Karl Rove: Not As Careful As You Think
Karl Rove: Not As Careful As You Think
Reuters’ write-up of Rove’s involvement in the leak scandal captures the emerging consensus within the media that Karl Rove is an astute wordsmith who carefully-parsed his statements:
Rove has carefully chosen his words when questioned about the leak. “I didn’t know her name. I didn’t leak her name,” he told CNN last year when asked if he had had anything to do with it.
There’s no doubt that Rove has tried to carefully parse his statements, but what is being overlooked is that Rove actually did not choose his words carefully enough.
Consider his two on-the-record comments about the leak (which are both on-camera):
Reporter: Did you have any knowledge or did you leak the name of the CIA agent to the press?
Rove: No. [ABC, 9/29/03]Rove: Well, I’ll repeat what I said to ABC News when this whole thing broke some number of months ago. I didn’t know her name and didn’t leak her name. [CNN, 8/31/04]
Notice that in the second statement, Rove rephrases what ABC’s original question was to him, omitting the part where the reporter asked whether he had “any knowledge” of the leak. Rove offered a categorical denial to the entire question. The ABC reporter did not ask whether Rove knew Plame’s name — that was simply offered as part of Rove’s later recasting of the question.
If Rove wants to play these legal word games, then he should explain why he said he did not have any knowledge of the leak when he was Matt Cooper’s source.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Gotcha!! Can we lock him up now? Please?
July 11th, 2005 at 10:53 amKarl Rove:
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2005/ 07/ 11/ rove-not-careful/ trackback/
July 11th, 2005 at 11:01 amBut it's so obvious.
He denied knowledge because it would have been illegal to acknowledge it :)
Of course this doesn't help him....
July 11th, 2005 at 11:01 amKarl Rove:"I said, 'his wife', not Valerie Plame"
But Rove's attorney says it's OK because he didn't ever mention her by name. Instead it appears Rove said "Joe Wilson's wife," stupidly misunderestimating the reporter's tenacity in finding out just who Joe Wilson's wife might be.
That bumbl...
July 11th, 2005 at 11:02 amhttp://www.zazzle.com/products/product/product.asp?general%5Fcategory%5Fid=103573384344373711&general%5Fproduct%5Ftype=235&caching=on&product%5Fid=235502416030693695&index=5
I think this sums up my feelings completely.
July 11th, 2005 at 11:03 amIf Rove was innocent he wouldn't have to spin or use mixed messages in his answers.
GUILTY AS CHARGED!
July 11th, 2005 at 11:03 amA Rove is a Rove is a Rove....whether you identify him as a Bush aide, a dirty tricks master, or a national security leak...and by any other name, he would still smell.
July 11th, 2005 at 11:06 amSo let me get this straight: Rove is saying that, sure, he said that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA on WMD in a time of war while the US was talking about mushroom clouds because Iraq had nuclear capabilities, but that he isn't guilty because he didn't exactly mention her name and didn't fully know that she was a covert agent?
I mean, gosh, that sounds reasonable to me.
To be a bit less snarky, it seems to me that by not using her name and only giving a tidbit of info, Rove pulls another parlor trick on journalists. Said journalists then have to go and seek out the rest of the information. You know, by using Google or opening a phone book. And because strictly speaking Rove does not reveal Plame's identity, said journalists credit themselves with intrepidly used their Encyclopedia Brown sleuthing skills to uncover that by themselves. So of course Rove "didn't reveal the information," says the reporter, "I did that all by myself."
What Rove seems to know better than most journos is how they see themselves, as well as how to work that self-perception so that the biggest stumbling blocks that journalists have to the truth are not the facts on hand, but rather their own ingrained behaviors. Rove's cunning is that he knows how to play Pavlov to incite the media's drooling pack-like instincts
July 11th, 2005 at 11:08 amHe didn't know or leak her name. But he identified her as a CIA agent to Cooper. Whether he stated her name is irrelevant.
