Everything you need to fight back against the right-wing misinformation campaign.
CLAIM: White House Can’t Comment While Investigation Is Ongoing
McClellan: “While that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it.”
FACT: White House Has Repeatedly Commented During the Ongoing Investigation
McClellan had previously cited that same investigation and then gone on to answer the questions as they pertained to Rove. For example, on October 1, 2003, he said, “There’s an investigation going on … you brought up Karl’s name. Let’s be very clear. I thought — I said it was a ridiculous suggestion, I said it’s simply not true that he was involved in leaking classified information, and — nor, did he condone that kind of activity.” Similarly, on October 10, 2003, McClellan said, “I think it’s important to keep in mind that this is an ongoing investigation.” But he then added with regard to a question about Rove’s involvement, “I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this.”
CLAIM: Rove Didn’t Leak The Name So He’s Not Guilty
Rove: “I didn’t know her name and didn’t leak her name.” Rove attorney Robert Luskin said “he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.”
FACT: National Security Law Says Identifying Covert Agent Is Illegal
Rove at the very least identified Plame as “Wilson’s wife.” Under section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the disclosure of “any information identifying [a] covert agent” is illegal.
CLAIM: White House Didn’t Push The Story
Rove’s lawyer Robert Luskin claims Cooper manipulated what Rove said to him “in a pretty ugly fashion to make it seem like people in the White House were affirmatively reaching out to reporters to try to get them to report negative information about Plame.”
FACT: There Was An Organized Campaign To Push Leak Info
First, Robert Novak admitted: “I didn’t dig it out [Plame’s identity], it was given to me…. They [the White House] thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.” Second, Rove told Chris Matthews that Plame’s identity was “fair game.” Third, Time magazine reported the orchestrated campaign against Wilson in October 2003: “In the days after Wilson’s essay appeared, government officials began to steer reporters away from Wilson’s conclusions.”
CLAIM: Conversation Was About Welfare Reform, So Rove Didn’t Do Anything Wrong
National Review’s Byron York: “According to Luskin, the fact that Rove did not call Cooper; that the original purpose of the call, as Cooper told Rove, was welfare reform.”
FACT: What They Spoke About Was Irrelevant
The original purpose of the conversation between Rove and Cooper is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the fact that Rove did identify a covert agent during that conversation.
CLAIM: Plame Wasn’t An Undercover Agent
Ed Rogers, former official under Reagan/Bush: “I think it is now a matter of established fact that Mrs. Plame was not a protected covert agent, and I don’t think there’s any meaningful investigation about that.”
FACT: Former CIA Officer Who Worked With Plame Verified She Was Undercover
Larry Johnson, former CIA officer: “Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover–in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover.”
CLAIM: Rove Was Trying To Correct A False Story
Rove attorney Luskin added, “What Karl was trying to do … was to warn Time away from publishing things that were going to be established as false.”
FACT: Wilson Was Right, Bush Was Wrong
Bloomberg recently reported, “Two-year old assertions by former ambassador Joseph Wilson regarding Iraq and uranium, which lie at the heart of the controversy over who at the White House identified a covert U.S. operative, have held up in the face of attacks by supporters of presidential adviser Karl Rove.”
CLAIM: Wilson Lied About His Trip To Niger
Former Rove deputy Ken Mehlman: “What Joe Wilson alleged was that the vice president, then he said the CIA director sent him to Niger.” [CNN, 7/12/05]
FACT: Wilson Never Said Cheney Personally Sent Him To Niger
Bloomberg reported, “Wilson never said that Cheney sent him, only that the vice president’s office had questions about an intelligence report that referred to the sale of uranium yellowcake to Iraq from Niger. Wilson, in his New York Times article, said CIA officials were informed of Cheney’s questions. ‘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,’ Wilson wrote.”
It’s really very simple: the answer to every Bushevik talking point is that the Cooper email is prima facie evidence that Karl Rove outed a covert agent of the CIA. Check Anthony Wade on the Chimp: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/
Under section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the disclosure of “ANY INFORMATION identifying a covert agent” is illegal.
It is treason in a ‘time of war’. What would they have done with Benedict Arnold had they caught him? Put Rove in the brig next to Jose Padilla until he tells us who leaked the CIA information to him.
July 14th, 2005 at 6:28 pmVal wasn’t a covert agent protected by the Intel Identities Protection Act.
July 14th, 2005 at 6:31 pmhttp://www.usatoday.com/ news/ washington/ 2005-07-14-cia-wilson_x.htm
The “fair game” was quoted by Wilson himself. When asked about the comment Chris Matthews said he would not comment. Wilson has lied so much I suspect he’s lying about this too.
July 14th, 2005 at 6:33 pmBy spilling the beans about Velerie Plame, Rove endangered the National Security of the United States. The CIA works overseas - correct me if I’m wrong here - to thwart our enemies and our potential enemies. Plame’s contacts and anyone who might have been helping her, knowingly or not, has been exposed to retribution by those enemies. If that’s not giving aid to the enemy I don’t know what is.
Joe Wilson isn’t even part of this story anymore AFAIC. The penalty for giving aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime is clear. It’s obsturction of justice at this point for anyone who tries to defend Rove’s actions.
July 14th, 2005 at 6:37 pmIT IS NOT ABOUT WILSON. Sheeese
July 14th, 2005 at 6:40 pmSteed two rebuttals:
(1) Note in your quoted article that the CIA launched the request to investigate - they seemed to think that the IIPA was breached in Plame’s case - not me, not Wilson - the CIA
July 14th, 2005 at 6:41 pm(2) Its not about what Wilson has said - it is about what Rove told Cooper and where Novak got his “name”
From the Intel Report:
July 14th, 2005 at 6:43 pmConclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador’s trip to Niger, disseminated in
March 2002, did not change any analysts’ assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For
most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of
Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their
assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.
Directly from the report, not a misrepresentation by Bloomberg:
July 14th, 2005 at 6:45 pmBecause CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information to clarify the issue, they did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or
highlight the report for policymakers. For the same reason, CIA’s briefer did not brief the Vice President on the report, despite the Vice President’s previous questions about the issue.
And more lies:
July 14th, 2005 at 6:51 pmThe former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article (”CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid,” June 12, 2003) which said, “among the Envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.’” Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong” when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have “misspoken” to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were “forged.” He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents.
SL, consider for just one micro-second what you just said. Please. For the love of country.
Rove, in the very least, brought down an entire global network of WMD tracking by referencing Wilson’s wife. Don’t you think tracking WMD, including those spread by AQKhan and the North Koreans, would be rather important at times like this? Or do you feel its more important to “out” Valerie for business reasons, just so Dick Cheney’s company could win a few more contracts?
Gads! Get a grip on reality. For a change. Please.
July 14th, 2005 at 6:53 pmOkay Turtle,
July 14th, 2005 at 6:54 pmI’ve asked and nobody can answer with specific evidence (and without and insult). Where did Novak get Val’s name? No speculation, please.
And by the way Turtle, my posts are responding the one of the item (Rove was correcting a false story, which the intel report validates) listed by thinkparanoid.org (the link to the Bloomberg article)
July 14th, 2005 at 6:58 pm“Rove was correcting a false story, which the intel report validates” - SLankershim
He corrected a false story with illegal information? … Hrmm… what responsibility/liability does Rove have with the publication of false information? For which media organization does he work? Oh… He isn’t responsible for the publication of false information, and he doesn’t work for any media outlet… So where is the justification in “correcting a false story…” ???
Rove is a senior administration staff, he should have known better to stay out of it. What’s the deal Steed, where exactly does this logical fail you? Why is it so important that Rove not be taken down by this?
July 14th, 2005 at 7:23 pmSteed, get that bullshit out of here. This is not going to turn into a he-said-she-said. These scumbags did the deed and now they are covering it up. Hannity and Limbaugh and Mehlman and the rest of the sleazy rightwing spin machine are lying through their collective teeth. Your defense of them is baseless. CIA agents have come out already and confirmed Plame’s status as covert. The “Rove was correcting a false story” argument is so weak you should be ashamed that you even typed it. You are anti-American and unpatriotic for even trying to pawn that crap on your fellow citizens. Shameful and sleazy.
