Forums Index >> General >> Thanks Democrats
Page : 1 . . . . . 9 : 10 : <11> : 12 : 13 . . . . . 23
Farenheit 9/11 was on Showtime tonight - what a piece of crap.
No wonder Bush won his second term!
Well, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion since you paid for it by watching.
Still can't string more than three different sentences together eh DM. Still waiting... Sigh. Just goes to show how wrong W can get:
"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.
- US President George W. Bush"
You and him must read goat stories together. Does he read the big words for you?
Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?
- US President George W. Bush (January 11, 2000)
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
Journalist b****
What a f***-head.
@ DM
Plenty of examples here of "foaming at the mouth" but please recall that Bush suggested that we not do likewise and keep the tone down. Let them continue on with it.
@ Rogue
I want to mention before it passes, that that was a good link. It is alarming to see kids who live so close together making the other side into an abstraction.
As the last paragraph notes though: "In a way, it's awfully simplistic to think that if people in such a ruptured society would just get together... Whether kids like these can change the world I don't know, but they're ready to find common ground even if the adult world isn't."
Last edited: Sunday, July 10, 2005 at 8:47:52 PM
Sadder still Flea is that the Iraq war bucks would probably not have gone to any of the things you mentioned to such a degree. Much less healthcare, education or the environment.
I agree with you fully about Judith Miller. What a lil' tory.
I enjoyed reading the story you linked. It doesn't take a CIA analyst to figure that out though does it.
Ugh, figures we have a Bonesman at the helm. They say kids that the Bonesman give themselves demon names ( who in their right mind...lol. ) Quick call Billy
Graham...Again!
Thanks JJ - looks like you're due an R&R yourself.
Did someone say boner?
Sadly, this crap was, would be, and would have been going on without US involvement in Iraq. I will gladly link all the stories here if I must.
Iraq's the fat kid on the team fellas....easy to blame things on.
"If you think that the US and its actions are the sole source of these problems, you are pitching in the wrong ballpark."
My "Word of the Month".
And again: The difficulties here are not the result of our actions any more than it was correct that communism made capitalism the source of all evil.
Capice (ga-peesh)?
Check out Bob Herbert's Op/Ed in the NYT today. Just the headline is enough.
It Just Gets Worse
By BOB HERBERT
The bombings in London should be a reminder that the war in Iraq has increased the danger of terrorist attacks.
There is no case or cause for linear thinking about the war and terrorism, IMO. Too much evidence is present against it.
Last edited: Monday, July 11, 2005 at 7:14:47 AM
^ Just remember that when we leave the house in the morning we are much more likely to be whacked by an American than al Qaeda.
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
Good point. The murder rate for an American is higher in Washington DC than Iraq (80.6/100k vs 60/100k - this assumes a constant 160k troops in theater.)
"Cabbie in the wire!!!!!! Don't worry...if the tollboothes don't get 'em, the claymores will."
Be careful out there....watch those falafels.
We are much more likely to be whacked by an American than al Qaeda.
We need to remember that when it comes time to take care of our troops and emergency responders.
Last edited: Monday, July 11, 2005 at 7:50:36 AM
Oh - I almost forgot to bring home the bacon:
"The idea that al-Qaeda was no threat until we created it does not stand the slightest scrutiny of events in the 1990s -- from the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, to the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 and, of course, the September 11 atrocity a year later. And no one seriously thinks that only America was in their sights. The ideology of Islamism doesn't stop at the superpower's borders; its ambitions sweep through Europe; indeed that is where it is breeding so many of its jihadists."
- London Times columnist Gerard Baker
Quickly @ this thread, Chief:
You have been a class act, Chief. Thanks for your positive work.
R&R.
PS: You were very right about SK. Why the fences are low...
Last edited: Monday, July 11, 2005 at 7:44:37 AM
Thanks dude - I really appreciate it.