July 11th, 2005 at 11:10 amI can imagine this guy getting arrogant and careless after so much success for so long of getting the media to do tap dances for him. Looks like that's what happened.
The bigger question is did he knowingly break the law (and felt there would be no consequence) or was he just so mired in the political aspect that he didn't even stop to consider if what he was doing was illegal. That's the only really interesting question left.
July 11th, 2005 at 11:14 amRove would obviously fall back on the same semantics trick he's apparently been playing from the start. The reporter's question "Did you have any knowledge" can be deliberately construed to mean knowledge "of the name" which he can wormily claim not to have had if he didn't know her first name was Valerie.
You know, I think the Vice President is a ruthless liar. What? No, I didn't say anything bad about Dick Cheney, I'm just talking about the Vice President.
Unfortunately for Rove, if he's trying to hide behind the semantics of "name," title 50, Section 421 of the United States Code makes it a crime to disclose "any information identifying" a covert agent. So it wouldn't matter whether Rove disclosed Plame's actual full name, as long as he disclosed enough info (like the fact that she was Wilson's wife) for the agent's identity to become ascertainable. You would still have to prove all the other elements, though, including that Rove falls within the class of anyone "having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent..."
You know what the really sick part is? Bush now has an even greater incentive to stack the Supreme Court, so that they can find that these little semantic niceties prevent Rove from being guilty under the terms of the federal statute.
July 11th, 2005 at 11:15 am"Did you have any knowledge or did you leak the name of the CIA agent to the press?"
This is what a lawyer calls a "compound question" and it's objectionable because it's ambiguous. One perfectly reasonable way to understand the question is that the questioner is changing his mind about what to ask half-way through and only seeks an answer to the rephrased question.
July 11th, 2005 at 11:16 amLet's suppose Rove and Cooper were seated in one of those gay bars Rove likes to frequent outside of DC
and Joe Wilson and his wife sit down at the bar acroos from Rove and Cooper. And suppose Rove points to the Wilsons and says to Cooper - "That's Joe Wilson and his wife. She's CIA and she sent her husband to Niger on the yellow cake story. So don't believe anything Joe Wilson says about Niger cake, cause they're in on it together"
Rove says this knowing that Cooper is writing a story on yellow niger cake.
He doesn't say her name. It's not necessary to say her name. He's able to out her without saying her name. That's the point.
July 11th, 2005 at 11:17 amPersonally, I don't see Rove's parsing as being all that worthwhile anyway. I think the parsing isn't a legal defense. I think he was doing it so that he could answer the question without openly lying to us. Because it doesn't matter if he gave her name, but rather that he identified her at all. But I don't see the parsing as doing a damn thing to help his legal defense, except in the court of public opinion. Maybe he didn't do anything wrong, but it's not illegal to lie to the press and his statements to the press won't bail him out.
July 11th, 2005 at 11:19 amTo JR
July 11th, 2005 at 11:19 amI think the lawyer's question would go something like this
"Did you reveal the CIA identity of Joe Wilson's wife to Cooper?"
It depends on the meaning of what "fair" is. When I said "fair game", what I meant was that our people should always treat Ms. Plame with fairness, courtesy, and the utmost respect due to her NOC status.
July 11th, 2005 at 11:23 amKarl Rove: Traitor and Liar?
Evidence appears to be mounting for two criminal activities to have been committed by Karl Rove, the key White House advisor often referred to as "Bush's Brain."According to Webster's Dictionary atraitor is: "1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty; 2 : one who commits treason." According to a report this morning by Michael Isakoff in Newsweek, it was Karl Rove who "outed" Valarie Plame as a CIA operative to Time Inc. reporter Matt Cooper.
According to the Newsweek story today, at 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003 Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper sent the following e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy:
"Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential)
"Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation..." "please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]"
"it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip."
"The trip" that was being referred to was that of former ambassador Joseph Wilson February 2002 to investigate charges that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from the African country of Nigeria which Wilson said he had found no evidence to support the claim. Wilson's wife was the former covert CIA operative Valerie Plame.
