004 WaPO reporter Froomkin reports that, "According to a December Washington Post story by Mike Allen and Dana Milbank, "Sources said the CIA is angry about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets suggesting Plame had a role in arranging her husband's trip to Africa for the CIA. The document, written by a State Department official who works for its Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), describes a meeting at the CIA where the Niger trip by Wilson was discussed, said a senior administration official who has seen it."
On top of being secret, CIA officials said it was wrong."

Bottomline: In the last few days, we found that the "source" of the NEPOTISM "OP", was not "CIA or Intelligence Sources", they are consistantly reported, even by Novak, to deny that Valerie Plame was the one to "suggest or to send" her huband, Joeph Wilson to Niger to investigate uranium sales.
Only "senior admin. officials", and the three Republican senators who added a "partisan" addendum to the July 2004 Senate Intelligence report, are reported as the sources of the NEPOTISM "OP's" talking point !
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/page/2/">Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip."</a>

IMO, it speaks of the deviousness and disregard for the truth, that the above quote of Rove, is now "spun" so that Rove is falsely and cynically portrayed as a "concerned whistleblower", and not the author of a smear aimed at Wilson and his CIA analyst wife, Valerie Plame.

This is a "radicalized" version of Rove's NEPOTISM "OP":
Quote Box - 1
More on Rep. Peter King.........
Quote Box - 2
Quote Box - 3
Quote Box - 4
Quote Box -5
The following is the July 22, 2003 report from Newsday that Wilson refers to.
Quote Box - 6
Quote Box - 7
Quote Box - 8

This is the condensed version?

Truth is, I've been blissfully without news for over 2 weeks and don't even know what the current issue is.

But I can see that we are duplicating threads.

Merged.

don't drink and post kiddies!

Welcome back, Lebell....I see your point in merging. I'll just post more examples of Rove's NEPOTISM "OP", to compensate for the loss of the main point formerly displayed in the title of the primary thread.

There is still not enough effort by the press to spotlight or discuss the ongoing Rove NEPOTISM "OP". The situation is still quite contrary to that happening, as some posters on these threads still seem to believe that it is true that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, aka Valerie Plame was the original "sponsor", or "sent" Joseph Wilson on a factfinding mission to Niger for the CIA.

It "matters" because, <h4>if Rove can "plant" the points</h4> that Wilson claimed VP Cheney sent him to Niger, but that it was actually Wilson's wife who sent him, that Wilson is a liar, his wife Valerie is "fair game", and Rove is a well meaning "whistleblower", only concerned in his conversation in early July, 2003 with Time reporter Matt Cooper, with aiding Cooper in avoiding the filing of an inaccurate news story, since you will then assume that Wilson was not credible or truthful about who sent him to Niger, or about what his findings about uranium sales to Iraq were.
Now, Matt Cooper has testified, for 2-1/2 hours, to prosecutor Fitzgerald's grand jury....and...he is free to write about what he was asked by the prosecutor, and what he told the grand jury. Since he testified under oath, it is difficult for me to see the relevance about what has been posted about his wife, father-in-law, or other personal relationships, when viewed in the context of what he will report on this matter. Those who choose to attempt to marginalize his credibility here, seem to overlook that he refrained from using any information about Rove that he had for two years, in any way that impeded Rove.
<h3>And now....a new NEPOTISM "OP"...a planted story with misinformation, reported Thursday night by two NY Times reporters, quoting an unnamed source, "someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said."</h3>
My observations about this timely, "planted" story in the NY TIMES:

1.)The NEPOTISM "OP" is still Rove's, "worn out", but central "smear" of Wilson
2.)In the 1st Quote Box below, Novak told Blitzer that his only source for the info that Wilson was sent to Niger "by his wife", was "senior admin. officials. All news reports that quote CIA or "intelligence" officials, report the opposite,
including Novak himself, lower in the same quote! Note how Novak's source in the new, NY Times "plant", is not mentioned, <b>"But Mr. Novak told Mr. Rove he knew that Mr. Wilson had been sent at the urging of Ms. Wilson, the person who had been briefed on the matter said."</b>

3.)Rove displays his desperation by leaking this "news" from <b>"The person discussed the matter in the belief that Mr. Rove was truthful in saying that he had not disclosed Ms. Wilson's identity"</b>, while using the excuse all this week that no one in the administration can comment on the investigation.
<b>Unless the comments are a leak from an unnamed administration source, "in the belief that Mr. Rove was truthful"</b>

4.)In the middle quote box below, Novak's "outing" column of July 14, 2003, he backs what Wilson wrote in his July 6, 2003 op-ed, "The White House, State Department and Pentagon, and not just Vice President Dick Cheney, asked the CIA to look into it." He also answers his own questions of three months later, as he details Wilson's resume, bi-partisan credentials, and African expertise........