Actually Chief, the murder rate is much higher in DC IMO. The ratio of live births to abortions in the District of Columbia runs pretty close to 1:1 some years.
And since you can spare a dime.... The USO has a paypal link too. Shall I link it? :)
Last edited: Monday, July 11, 2005 at 4:48:46 PM
I think that would be a fantastic idea....actually think I'll post two:
Here's another one:
Both are fantastic causes.
Sometimes angels go where even armies fear to tread:
Anyone feeling generous today?
Done....and have saved the link in my "Links for Bills" folder.
That's right folks - I treat donations like a bill. Pay them every month along with my other online payments.
Anyone else care to forego their nachos or DVD rental tonight and donate? Whatever you can give can be used, I assure you.
God bless ya Chief. I've done likewise today as well.
Thanks bro. Common ground found.
Here's a good one for you guys...
http://civic.moveon.org/donatec4/creditcard.html
Last edited: Monday, July 11, 2005 at 1:30:37 PM
Make a deal with ye....I'll donate a euro for every dollar plunked in this one......
What a deal!
Went to the website and it says that they are no longer accepting contributions (no joke). Their work is done.
LOL
Anyone who has ever had any doubt as to the bias of the mainstream media should follow this Rove / Plame story.
I wish I could find a link to audio of this morning's WH press briefing....absolutely pathetic.
Thanks dude. Enjoy your time on China Beach.
Video from this morning ....not sure if it's edited or not - haven't watched yet (am at work).
...absolutely pathetic
Huh?
Do you know why Rove decided to provide information to the press about a CIA agent? Do you know what the woman's husband was saying about the pre-war intelligence at the time? Do you know what the White House has said about Rove's involvement for the last two years?
Only thing pathetic is the change in this administration's willingness to discuss this issue after proof of Rove's involvement becomes available. Anyone remember the term 'flip flop'?
This snowball is rolling fast (and it ain't because liberal media are pushing it downhill).
Better fire up a Swift Boat Veterans for Rove group, quick.
Last edited: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 at 11:42:28 AM
That's what I am saying. The email vindicates Rove. Yet, the press (along with the WH press corps) is pushing along entirely different lines....i.e. "he's the one!!!!!"
Plame's employment in the CIA was public knowledge. Her covert status, however, was not. The email says nothing about her status.
What's additionally funny is that Rove's comments (albeit second hand) were an attempt to keep Time from reporting something that was incorrect....basically saying "you don't have the facts straight - here's the real deal."
All of this being said....apparently GWB has said that anyone involved in this would be dealt with....so I expect, as I'm sure everyone else does, that that will take place.
EDIT: My last statement above is incorrect. I left it up for those that may have read this before now.
The GWB statement, made in the timeframe of the WH press conf FoFo refer's to below, was that "anyone involved inleaking potential WH policy before the decision to be made to implement that policy" would be dealt with swiftly."
Last edited: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 at 1:01:25 PM
The email does not vindicate Rove. If you're focused on the fact that he didn't provide Plame's name , that's a distinction without a difference. He outed her and we've been lied to for two years about it.
Scott McClellan press conference Oct. 7, 2003
Q: You have said that you personally went to Scooter Libby (Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff), Karl Rove and Elliott Abrams (National Security Council official) to ask them if they were the leakers. Is that what happened? Why did you do that? And can you describe the conversations you had with them? What was the question you asked?
A: Unfortunately, in Washington, D.C., at a time like this there are a lot of rumors and innuendo. There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made. And that's exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals. They are good individuals. They are important members of our White House team. And that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt with that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.
What's additionally funny is that Rove's comments (albeit second hand) were an attempt to keep Time from reporting something that was incorrect.
Come on Chief. Do you really believe Rove has that conversation to simply correct an error in reporting? Not a chance. Rove was trying to attack this guy's credibility because Wilson's article debunked a key administration lie about the justification for a war with Iraq AND, Wilson had the nerve to claim that the administration was exaggerating the Iraqi threat in a run-up to war. You know what? He was right!