The leak of Plame's identity was first reported by columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. According to Murry Wass of The American Prospect "Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July... Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column."
But wait... Cooper's e-mail about Rove was dated July 11, 2003, three days before Novak's article was published! That means that Rove disclosed Plame's identity to Cooper before it appeared in Novak's column.
The evidence appears to be mounting for two criminal activities to have been committed by Karl Rove:
July 11th, 2005 at 11:30 amFirst, the outing of the identity of a CIA operative. According to David Corn of The Nation: "This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent. The punishment for such an offense is a fine of up to $50,000 and/or up to ten years in prison.
Second, possible lying to the FBI and to a Grand Jury. We do know from the Newsweek story today and other sources, that Rove had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him. As I have stated in this blog, before if Karl Rove testified before the Grand Jury under oath that he was NOT the source of the Plame outing to Cooper when in fact he WAS the source, this could result in a perjury rap for Mr. Rove.
Saying "Joe Wilson's wife" is the same thing as saying her name if she is indeed married to Joe Wilson at the time. Stupid bushlicking media! Evil lying Republican traitors!
July 11th, 2005 at 11:33 amIt's the same as aiding or abetting or enemies, and that's treason! And you know what that means? They are supposed to hang traitors.
July 11th, 2005 at 11:38 amFor whatever reason (and there are many) the media is Bush's lapdog. Still, it would be fun to see Big Assed Queen Rove bunny hopped out of the MonkeyPalace in manicles, wouldn't it? :-)
July 11th, 2005 at 11:38 amSpeaking of carefulness, notice how the "didn't knowingly disclose" defense is missing from both of the damage control pieces out this morning. Something to watch for...
http://blog.dccc.org/mt/archives/003123.html
July 11th, 2005 at 11:50 amThank you, The Truth. A pre-compiled list of MonkeyPalace brown-nosers. Excellent. Just what I was looking for. Emails away!
July 11th, 2005 at 11:52 am[...] No, people, this is not catching Rove in a lie. This is “catching” Rove in not addressing the question. Rove’s nonresponse response is a perfectly valid tactic and contains nothing probative. [...]
July 11th, 2005 at 12:04 pmJCGofW
Exactly.
Best to email all reporters with the words - "Not gonna buy your newspaper/magazine any more"
Money talks, everybody walks
July 11th, 2005 at 12:04 pmCMoore.com
You miss the point. Rove outed Plame. That's a fact. What he says or doesn't say between now and his trial only adds to the heap of lies and distortions to be used as evidence.
July 11th, 2005 at 12:06 pmRemember - what did Nixon in was not what he said after the fact about his involvement in the coverup of the break in. It was the tape recordings of him discussing how to obstruct justice that did him in.
July 11th, 2005 at 12:08 pmWhat we need are the recordings of Cheney's Energy council meetings held way back in early 2001. My guess is they (Cheney, the oil companies, Chalabi, pro-invasion CIA elements) were planning the invasion of Iraq way back then. And everything else after that is just attempt after the next to force through their plan.
July 11th, 2005 at 12:11 pmWe know already that Bushco was asking Clinton to attack Iraq back in 99.
All of the crimes to date are about the illegal oil war.
Including Sept. 11, 2001.
votetoimpeach.org
July 11th, 2005 at 12:16 pmOliver North sold some of our most advanced weapons to our enemies. His punishment was his own prime time TV show. Look for the Karl Rove Show on Fox News coming soon!
July 11th, 2005 at 12:16 pmDid anyone notice Bill Clinton's statement over weekend about how a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq would be bad because it would send the wrong message to terrorists. He's now on message with the Bush team after boating with Bush Daddy in Maine. Wonder how much he's getting paid to peddle the BushCo message.
July 11th, 2005 at 12:22 pmRegardless of whatever happens to Rove, if he does end up being convicted of anything, I have no doubt that Bush 43 will follow in the footsteps of Bush 41 with an 11th hour pardon (Iran Contra style).