July 14th, 2005 at 7:23 pmIt is high time that we remember what this is really about - BUSH LIED IN HIS STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS THAT THERE WERE WMDS AND THAT IRAQ WAS BUYING MORE WMD MATERIALS IN AFRICA. Wilson was sent to investigate, and found out that the “documentation” was forged - and BushCo (namely, that Nazi Rove) put Wilson’s wife’s life in jeopardy to scare the both of them. In doing so, however, HE ALSO PUT THE UNITED STATES IN JEOPARDY. HE SHOULD BE TRIED FOR TREASON.
July 14th, 2005 at 7:41 pmI have a question regarding why Rove gave Cooper the waiver allowing him to cooperate with the grand jury. Was he cleverly up to something there or is it just that it would have looked worse for him if he didn’t sign the waiver? Or is that a stupid question?
July 14th, 2005 at 7:57 pmMikey, simple answer — Rove did nothing wrong. He told a reporter that Wilson’s findings was biased because his wife sent him on the trip. Listen to Norm Coleman today — he makes a ton of sense.
July 14th, 2005 at 8:39 pmhttp://www.kare11.com/ news/ news_article.aspx?storyid=102390
John, simple rebuttal–Wilson’s wife didn’t send him on the trip. Check your facts.
Neither did Wilson ever claim that Cheney sent him. The “quote” the RNC talking points use to support that claim comes from an appearance on Blizter’s show in August 03. First, the quote is out of context and leaves out Wilson’s very clear statement that Cheney DIDN’T know about his trip. Second, isn’t it a little strange that Rove would know what the RNC alleges Wilson said three weeks before he said it, and that’s why Rove felt compelled to warn Cooper that it was Mrs. Wilson (it wasn’t) and not Cheney (who no one said it was) that sent Wilson on the trip?
The RNC and devoted partisans can try to deflect all the want (obviously) but the prosecutor and grand jury aren’t likely to be so easily spun.
July 14th, 2005 at 8:58 pmEarlene, I don’t understand your point. Rove has released all the reporters from their confidentiality. No one is saying Rove violated any laws. Someone may have leaked, but it wasn’t Rove — he’s much too smart — and that’s why you hate him.
July 14th, 2005 at 9:03 pmRove is not smart. He’s thrifty and opportunistic. Conjuring up whisper campaigns is easy-if you’re a sicko.
July 14th, 2005 at 9:12 pmJohn, you’ve got to be kidding!!! Rove’s lawyer said in essence that Rove leaked the name. If he is as smart as you say he is, he shouldn’t be in this much trouble. Karl Rove knew exactly what he was doing. Joe Wilson was against George’s little war in Iraq, and Rove got back at him by outing Wilson’s wife, pure and simple. I can’t wait for the other shoe to drop and find out who else in this lying, cheating administration gets caught.t
July 14th, 2005 at 9:17 pmBush and all of his cronies are liars. NOTHING they have said or done from the very first day in office has been truthfull.They have commited treason and lied about it.
July 14th, 2005 at 9:21 pmAny person with half a brain could easily fact check what they have said and done with a simple google search.
Now the rightwingnuts are imploding because they can’t keep the lies straight. It is time to Impeach these thugs and let the ADULTS in this country take control. The days of illegitimate war criminal Bush administration days are numbered and they know it. YOu can lie to some of the people most of the time, most of the people some of the time, but when you lie to all of the people all of the time your lies about why you illegaly invaded a country murdering tens of thousands of innocent people will land you in the Hauge on trial for war crimes.
Steed Lankershim,
“The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article (â€?CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid,â€? June 12, 2003) which said, “among the Envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.’â€? Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrongâ€? when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have “misspokenâ€? to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were “forged.â€? He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents.”
I don’t understand.
Does this mean that Plame was not a CIA agent?
Does this mean that Plame did not work for a company that was a CIA front?
Does this mean that Plame was not outed?
Does this mean that Rove did not out her?
Does this mean that Rove is not under investigation?
Does this mean that Rove did not do something that might be illegal?
Does this mean that Rove did not go after Wilson’s family, something that even the Mafia doesn’t do?
Does this mean that Bush did not say that he would fire anyone involved in the outing?
Does this mean that McClellan did not say that Rove was not involved?
I’m confused. Please explain how your posting applies to these issues.
July 14th, 2005 at 9:21 pmAh, folks, it was the CIA that referred the matter to the Justice Department as a CRIMINAL REFERRAL because Plame was a protected agent. It’s the CIA that decides who is a covert protected agent.
July 14th, 2005 at 9:42 pmClaim: It didn’t hurt anyone anyways, what’s the big deal?
July 14th, 2005 at 9:56 pmFact: An entire CIA dummy Corp. and the agents working for it were compromised. It had operations inside Saudi Arabia where the 9/11 attackers came from as well as many other sketchy countries.
Steed,
I think you’ve been spanked pretty effectively on the “Plame wasn’t covert” claim.
This whole thing can be boiled down to one simple talking point: Rove leaked classified info, and then lied about it. Now he’s trying to cover it up, and these lies are nothing more than another Rove cover story.
July 14th, 2005 at 10:05 pmSteed,
Responses to #11 and #12.
Wilson was compelled to write about the 16 words about yellowcake in the SOTU speech. In his opinion, he saw no foundation in that statement based on his trip to Niger. The CIA for its part had recommended that the 16 words not be included in the SOTU and Bolton seems to have pressed to get the story back in the source for the SOTU. To this date there is no compelling proof that Saddam sought nuclear materials in the timeframe alleged and I would argue after the SOTU gaffe and the total failure to find jack in Iraq that the burden is on the Administration.
Now Wilson’s visit may or may not have completely dealt with the entire “Saddam looks for nuclear materials” issue, but it certainly played a role in destroying (along with the IAEA and Italians) the basis for the specific 16 words.
But Steed, this is the only piece that matters: Wilson was right to doubt the 16 words and it is that doubt which directly led to the Novak story. And this is important because it was those 16 words which had a direct impact on public opinion leading to the invasion. And it was based on ‘fixed intelligence’; fixed by Bolton, missed by the incompetent Rice, deceitfully bypassing the doubtful CIA and parroted by Chimpy on the night. Once you make that clear linkage, then you have a huge motive to discredit Wilson by outing his wife. Without the Niger forgery, there’s nothing “nukular” to scare the grannies about except Condi’s vague “mushroom clouds”. So no, I don’t buy the “correcting a reporter’s mistake” defence - it is not in Rove’s modus operandi and given the “double secret background” whatever, Rove knew it was much more serious than that.
So once again in very straightfoward terms:
(1) Wilson questioned the ‘16 words’ and he was right to the rest is unimportant to the criminal probe
(2) It is the Administration’s credibility we should be questioning, because the ‘16 words’ are why Wilson’s wife was outed
(3) This issue is NOT about Wilson, it is about Rove and the politics coming before national security in the Administration - in what way is it not? Can you defend Rove without questioning Wilson - I think not and I think in a narrow sense Fitzgerald agrees there.
(4) By smearing Wilson and Plame, the Administration is clearly caught orchestrating a ‘fixing of the intelligence to fit the policy’ which proves the Downing Street Memos are accurate. QED, end of story, finito Benito, go straight to impeachment, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
To your point about Novak. I have no idea where he got his “name” from. I know that Novak and Rove have worked together before and Rove got himself fired from Pappy’s ‘92 campaign for leaking smears, again not for correcting a mistaken reporter. I am reduced to looking at the means, motive and opportunity. Who had most to lose both inside the admin and outside? Who had access to State documents, who was snooping around CIA communcations, who had access to Wilson’s file?
For the record, I am left thinking that Fitzgerald is looking at obstruction and perjury for Rove among others in the WH. The outing may turn out to be unimportant legally. Martha Stewart was a pioneer.