@ 44
See the last para of my post above yours. The press conf you refer to is in that context.
As far as what Rove did - it was anything but a leak. Hell, even the national media is starting to grudgingly accept it.
What's kind of funny - is that if ROVE WAS THE SOURCE THAN WHO IS JUDITH MILLER DEFENDING????????
Again - all Rove did was discourage a reporter from reporting a false story based on a false premise. Again - the email says it all. Plame's status was public knowledge (reported in various beltway magazine and newspaper articles about her and her husband) and NON-CLASSIFIED.
The one making political hay of all this is Wilson. Unfortunately, the facts get in the way.
Had to point that out. If you'd like to see the original email it's in the link in my previous post.
EDIT:
I am posting the linked article anyway:
Matt Cooper's Source
What Karl Rove told Time magazine's reporter.
By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
July 18 issue - It was 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003, and Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. "Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation..." Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, "please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]" and suggested another reporter check with the CIA.
Last week, after Time turned over that e-mail, among other notes and e-mails, Cooper agreed to testify before a grand jury in the Valerie Plame case. Explaining that he had obtained last-minute "personal consent" from his source, Cooper was able to avoid a jail sentence for contempt of court. Another reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, refused to identify her source and chose to go to jail instead.
For two years, a federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been investigating the leak of Plame's identity as an undercover CIA agent. The leak was first reported by columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. Novak apparently made some arrangement with the prosecutor, but Fitzgerald continued to press other reporters for their sources, possibly to show a pattern (to prove intent) or to make a perjury case. (It is illegal to knowingly identify an undercover CIA officer.) Rove's words on the Plame case have always been carefully chosen. "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," Rove told CNN last year when asked if he had anything to do with the Plame leak. Rove has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. But last week, his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Rove did—and that Rove was the secret source who, at the request of both Cooper's lawyer and the prosecutor, gave Cooper permission to testify.
The controversy arose when Wilson wrote an op-ed column in The New York Times saying that he had been sent by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate charges that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from the African country of Niger. Wilson said he had found no evidence to support the claim. Wilson's column was an early attack on the evidence used by the Bush administration to justify going to war in Iraq. The White House wished to discredit Wilson and his attacks. The question for the prosecutor is whether someone in the administration, in an effort to undermine Wilson's credibility, intentionally revealed the covert identity of his wife.
In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson's criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine's corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. He [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger... "
Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative. Nonetheless, it is significant that Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak's column appeared; in other words, before Plame's identity had been published. Fitzgerald has been looking for evidence that Rove spoke to other reporters as well. "Karl Rove has shared with Fitzgerald all the information he has about any potentially relevant contacts he has had with any reporters, including Matt Cooper," Luskin told NEWSWEEK.
A source close to Rove, who declined to be identified because he did not wish to run afoul of the prosecutor or government investigators, added that there was "absolutely no inconsistency" between Cooper's e-mail and what Rove has testified to during his three grand-jury appearances in the case. "A fair reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame's identity, but was an effort to discourage Time from publishing things that turned out to be false," the source said, referring to claims in circulation at the time that Cheney and high-level CIA officials arranged for Wilson's trip to Africa.
Fitzgerald is known as a tenacious, thorough prosecutor. He refused to comment, and it is not clear whether he is pursuing evidence that will result in indictments, or just tying up loose ends in a messy case. But the Cooper e-mail offers one new clue to the mystery of what Fitzgerald is probing—and provides a glimpse of what was unfolding at the highest levels as the administration defended a part of its case for going to war in Iraq.
© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
© 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/[/quote]
Last edited: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 at 1:24:23 PM
Shhhhhhhh, ---------------------------------------- (shhh, ok more rope) ------------------------------------------------...
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
...------------ (shhh, it's "slime and defend") ---- (more rope)-----------------------------...