5.)In the bottom quote box, below, Novak is asking questions that he told Blitzer he was asking before he wrote the July 14, 2003 column. <b>"Why was it that Ambassador Wilson, who had no particular experience in weapons of mass destruction, and was a sharp critic of the Iraqi policy of President Bush and, also, had been a high-ranking official in the Clinton White House, who had contributed politically to Democrats -- some Republicans, but mostly Democrats -- why was he being selected?"</b> and <b>"I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment."</b>
<h3>It is easy to see in the middle quote box, that Novak had the answers as to why Wilson was selected to go to Niger....Novak made the case himself! </h3> But....by October, he has a new line in his CNN interview with Wolf, and in his Oct. 1, 2003 column.
<h4>Can anyone post a linked source other than one attributed to "administration officials", or a partisan addendum to the July, 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee report, that reports verfication by a "CIA or Intelligence" source, that confirms that Wilson's wife suggested that he go to Niger, or "sent" him?</h4>

<h4>As this thug grows more desperate,can truth even survive the NEPOTISM OP?</h4>

I was wondering where you went off to. Of course most guys learn how to change a diaper in less than two weeks :icare:

welcome back, lebell. hope dadhood is treating you well.


enter novak:

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/po...rtner=homepage

if the last lines of the article above--which is being echoed around the press this morning---is true, then the tactical choices that shape the right machine's defense of their Leader karl is kind of interesting...it looks like the line is curiously tracing a standard of proof that gives an index of the kind of information that would have to surface for bush to fire him. further evidence that beneath the right's strategy is amounts to an assumption that politics can be bypassed. maybe rove understands the extent to which the operation of the machine he has played an important role in setting up has in fact damaged political life in the states to such an extent that it cannot be understood as a space across which meaningful debate occurs because the right machine has systematically made accurate information a problem.

on this, an edito, also from the ny times, by paul krugman which does not add much new in factual terms but which does provide a nice snapshot of how the servility of those who function within the right media apparatus as a viable information source are being manoevered by that machine on this issue.

it is also a good an index of the incredulity you are finding here (and have been finding on this for some time in this space) on the part of those who observe such activity from the outside.

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/op...rugman.html?hp

i think krugman provides a nice synopsis of the opposition view of conservatives and their actions across this issue.
incredulity and no small degree of disgust constitute dominant tones.

Ustwo & Roachboy,

Muchas gracias. Dadhood is indeed treating me well.

The little bugger sure does grow fast, tho...

Anyway, sorry for the threadjack.

Here's the condensed version for you:

Novak and Rove were talking on the phone about a column Novak was writing. Novak said that Joseph Wilson, who did a very dubious job of investigating possible uranium sales to Iraq, was married to Valerie Plame, a CIA officer.

Rove said, "I heard that too."

Now Rove is being accused of "outing" a CIA agent.

If you're disappointed that I have not compressed nearly as many words into as few facts as has been done in other posts, there is more here:

Link

Edit: Oops--posted the same link as Roachboy.

The story in the link that you provided is also displayed in <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1839416&postcount=18">post #18</a>, just five posts back, on the only page on this thread.

Make light of it Marv, but I did not create the NEPOTISM "OP" to discredit the Wilsons, Rove did. I hope that you never have to go through an experience like the one this "thug" put Joe Wilson through, just because he exposed the lie in the 2003 SOTU address, with the authority and credibility of his past record in U.S. foreign service, and becaus of the fact finding trip that the CIA sent him to Niger for, nine months before Bush delivered the "16 words" in the SOTU address.
Just 5 days after Wilson wrote his NY Times Op-ed piece, critical of Bush's "16 words", CIA director George Tenet verified that Joe Wilson was right!
Read the thread, Marv. Posts <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1839331&postcount=15">#15</a> and <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1839416&postcount=18">#18</a>, and this link: http://mediamatters.org/items/200507140001 make the core arguments and reference for the points I attempt to build a thread and hopefully, discussion around.

In post <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1839416&postcount=18">#18</a>, I posted my opinion in regard to the story you linked. It also appears to me, now that Robert D. Luskin, Roves criminal defense attorney, is the probable "source" of the story. Matt Cooper claimed <a href="http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000978837">here</a> that he was free to discuss his testimony, now that he testified before prosecutor Fitzgerald's grand jury, so it follows that Rove, who has already testified, is also free to speak about his testimony, through Atty. Luskin.

The new complication is that the article you cite may be evidence that Rove broke the "Non-Disclosue Agreement" that he signed as a White House employee. Will the White House enforce the provisions of the President's executive order, covering disclosure?
I have worked hard at researching this matter, Marv. I see it now as a very serious abuse of power and a campaign of lies and smear that reaches deep into the media and out of the mouths of national political leaders.

To his credit, but an overall sad indication of indifference and smugness on the part of those TFP members who may disagree with my analysis, only stevo has attempted to counter any of my points with a referenced and thoughtful argument. With the time I've put in on this issue, and the implications that have already undermined the credibility of the White House, and possibly the security and safety of CIA employees and the hindered the task of intelligence gathering, I think that a greater response by more members, is appropriate.

Again, I would be interested in seeing any credible reports that anyone other than "senior administration officials", and the senators who added the Republican addendum to the July 2004 Senate Intel. Committee report, have made that confirm that Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie "sent" him or suggested that he make a fact finding trip about Niger uranium sales.....anyone?

While I do not share the...extreme views...of some here, I am beginning to think that Rove is proving more of a liability than an asset to Bush.

As such, he should probably tender his resignation.

And that is called being played.

After the 2002 and 2004 elections with the 2006 around the corner, there is nothing the democrats would like to see more than Rove go away.

Rove and Libby are now suspect
 

I think that the poster who wrote that Rove was becoming a liability is smart enough to know when he is being "played" or not. I do not understand why one would accuse another of being a dupe simply for disagreeing with the Republican side of this issue. There is some really damning evidence in this case, and so it is not intellectualy dishonest to infer that this evidence is a problem.