So remember, forget Wilson. The path goes: the PNAC wants to invade Iraq for the oil, Chimpy says “f*** Saddam, we’re taking him out”, Dearlove says ‘facts are being fixed’, Bolton pushes yellowcake forgery into the SOTU ‘fixing facts’, ‘16 words’ were serious enablers for Chimpy’s War, Chimpy’s War and “Mission Accomplished”, ‘16 words’ are questioned, someone leaks to Novak, Rove leaks to Cooper, Novak smears Wilson/Plame, CIA asks for criminal probe and you know the rest.
Oh yes, did I say it’s not about Wilson?
July 14th, 2005 at 10:36 pmJohn,
Rove has stimulated the same kinds of emotions that Bendict Arnold did - in a position of trust, he puts his own advantage above the weal of the nation. Rove was an odious man before, and no, the ends do not justify the means - something you Americans have a hard time with (”For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Mark 8:36)). Treason is like rape - that’s why people hate him now.
July 14th, 2005 at 10:41 pmKarl Rove is no genius, he just got all his mean lowdown dirty tricks from Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf! Read chapter 6, War Propaganda, and you can see what I mean, I have been after this dirty lowdown S.O.B., ever since, he and Lee Atwater(Now Deseased) screwed over Mike Dukukis, with the Willie Horton AD. No wonder his Father Committed Suicide,and his mother left him, when she born a Devil!
July 14th, 2005 at 10:46 pmTo Steed,
Answer this question: Did you support the investigation of Bill Clinton that revealed nothing more than a stupidly self-destructive infidelity? From your evident stance on all matters liberal, we’ll assume your answer is yes. Okay, now that we’ve set the standard for what you believe merits investigation, can you not step away from your myopic fealty to Republican party dogma, just for one wee minute, and understand that enough circumstantial and concrete evidence exists to implicate Karl Rove in a willful plot to discredit a whistleblower? If a White House official, Democrat or Republican, is even remotely suspect in a treasonous act is that not worthy of the most sweeping investigation?
If Rove is innocent he hasn’t got a damn thing to fear from an impartial investigation. If he is guilty of betraying the security of the United States, as we believe, then should he not recieve the most severe punishment? After all, Steed, the dismembering of a covert operation intent on protecting all Americans is a crime that hurts each of us, regardless your or my political distinction.
July 14th, 2005 at 10:50 pmI would also ask John to respond to post #30.
July 14th, 2005 at 10:54 pmAt the end of the day…the Bush White House divulged the identity of a CIA operative for petty revenge. IF by some chance, because the way the law is worded, that person or persons are exonerated ther remains the moral question. Republicans like to remind us all that GOP stands for God’s Own Party so what would Jesus do? I don’t think he would expose anyone to harm as a payback.
July 15th, 2005 at 12:16 amI have it from a good source that steed is a paid operative working out of GOP headquarters. Congrats to thinkprogress- you have their attention.
July 15th, 2005 at 12:33 amFact: Pushing paper at Langley is not “under cover” or “covert” but you guys are consistent at least, consistently wrong, LOL. We are all just freaking out, I mean what will we ever do, you got us right where you want us now, would you stop if we let you pick or SCOTUS nominee? Hey next time you throw around the nazi word, remember these photos of your side, at their finest, I doubt you will even look, it might make you think and you wouldn’t want that:
July 15th, 2005 at 12:39 amhttp://zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/
It explains why we call you traitors as well.
If Steed is paid that sucks for me, all I get are stale leftover Reagan jellybeans….you guys are going to be so pissed when this turns out to be all smoke no fire…I love the fact you guys are all so patriotic now…LOL.
July 15th, 2005 at 12:47 amf.b.a., the photos of protestors being warehoused behind chainlink detention facilities during the Republican convention are real, too.
Lincoln imprisoned Congressman Henry May during the Civil War. Republicans have a long history of repression of civil liberties. Their brand of freedom isn’t what I have in mind. They have no hearts and no minds. They can get lost.
Republicans? What Republicans? We don’t need no stinking Republicans.
Let them wither on the vine. I will never vote for another Republican… ever again.
July 15th, 2005 at 12:57 am0nly the hardcore thirty per centers will ever vote Republican ever again.
July 15th, 2005 at 1:20 amhttp://www.businessweek.com/ magazine/ content/ 05_29/ c3943060_mz013.htm
Washington Outlook
Independents Are Having Buyer’s Remorse
The Schiavo case has led many swing voters to turn their backs on the GOP
Just nine months after giving George W. Bush the crucial swing votes he needed to best John Kerry, political independents are bolting out of the Republican Big Tent. Angered by GOP meddling in the Terri Schiavo right-to-die case, reeling from record gasoline prices, and depressed by the escalating cycle of violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, unaligned voters are suddenly lining up with Democrats to give Bush the lowest ratings of his Presidency. The disenchantment extends beyond the White House to the GOP Congress: Only 31% of independents say Congress is in touch with their concerns, according to a June 14-15 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Amid such dismal data, the only good news for Republicans is that the chronically disorganized Democrats have not convinced swing voters that they are any better — at least not yet.
But that’s cold comfort to the GOP. A June 24-26 Gallup Poll shows independents turning thumbs down to much of the President’s second-term agenda, including his stay-the-course stance on Iraq, partial privatization of Social Security, and a pro-drilling energy policy. Equally worrisome: Just 15% of indies approve of Bush’s handling of the economy, a June 19-22 American Research Group Poll found — down from 44% last November.
To gauge the depth of independent anger, talk to Alan Rego Jr., an assistant supermarket manager in Cleveland. Rego, 23, twice voted for George W. Bush. The unaligned voter viewed Bush as a champion of small business and a stalwart in the war on terror. But he now sees a President bogged down in a Mideast quagmire and a Congress obsessed with a Religious Right agenda he does not share. “Congress is involved in too many social issues that it shouldn’t be, like Terri Schiavo,” he says. “It doesn’t want to tackle the issues that it should be fixing, like tax reform, unemployment, and job creation.”
For Republicans, an exodus of voters like Rego could have profound repercussions. Because 67% of independents think Bush will appoint a Supreme Court justice whose religious beliefs will inappropriately influence judicial rulings, according to Gallup, Dems may be emboldened to dig in for a long showdown (page 38).
Nearly 30% of the electorate describes itself as independent, though about half of those voters remain registered with a party. So while Republicans have signed up more than 4 million unregistered Christian conservatives in two years, a sizable decline in independent support in the 2006 midterm elections could leave the GOP a net loser outside the South. Particularly at risk are Republicans in states with independent streaks, such as California, Colorado, Minnesota, and New Hampshire.
The swing-voter stampede started after the extraordinary intervention by Bush and the GOP Congress in the Schiavo case. Now socially moderate independents — who strongly favor expanded stem cell research and oppose overturning Roe v. Wade — fear that the majority party is in thrall to the Religious Right. “These people lean more Republican because of fiscal issues, but they’re much more liberal on social issues,” says independent pollster Dick Bennett of American Research Group. “After Schiavo, they said, ‘Wait a minute. We didn’t buy in for that.”‘
Add to the toxic political mix sticker-shock at the gas pump and growing worries about post-Saddam Iraq. In an about-face, formerly hawkish indies now side with Democratic war critics. According to Gallup, just 31% of swing voters say Bush has a clear plan for Iraq, and 60% call the U.S. invasion a mistake. Alan Rego recently attended services for a friend’s brother killed in Iraq. “The kid was my age,” he recalls. “I voted for Bush because he seemed to have a plan to deal with terrorism, but Iraq is becoming another Vietnam.”
Third-party opening?
The indie revolt worries some GOP veterans, but the White House seems unconcerned. Some insiders say Bush über-strategist Karl Rove believes Republicans can afford to lose socially liberal swing voters if they succeed in wooing indie and Democratic “values voters” and increasing turnout on the Christian Right. “They obviously have a strategy to change the electorate, and they’re willing to give up independents and moderates,” says Democratic pollster Stanley B. Greenberg.
But can Democrats capitalize? Even Greenberg’s polls show Dems struggling to convince voters that they can keep the nation safe, foster economic growth, and reform pay-to-play politics. He says circumstances are ripe for a strong third-party candidacy in 2008 — if the right maverick emerges.