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
What's kind of funny - is that if ROVE WAS THE SOURCE THAN WHO IS JUDITH MILLER DEFENDING????????
I'll let you connect the dots Chief:
Wilson (respected diplomat, Ambassador), < Plame (wife, CIA, messenger), < Foley (then head of the Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Center, Plame's boss), < The man who made serveral visits to the CIA and told the staff to make more of an effort to find evidence of WMD's even to the point of "intimidation."
Dick Cheney.
God Bless America!
(shhhh, more rope) ---------------------------------------...(Acutally miller is only protecting her value as a speaker after she gets out of the can. Kind of a rebirth for a discredited "journalist.") ------------------------------
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
Last edited: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 at 8:42:48 PM
^ Ah, to go where the Grand Jury has not yet gone afore. What's it look like over the edge there?
While Hillary, John, and Mr. Wilson are having a group hug.
Dennis the Menace is just winding string around ^.
^ I have little doubt that Cheney is capable of outing a CIA agent. After all, the man who is a heartbeat away from the president had no qualms of helping dupe America into the Iraq war.
However, I do believe he isn't stupid enough to do it himself and risk 10 years in prison. It should be interesting who is finally chosen to take the fall. No need for him to worry though, he should have vast knowledge of skeletons behind the door to the presidents bedroom. I smell a presidential pardon in the wind...
(BTW, why don't you check the timeline? It can be quite informative. Especially as the "truth" changes as it is repeated by the players.)
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
Last edited: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 at 10:37:08 PM
Anything on Cheney is pure speculation at this point.
Regarding Judy....my money's actually on Wilson (that's the beltway word anyway).
Let's see, maybe the opposite does make more sense.
Evil liberals John, Hillary, and Wilson learn what Bush is going to say in his 2003 State of the Union address.
They cook-up a scheme to discredit Bush and put heat on Rove. They decide to send Wilson on a fake fact finding mission to Niger knowing that Cheney is putting pressure on the CIA to find evidence of WMD's. Ah, Cheney is a perfect coverup and unwitting patsy all in one!
Wilson goes to Niger and spends his time in 5 star hotels sipping fine wines in the spas and writes up a fake report. Upon returning he is debriefed by the CIA. Here's where it get a bit fuzzy. Either the CIA doesn't pass along the fake report to Cheney knowing it is fake because it has wine stains on it. Or they do pass it along, and the clever vice instantly recognizes it is poop because he realizes it is a merlot stain and he knows Wilson only drinks pinot noir when he is working, so he doesn't bother to brief the President on it's content.
So now the trap is set. Bush goes on to give his State of the Union address and cites the Niger yellow cake for one reason he wants to crawl up Saddam's butt. Rice goes on Meet the Press and cites the yellow cake (I prefer mine with chocolate frosting!) as a reason we should go to war and crawl up Saddam's butt.
Wilson calls the powers that be at Washington to trigger the trap. "You guys ignored my merlot stained report on the reasons why the Niger yellow cake was not sold to Saddam. Bad, bad. I'm going to have to tell what I found out to the Times but don't mention that my wife is a CIA agent."
The "slime and defend" machine goes into action and a few discrediting leaks start coming from DC. Novak calls Rove; "Can you confirm that Wilson is married to a CIA agent?" Rove says, "You didn't hear it here first but now that you mention it..."
Photo op of John, Hillary, Wilson point fingers at Rove. Perfect execution! Media frenzy descends upon the White House.
God Bless America!
(Any fuzzy spots need clarification?)
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
Last edited: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 at 7:37:01 PM
Dammit, Flea! I love reading your comments! Good job!
I always fear commenting here for the majority of TT players are Yanks. But you speak my mind (and the majority of others up here) that some of the reasoning going around...is...well, quite frankly baffling.
Jangles...please feel free to weigh in! I assure you your comments are always welcome.
I will read Flea's post tomorrow am (when I am sober)......