This is not a valid argument unless you put party before country. I personally do not care about who scores points over this issue as long as the interest of the United States and its people are upheld. There is no benefit for the US in outing Valerie Plame....the whole incident undermined our intelligence assets on weapons of mass destruction. If we fail to get to the bottom of this, then the Republicans can keep their political strategist, but the country loses because our intellignce community can be undermined for political purposes and we have to rebuild some of our WMD inteligence infrastructure (the human intel part, which is the part that we lack). This is in addition to the fact that Americans will know that our leaders do not care about crime if they are committed by people of their own party.

Surely one must admit that the interests of justice and national security trump partisan politics....we are Americans first, and party members second or below.

Oh, and by the way, Rove's claim that the media gave him the name of Plame fell apart over the weekend. It turns out that he is indeed the primary source for Cooper, and now Scooter Libby and possibly Cheney as well are in the hot-seat.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...tm?POE=NEWISVA

That is the problem with talking points...they are great for insular one-party discussions, but they are ineffective at standing up to the scrutiny of an onging investigation with new revelations coming out regularly. The truth from the begnning of this story would have served well, and that was 2 years ago.

And neither the CIA nor the Fitzgerald have any compunction about pushing this issue forward regardless of talking points. Obviously they both feel that a crime was committed here, and they have far more information than we do. We can try this case in the court of public opinion, but that will not mean diddly in the end because there is a real trial pending on this where all of the evidence comes out.

And really, even if Karl is not prosecutable under Pappy Bush's law, he still is a traitor in the eyes of a lot of Americans. He still damaged the CIA for political purposes, and he still either lied to the administration about it or had the administration lie to the American poeple about it. Americans can forgive a little indicretion from time to time, but once the trust is lost, then it is all downhill from there.

What do we hear from the administration now concerning this issue? Nothing, but two years ago they were vehement with how "ridiculous" that anyone in the administration could have been involved, assuring reporters that they have spoken with everyone and none of them were to blame. Americans remember being lied to, so they are not buying the argument that they are being "played" by Democrats now.

Besides, it is really hard for Americans to swallow the argument that Democrats are behind this issue when Joe Wilson is a Republican and the special prosecutor was put on the job by John Ashcroft.

This issue stems from the Bush administration trying their best to trump up a case for war. No true causus belli existed, so we ignored the caveats and brought forth any info at all that would back the case while concurrently omitting information that showed otherwise (cherry-picking). The trashing of Joe Wilson and the outing of his wife were political retaliation against Wilson for violating the Iraq war rationale paradigm set forth by the administration. This issue not only shows administration officials as putting their party before their country, but also shows that they are willing to lie to the American people to get us into a costly, unnecessary war and then cover it up. This is a treason that goes far beyond the treason of outing one CIA agent, and frankly, the American people are tired of it as it is becoming more obvious every day (as evidenced by Bush's decreasing poll numbers, especially on his honesty).

We can't blame Democrats for this; the administration is digging their own hole on this issue all by themselves.

So is this thing over now? The more I read the more obvious it is that this is a non-story. Its it over yet people? Apparantly rove named nobody and Plame was outed decades ago. So like I said before, rove committed no crime, he did nothing wrong.

http://nationalreview.com/mccarthy/m...0507180801.asp
Nice try.

what a shock!
an article from the national reivew defending karl rove!
say it aint so!
well, that certainly puts any questions i had to rest.
phew.
back to sleep now.

i guess this doesn't matter, now that the national review has weighted in and settled all possible questions:

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/politics/18rove.html

or this:

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/po...rtner=homepage


or this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041100587.html


sleep well, rightwingers: the national review has figured everything out.

When you wake back up, if you quit trying to discount facts by ridiculing the medium that reported them, you might notice that the article is very well documented/referenced. It seems that you don't intend to let these uncontested facts influence your opinion.

Also, from your own quote:

I don't expect this to still the cries of "Rove lied! "Rove lied!" but at least it makes it plain he didn't.

Besides, aren't these Democrats screaming for Rove's head the same ones who claimed lying under oath wasn't a big deal? Around 1998, maybe?


Too bad many others haven't.

roachboy what I find most amusing is while you knock the National Review, you then cite the NYT's and Washington Post. I can almost smell the irony.

Pot, meet kettle, kettle, pot.

i do not have the opinion about the rove case that you might think, "the truth"---i am just watching this stuff unfold. it seems to me that the folk who assume that they already know everytyhing are the legion of rightwing talking heads who are already trotting out trial-like defenses of rove before there is really anything to defend against. the national review article offers nothing new or interesting, really, apart from a synopsis of rightwing talking points. i read the article--i found it premature. and from the review as well, which is like citing national lampoon, really.

ustwo:

i await with not inconsiderable hope and optimism an interesting and constructive post from you in politics.
equating the ny times/washington post with the national review in terms of politics aint it, however.
maybe next time.
hope springs eternal.

National Review point about 36 news organizations debunked
 

I figured that citing the National Review as being the obvious conservative biased source would not deter some from insisting on its iron-clad journalistic integrity, so I decided to do a little research and actually go after one fact of the article to see where the facts lead me. Here is what I found in 30 minutes of research:

The article cites a friend-of-the-court briefing filed by a lawyer on behalf of 36 news organizations. Firstly, this is a briefing written by the trial lawyer, which is a much-maligned group by the right-wing, especially when the Vice-Presidential nominee is from the other party; the first bit of hypocrisy comes from using a trail-lawyer's brief as evidence, but I digress.