During the Bush years, the GOP has kept a majority of indies in its corner by portraying Dems as an unacceptable alternative. That tactic may work again — if Democrats fail to attract the political center and the third-way option fizzles. But with so many swing voters ready to declare independence from Republican-ruled Washington, Bush and his allies on the Hill can’t be so sure anymore.
July 15th, 2005 at 1:29 amHey Ron, you fruitloops were talking about killing the president during the convention. That was a private party, like the dhimmicrat convention, I don’t remember any Republicans shouting down your traitor during that debacle. FYI, Mike “the bloated liar” Moore sitting next to Carter was worth what, like 10% of what we got, nice move, thanks. As for the pics, I see you are proud, those are your folks there, nuttier than a snickers. So slavery was a “civil liberty” you say? That’s progressive, making the old new again? Anti-Semitism at dhimmicrat HQ last month during your make believe impeachment hearings, photos of leftist hate and treason in the streets, your guys almost killed a cop last weekend in SF, but hey, Lincoln was a bad guy is your defense? You never let me down, LOL. As for Rove, you guys keep holding your breath. I cancel you out on the vote, I never voted Republican before 2004, and My wife is part of the 10% of the black vote you lost in 2004, and she brought others over with her, now face it, that hurts : )
July 15th, 2005 at 1:35 amThis gets funnier by the day, I love the new format by the way, all Rove all the time, now you may have to go back to hurricanes and hazmat exclusion zones to thwart suicide bombers:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Presidential confidant Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he learned the identity of a CIA operative originally from journalists, then informally discussed the information with a Time magazine reporter days before the story broke, according to a person briefed on the testimony.
The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, told The Associated Press that Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA.
Rove testified that Novak originally called him the Tuesday before Plame’s identity was revealed in July 2003 to discuss another story. The conversation eventually turned to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was strongly criticizing the Bush administration’s Iraq war policy and the intelligence it used to justify the war, the source said.
The person said Rove testified that Novak told him he had learned and planned to report in a weekend column that Wilson’s wife, Plame, had worked for the CIA, and the circumstances on how her husband traveled to Africa to check bogus claims of alleged nuclear material sales to Iraq.
Novak’s column, citing two Bush administration officials, appeared six days later, touching off a political firestorm and leading to a federal criminal investigation into who leaked Plame’s undercover identity. That probe has ensnared presidential aides and reporters in a two-year legal battle.
more giggles here:
http://apnews.myway.com/ article/ 20050715/ D8BBJCL00.html
Was Valerie Plame a covert agent?
John wrote here that whether Valerie Plame was a “covert agent” subject to the protection of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act appears to turn on whether she served outside the United States during the five years preceding her identification. Did she?
We seem to have made some progess today in our efforts to answer the question. James Taranto links to this USA Today article and writes in “Best of the Web Today”:
Unless we’re missing something, Joe Wilson has disproved his own accusation that someone in the Bush administration violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, USA Today reports:
The alleged crime at the heart of a controversy that has consumed official Washington–the “outing” of a CIA officer–may not have been a crime at all under federal law, little-noticed details in a book by the agent’s husband suggest.
In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins.
This meant that Plame would have been stationed in the U.S. for six years before Bob Novak published his column citing her two years ago today. As USA Today notes:
The column’s date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a “covert agent” must have been on an overseas assignment “within the last five years.” The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say.
All the Democrats who are braying for Karl Rove’s head can’t be very confident that he’s committed a crime. If they were, they would wait for an indictment, which would be a genuine embarrassment to the administration.
Over at NRO’s Corner, John Podhoretz writes:
Here is Joseph Wilson himself, talking to Wolf Blitzer on CNN today: “My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.” Read that again. Now reflect on the fact that there has been an ongoing investigation FOR TWO YEARS conducted, we were breathlessly and rather constantly told in the weeks surrounding the initial controversy, on the basis that the White House and reporters OUTED A CLANDESTINE AGENT. Now we know. She wasn’t. Not then.
It is certainly possible, based on the poorly drafted wording of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, to take this fact and still somehow to discern a crime somewhere here. Which is what Wilson’s defenders and the blood-in-the-water Democrats and Leftists are arguing and will continue to argue.
Fine. And for the record, as I said in my book Bush Country, if indeed a clandestine agent was placed in jeopardy by a White House leak, then the administration deserved to go hang. But — now her own husband is saying it — Valerie Plame Wilson WASN’T A CLANDESTINE AGENT AT THE TIME.
No, no, no. She WASN’T.
So what I want to know, based on simple logic, is this: When is Allen Funt going to step out from behind the lamppost and inform America that we’ve all been on Candid Camera?
Has anyone explored the possibility that Karl Rove is not the target of Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation or that the crime in issue does not include violation of the IIPA?
UPDATE: Reader Jimmy Guckian emails us this story from tomorrow’s New York Times: “Rove reportedly held phone talk on CIA officer.” It appears highly likely that another element of an offense under the IIPA may be lacking as to Rove — knowledge of the CIA officer’s identity from classified information. The story also notes that Karl Rove’s attorney “has previously said that prosecutors have advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target in the case, which means he is not likely to be charged with a crime.” Guckian comments on the Times article: “They all but exonerate Karl Rove and then wonder whether Bush will stand behind his promise to fire any official caught leaking the name of a covert agent. The exonerate Karl Rove and then rag on about how difficult a position Scott McClellan is in. They exonerate Karl Rove and harp on about how this may be Bush’s political undoing (Jeeze! How many times has the Times written that?)”
http://powerlineblog.com/
July 15th, 2005 at 2:21 amfba,
So you’re proud that your wife voted for a treasonous president who lied to congress about a war, and who now protects an ADMITTED PERJURER who under grand jury testimony said he never gave up the identity of Plame? Of course he was very ‘Clintonesque’ in use of the ‘I never gave up her name’, but last time I checked (Wilson’s Wife - eg. Ms. Wilson) is still a name albeit indirect. It reminds of the “depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.” too much for me to not find the irony in it.
As for civil liberties, if the republicans felt so strongly about this, why did they permit jim crow laws until the 1960s, and require a president who was a DEMOCRAT to lead the charge for actual civil rights legislation? And if Lincoln was such a broad believer in civil rights, why did he call out the army to put down riots in New York by shooting women and children in the streets? Slavery was an abomination, but it was supported by members of both political parties of the day. Many republicans were only supportive of the civil war because they were pissed at southern cotton producers who were selling cotton to England at the same price, and thereby undermining their own prices because of improved English Industrialized production. They weren’t as interested in freeing slaves as they were in their own economic interests and desire to control southern plantations - and hence why Sherman burned all of the courthouses in the south and permitted carpet baggers to ‘take over’ much of the southern economy after the war.
While the end of slavery was an important piece of civil justice, the REASON it happened had little to do with civil liberties, just as the reason we invaded iraq had little to do with the ‘freedom’ of the Iraqis. If you want to know why the Republican party does anything, just follow the money. It was true in the 1860s, it’s true today. Considering your obvious propagandist indoctrination and idealism beyond reason, it’s clear you’re part of the brainwashed witless minions - how sad for you and your wife that you have to be such witless pawns and dupes… You must have really bad karma to make such stupid choices…
July 15th, 2005 at 2:34 amRove, Plame, Wilson, curiouser and curiouser
WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.
July 15th, 2005 at 2:43 amI don’t think FBA isn’t married. Not legally. Unless marrying your mom is part of the new Republican agenda, and if you are familiar with the weird shit coming from Rick Santorum these days, you know that it sounds like something he might like to legalize. Wingnuts.
July 15th, 2005 at 2:47 amMark is in Mexico because he is a wanted pedophile in the U.S.
July 15th, 2005 at 2:48 amMr Turtle, my post was in response to one thinkparanoid.org’s points. I don’t agree with it and I gave a source (Intel Report) that gives weight to my position, Wilson’s credentials raised questions (this nepatism thing is very concerning to me when it involves intelligence)about his claims. The Committee found and concluded, in fact, what he reported from Niger conflicted with what he was saying to the press. The little that we know about Cooper’s it appears that the context can very likely be about trying to correct the record and downplay the Wilson nepatism deal. I don’t know. Btw, why won’t NEWSWEEK (or TIME) release the full memo? I still have a problem with that.