The worst thing about all of this is that Rove is currently being paid by taxpayers like you and me for his shennanigans.
July 11th, 2005 at 12:23 pmRove is just a bump in the road to Cheney, oil company, and CIA elements who were pro-invasion.
July 11th, 2005 at 12:24 pmFlail the son-of-a-bitch!
July 11th, 2005 at 12:24 pmMaybe Clinton's fee for spreading the BushCo 'no withdrawal' message is Hilary in 2008.
July 11th, 2005 at 12:26 pmDid anyone notice Bill Clinton’s statement over weekend about how a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq would be bad
Would you happen to have a link to this? I would be interested in parsing it myself.
July 11th, 2005 at 12:26 pmJohn S
July 11th, 2005 at 12:26 pmI will look for link now
I might also point out that inflammatory anti-republican rhetoric (while not entirely untrue at times) is exactly the fodder that draws conservative shills to post here, and have a leg to stand on when making their arguments.
If you keep to the facts, they usually cannot contend with them (as you will notice by Editors conspicuous absence of late).
July 11th, 2005 at 12:28 pmJohn S
Found this link. Hilary and Bill are both currently at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. She is reported as echoing what he said a few days earlier about no withdrawal from Iraq
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20050711/NEWS/107110005
July 11th, 2005 at 12:32 pmDid you know that Harry Hopkins, Franklin Roosevelt's right hand man, was a spy for the Russians? see http://www.abbebuckpr.blogspot.com click on Hopkins
July 11th, 2005 at 12:34 pmwrong one! http://www.highvizpr.blogspot.com -- click on hopkins :-) Thanks!
July 11th, 2005 at 12:34 pmHere's a link to a British story about pulling out of Iraq:
July 11th, 2005 at 12:37 pmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4670945.stm
Flying fingers. I'm sorry. Try this one instead:
July 11th, 2005 at 12:38 pmhttp://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=355291&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=
Iraq withdrawal apparently will be done on the quiet while BushCo, Blair, and now the Clintons make noises about staying the course.
Must be in the manual of magic trick maneuvers
July 11th, 2005 at 12:46 pmLeCar-
Thanks for that link. I don't see anything in there about timetables, though. The other stuff is pretty much what I would expect from a Presidential hopeful Hillary.
I tend to agree with her "advocating that the United States stay in Iraq until the Iraqi people show that they can run their own country and maintain the peace." It is a lousy situation, and not one that will be made better by an immediate pullout.
However, I'm not sure about her statement of "This commitment, she said, is part of this country's 'long struggle against terrorism.'" That may be the case now, but that wasn't the case a few years ago. Some clarification on this point would be welcome.
If you find a link to Bill talking about no timetables, please put it up. Thanks.
July 11th, 2005 at 12:46 pmJohn S
He just said the same thing she said - that a timetable for withdrawal would send the wrong message.
They are both for staying the course. Unlike you, I find the national security democrats like the Clintons to be no better than BushCo. They are just war mongers of a different stripe.
July 11th, 2005 at 12:49 pmThe "long struggle against terrorism" Hilary refers to is actually the long struggle of the people of America against the terrorism wrought by their own government on themselves and other peoples of the world.
July 11th, 2005 at 12:51 pmLet the special prosecutor finish his job. The news seems great, but this administration has been able to elude at each every point during the last five years. Hopefully the house of cards will finally come crashing down. If it does, it doesn't mean anything for Dems if they can't relay such a message to the masses and explain what treason is and why it is so traitorous during a time of war.
When you equate such an action to our soldiers dying, you will see a fury which hell may not have ever seen!
July 11th, 2005 at 1:00 pmthe editor seems to be flying under several aliases now.
July 11th, 2005 at 1:12 pmLeCar-
I'm not trying to cast any dispersions about "National Security" Democrats (aka Republican Light). But, I do think that an expedient pullout would be catastrophic.
I do think that realistic measures of success and goals need to be implemented, as I tire of this "as long as it takes" rhetoric.