Next, if one goes to the actual 40 page briefing, the citation containing this accusation (on page 7 of the briefing) only cites one article from July 23rd, 2004 article of the Washington Times as its source that Valerie Plame's name was well-known before Novak's column. I dug a little deeper and got the article, which was written by prominent conservative writer Bill Gertz. The article is two paragraphs long and says that the Russians may have known her identity prior to Novak knowing it, and cites "officials" who spoke under conditions of anonymity. That is it....no explanations or details given. What's more is that the lawyer says that Cuba was mentioned in the article, and the two paragraphs I read had nothing of Cuba in it. It is not nice to file a briefing that misquotes articles....even so this article is not "evidence".

Mind you, this is not 36 news organizations all contesting that they knew Valerie Plame's identity before Novak's column; this is a laywer citing one of the most conservative writers in Reverend Moon's Washington Times as a reason to halt proceedings and not force Cooper and Miller to reveal their sources. Of course, that briefing was filed on March 23rd, 2005 and has since been rejected, as evidenced by Judith Miller's incarceration.

So, the National Review is citing a laywer's document that cites a conservative writer from a questionably-owned newspaper who gave no details and failed to name his source, who regardless could have been easy plants by Bush administration officials looking to give some cover to Rove in the future. (this is a known Rove tactic)

Nonetheless, it is a shaky source to be making such bold determinations of guilt or innocence independent of the grand jury's findings. Only an obviously biased source would use such flimsy "evidence" to convince their followers that nothing illegal happened.

And that does not even address the fact that regardless of the publicity of her identity, the CIA determines whether it is classified or not, and the CIA is the one pressing this matter to prosecution. Is there a standard form 312 filed to declassify Plame? If so, it would be on record and would exonerate all parties involved. If the right wants to defend Rove, this document would do it, but no such filing is known to exist to this date.

Also, Judith Miller, who insisted on publishing everything Chilabi and the Bush administration said about WMDs in Iraq works for the New York Times, which tweaks the right equally as it does the left. This is in contrast to the Washington Times and the New York Post, which are both very pro-GOP on average, but even they publish some real blanced news from time to time. The National Review is no more unbiased than The Nation (which does have conservative writers, at least) and should not be used in a political debate.

One more thing. Not mentioning Plame by name is still identifying her. The law does not stipulate that she has to be specifically named, just identified. Joe Wilson only has one wife, so the identification would still be the same.

Also, when Clinton lied under oath about something not germaine to the case (his relationship with Monica), no national security was compromised, no political retribution was taking place, no abuse of power occurred, and this issue didn't concern the pretext for an expensive, bloody war. What's more is that Clinton was impeached for it. Shall we apply proportionate standards to Rove? What is Rove's potential crime compared to Clinton's? Shouldn't we take the situation that much more seriously?

Using the "yeah, but Clinton..." argument does not apply in this case because the crimes are not even comparable, nor are the positions of the accused. Clinton was the President and had to stand impeachment. Karl Rove is a minor official who would be easily replaced with minimum upheaval.

I hope that it goes to court on the basis of your argument that Rove outed a "covert" agent.


Yes, we should apply the same standards. Rove didn't lie under oath. Clinton did.

Are you saying that it's acceptable to lie under oath, as long as it doesn't involve national security?

Which is the goal of the Democrats--to get rid of him over a non-criminal, non-event.

And they wonder why they lost the last election.

It won't be my argument, it will be the argument of the CIA, who initiated this prosecution in the first place.

No, if you read my post carefully, I am saying the situations are not comparable. It is best to not put words into another's mouth.

If it was a non, criminal, non-event orchestrated by Democrats then why did Ashcroft appoint a special prosecutor? Why did Miller go to jail? Why is the CIA angry about this? Why does the media feel the story has legs? And why is Bush suddenly silent and backpedaling on this issue "from I'll fire anyone involved"to "I'll fire anyone who committed a crime"?

And the "last election" line is a non-sequitir the purpose of which I can only attribute to braggadoccio. A more effective argument would remain topical.

Very slight thread detour--we can't be sure about the relationship with Monica not compromising national security. In any event, it certainly put him in the position of compromising it--if the Chinese got wind of it before the FBI, for example. Let's just be glad Linda Tripp was a patriot.

Back to Rove: The best analysis I've seen on this was on (shudder) the National Review Online site where a reporter went back to the Novak column to see what it said and didn't say. He then found David Corn was writing about the same thing. Anyway, here's the link to Clifford May's article: www.nationalreview.com/may/may200507150827.asp

and if it was posted before, sorry, I've just opened this for the first time and didn't have time to read ALL of it.

Arguing "what if's" is not valid in this case. The fact was, no national security was compromised as far as we know in the public domain. Any speculation beyond that is just that...speculation.

Then you would have read how the National Review is a biased source that misquotes and misrepresents articles, as I showed with a cursory analysis of one point in the last National Review Article. Please stick with mainstream articles if you want to engage the left in debate with honesty and good faith.

Do that and the left with refrain from Mother Jones, the Nation, etc. I have yet to see the left publish non-mainstream information here, so I think that in the spirit of respect and mutual understanding that the right should do the same.

But then again, I am a newbie, so what I think about the methods used to argue here has very little weight on the community. I just think it would be nice and certainly more equitable.

Here is a new twist. It would appear that Bush is required to take some action even if there isn't a conviction.