I don’t think we even have 1/116 of the information that’s necessary to make a reasonable conclusion. But I’m considering some, but few of your points. I’ll debunk your obligatory rant on the DSM’s later.
Someone brought up what is my position on Bill’s Monica. If Clinton (Hillary) didn’t stonewall Whitewater investigation, whether or not there was a crime, it would have never happened. But there was serious shit going at the time that wasn’t getting enough attenction. I happen to have intimate knowledge of the Iraq problem in the late nineties. It’s been messy for a very long time and I wish Clinton dealt with it more aggressively. Now were paying dearly for it, but Iraq was going to get messier before it got better. Probably never get better. There was too much potential for Saddam to become so much more dangerous. The Not all, but majority of our government officials and elected congress believed that since the mid-nineties for sure. The debate was over for me back then. So someone’s remarks about fixing and deliberately and lying are not supported by the conclusions of the exhaustive investigations (Intel Committee, Butler) and you’re wasting your time.
So back to Rove and Wilson and the Media? They’re all lying. All of them, not just Rove not just Wilson. All of our politicians are lying some or most of the time. Get over it. But the media, especially the one’s that want sexy headlines, are lying the worst. So don’t bother me with Bloomberg, Rueters, Yahoo, AP links.
I’ll be waiting for when the investigation concludes. Don’t go too far out on a limb on this one. You might be getting rope-a-doped.
July 15th, 2005 at 2:53 amSlavery was an abomination, but it was supported by members of both political parties of the day.
Ryan
Read a freakin book before you lecture me on history JR. I mean come on, how stupid are you? Jeez, you liberals are a gawd damn joke. By the way, calling my wife anything from the safety of the Internet may make you feel tough, but I would be careful : ) I am karma u POS FM.
July 15th, 2005 at 3:42 amRyan, you have pissed me off.
July 15th, 2005 at 4:03 amThe Flying Spin Monkeys are so desparate. Let them spin this. Tom Ridge, this administration, clumsily outing another agent may have led to the UK bombings. I like to see the spin monkeys dance. 0h yeah, Rove was the leak who confirmed for Novak, as well. Dance, Monkeys! Dance!
Bush admin may be responsible for botching effort to thwart London bombing
http://americablog.blogspot.com/ 2005/ 07/ bush-admin-may-be-responsible-for.html
ABC News just reported that the British authorities say they have evidence that the London attacks last week were an operation planned by Al Qaeda for the last two years. This was an operation the Brits thought they caught and stopped in time, but they were wrong. The piece of the puzzle ABC missed is that this is an operation the Bush administration helped botch last year.
I.e., last year Bush botched the effort to thwart the London subway attacks.
1. The London bombers, per ABC, are connected to an Al Qaeda plot planned two years ago in Lahore, Pakistan.
2. Pakistani authorities recovered the laptop of a captured Al Qaeda leader, Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, on July 13, 2004. On that laptop, they found plans for a coordinated series of attacks on the London subway. According to an expert interviewed by ABC, “there is absolutely no doubt that Khan was part of a worldwide Al Qaeda operation, not just in the United States but also in Great Britain and throughout the west.”
Also important, but not reported by ABC this evening, after his arrest Khan started working for our side - sending emails to his other Al Qaeda buddies, working as our mole.
3. ABC reports that names in Khan’s computer matched a suspected cell of British citizens of Pakistani decent, many of who lived near the town of Luton, England - Luton is the same town where, not coincidentally, last week’s London bombing terrorists began their day. According to ABC, authorities thought they had stopped the subway plot with the arrest of more than a dozen people last year associated with Khan. Obviously, they hadn’t.
4. Those arrests were the arrests that the Bush administration botched by announcing a heightened security alert the week of the Democratic Convention. The alert was raised because of information found on Khan’s computer (this is in the public record already, see below). In its effort to either prove that the alert was serious, or to try and scare people during the Dem Convention, the administration gave the press too much information about WHY they raised the alert. This put the media on the trail of Khan - they found him, and they published his name.
Because the US let the cat out of the bag, the media got a hold of Khan’s name and published the fact that he had been captured - his Al Qaeda contacts thus found out their “buddy” was actually a mole, and they fled. Our sole source inside Al Qaeda was destroyed. As a result, the Brits had to have a high speed chase to catch some of Khan’s Al Qaeda associates as they fled, and, according to press reports, the Brits and Pakistanis both fear that some slipped away.
Again, these were guys connected to the plot to blow up the London subway last week. Some may have escaped because of Bush administration negligence involving a leak. And in fact, ABC News’ terrorism consultant says the group that bombed London was likely activated just after the arrests:
“It is very likely this group was activated last year after the other group was arrested,” Debat said.
MORE DETAIL
The NYT reported on August 17, 2004 that Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge announced on August 1, 2004 that we had information about an “unusually specific” threat against “the New York Stock Exchange and Citigroup in Manhattan, Prudential’s headquarters in Newark and the headquarters buildings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Washington.”
We now know that this threat info came from Mr. Khan’s computer that we got our hands on only weeks before. As a result of the heightened security alert, the media dug into the story to find out what the heightened alert was based on, and they got a hold of Mr. Khan’s name and made it public.
The Americans say it was Pakistani officials who leaked Khan’s name. Pakistan says it was the Americans. But as Juan Cole notes:
had Ridge not made his announcement, the press would have had no occasion to go searching for the source of his information. The Bush administration decision to go public put a powerful spotlight on the Pakistani arrests of June and July…. The Bush administration at the very least bears indirect responsibility for the outing of Khan. Without the Ridge announcement, reporters would have had no incentive to seek out the name of the source of the information.
Now, why did it matter if Khan’s name went public?
That was important because Khan was remaining in touch with his Al Qaeda contacts AFTER his arrest - he was our mole - and the authorities were thus tracking INSIDE Al Qaeda. Once the American official made the info about Khan’s arrest public, our mole inside the cell was blown, and the British police, caught off guard, had to make a high speed chase, literally, to catch Khan’s contacts before they fled. THAT’S the raid that ABC is talking about. And it’s that raid that - guess what? - didn’t catch everybody who was plotting to blow up London last week. That’s the raid that got botched.
And I quote from the Associated Press, August 10, 2004:
The disclosure to reporters of the arrest of an al-Qaida computer expert jeopardized Pakistani efforts to capture more members of Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network, government and security officials said Tuesday.
Two senior Pakistani officials said initial reports in “Western media” last week of the capture of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan had enabled other al-Qaida suspects to get away, but declined to say whether U.S. officials were to blame for the leak.
“Let me say that this intelligence leak jeopardized our plan and some al-Qaida suspects ran away,” one of the officials said on condition of anonymity….
But the Pakistani officials said that after Khan’s arrest, other al-Qaida suspects had abruptly changed their hide-outs and moved to unknown places.
The first official described the initial publication of the news of Khan’s arrest as “very disturbing.”
“We have checked. No Pakistani official made this intelligence leak,” he said.
Without naming any country, he said it was the responsibility of “coalition partners” to examine how a foreign journalist was able to have an access to the “classified information” about Khan’s arrest. (NOTE: In this story, it quotes Condi Rice saying the Americans leaked the name - she later retracted that assertion.)
And this from CNN.com, August 9, 2004:
The effort by U.S. officials to justify raising the terror alert level last week may have shut down an important source of information that has already led to a series of al Qaeda arrests, Pakistani intelligence sources have said.
Until U.S. officials leaked the arrest of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan to reporters, Pakistan had been using him in a sting operation to track down al Qaeda operatives around the world, the sources said.
In background briefings with journalists last week, unnamed U.S. government officials said it was the capture of Khan that provided the information that led Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to announce a higher terror alert level….
Law enforcement sources said some of the intelligence gleaned from the arrests of Khan and others gave phone numbers and e-mail addresses that the FBI and other agencies were using to try to track down any al Qaeda operatives in the United States.
Then on Friday, after Khan’s name was revealed, government sources told CNN that counterterrorism officials had seen a drop in intercepted communications among suspected terrorists….
One senator told CNN that U.S. officials should have kept Khan’s role quiet.