As for America having "wrought terrorism", I'm entirely sure that I agree with your choice of words. Although undeniably, the policies of America have fanned the flames of terrorism, terrorists are ultimately responsible for their own actions (just as sovereign nations are).
Also, I failed to find any mention of timetables in that article you linked to from Aspen. Could you please indicate the part of that story which discusses "that a timetable for withdrawal would send the wrong message"?
Thanks.
July 11th, 2005 at 1:19 pmThe editor seems to be flying under several aliases now.
Such as? I haven't picked up on him sockpuppeting as someone else thus far...
July 11th, 2005 at 1:20 pmUnfortunately, close nut no cigar. The first was a compound question and therefore a bad one. As most any trial lawyer knows, an answer to a compund question is basically worthless, because you don't know which part of the compound was answered. Rove has plausible deniability here in two ways. First, he can just say that he was answering the second part of the compound question. Second, he could also say that to the extent his answer related to the first part of the compound is narrowed by the second portion. That is, the first part of the question could be understood as "Did you have any knowledge [of ] the name of the CIA agent to the press?" If Karl is telling the truth when he says he didn't know her name (and I think he is; I'm sure he carefully shielded himself from that knowledge), then the 'no' answer to this question is perfectly accurate.
July 11th, 2005 at 1:26 pmIt's just a sloppy question. It left lots of wiggle room.
Ginger Man-
Very valid points. Thank you for pointing these out. Perhaps the grand jury will be more careful with their choice of words if and when they end up questioning Rove.
I guess the old acronym of KISS holds true yet again:
Keep It Simple Stupid
July 11th, 2005 at 1:31 pmKarl Rove is stinking up to his nickname by Bush "Turdblossom" He was only following what is written in his Bible (Mein Kampf) When you lie tell a big one, then everybody will believe it! "Character creates Fate". If Bush however tries to cover it up, then we have Watergate II.
July 11th, 2005 at 2:44 pmThe Weekend's Over. Let the Fun and Games Begin.
Time to get down to business with Iraq, Karl Rove and much more. All from The 5:30 Report with Doug Krile on KWBF.
July 11th, 2005 at 4:27 pm[...] What has Karl Rove said about leaking a CIA’s identity to the press: Reporter: Did you have any knowledge or did you leak the name of the CIA agent to the press? Rove: No. [ABC, 9/29/03] [...]
July 11th, 2005 at 5:31 pmWas a time when just the taint of a scandal - and I really can't remember any this big - was enough to have those involved resign. I guess this just goes to show how far the bar has been lowered when a case involving high treason of a White House official not only does not illicit a resignation but barely a peep in the news.
I won't be surprised if bush doesn't have a Medal of Freedom he's polishing up for rove.
July 11th, 2005 at 5:43 pmDid you know that Harry Hopkins, Franklin Roosevelt’s right hand man, was a spy for the Russians? see http://www.abbebuckpr.blogspot.com click on Hopkins
Comment by Abbe Buck, Publicist  July 11, 2005 @ 12:34 pm
wrong one! http://www.highvizpr.blogspot.com  click on hopkins Thanks!
Comment by Abbe Buck, Publicist  July 11, 2005 @ 12:34 pm
Anyone can vandalize a Wiki entry. God! The Repugs must be in full panic mode. They try to smear anyone and anything.
July 11th, 2005 at 5:44 pmi was searching for that abc interview for the better part of an hour yesterday. i yield to your superior findiness, thinkprogress.
July 11th, 2005 at 6:02 pmJust having one, just one, BushCo official disgraced for even a moment would be bloody refreshing.
Not that they all haven't earned a good disgracing a thousand times over.
Who knows? Maybe the bullshit pile is starting to collapse under its own weight.
July 11th, 2005 at 6:43 pmThe truth is in the Cooper e-mail;
"...please don't source this to rove (as it was typed in the e-mail) or even WH..."