Waxman: Bush Statement on Rove Conflicts with Executive Order
By Rep. Henry A. Waxman
YubaNet

Monday 18 July 2005

Dear Mr. President:

In June 2004, you said that you would fire anyone found to be involved in the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's identity as a covert CIA agent. [1] Today, you significantly changed your position, stating that you would remove Karl Rove or other White House officials involved in the security breach only "if someone committed a crime." [2]

Your new standard is not consistent with your obligations to enforce Executive Order 12958, which governs the protection of national security secrets. The executive order states: "Officers and employees of the United States Government ... shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently ... disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified." [3] Under the executive order, the available sanctions include "reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions." [4]

Under the executive order, you may not wait until criminal intent and liability are proved by a prosecutor. Instead, you have an affirmative obligation to take "appropriate and prompt corrective action." [5] And the standards of proof are much different. A criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald is investigating, requires a finding that Mr. Rove "intentionally disclose[d]" the identity of a covert agent. [6] In contrast, the administrative sanctions under Executive Order 12958 can be imposed without a finding of intent. Under the express terms of the executive order, you are required to impose administrative sanctions - such as removal of office or termination of security clearance - if Mr. Rove or other officials acted "negligently" in disclosing or confirming information about Ms. Wilson's identity. [7]

I have enclosed a fact sheet on Karl Rove's Nondisclosure Agreement and its legal implications, which provides additional detail about the President's national security obligations. I urge you to act in compliance with Executive Order 12958 and your responsibility to safeguard national security secrets.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Minority Member



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

[1] Press Conference: President Discusses Job Creation With Business Leaders (Sept. 30, 2003).
[2] Bush: CIA Leaker Would Be Fired if Crime Committed, Reuters (July 18, 2005); Bush: Any Criminals in Leak to Be Fired, Associated Press (July 18, 2005).
[3] Executive Order 12958, sec. 5.5(b)
[4] Id. at sec. 5.5(c).
[5] Id. at sec. 5.5(e).
[6] 50 USC sec. 421(a).
[7] Executive Order 12958, sec. 5.5(b).

You said "national security was not compromised," and I think engaging in such conduct IS compromising security.


Sorry, I'll not be lectured to about honesty and good faith by anyone. I quoted my source, which is all that is required in such discussions. If you read it and disagreed with the conclusion drawn from those facts (or if the facts themselves are wrong), so be it. But don't think for a minute that you get a better view of the news from the so-called mainstream press; that's the group that tries to hide their biases. Give me a National Review or a Nation article any day--I prefer knowing where the writer is coming from right up front.

What you're saying, in essence, is if the source doesn't fit in your definition of fair and equitible, then it's not. That's not going to fly anywhere, especially here. You may think CNN or the NYT meets that definition, but neither would by any objective standard. If it's from Fox News or National Review, then it's not fair for discussing with the left? I guess confusing them with the facts or a different view on the news isn't equitable.

voice:

there is no real point of comparison between the type of ideological control exerted by fox news on their content, and obviously by the national review on its content, and anything outside the reach of the conservative media apparatus. to pretend otherwise is simply disengenuous--the right loves to try to justify its own heavily distorted "information" by presenting it as a response to "liberal biais" in the press--but
(1) the premise is completely false and (2) the simple fact of the matter is that you have nothing even remotely like the diversity of views in right media that you have in the ny times, for example.

all i see you doing is defending arbitrariness with reference to sources.

I think it a fair rule for the opposition to not have to go chasing slanted references all over the place only to waste time finding out that the "facts" presented in a slanted article are shaky references at best (as demonstrated above-thread with the National Review). Information can be twisted into a variety of spins, even in the mainstream press, but at least the mainstream press irks both sides of the aisle equally and, to me, is the only type of reference that can be agreed upon by both sides.

Believe it or not, the left has been absolutely horrified by the press over the last ten years or so, especially television news.

The mainstream American press has no demonstrable liberal/conservative bias, but it certainly has a pro-media bias, a pro-sensationalist bias, and a tendency to protect those in power (to whom they wish to preserve access). Using the mainstream press minimizes the extra bias of blatant partisanship because even the partisan press is subject to all of the aforementioned shortcomings plus partisanship.

But I understand why some would want to see the biased sources and the facts within challenged. That is fine, but mind you, these types of sources tend to fall apart quickly under cursory analysis. In addition, entire think-tanks exchange the tit-for-tat on these types of talking points columns, which takes multiple full-time jobs. However, we are a bunch of people who spend a little free time on the internet entertaining ourselves (or at least I am). I can see how this would bog people down if over-indulged, and the end result is a loss of meaningful debate.

Besides, many of those that write for partisan publications are columnists, not journalists, and are held to different standards than journalists sensu stricto.

Lastly, I apologize if you feel lectured on your sources, Voice. It is not my intention to offend; only to entreat for some common, equal ground.

From the Washinton Post, it looks like administration officials should have known Plame's name was to be kept secret because it was marked as such.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...002517_pf.html

Looks like the spin that Rove couldn;t have known about her covert status is begnning to fall apart. Another reason why the facts of the case should be determined first before it is spun to death to benefit one party or another.

Interesting read here about the Rove incident plus a lot of details I haven't heard about before. I thought some might like to read it.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Comment...105weiner.html

powerclown, if you recall, we recently had the exchange, quoted below, in the <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=91795">"If Rove Is Indicted"........</a> thread. It seemed OT, continuing this on that thread, so I decided to post a followup here. I saw no point, until now, in replying to your last post, because we reached a point where.....aside from commenting on the reputations for reliability and accuracy of the sources that each of us cited to back our opposing opinions, there was no new information available to add more clarity to the issue of Joe Wilson's integrity and reputation. Now....IMO, there is more....(see the third quote box.)