“You always want to know the evidence,” said Sen. George Allen.
“In this situation, in my view, they should have kept their mouth shut and just said, ‘We have information, trust us.’ “….
“The Pakistani interior minister, Faisal Hayat, as well as the British home secretary, David Blunkett, have expressed displeasure in fairly severe terms that Khan’s name was released, because they were trying to track down other contacts of his,” Schumer told CNN.
And this from the NY Daily News, August 7, 2004:
A captured Al Qaeda computer whiz was E-mailing his comrades as part of a sting operation to nab other top terrorists when U.S. officials blew his cover, sources said yesterday.
Within hours of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan’s name being publicized Monday, British police launched lightning raids that netted a dozen suspected Al Qaeda terrorists, including one who was nabbed after a high-speed car chase….
Now British and Pakistani intelligence officials are furious with the Americans for unmasking their super spy - apparently to justify the orange alert - and for naming the other captured terrorist suspects.
Pakistani Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayyat expressed dismay the trap they had hoped would lead to the capture of other top Al Qaeda leaders, possibly even Osama Bin Laden, was sprung too soon.
“The network is still not finished,” Hayyat said. It “remains a potent threat to Pakistan, and to civilized humanity.”
“It makes our job harder,” a British security source said. British officials denied press reports yesterday that several suspects were able to escape the net….
“His arrest was kept secret and he was made to remain in touch with his contacts,” a Pakistani government official told The Times of London. “During his detention, he regularly communicated through E-mail with the Al Qaeda operatives in Britain and other countries. That helped us to identify them.”
And this from the Washington Times:
The Times quoted one unidentified “senior (police) commander” as saying Scotland Yard and MI5 had not expected the American announcements and had to move up the arrests, which were “part of a pre-planned, ongoing intelligence-led operation.”
And this from Juan Cole, who tracked this story last year:
…had Ridge not made his announcement, the press would have had no occasion to go searching for the source of his information. The Bush administration decision to go public put a powerful spotlight on the Pakistani arrests of June and July…. The Bush administration at the very least bears indirect responsibility for the outing of Khan. Without the Ridge announcement, reporters would have had no incentive to seek out the name of the source of the information…. The appearance of Khan’s name in the New York Times on August 2 caused the British to have to swoop down on the London al-Qaeda cell to which he was speaking. As it was, 5 of them heard about Khan’s arrest and immediately fled. The British got 13, but it was early in their investigation and they had to let 5 go or charge them with minor offences
And this from IPS-Inter Press Service, August 9, 2004:
“By exposing the only deep mole we’ve ever had within al-Qaeda, it ruined the chance to capture dozens if not hundreds more,” a former Justice Department prosecutor, John Loftus, told Fox News on Saturday.
And spin these numbers while you are at it.
http://online.wsj.com/ public/ resources/ media/ poll20050713.pdf
July 15th, 2005 at 5:45 amBy the way, calling my wife anything from the safety of the Internet may make you feel tough, but I would be careful : ) I am karma u POS FM.
Comment by fake but accurate  July 15, 2005 @ 3:42 am
FBA, anything that would marry you, goat, pig, dog or otherwise, is “fair game”, isn’t it?
I’ll just call it a cow, because “bovine” is a word that might confuse you.
July 15th, 2005 at 5:50 amRyan, you have pissed me off.
Suggestion. Stay out of here. It works.
July 15th, 2005 at 5:53 amAha! Who says irony is dead? Fake But Accurate, (like the TANG docs, as opposed to the Niger Yellowcake docs, which would be Fake And Inaccurate) objects to Rove’s rules!
Jeez, you liberals are a gawd damn joke. By the way, calling my wife anything from the safety of the Internet may make you feel tough, but I would be careful : ) I am karma u POS FM.
That’s what you get for marrying “game”. As in, outside your own species. And I am giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you might be human.
July 15th, 2005 at 7:52 amJohn Kerry Outed Undercover CIA Agent!!!!!!
Sen. John Kerry, who called for Karl Rove to be fired over allegations that he revealed the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame, outed a genuine undercover CIA agent just this past April - even after the Agency asked that his identity be kept secret.
Kerry blew the cover of CIA secret operative Fulton Armstrong during confirmation hearings for U.N. ambassador nominee John Bolton.
Questioning Bolton, Kerry asked: “Did Otto Reich share his belief that Fulton Armstrong should be removed for his position?” - according to a transcript excerpted by the New York Times.
“The answer is yes,” the top Democrat continued.
In his response to Kerry, Mr. Bolton did his best to maintain the agent’s confidentiality, reverting to the Armstrong’s pseudonym.
“As I said,” he told Kerry, “I had lost confidence in Mr. Smith, and I conveyed that.”
Two years earlier, Armstrong had been identified in news reports on his dispute with other officials over intelligence involving Cuba. But he was operating in a different capacity and his identity wasn’t secret at the time.
“When the Bolton nomination resurrected the old accounts, however, the C.I.A. asked news organizations to withhold his name,” the Times said.
Apparently the CIA directive wasn’t good enough for Sen. Kerry - who outed Armstrong anyway and later defended the move by saying his Republican colleague, Senator Richard Lugar, had also mentioned the name.
July 15th, 2005 at 8:33 amSteed,
I will give you the part about Valerie not actually being a “covert” CIA agent during the leak. Therefore, the Intelligence and Identities Act was not violated based on the information that has been released up to this point. However, Rove still broke the law and it has nothing to do with Joe Wilson’s report! Karl Rove violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 641. This is a law that prohibits theft (or conversion for one’s own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes. But its broad language covers leaks, and it has now been used to cover just such actions in a court of law.
Look up the Joseph Randel case in which this DEA officer was indicted on leaking a name from an investigation of money laundering. The name was Lord Ashcroft who successfully sued Joseph Randel. Randel faced up to life in prison if convicted, so he pleade guilty and server 1 year in prison and 3 years probation.
How does this involve Rove? Karl Rove may be able to claim that he did not know he was leaking “classified information” about a “covert agent,” but there can be no question he understood that what he was leaking was “sensitive information.” The very fact that Matt Cooper called it “double super secret background” information suggests Rove knew of its sensitivity, if he did not know it was classified information (which by definition is sensitive).
So put that in your pipe and smoke whatever you seem to be smoking; given all that smoke you have been trying to blow up everyones ass.
Question to ponder: Why did Bush hire an independent criminal defense attorney recently?
Thanks to John Dean’s article on this information.
July 15th, 2005 at 8:48 amhttp://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050715.html
“John Kerry Outed Undercover CIA Agent!!!!!!”?
Oh, Really?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200504120007
Back on topic:
Heard the latest spin on CBS Early show: They now claim that Rove Heard it from Robert Novak First…
http://www.sfgate.com/ cgi-bin/ article.cgi?file=/ c/ a/ 2005/ 07/ 15/ MNGKCDOG4I1.DTL
The ultimate source of thie “info”: Karl Rove’s Testomony!
July 15th, 2005 at 8:49 amBet Robert Novak anf KR Got their “Facts” straight before hand!
Both Cheney and Bush went to outside counsel, sometime ago, in fact. That indicates foreknowledge, i.e., conspiracy.
July 15th, 2005 at 8:52 amI will give you the part about Valerie not actually being a “covert� CIA agent during the leak. Therefore, the Intelligence and Identities Act was not violated based on the information that has been released up to this point.
Horseshit. She was on maternity leave for chrissake! She just had twins. She was going back into the field. She was NOC. Period. The most dangerous kind of deep cover. No diplomatic passport. If caught, she faced execution, which would be too good for Rove and the rest of these traitors.
July 15th, 2005 at 8:56 amSam reads Drudge! LMAO!~
July 15th, 2005 at 8:59 amSteed and Sam…
Conservative shills to the bitter end. Dutuifully regurgitating their GOP talking points.
Nice to see that so many of you have debunked them over and over and over and over…
Oh well, they are just adhering to one of the fundamental rules of their disgraced hero, Rove. Repeat a lie often enough, and it will become true.
July 15th, 2005 at 9:05 amOh, I almost forgot fake but inaccurate.
He is in league with hte aforementioned two as well.