July 11th, 2005 at 6:52 pmabsolutely pathetic. the right wing's spin is becoming nothing short of insane
July 11th, 2005 at 9:27 pmAll one has to do to appreciate the real Karl Rove is to go back to Bush's first gubenatorial campaign in Texas when he had his own office bugged, notified the authorities and press and publicly blamed it own spies in the state Democratic Party.
July 11th, 2005 at 10:25 pmMrs. Wilson, Ambassador Joe Wilsons wife, and Vallery Plame are all one and the same person. Plame is her maiden name. Her family and friends did not know she was an agent for the CIA. Karl Rove blew her cover by spreading her name around to people who shouldn't have known including reporters. He is to high up in the government as a very close advisor to the President not to be privy to classified information. His position gives him extra reponsibility not to be inadvertently outing an agent under deep cover tracking weapons of mass destruction. Where's the nuance in all this? Where is Rove's genius in all this? We have an Administration willing to cover up; and a media that refuses to cover the story, but willing to present the spin no matter how illogical or false.
July 12th, 2005 at 1:07 amAaah, but Rove had his White House status upgraded from unofficial adviser to the president to some type of official status after the stolen elections of last year.
I wonder what part this little tweaking of his status has to do with the investigation Fitzgerald is conducting into treason at the highest levels of the Bush administration?
As an unofficial adviser to the president, would Rove have needed a top secret clearance? In his new, official capacity, did Rove have to pass an FBI background check to be accorded a top secret clearance? Or does he even have a top secret security clearance? Or has he ever had one?
It would be interesting to know, therefore, the following:
1) Does Rove have a top secret clearance? If so, when did the FBI background check conclude and subsequently Rove could be privy to classified, top secret information?
2) If Rove did not have a top secret clearance, then did he sit in on meetings anyway where top secret information was discussed, such as the top secret identity of a covert CIA agent?
3) And as in the case of Jeff Guckert/Jim Gannon who should have had an FBI background check conducted on him due to his almost daily appearance at White House press conferences over two years, did Rove shy away from having an extensive FBI background check done on his past for some reason?
When I entered the U.S. military years ago and was assigned a job requiring a top secret security clearance, I learned afterward that the FBI contacted my family, friends, schools and places of employment to make sure I wasn't a national security threat. The FBI did a very thorough background check on me, so I figure nothing has changed, and the FBI conducts the same thorough background checks today.
Would Karl Rove have been afraid to have all the little details of his past exposed through a thorough FBI national security check before he could receive a top secret security clearance?
If I was Mr. Fitzgerald, these are some of the questions I'd be asking Mr. Rove.
If Rove didn't have a top secret clearance and was told top secret information by someone in the White House (my guess, someone in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans which was setup to "fix" the weak Iraqi WMD evidence so Bush could start war in Iraq), then he was passing on classified information that he shouldn't have even known. This makes him an accessory to a crime. If he won't reveal who his source is, then this means he is obstructing justice by obstructing the investigation by Mr. Fitzgerald into a national security breach.
In addition, I wonder if Scottie McCleland has been called to appear before the grand jury? That question at the end of today's press conference where Scottie was asked if he'd hired a lawyer indicates to me that the reporters are finally beginning to wake up to how much they've been played for fools by McCleland and the rest of the scags in the Bush White House.
So, my first question, if I were a reporter at the next press conference, would be to ask Scottie if he's testified before the grand jury about conversations he has indicated he had with some of the likely suspects in the treasonous Valerie Plame leak.
Q: A simple yes or no, Scottie. Have you been subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury by Mr. Fitzgerald?
A: I have already answered that I can't talk about an ongoing.....
Q: But Scottie, I'm not asking you to tell us what you may have said to the grand jury. I just want to know if you have been called to appear before the grand jury so you can testify under oath about what you know in this case? We know Rove has testified three times. Have you testified yet and how many times?
A: I have been advised not to discuss anything about an ongoing investigation. And....
Q: Well, folks. I think we have a yes, because Mr. McCleland is doing a classic denial denial, which means he has appeared and testified. Right?
A: I cannot answer on grounds that it might incriminate me.