Thank you Jangles! :)
Please, please feel free to add to your feelings and comments to these debates. Another perspective is always welcome.
The effect of the traitor rat/s who outed Plame may even affect you.
How?
This may surprise you; the NOC list that Plame was on is not guarded by Top Secret clearance. The list is kept under the classification of TS/SCI( Top Secret/Secret Compartmentalized Information.)
Within "Top Secret" other documents and information can be further classified so that they are available only to select people, such as the president, the secretaries of state and defense, and a few high White House officials.
ONLY THEY have access to the names of the CIA’s NOC “non-official cover” agents.
If one reads the Vanity Fair article you can get the gist of how they operate. They act as private individuals that work for companies that are legitimate and are not in any way associated, and more importantly, thought to be associated with the CIA. These covers can take years to establish, and their main value lies in that they pass the smell test of foreign intelligence agencies and are believed to be entirely non-CIA connected.
If these agents are apprehended by a foreign authority our government can do absolutely nothing to help them. They have no official status that can protect them and they can be dealt with and disposed of in any manner.
The names on the NOC list is one of the greatest secrets possessed by our country. In the Vanity Fair article you'll find that Plame worked for Brewster-Jennings and Associates, an energy consulting firm. They were mainly active in the US and Saudi Arabia but also in China, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and Syria.
The traitor who outed Plame compromised two decades of intelligence work in those countries.
If what was compromised was intel to the whereabouts of old Russian nukes or if we lose intel about countries such as Iran or North Korea acquiring nukes and delivery systems, you can imagine the possibility of it affecting you.
If a nuke detonated in DC we might not be worse off considering who we have there now.
The traitor rat/s need to be rooted out and shot.
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
Let's keep this in perspective.
I am all for prosecuting to the fullest extent of the law anyone who damages this nation's security.
Again - Ms. Plame's employ in the CIA was public record. Incidentally. The DO alone alledgedly has a couple thousand people with level clearance sufficient to access...not to mention the various staff members of the intel-related (oversight, select House, Senate select, etc) commitees....the number of people with access (again alledgedly) runs into 5 figures.
This is SOLELY politically motivated by Wilson....and the media is eating it up and doing their damnedest to give this story legs. Wilson was a very boisterous critic of Bush foreign policy before the run up to Iraq...and I think it's kinda funny that both Democratic and Republican Senators last year found that Wilson had made false statements in his 2003 public condemnations of the Bush administration's Iraq policies....yet no one's talking about that.
I'm here to tell you....there's a stripper in the cake. Judith Miller (who is no friend of this administration) ain't going to keep sitting in Ryker's forever....and my money's on Wilson himself. I mean - what a coincidence that the person authorizing his "voyage" would be....his wife??? You mean no one else in Langley would sign off??? Dude - it ain't that small a world.
There is absolutely no one else she would be willing to go this far to protect - journalistic privilege be damned.
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/classified
"...Executive Order 13292 (amending EO 12958) issued by President George W. Bush in 2003; this executive order lays out the system of classification for information handled by the United States Government and its employees, contractors, and industrial firms, handling classified information.
The desired degree of secrecy about such information is known as its sensitivity. Sensitivity is based upon a calculation as to the damage to "national security". The United States has three levels of classification — confidential, secret, and top secret. Each level of classification indicates an increasing degree of sensitivity — top-secret being the highest, and confidential being the lowest. If one holds a "top-secret" clearance, one is allowed to handle information up to the level of "top-secret" (thus, secret, and confidential information). If one holds a "secret" clearance, one may not then handle "top-secret" information, but may handle confidential classified information.