All they need is a fourth, and they can start a barbershop quartet.
July 15th, 2005 at 9:08 amRove, Plame, Wilson, curiouser and curiouser
WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.
Trackback by Mark in Mexico  July 15, 2005 @ 2:43 am
It’s amazing that in idiot like Mark actually found the border and crossed it. He’s probably in New Mexico, or Arizona, and just thinks he’s in Mexico.
From Atrios
http://atrios.blogspot.com/ 2005_07_10_atrios_archive.html#112143393211391174
Moronosphere
The wingnutosphere, in association with the associated press, is very excited about this interview with Wilson, specifically the bolded line:
BLITZER: But the other argument that’s been made against you is that you’ve sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you’ve tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.
What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you.
WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.
BLITZER: But she hadn’t been a clandestine officer for some time before that?
WILSON: That’s not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I’ll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that’s why they referred it to the Justice Department.
She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that article in Vanity Fair appeared. And I have every right to have the American public know who I am and not to have myself defined by those who would write the sorts of things that are coming out, being spewed out of the mouths of the RNC…
For sentient humans, it’s clear what Wilson means - that she ceased to be a clandestine operative the day Novak’s column came out. It’s also clear from his other comments (as it was clear to Blitzer in conversation) that he has to used such language because he can’t acknowledge that she ever was a clandestine operative with direct language.
christ.
July 15th, 2005 at 9:38 amFor sentient humans, it’s clear what Wilson means - that she ceased to be a clandestine operative the day Novak’s column came out. It’s also clear from his other comments (as it was clear to Blitzer in conversation) that he has to used such language because he can’t acknowledge that she ever was a clandestine operative with direct language.
At least for five years from that date…
July 15th, 2005 at 9:40 amAll they need is a fourth, and they can start a barbershop quartet.
A Barbershop quartet of four Jonny-one-notes? I’ll pass.
July 15th, 2005 at 9:42 amSupport the troops, support the troops. Conservatives like to wave their yellow ribbons at you if you don’t happen to agree that sending them to Iraq is a good way to support the troops.
Conservatives seem to have forgotten that the Central Intelligence Agency is an important branch of our military apparatus. CIA agents gather information that bears directly on the deployment and success of our troops in the field. Many of them face danger and privation in the line of duty. While they may not wear a uniform, they are certainly soldiers serving their country.
When no less than the top strategist for the whole conservative apparatus, Karl Rove, exposes the identity of an undercover CIA agent for utterly callow political reasons, conservatives rush to his defense. They ignore, at our troops’ peril, the deeply demoralizing effect Mr. Rove’s actions have had on the CIA, and on the military as a whole.
Conservatives can’t have it both ways. If they are truly dedicated to supporting the troops, they need to confront Mr. Rove’s indefensible disregard for the welfare of those who risk their lives for our country.
July 15th, 2005 at 9:51 amMany Republicans seems very, very anxious to defend Rove even though the potential ramifications of what he may have done are quite serious (despite their denials). I don’t believe they know or care whether he may have done anything wrong. As long as they stay in charge, any potentially unethical behavior by a Republican is OK. The ends justify the means, right? I mean, come on, the elder Bush praised Wilson to the skies fifteen years ago. Called him a “great American”, I believe. Haven’t heard a word from the old man lately about Wilson. Why? Because he *can’t* say anything. That wouldn’t be allowed in the GOP playbook.
I think what really makes my blood boil is that the right tries very hard to paint the left as unpatriotic, which is beneath contempt. In the Rove controversy, like every other time the actions of a Republican are questioned, the GOP will *always* defend the interests of their party above the interests of this country. THAT is the definition of hating America.
July 15th, 2005 at 9:51 amLiberal Definition of Treason:
Slandering troops on senate floor - OK.
Defending Administration (and 28 Senate Democrats) decision to go to war on basis of WMD - treason.
Joe Wilson’s letter from 41 was a nice touch, I must say. Keep playing in the mud folks, I am looking through Janice Rogers Brown’s judicial port right now!
July 15th, 2005 at 10:00 am#64 - you’re painted as unpatriotic because YOU ARE unpatriotic. Most people see the furor over Gitmo and Abu Ghraib as “terrorist sympathizing.”
July 15th, 2005 at 10:02 amyou are losing, again, watch as your dreams of getting back at us slips away…….hey 70%, real bad ass aren’t you, talk the talk littleman, that’s all we both know you can do. I’ll be here to teach you history from time to time, so get use to it ; )
July 15th, 2005 at 10:06 amand to gloat.
What tangled webs we weave. A few days ago, the New York Times, the most representative outlet of liberal opinion in the country, was extolling government leaks as absolutely necessary to the First Amendment and to public knowledge of the workings of government. A prosecutor who asks a reporter to reveal his anonymous sources could chill such leaks, and freedom of the press in America would enter a long twilight period.
Now, a leaker in the Valerie Plame case, which was the occasion for this dire inanity from the Times, turns out to have been White House adviser Karl Rove. That puts things in a new light. Even though his leak  that Plame, a CIA officer, got her husband and President Bush critic Joe Wilson a jaunt to Niger to probe whether Saddam Hussein had attempted to acquire uranium there  added important new information to the public knowledge of the case, the Times has the vapors. Surely Thomas Jefferson couldn’t have crafted the First Amendment with icky Karl Rove in mind?
Thus the Plame controversy continues to churn out bad faith the way Willy Wonka’s factory produces chocolate. At first, the media hyped the leaks about Plame as practically the Lindbergh baby kidnapping for the 21st century  a spectacular and dastardly crime (revealing the identity of a covert CIA operative potentially violates the law). The furor forced the administration to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate. He has managed to get one Times reporter, Judith Miller, jailed for refusing to testify about who leaked to her, and he nearly bagged Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper too.
The prospect of jail time for its members prompted the Fourth Estate to begin to argue in its court filings that, contrary to its initial feeding frenzy, no crime occurred in the Plame leaks. This opportunistic argument is correct. The statute in question is narrowly written to target persons deliberately attempting to disrupt U.S. intelligence operations. The question is whether the elite media will stick to this understanding now that visions of ousting Rove dance through their heads like sugarplums.
Rove’s leak was to Cooper. Cooper called Rove to talk about welfare reform, then asked him about Wilson at the end of the call. It was a mystery how Wilson had been selected for this mission, and Rove was simply providing an explanation. Rove was not trying to punish Wilson or endanger his wife. He appears not to have even wanted Cooper to use the material, giving it to him on “double super secret background�  a ground rule that usually comes with a secret decoder ring  as a way to warn him not to take Wilson too seriously.
Which was a good tip. Wilson is a witch’s brew of fatuity and dishonesty. He has blatantly lied about his wife’s role in his trip and has been skewered by the Senate Intelligence Committee for other falsehoods meant to inflate his own importance. The contention that Saddam sought uranium  Wilson insists he debunked it for all time with his brief CIA-sponsored vacation in Niger  remains a murky matter, since British intelligence has stood by it. Wilson isn’t even internally consistent, given that he is a stalwart defender of Miller, whose refusal to testify makes it harder to identify the leakers that supposedly so harmed Wilson and his wife.
The White House has contributed bad faith of its own. It went along with the pretense that something awful had happened in the Plame leaks, acquiescing in the appointment of a special prosecutor. It provided false assurances during the investigation that Rove wasn’t involved. Now suddenly the White House is saying it won’t comment during a still-ongoing investigation, and probably will eventually argue that the leaks weren’t a big deal after all.
The newest position of liberalism as represented by the New York Times at that point will be difficult to predict, except that it will be calculated to inflict maximum harm on Karl Rove.
July 15th, 2005 at 10:08 amSam - do people still read the NY Times? lol!!! I thought we took them down with CBS.
July 15th, 2005 at 10:10 amI read with interest the remarks in this blog. I had thought about Steed’s comments–you notice how he changes tone and the shape of his argument? Whoever suggested (a joke?) that he was a GOP operative—well, if true, then he is testing arguments to the new edition of Republican Talking Points and the blogs generously respond. Is this spin-in-progress?