Q: Oh, wonderful. Now we have the president's spokesman taking the Fifth at a press conference. Right?
A: I cannot answer on grounds that it might incriminate me. Next question.
July 12th, 2005 at 3:54 amSnarkley-Smythe predicts Herr Karl(head of Office of Perception Management formerly known as Ministry of Truth)and his minions including Alfred E. Neuman will employ a 4-corners stall stategy culminating w/pardons for all at the end of the regime.
July 12th, 2005 at 5:22 amCan anyone think of a believable scenario in which bush and cheney weren't a party to this operation? Will bush, therefore, fire not only Rove but cheney and himself? Will Congress have the guts to impeach them? Do pigs fly?
Also, re McClellan's 'the time for comment hasn't come yet', this is the first bite of the ham sandwich. Short description: man orders ham sandwich, bites and complains "no ham". Is told hasn't reached it yet. Takes another bite, still no ham, is told he's gone past it. So, McClellan will say "not yet", and then will say, "That's history. Why do you bring up that old story? We've already told you everything".
July 12th, 2005 at 12:11 pmAs I understand it, and as Joseph Wilson stated on NBC's Today show, his wifes name is either Mrs. Joseph Wilson or Valerie Wilson. Valerie Plame is her CIA name, and was known only to the CIA.
Karl Rove has denied that he gave her actual name to any reporters, which begs the question..."How did Robert Novak learn about and include in his article the name "Valerie Plame"?? It is possible that Rove is telling the truth, as there is supposedly another WH leaker who must have actually given her cover CIA identity. I believe that person is the "target" of the investigation. I also believe that person to be a higher level person than Rove, and to be Judith Millers and Robert Novaks source. Novak has already named the leaker, and hence was not threatened with jail. The special prosecutor needs a second source (Judith Miller to confirm the 2nd leaker. Because the leaker is so high on the totem pole (possibly Dick Cheney)...Miller went to jail to protect him.
July 14th, 2005 at 2:10 pm[...] We don’t know very much about Fitzgerald’s inquiry at this point. from what I’ve read, it may very well be not a leak inquiry, but a perjury investigation. If that’s the case, I sure hope that Rove and his allies told the truth while under oath. Given their track record, conservatives should be worried. [...]
July 14th, 2005 at 5:28 pmROVEGATE! There is a good chance this could turn into another Watergate, it has all the events and Characters of a coverup by Bush. Bush Damm well knew in 2003, when he was getting on that plane with Rove,to Chicago, that Rove outed the CIA agent, why else did Rove get on that plane, but to do Damage control with Bush! Bush could go down with Rove, if the Special Proacuter uncovers enough. No one else whould do such a dirty trick like that. Bush probably told Rove to release that reporter, to tell his source, and how long did Bush know Rove was "Deep Throat"!
July 15th, 2005 at 10:23 pmCharacter Creates Fate!
# 43 WHO CLAIMS TO STUDY THE SCRIPTURES EACH MORNING HAS MISSED GALATIONS 6:19 WHICH SPEAKS OF MORALITY. IT IS ALSO AN OUTLINE OF "WORKS OF FLESH" THE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF MR. ROVE, ALONG WITH LIMBAUGH, AND FELLOW TRAVELERS WHO REGAIL THE PUBLIC WITH DISTORTION.
July 22nd, 2005 at 12:13 am[...] I started by reading a bizarre Wall Street Journal editorial today about how Rove should be rewarded for his valiant efforts against CIA nepotism — or something like that. It all made more sense when I found out that this was a quite precise regurgitation of RNC talking points, with many WSJ points still in the same order. Happily, RawStory.com managed to get ahold of the RNC’s actual talking points memo against Wilson. Mehlman said that Rove was merely “discouraging a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise.” A-haaa… It is so staggeringly unethical that some Republicans are complementing each other for supporting outing Plame. How weird. Maybe Rove should really have been more careful. So many of his past statements are now known to be lies. [...]