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...03&postcount=9
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=10
The preceding report of the interview of former CIA spokesperson Bill Harlow makes it quite clear that Harlow is Novak's contact at the CIA, and that Harlow told Novak that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was confirmed by the CIA spokesman to have the status of an "undercover operative", and that Plame did not "send her husband, Joe Wilson, on a fact finding trip regarding the attempts by Iraq to purchase "yellowcake" uranium.

As I posted earlier, here................ .....Novak, however, chose to ignore what CIA spokesman Bill Harlow told him,
and instead, publish Rove's Nepotism "OP" to discredit and make an example out of "whistleblower", Joe Wilson..............
powerclown, I ask you again....how do you come to label, on this forum, a man who has served his country as a respected diplomat, lauded, in 1991 by GWH Bush as a "hero", attacked by members of the Bush administration, along with his wife, a 20 year career, "undercover operative", in the description of the CIA's own recent spokesperson? Wilson was apparently sincere and forthright in all of his public statements....even the account that he provided in his recent book about Novak telling a "stranger on a DC street that Wilson was a liar and that his wife "was CIA" has now been corroborated in Pincus's new reporting.

I've posted links to back the point that WaPo reporter Pincus is the best and most reliable reporter of the details of this "story", that he has himself. provided testimony to Fitzpatrick's grand jury, and thus can be presumed to know the content of questions that Fitzpatrick asks reporters, and that, by testifying, Pincus presumably has an easier time approaching and comparing notes with those who have also testified, including Bill Harlow.

By reading and allowing your opinion to be influenced by talking points like the ones in this "example" article (see quote box below...), powerclown, and then by defending Rove, et al, and by smearing Wilson as a "sleaze", you do yourself and your reputation here no positive service, powerclown. Please reconsider who and what you have been supporting and...... denigrating.

I am convinced that journalism award winning investigative reporter Murray Waas has a reliable contact who is close to Special prosecutor Fitzgerald's investigation of Karl Rove et al, in the Plame outing investigation. I wanted to share Waas's latest report in the Village Voice and on his blog about the investigation and where it is headed.............

I took the time to carefully read the National Review article, and all its links.

In it I could find nothing whatsoever that could be used as a legal defense for Karl Rove.

The critical points of the article can be summarized thusly:

--Robert Novak's original article never stated that Valerie Plame had covert status.

--Valerie Plame's covert status may have been first brought up a few days after Novak's article.

--A reporter stated without any source references that the Russians and the Cubans may have managed to find out about Plame earlier.

--The law may protect someone who identifies a covert operative if that operative's covert status was already publicized by the U.S.

I don't see how any of this could be used to defend Rove. In fact the article's primary intent seemed to be to sarcastically bash the media for not prominently reporting these assertions. Apparently, that seems to morphed in some people's minds into some kind of defense of Rove.

If I've missed something here feel free to educate me.

In this recent thread,
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=103610

....we have been discussing the promotion of Joel Klaman by the white house. Klaman will assume the title that Karl Rove formerly held, "Chief Domestic Policy Advisor".

With the following report, aired last night on MSNBC TV, it now seems that there is a stronger likelihood that Karl Rove will be indicted. I think that is the reason, since no domestic policy changes, according to the white house, are planned, that Rove is being "positioned" to resign suddenly if he is indicted.

<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192468,00.html">foxnews' latest poll</a> shows Bush with a 33 percent approval rating, down 3 points from several weeks ago. When Nixon resigned in 1974, he still "enjoyed" a 25 percent approval rating.

With Bush's chief political strategist Rove, distracted by his own, looming legal challenges, are you optimistic that Bush can turn his polling numbers around, especially if Rove is indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice, as VP Cheney's Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby was. last October? What are Bush's options now?

I think that Bush, facing continued abysmal polling numbers, and deprived of Rove's full attention to the challenge of rehabilitating Bush's politcal image, and his legacy as president, has increased incentive to exercise one of the few remaining options to jumpstart his image. With gasoline prices at $3.00, triple where they were five years ago....Bush can reverse prices at the pump by ending uncertainty of whether a war with Iran will interrupt petroleum supplies. Bush can pull the "war president" card, one more time....much sooner than most people think.....waging a risky bet on a presidency that has degraded to the point where he might not think that he has much to lose, if attacking Iran were to backfire......

source: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051206Y.shtml

i got linked to this via a list--i post it here because i think it an interesting piece--we'll see soon enough about its accuracy. interested to see how the bushpeople try to spin this one.

Leopold's connections have been reliable so far, with the exception of the exact moment the shoe is dropped. He's a good read.

New article up now. Says that Fitzgerald served Rove's lawyers with the indictment papers yesterday:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml

It might be true, but it's important to note that Leopold is not exactly reliable. He actually has a shady past rivaling that of Jayson Blair. He was busted by Salon for writing a fake story regarding Enron/Sec.White and then trying to cover it up. He also has admitted to other journalistic crimes and problems with drugs/mental illness. It also looks like he has a relatively new book out, so he could be trying to do a stunt like this to raise publicity. There's a pretty good chance Rove will be indicted eventually, so he probably figured he would take his chance now.

Libby had the good sense to resign. Rove is so central to Bush and Republican election tactics, that I have to wonder if there is another alternative being considered for him.

I was curious about the comments about Leopold so I checked Wiki:

It doesn't appear that he has been trying to hide his past. Unlike a conservative talk show host that comes to mind. :D

I couldn't risk what little credibility I have on this forum by posting the Rove indictment news when I saw it. We need a journalist from a more prominent publication to break the news of a Rove indictment, IMO.