July 15th, 2005 at 10:17 amThis site is alot more pleasant if you just ignore the morons. I know, I know, I do it too. But just look at the above and tell me that some folks don’t have real lives.
Blog ettiquette # 1 - Speak your mind in as compact a form as you can make your statement mean what you want. ie - short and concise. Ignore the trolls. They just want to interject chaos into a group that generally agrees and gets along. If someone posts something real, respond. When they are rehashing RNC talking points and lying up a storm = troll.
July 15th, 2005 at 10:24 amYou all need to go to DailyKos and look at the quote from Bush 41 about reveiling undercover sources. Very relevant today! And according to Plame’s formed CIA classmate, William Pitt, Plame was indeed a NOC for the CIA. You can read that story, printed at Truthout.org.
The facts are that Rove discussed/leaked the indentity of a CIA agent, with a reporter, to get back at her husband for not agreeing with a now debunked British report saying that Saddam was trying to by Uranium from Niger. I have read that perhaps IRAN was the culprit here, not Iraq.
Of course Wilson was ideal to go to Niger, regardless of who sent him. First, he says that he had previously gone to Niger and he was ONLY the former Amb. to Iraq, so he surly knew alot about Saddam. Why not send him? He had connects to bpth countries, right?
Wilson is not some political hack. He is on record as having donated money to both Bush and Gore in 2000 and Bill Clinton said yesterday that Wilson admittingly voted for Bush 41 in 1992. So Ken Melhman is wrong in saying that Wilson had some ax to grind before going to Niger. Simply wrong.
He probably has an ax to grind now, given that his wife no longer has a job (and is around the house much more, all guys understand his pain!!) and he himself is now being smeared yet again.
The bottom line is that nobody, but Karl Rove, really knows what he did to the extent of wheather it is a crime or not but we all agree that he shouldn’t be outting CIA folks in a time of war.
I am betting that Fitzgerld will file indictments. How else can one explain that Judith Miller (who herself helped the Bushies LIE us into war) is sitting in jail today? Would Fitzgerld go so far as to lock a reporter up if he wasn’t in the middle of a big crime? Perhaps he is just pissed but I can’t see his collegues allowing him to hold grudges without some burden of proof that a crime (perjury at the least) was committed.
July 15th, 2005 at 10:27 am#71
So you want this blog to become boring? You want to restrict comments to only those who share your opinion? I thought liberals were supposed to have open minds? I think the only morons here are the liberals.
July 15th, 2005 at 10:37 amyou are losing, again, watch as your dreams of getting back at us slips away…….hey 70%, real bad ass aren’t you, talk the talk littleman, that’s all we both know you can do. I’ll be here to teach you history from time to time, so get use to it ; )
and to gloat.
Comment by fake but accurate
Nothing illustrates their sick, petty, intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt juvenile minds better than this comment. Let them post. Most folks don’t go to Freep or LGF to see it for themselves. It’s like this everyday there, but worse.
July 15th, 2005 at 10:40 amDear The Northeast Dilemma and Fake But Accurate,
July 15th, 2005 at 10:42 amYou’re done your part. Now, check the mail for your check from the GOP and the latest talking points. And try looking for your soul while you are at it.
It sounds to me like these people think that liberals are the new Jews, gays and non-whites, but worse. I guess we all know what you have to do with those kind of people.
July 15th, 2005 at 10:45 amI think we should do to them what they think should be done to an enemy.
July 15th, 2005 at 10:47 amEarlene,
Nice to see that you remember the Blitzer interview. Wilson did indeed say that VP Cheney didn’t send him to Niger. Thanks for paying attention.
July 15th, 2005 at 10:49 amYeah, and getting to watch their desparation, anger and shrillness reach fever pitch is worth the price of admission. They know it’s over. They can see the writing on the wall, but will deny it to the end.
July 15th, 2005 at 10:53 amSteed,
If I can paraphrase your response:
(1) You are still thinking that Wilson’s initial New York Times letter is bigger that it was and therefore his credibility across the whole nuclear issue is the issue.
(2) Iraq was a mess for a while and it’s Clinton’s fault
(3) The UK Butler and Senate Intel inquiries were exhaustive
(4) The DSMs are not worth reading
(5) Everybody is lying or distorting anyway
(6) We might be getting ahead of ourselves with not enough information
I’ll start with what I agree with: (5) and (6) - but in (6)s case, I’ll prefer trying to piece together the (5)s so that I can at least test one story against another and come to a conclusion myself. It’s far more challenging than CSI reruns and is the duty of an informed citizen. And besides, there is so much b/s in the MSM today, you have to do your own reading and cross sourcing to get close to the truth.
OK here’s (1). Read Wilson’s original Times op-ed, the one that got his wife outed by Novak’s response. You say you don’t believe he believes what he says, but this is what he said nevertheless that got his wife outed - and that is the only thing we should be looking at here. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm
Notice how he only focuses on the ‘16 words’ about the Niger yellowcake and even gives his reason for not coming forward sooner - he thought the president may have been talking about something he had not debunked - South Africa for example. It’s only when he finds out that the story he debunked was the source of the ‘16 words’ does he write that letter.
Now we can wander off into Wilson’s credibility again at this point if you like, but it is simply not relevant and I don;t need to go there. The IAEA and the Italians proved that the ‘16 words’ basis was a forgery (now that’s a question I would like to see answered - who forged those docs?). So your comment about the Roberts report is not relevant either to the ‘16 words’. In any case the Roberts report is not exhaustive about the issue because it does not examine the way that intelligence was used by the administration and the Democrats are clear in their objections to that limitation on the Roberts remit. So John Bolton’s sponsorship of the Niger yellowcake story gets a free pass by Roberts - that is crucial. Neither is any of the UK reports exhaustive for the same reasons and Blair came under fire there too.
On (4): My last 3 sentences above are my argument for why the DSMs should be required reading for anyone who voted for this lunacy last November. In my opinion, the ‘16 words’, John Bolton’s invovlement, the Blair Dossier and the DSMs are all part of the same deception.
Anyway, my original point stands: Wilson questioned initially only the basis for the ‘16 words’ and for that his wife was outed and the ‘Big Smear’ was on. Just like O’Neill and Clarke and anyone else who attempts to question the manufactured reality of this administration.
And finally (2) - Iraq was a mess and it’s Clinton’s fault. The appalling consequences of US foreign policy on the rest of the world are a subject another time - I think Clinton’s greatest failure is his waste of his own talent. Is Iraq his fault? Clinton is guilty of maintaining the status quo, nothing more. But to your direct point that Saddam was still very dangerous in 2002 - I’ll let Condi and Colin rebut your point and what they thought in 2001:
From John Pilger http://pilger.carlton.com/print/133099 :
“Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush’s closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.
In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: “He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.”
This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.
Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of “containment” that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to “build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction” for “the last 10 years”. America, he said, had been successful in keeping him “in a box”.
Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. “Saddam does not control the northern part of the country,” she said. “We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”"
The actual clips are around somewhere - I couldn’t find them at short notice. In terms of pure realpolitik for US national interests, is Iraq any better now?
I don’t think we’re getting ahead of ourselves, just connecting the dots, Steed. The question is whether anyone cares enough.
July 15th, 2005 at 10:56 amJosh Marshall nails it. 0h yeah, and Duke Cunningham is the first in a long line of Republicans who won’t be seeking re-election, or who will get trounced if they dare.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ archives/ week_2005_07_10.php#006117
There’s a point that’s probably worth raising with our scofflaw Republican friends. All of their arguments now amount to excuses, like those of a small child caught stealing cookies: Joe Wilson’s a liar. Plame’s covert status wasn’t protected well by the CIA. It was just a short phone call. Rove really wanted to speak about welfare reform. Wilson said Cheney sent him to Africa. Plame sent Wilson to Africa. Rove leaked Plame’s identity in the interests of good journalism. Wilson went on too many TV shows. On and on and on.
The salient point is not that each of these claims is false. The point is that they’re irrelevant. It’s the mid-life version of ‘He hit me first!’ or ‘He called me a name!’ or other such foolery.
No presidential advisor should ever disclose the identity of a covert agent at the CIA. That doesn’t require elaboration.
If it’s done kno