July 27th, 2005 at 7:18 pm[...] Of course, that was before Rove repeatedly denied he had any involvement in the Valerie Plame leak. We are waiting for our “honest and sincere” apology. [...]
August 18th, 2005 at 11:19 amOf Course, Rove Brainwashed Libby
Judith Miller has decided that she is going to testify. Apparently she's been contacted by her source, I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's Chief of Staff, and informed that it's okay for her to reveal him in testimony before a grand jury.
September 30th, 2005 at 6:05 amhola
November 20th, 2005 at 11:52 amchocolate lg ringtones
After that advance america cash advance advance cash line loan
March 14th, 2008 at 2:48 pm2366i nokia ringtones
A free cricket wireless ringtones chocolate lg ringtones
March 14th, 2008 at 2:48 pmc139 keypress motorola ringtones c139 monophonic motorola ringtones c139 motorola ringtones
Turn free banana phone ringtones download free ringtones yahoo
March 14th, 2008 at 4:43 pmchristian download free ringtones
Does free nokia polyphonic ringtones 120c info motorola remember ringtones
March 15th, 2008 at 3:23 americsson polyphonic ringtones sony
When download free ringtones virgin mobile free alltel music ringtones
March 15th, 2008 at 3:39 amcingular ringtones shop
Now cingular free ringtones usa free make own ringtones
March 15th, 2008 at 3:50 amfree real ringtones for alltel
In need of cell free phone ringtones wallpaper download phone ringtones verizon
March 15th, 2008 at 3:47 pmmotorola ringtones w315
Call free keypress motorola ringtones free nokia mp3 ringtones
March 15th, 2008 at 3:47 pmhealthcare insurance
healthcare insurance
March 16th, 2008 at 8:54 pmLeeann Tweeden
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page...and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 16th, 2008 at 10:15 pmagent
Very interesting post. A little bit confusing, but it still ok Hm.
March 17th, 2008 at 9:13 amOnline Payday Loan
Speedy provider for rapid no fax cash advances with very fast money programs.
March 19th, 2008 at 6:18 pmbackground checks uk
I'm with the earlier poster, this seems like a good idea.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:09 amsr22 auto insurance
sr22 auto insurance
March 26th, 2008 at 5:07 pmJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 4:06 amGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 4:51 pmbackground check employment
Well spoken. I have to research more on this as it is really vital info.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:22 amJessica Download Music
To much to chew. This got me thinking of this crappy music download
April 1st, 2008 at 1:34 ammake more money
In this way, too, it's like recording. The rare blockbusters inspire people to grab for the ring. A few outlying successes give hope to fields of will- be failures, if millionairs- status is the criterion. However, all that production guarantees that ...
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:20 pmasian lesbians videos
live nude asian babes cam | beautiful asian girls | thick asian asses | huge asian ass | asian babes chat | young asian babes | free asian porn sites
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:22 pmhttp://alnk.org/1bluedoe
http://alnk.org/1cockyrug
http://alnk.org/1hungrymother
http://alnk.org/1...
Html Background Music Code Mp3
The term is used colloquially for any kind of Linkback. Many blogs have stopped using trackbacks because dealing with spam became too
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:38 pmNokia Mp3 Ringtones Free Download
. Many blogs have stopped using trackbacks because dealing with spam became too burdensome.It has since been implemented in most other
April 4th, 2008 at 9:35 pmWholesale Silk Flowers
Sometimes the hardest thing to say is you're sorry. Say it with flowers.
August 16th, 2008 at 6:24 pmsupplier quality...
The history of requirements for quality systems, or at least some elements of quality systems, goes back to pre-historic times. Almost 4,000 years ago, in the 18th century B.C., Hammurabi, the king of Babylonia, developed the first recorded code of law...
December 31st, 2008 at 1:45 ammark viii front suspension...
I have a 93 Lincoln Mark VIII and sometimes the heat will kick on, and sometimes I will have... Welcome to the world of poor quality electronics found mostly in domestic vehicles. It may just need to have it....
April 29th, 2009 at 7:32 pm