In addition to this, information that is classified is often restricted in its dissemination based on the "need to know." In order to have access to classified information in the U.S. Government, one must have both the proper degree of classified clearance as well as a need-to-know the information. Having a "top-secret" clearance does not give one access to all documents classified at that level. Rather, information is released/disseminated based upon sensitivity level and the need-to-know. In addition, dissemination of information is often compartmentalized, requiring special additional clearance requirements above the "collateral" clearance (confidential, secret, and top-secret are collateral clearance levels). For example, individuals who need access to the most sensitive information, as well as information that is highly restricted in its dissemination, hold "TS/SCI" clearance — Top-Secret/Secret Compartmentalized Information. In addition, specialized programs or "SAPs" (Special Access Programs) may restrict access to ALL information relating to a specific program or project — regardless of its classification."
"...In the United States Department of Defense, compartmentalized information is usually classified at Top Secret levels, but with the additional caveat of being Sensitive Compartmentalized Information or SCI."
Plame married Wilson in 1997.
Valerie Plame's dentification as a CIA "operative" was made public by columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003.
Novak wrote. "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report."
Chief, if you can find any documentation that it was common knowledge that Plame was a NOC before Novak's outing please post it. Not the hearsay "slime and defend" so common with this administration.
The administration attacks the character of anyone who disagrees with them or presents alternative facts. Try to notice that it is not the information/allegations or facts that are ever challenged or proven wrong. "Slime and defend, slime and defend." They're picking on me mom.
That is what makes Tally and me so tired. How in good conscience can you blind yourself to this? They are totally contrary to our constitution.
Root out the traitor rats and shoot them. They are endangering our freedom.
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
Root out the traitor rats and shoot them. They are endangering our freedom.
I concur completely. On that I assure you we are in agreement.
I actually still have a magazine with an article on Plame and Wilson at the house - it's from before 2001 (last time I was in DC). If nothing else, I will scan it and post it as a PDF. (Edit: Incidentally, I never said her covert status was public domain info - just her employment at the Agency as, I think, a liaison to the IAEA or some other UN WMD taskforce).
Also - just saw this:
Source: Rove says reporters told him of Plame
Bush aide reportedly testifies that he learned agent’s name from press
The Associated Press
Updated: 12:43 a.m. ET July 15, 2005
WASHINGTON - 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.
Column touched off firestorm
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.
Tale of two reporters
Rove told the grand jury that by the time Novak had called him, he believes he had similar information about Wilson’s wife from another reporter but had no recollection of which reporter had told him about it first, the source said.
When Novak inquired about Wilson’s wife working for the CIA, Rove indicated he had heard something like that, according to the source’s recounting of the grand jury testimony.
Rove told the grand jury that four days later, he had a phone conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and — in an effort to discredit some of Wilson’s allegations — told Cooper that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, though he never used her name.
An e-mail Cooper recently provided the grand jury shows Cooper reported to his magazine bosses that Rove had described Wilson’s wife in a confidential conversation as someone who “apparently works” at the CIA.
Attorney: Rove isn't target of probe
Robert Luskin, Rove’s attorney, said Thursday his client truthfully testified to the grand jury and expected to be exonerated.
“Karl provided all pertinent information to prosecutors a long time ago,” Luskin said. “And prosecutors confirmed when he testified most recently in October 2004 that he is not a target of the investigation.”
Rove’s conversation with Cooper took place five days after Wilson suggested in a New York Times opinion piece that some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. Novak’s column identifying Wilson’s wife as a CIA employee and Cooper’s magazine piece came out a few days later.
Pressed to explain its statements of two years ago that Rove wasn’t involved in the leak, the White House refused to do so this week.
“If I were to get into discussing this, I would be getting into discussing an investigation that continues and could be prejudging the outcome of the investigation,” McClellan said.
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
© 2005 MSN
Last edited: Thursday, July 14, 2005 at 10:17:39 PM
The administration attacks the character of anyone who disagrees with them or presents alternative facts. Try to notice that it is not the information/allegations or facts that are ever challenged or proven wrong. "Slime and defend, slime and defend." They're picking on me mom.
On an other note - I agree that politics as a whole has gotten more and more "win at all costs"....unfortunately, this has been going on since before now. Just ask Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers.