Let me be the first to post that Patrick Fitzgerald is reported to have introduced damning evidence that Cheney was quite interested in Wilson's July, 2003 NYTimes Op-Ed article, and was possibly the author of the Plame nepotism "Op" that I detailed ten months ago, in the 2nd and 3rd posts on this thread.
Heres' a link back to the first page:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...3&page=1&pp=40

After Scooter was indicted, his defense strtategy was that he was a very busy man doing very important work for the VP, during a time of war. He did not perjure himself in front of Fitzgerald's grand jury....an important man like him, in an important job like his, could not be expected to remember if he told a reporter that Plame was CIA.

Now we found that even Scooter's boss, Cheney wasn't too busy to escape notice of Wilson and his wife, Plame. He was also careless enough to let the Op-Ed fall into Fitzgerald's hands, and he seemed to put importance on the question of whether Wilson's CIA wife sent him on a "junket" to Africa, instead of whether what Wilson wrote in the article was true. Silly, petty, untruthful, incompetent, bully of a politician...that Mr. Cheney...it would seem!

Ok, spoil sport. I'll hold off on the Snoopy Happy Dance. :)

Looks like Joe Wilson is about to be exposed.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...QzMDFhYTBiYmY=

So will this finally be put to rest after the witnesses testify that wilson "outed" his wife prior to any article? Probably not.

Two big problems with "Joe Wilson is about to be exposed".......

1.)
2.)
stevo, as much as you, Libby and his lawyers, want the Plame leak investigation .......and the crimes he will stand trial for.......to be about discrediting Joe Wilson...or about whether Plame was an undercover agent...or not.....how is that relevant. I highlighted the charges against Libby and the report that describes how the Plame leak investigastion came about.

The reaction...for 32 months now...from folks who your views are aligned with.... is to try to make this investigation "go away" by putting your focus on whether or not Plame's CIA identity was classified. The CIA requested an investigation from the FBI, after Plame's name was linked to her working at the CIA, beginning with Novak's column in July, 2003. You can't change that.
Libby was charged with lying and obstructing the leak investigation....not for leaking a classified name.

In the face of what is actually reported to be happening in this matter, how will your posted "news" and commentary affect Libby's prosecution or the leak investigation?

And how many charges of outing a covert CIA agent?

I didn't quite get your reaction to the fact that Libby's defense team has five (5) witnesses willing to testify under oath that joe Wilson personally told them his wife works for the CIA. What words do you have to say about that?

The whole fuss is that she was covert. What was the original investigation over if it was not the "outing" of a "covert" CIA agent? To just ignore all that is closing your eyes to what is actually the point. What is everyone so upset about if it isn't the allegations that someone in the whitehouse endagered someone and national security by outing a covert CIA agent?

====

So I might as well add...I couldn't give a rat's ass about libby. let him rot in jail. I didn't vote for him. he's not my man.

The whole point to this investigation was to take some half-assed allegations throw them around and see if bush's admin can get themselves into trouble. And look what happened. But my point is...even if libby eneded up breaking the law. There was no wrongdoing by the administration in the first place. The whole basis of this hoopla is nothing more than a liberal attempt to smear the right.

stevo what host is saying is he is being charged for perjury not leaking the name.

But reguardless of whether or not other people knew wilson's wife was CIA it doesn't change the fact that her status was undercover and the administration knowingly leaked it. Unless the defense can prove that it was common knowledge and that the administration knew it was common knowledge their is still the action of leaking classified information with intent to discredit Joe Wilson.

How many people need to come forward and testify they new Plame was a CIA agent before its deemed "common knowledge?" is 5 enough?

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041100879.html

the original has links to related source material, so check that.
among them you find the following:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12774143/site/newsweek/

which is a copy of fitzgerald's filing regarding the cheney memo.

i remain agnostic on all this in that i am interested to see how this turns out more than i am interested in narrating variants along the way.
but it does seem clear that reality is moving one way and the national review another.

stevo, I posted the following here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...rt#post1923255
last October 27.....
I've provided evidence that Patrick Fitzgerald had to satisfy a Federal Appeals Court Judge...that indeed....a crime had been committed in the leaking of Plames's CIA employment to the press. If you notice, Judge Tatel determined:
The judge was ruling on a first amendments rights appeal by reporters for Time and the NY Times. He needed to be satisfied that the crime of leaking Plame's name was genuine and of serious enough nature to rule agains the reporters' claimed constituional right to keep their sources secret.

....and the CIA's Bill Harlow says that he:
stevo, if Libby's attorneys present five witnesses who claim that Wilson told them that his wife worked for the CIA, Fitzgerald will probably question the relevance of their testimony. Libby was not indicted for leaking Plame's identity.

The CIA asked the DOJ to investigate the leak of Plame's name and CIA status to reporters. Fitzgerald was required to prove that this leak was a crime, to the appeals court, in order to satisfy the judges that his subpoena request for reporters' sources was in connection with investigation of a serious crime. Fitzgerald succeeded, his subpoena requests were granted by the appeals court...the reporters testified, and the result was that the grand jury indicted Libby for obstructing Fitzgerald's investigation.....not for leaking Plame's identity.

AS I described in my Oct. 27, post, Libby is trying to defend himself with the same distraction that Victoria Toensing has ceaselessly used to draw attention away from the actual news. The CIA told the DOJ that Plame was an employee in a classified position at the agency. That was enough for the DOJ to launch a criminal investigation, enough for the DOJ to appoint special counsel Fitzgerald to head the investigation, and to follow it wherever the evidence led.