Last edited: Thursday, July 14, 2005 at 10:18:13 PM
I think Rove is a poor substitute for a patsy mostly because he is such an easy target, albeit still a slim-ball (hey! Character assassinations are fun:)
I'm still banking on my connect the dots (but deliberately left out Libby for the personal pleasure it gives me :)
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
Actually all this can be traced to Vanity Fair.
;)
PS: In the last day or so, Rove made mention that he may have got his information from a reporter first.
I see now that your quoted news article mentions ^, Chief.
Now that would be an interesting turn of the tables. It would lead you to think possibly that Rove has been messing with everyone's mind.
How far back does the source really go?
Last edited: Friday, July 15, 2005 at 8:48:48 PM
Somebody wake me when we can impeach Bush.
Some strange discomfort watching this thread dip into page 2. So, bump and...
"Like a lot of President Bush's critics, I supported the Iraq war at first. Because of the evidence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction laid out by Colin Powell, I agreed that we needed to disarm Saddam Hussein. I even think it's possible that 25 years from now, historians will conclude that the Iraq war helped accelerate the modernizing of the Middle East, even if it doesn't fully democratize it.
But if that happens, Bush might not get as much credit as he hopes, and not just because most historians, as Richard Nixon liked to say, are liberals. Bush may look bad because his leadership on Iraq has been a fiasco. He didn't plan for it: the early decisions that allowed the insurgency to get going were breathtakingly incompetent. He didn't pay for it: Bush is the first president in history to cut taxes during a war, this one now costing nearly $1 billion a week. And most important of all, he didn't tell the American people the truth about it: taking a nation to war is the most solemn duty of a president, and he'd better make certain there's no alternative and no doubt about the evidence.
Why do I mention this now? Because for all of the complexities of the Valerie Plame case, for all the questions raised about the future of investigative journalism and the fate of the most influential aide to an American president since Louis Howe served Franklin D. Roosevelt 70 years ago, this story is fundamentally about how easy it was to get into Iraq and how hard it will be to get out.
We got in because we "cooked" the intelligence, then hyped it. That's why the "Downing Street Memo" is not a smoking gun but a big "duh."...
Read on at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8598301/site/newsweek/
As feverishly as I defended Clinton during the Lewinsky debacle -- this shouldn't be impeachable...it's a private affair...what does this have to do with whitewater...he's a great president...etc., etc. -- I always felt disappointed and misled, though was hard-pressed to admit it.
I wonder if the average republican feels the same about the Plame leak. Do they really believe the spin? Or do they know that this administration is as dirty as they come?
Quite honestly....I am more distressed by how rancorous the political process as a whole has become.
Regarding Plame....I am down to two possibilities. Either it was Wilson himself, or it was Scooter Libby. I just don't think Rove is stupid enough to do leak "that obviously", although he has admittedly done it before.
If a senior staff member winds up being convicted of this - I will be deeply disappointed.
Page : 1 . . . . . 9 : 10 : <11> : 12 : 13 . . . . . 23
: :
Yeeeeeeeep, that's right. It ain't over 'til the fat lady has sung...and waffles are served for all.
First up - Social Security.
I bring you the following from an email I rec'd earlier today. Slightly partisan, but I though "What the hey...what's not lately?"
SO:
Subject: Social Security
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like
a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the
handle.--Winston Churchill
SOCIAL SECURITY:
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the
Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into
the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to
put into the Program would be deductible from their
income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would only be
used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program,
and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and
are now receiving a Social Security check every
month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed
on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal
government to "put away," you may be interested in
the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from
the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the
Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
annuity payments to immigrants?
MY FAVORITE :
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic
Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at
age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security
payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments
to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and
violation of the original contract (FICA), the
Democrats turn around and tell you that the
Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens
believe it!
I haven't had a chance to fact check yet - I'm sure someone will. I deleted the "pass this on" part of the email.
Well? Agree? Disagree?