Fitzgerald was able to convince an appeals court panel that a criminal leak of a CIA employee's classified identity had been committed. Libby, however, won't be tried for leaking. How are witnesses in his defense. who testify the Joe Wilson talked to them about his wife's CIA job, relevant to Libby's defense, or to Fitzgerald's investigation ?

To me common knowledge would mean it could be found on google but that of course is not a legal standard. Five people claiming to know it doesn't make it common knowledge. Now my questions to you are who are these 5 people, what is their relationship to Joe Wilson, and what is their security clearance level? Without this information saying five people are testifying to this doesn't mean anything. I guarentee you I could go out and find 5 people to testify they heard you say you shot kennedy but that doesn't mean you shot kennedy.

But as you and Host pointed out before, it DOES NOT MATTER. Really, Stevo, Libby is charged for lying while under oath among other things. Y'know, just like Clinton.

good for libby. if he was elected he should be impeached. but he wasn't. so he should just go to jail.

I've already said it: But since the man the left got was Libby and not Rove, they aren't satisfied. They'll keep going at it until they "cut the head from the body."

you probably could. Start with my 9th grade english teacher. I think I admitted to her I was the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll. What was a supposed to write? Do you think I actually read Wuthering Heights?

Wow thought we were cleaning up politics and getting rid of the sarcasm and attacks.... just a personal observation.......

I don't know what you're reading pan, but i don't see any personal attacks, or sarcasm either. Get a sense of humor.

I wasn't even being sarcastic. I'm serious. You probably could get 5 people to testify that I claimed to be the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll. I've probably used that line a dozen times. The one person I can garuntee I told that too was my 9th grade english teacher. It was on a test on Wuthering Heights, which I did not read. Where's the sarcasm? I was being serious.

I'm confused here. Who do you think the "sarcasm" was directed at? Who am I supposed to lay off of? If anything y'all should lay off me.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_ro...ing/index.html
Karl Rove, Jason Leopold and the hunt for the truth

Salon tells everything it knows about Jason Leopold and faults the WSJ's:
....a reminder to everyone that a distinction must be made between exclusive reporting that is displayed on truthout.org web pages, such as the "controversial" Leopold reporting on Rove's indictment....and....news and other articles that originally appeared on other sites..... that are simply displayed on truthout.org pages under the fairness doctrine.

In other words, and NY Times, LA Times, or Washington post article or news report is not tranformed into something less credible, simply because it is archived on truthout.org. Sometimes the truthout.org archived reproduction of an article is the only place that a third party article can be referenced for the majority of us to examine.

Consider the source of any original reporting before you decide on it's reliability. For example....if Walter Pincus of the Washington Post reports on something that is happening, IMO....you can take it to the bank....it will be reliable reporting. If Sue Schmidt from the Washington Post writes a news report.....I consider that she did not earn the nickname, "steno Sue" because of a track record for reporting in "her own words", or for always being reliable.

The home page of mediamatters.org founded by a prominent partisan who defected to the "other side" is devoted to reporting "defects" in the statements and reporting of everyone else. I refer to the their findings often.

Truthout has finally posted something of an explanation for being off the mark. It's worth a read, but I'll wait for the msp.

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story.../21/115826/135

Hmmm.....
Me thinks engaging those who do not buy the OP, I'd choose another source.
Because frankly, it would be like giving Pravda as a counter source.:suave:

Rove Cleared, Zarqawi Dead, GOP Doomed
by Scott Ott
June 13, 2006

Republican electoral prospects in November appeared bleaker than ever this week after U.S. forces allowed al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to die in their custody and President George Bush’s close friend and adviser Karl Rove fanned the flames of conspiracy theories by preventing a special prosecutor from charging him with any wrongdoing in the CIA leak investigation.

White House sources failed to return phone calls last night, in a virtual communication lockdown, as the Bush administration hunkered down to figure out how to cope with the latest breaking news.

In five appearances before a grand jury Mr. Rove employed what one source called “his Jedi mind tricks.”

“But it was all for nothing,” the unnamed source said, “Since the lack of charges against him will only confirm America’s worst fears — that Karl Rove controls everything.”

Meanwhile jubilant Democrats hunted for media microphones, as one lawmaker said, “to kick the cowboy while he’s down.”

This week’s slight increase in the president’s popularity ratings only highlights the depths to which he has fallen, according to political experts.

In a bit of fortuitous timing, a Democrat National Committee spokesman said the DNC is on the verge of announcing its vision and plan for America’s future, which should be unveiled “any day now in the coming months.”

California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the presumptive Speaker of the House, took the high road, offering “words of consolation and comfort to our beleaguered Command in Chief.”

“We must rally around our chief executive in his time of need,” Rep. Pelosi said. “I call on all Americans to pray that God would lift President Bush from this pit of despair, and restore his confidence so that he may lead us boldly.”

*/*

So Rove won't be indicted after all. So much for the credibility of guerilla lefty hitblog diebushdie.org truthout.org, who reported a Rove indictment back in May. The problem all along, imo, was Joe Wilson's credibility. His zeal to get Rove exposed his own lies and corruption.

I thought this post might be tongue-in-cheek until I got to the part above. Here's a similar statement:

Funny how people like to blame Bush for being a nitwit (a 2-term nitwit), while 6 1/2 years later we have the Democratic Party without a clue as to how to go about 21st century Foreign Policy.


:crazy: