Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Who leaked Plame's name?
America's Debate > Archive > In the News Archive > [A] War on Terrorism
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Google
DaytonRocker
Karl Rove.

Since Time's release of documents, senior MSNBC political analyst Lawrence O'Donnell claims to know who that name is, and according to him, that name is - Karl Rove.

To quote :
QUOTE
"And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."


Time magazine has apparently provided everything to the federal court that shows who leaked the name of Valerie Plame - wife of Joe Wilson - as being a CIA operative.

Robert Novac wrote about it here and has obviously been the source of much controversy. Most of us are not surprised by this (assuming it's true), so my questions for debate are:

1. Should Karl Rove go to prison for perjury and treason?

2. Is is plausible that Bush was unaware of this crime?

3. Is this evidence that truth has trouble in this White House, or just one unfortunate incident?

4. Is Dayton off his Rocker because Karl Rove is innocent?
Google
lederuvdapac
I think we still need more time for investigation before we come to any solid conclusions. I don't know if Rove revealed the name of a CIA operative as of yet...but i DO know that Senators Richard Lugar and John Kerry did back in April and they were hardly reprimanded.
Dontreadonme
Whoever leaked the name should be outed, but I'm as yet unsure if the Plame case can be prosecuted under The Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

The verdict is also still out with me due to the fact that the only voice we're hearing right now is MSNBC political analyst Lawrence O'Donnell, democratic operative. whistling.gif
DaytonRocker
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jul 2 2005, 11:42 AM)

I think we still need more time for investigation before we come to any solid conclusions. I don't know if Rove revealed the name of a CIA operative as of yet...but i DO know that Senators Richard Lugar and John Kerry did back in April and they were hardly reprimanded.
*


And I can assume you have your usual lack of sources to back this up?

If that is indeed what happened, maybe you'd like to create a topic to discuss why Kerry and Lugar got a pass on that? I'd be highly interested to see how and why that happened.

And of course, credible sources.

On edit:
My apologies. I didn't know that this claim was previously debated and debunked. I should have known.
Aquilla
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Jul 2 2005, 11:53 AM)
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jul 2 2005, 11:42 AM)

I think we still need more time for investigation before we come to any solid conclusions. I don't know if Rove revealed the name of a CIA operative as of yet...but i DO know that Senators Richard Lugar and John Kerry did back in April and they were hardly reprimanded.
*


And I can assume you have your usual lack of sources to back this up?

If that is indeed what happened, maybe you'd like to create a topic to discuss why Kerry and Lugar got a pass on that? I'd be highly interested to see how and why that happened.

And of course, credible sources.
*




Just as a point of information here, Leder is correct. From The Washington Post we have the following......

QUOTE
Senators may have blown the cover of a covert CIA officer yesterday.
[snip]
But the committee chairman, Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), and Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) mentioned a name that had not previously come up in public accounts of the intelligence flap.


DaytonRocker
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jul 2 2005, 01:59 PM)
Just as a point of information here, Leder is correct.

Uh-huh. You mean this guy?

Some covert op guy...he's even listed here on the CIA's website.

Even though he was only an analyst, they still made efforts not to advertise it.
nebraska29



QUOTE
4. Is Dayton off his Rocker because Karl Rove is innocent?


I wouldn't pronounce him in the clear yet. Some news sources are reporting that the Rove link is backed up by another source.
Azure-Citizen
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jul 2 2005, 11:42 AM)
I don't know if Rove revealed the name of a CIA operative as of yet...but i DO know that Senators Richard Lugar and John Kerry did back in April and they were hardly reprimanded.

Leder, you know that Lugar and Kerry did not reveal the name of a covert CIA operative, and that Fulton Armstrong is just an analyst. That was put to rest when you brought it up in this thread here... or did you just forget?
lederuvdapac
QUOTE(Azure-Citizen)
Leder, you know that Lugar and Kerry did not reveal the name of a covert CIA operative, and that Fulton Armstrong is just an analyst. That was put to rest when you brought it up in this thread here... or did you just forget?


Azure-Citizen, look i didnt write the article...if you have a problem with the information...call The Guardian or the Washignton Post and tell them.
Azure-Citizen
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jul 2 2005, 03:20 PM)
look i didnt write the article...if you have a problem with the information...call The Guardian or the Washignton Post and tell them.

You "didn't write the article", but you learned in April that the senators didn't disclose the name of a covert CIA operative and yet in your post today you distort the facts as if they did? Think about the credibility issue there.

Having said that, I did agree with the first sentence in your original post, that we still need more time for a full investigation and verification before we come to any final conclusions. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Google
nighttimer
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Jul 2 2005, 12:35 PM)
1. Should Karl Rove go to prison for perjury and treason?

2. Is is plausible that Bush was unaware of this crime?

3. Is this evidence that truth has trouble in this White House, or just one unfortunate incident?

4. Is Dayton off his Rocker because Karl Rove is innocent?



1. IF he is found guilty of perjury and treason. However, he'd have to be indicted and that does not appear to be the case at present:

Karl Rove, one of President Bush's closest advisors, spoke with a Time magazine reporter days before the name of a CIA operative surfaced in the press, but did not leak the confidential information, a lawyer for Rove said Saturday in a new admission in the case.

Rove spoke to Time reporter Matthew Cooper in July 2003, before a syndicated column revealed the identity of operative Valerie Plame, the wife of Bush administration critic and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...ack=1&cset=true

2. Maybe before if Rove leaked the name to Judith Miller, Matthew Cooper and Bob Novak it probably went no further up the food chain than Rove himself. But after the dam burst, Bush may have asked Rove what the heck was going on. I can't imagine that Bush would have been kept totally out of the loop but then again we are talking about a president who was enjoying a bike ride while the White House was being evacuated because of a plane violating D.C. restricted air space.

3. Truth and this White House are not on speaking terms. The mantra of the Bush Administration seems to be "Deceive. Distort. Repeat."

But Bob Novak should fess up to if Cooper and Miller end up going to jail. Miller's old colleague at the New York Times came out of retirement to rap Novak's knuckles.

Mr. Novak should finally write the column he owes readers and colleagues perhaps explaining how his two sources - who may have truthfully revealed themselves to investigators - managed to get the prosecutor off his back

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/29/opinion/...illiam%20Safire (registration required)

4. Naw. I think Karl Rove is GUILTY!, GUILTY!, GUILTY! as sin and should be locked up in some super-max prison for a good portion of his remaining years of life.

Ahhh....but proving it's true...there's the rub. detective.gif
carlitoswhey
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Jul 2 2005, 02:29 PM)
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jul 2 2005, 01:59 PM)
Just as a point of information here, Leder is correct.

Uh-huh. You mean this guy?

Some covert op guy...he's even listed here on the CIA's website.

Even though he was only an analyst, they still made efforts not to advertise it.
*


DR, are you saying that Valerie Plame was a 'covert operative' as well? I understand that it's only a crime to reveal a covert operative, not an analyst or regular CIA employee. This Valerie Plame, as photographed with Ambassador Wilson in the July 20, 2005, pages of Vanity Fair magazine, at least today doesn't seem to qualify.

If there was a leak of her identity, it's unclear who leaked to whom - (apologies to Cube_ - more unsubstantiated rumor-mongering from the Washington Post -
QUOTE
Sources close to the investigation say there is evidence in some instances that some reporters may have told government officials -- not the other way around -- that Wilson was married to Plame, a CIA employee.


Does anyone that Joe Wilson lied to the 9/11 commission by saying that his wife "had nothing to do with" sending him to Niger, when she had recommended him in the first place? Are we charging him with perjury as well?

And as to whether Iraq wanted uranium in the first place, if 3/4 of Niger's exports are uranium, and Iraq sent a trade delegation to Niger, what else do you suppose they were looking for?
aevans176
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jul 3 2005, 10:19 AM)
3.  Truth and this White House are not on speaking terms.  The mantra of the Bush Administration seems to be "Deceive.  Distort.  Repeat."

But Bob Novak should fess up to if Cooper and Miller end up going to jail.  Miller's old colleague at the New York Times came out of retirement to rap Novak's knuckles.

Mr. Novak should finally write the column he owes readers and colleagues perhaps explaining how his two sources - who may have truthfully revealed themselves to investigators - managed to get the prosecutor off his back

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/29/opinion/...illiam%20Safire (registration required)

4.  Naw.  I think Karl Rove is GUILTY!, GUILTY!, GUILTY! as sin and should be locked up in some super-max prison for a good portion of his remaining years of life.

Ahhh....but proving it's true...there's the rub.    detective.gif
*



Good Afternoon nighttimer... guess what? We're in disagreement again.

Truth and this administration are not on speaking terms?? That's a mouthful, but doesn't really say anything. Consider we're speaking about politicians here... and especially on the heels of a Clinton administration, heck, these folks seem like saints!!

The reality is that if we're implicating Karl Rove, there is no hard evidence, and regardless of your personal misgivings about the man, no indictment would ever stick. Consider that we're taking the word of a reporter!!! HA! Hell, if Hillary didn't go to prison for her whitewater involvement, there's no level of protection that the Whitehouse cannot provide. Frankly, I would venture to guess that liberal disdain for Mr. Rove are part of the witch hunt-esque rants on this thread???

Finally... come on nighttimer, good job w/ the cheap shot about the bike ride and the plane violating restricted airspace. But ummm... it's not like those things are planned, and at least this president tries to stay active... and doesn't have to stop running/exercising because he fell while he was drunk!! (ie Senor Clinton...) zipped.gif

lordhelmet
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Jul 2 2005, 12:35 PM)
 
Karl Rove. 
 
Since Time's release of documents, senior MSNBC political analyst Lawrence O'Donnell claims to know who that name is, and according to him, that name is - Karl Rove. 
 
To quote : 
QUOTE
"And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."


Time magazine has apparently provided everything to the federal court that shows who leaked the name of Valerie Plame - wife of Joe Wilson - as being a CIA operative.

Robert Novac wrote about it here and has obviously been the source of much controversy. Most of us are not surprised by this (assuming it's true), so my questions for debate are:

1. Should Karl Rove go to prison for perjury and treason?

2. Is is plausible that Bush was unaware of this crime?

3. Is this evidence that truth has trouble in this White House, or just one unfortunate incident?

4. Is Dayton off his Rocker because Karl Rove is innocent?
*



Lawrence O'Donnell is a partisan democrat operative. He'll smear Rove even if it's not true.

1. Should Rove go to prison? What are the charges? What has he been convicted of?

2. What crime? There haven't even been charges let alone a conviction.

3. Truth trouble in THIS White House? In what case? Bush has been remarkably honest during his entire tenure. What people call "lies" are nearly always not. In fact, they are positions that were indistinguishable from democrat positions in the case of Iraq after 9/11. In contrast, Bill Clinton was dishonest about any number of things ranging from national security, to domestic policy, and to his "personal" dalliances with his unpaid staff.

4. Most likely. The fact is that we don't know that yet. Perhaps Lawrence O'Donnell leaked the information and is just trying to cover himself at Rove's expense? (see how easy it is to spew gossip like Larry did).

It would seem that Plame's status was common knowledge within much of Washington's inner circle and that her status at the CIA was hardly "covert".

Plame article

As such, outside of contempt of court committed by several reporters, there was likely no crime committed in this entire matter.

That is, outside of character assassination which has become the sport of the left in recent years. I find it highly ironic that those who get so indignant about unsubstantiated allegations at Gitmo involving detained terrorists are so quick to convict and sentence Rove.

It would seem that politics, once again, prevails over common sense and decency when it comes to our fellow citizens from the left side of the political aisle.
Wertz
1. Should Karl Rove go to prison for perjury and treason?

If he's found guilty, he definitely should. But he's a Republican in the Bush White House, so it will never even come to trial.

2. Is is plausible that Bush was unaware of this crime?

It is plausible that George W Bush is unaware of his own feet. That doesn't mean that, at some point in his life, someone hasn't mentioned that he's got them. If Rove was the source of the leak, I'd be very surprised if this hadn't at least come up as pillow talk between the two.

3. Is this evidence that truth has trouble in this White House, or just one unfortunate incident?

This is one more unfortunate instance of the truth having trouble in this White House.

4. Is Dayton off his Rocker because Karl Rove is innocent?

I have no idea what the evidence will show, but I have personally felt that Karl Rove was behind the leak from the day the story broke. This sort of dirty trick is his stock in trade and always has been. It's his job.


QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Jul 6 2005, 12:51 PM)
DR, are you saying that Valerie Plame was a 'covert operative' as well? I understand that it's only a crime to reveal a covert operative, not an analyst or regular CIA employee.  This Valerie Plame, as photographed with Ambassador Wilson in the July 20, 2005, pages of Vanity Fair magazine, at least today doesn't seem to qualify.

Valerie Plame was working undercover for the CIA. She was a covert operative. That photo was taken in 2005. Plame's cover was blown in 2003. Once one's cover is blown, it's difficult to unblow it.

QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Jul 6 2005, 12:51 PM)
Does anyone that Joe Wilson lied to the 9/11 commission by saying that his wife "had nothing to do with" sending him to Niger, when she had recommended him in the first place?  Are we charging him with perjury as well?
*

That is a lie. The fact that it is a lie published by Robert Novak doesn't make it any less of a lie. From The Politics of Truth by Joseph Wilson:
QUOTE
Apart from being the conduit of a message from a colleague in her office asking if I would be willing to have a conversation about Niger's uranium industry, Valerie had nothing to do with the matter. Though she worked on weapons of mass destruction issues, she was not at the meeting I attended where the subject of Niger's uranium was discussed, when the possibility of my actually travelling to the country was broached. She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip.

He goes on at great length to detail why his wife wouldn't have recommended him even if she had been in a position to do so (which she wasn't) - they had two-year-old twins at home, the trip was pro bono, Niamey is hardly Nassau, etc.


Just out of curiosity, is there anyone here who doesn't think Karl Rove was behind the leak? Honestly?
aevans176
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jul 6 2005, 12:33 PM)
1. Should Karl Rove go to prison for perjury and treason?

If he's found guilty, he definitely should. But he's a Republican in the Bush White House, so it will never even come to trial.
 
2. Is is plausible that Bush was unaware of this crime?

It is plausible that George W Bush is unaware of his own feet. That doesn't mean that, at some point in his life, someone hasn't mentioned that he's got them. If Rove was the source of the leak, I'd be very surprised if this hadn't at least come up as pillow talk between the two.
 
3. Is this evidence that truth has trouble in this White House, or just one unfortunate incident? 

This is one more unfortunate instance of the truth having trouble in this White House.
 
4. Is Dayton off his Rocker because Karl Rove is innocent?

I have no idea what the evidence will show, but I have personally felt that Karl Rove was behind the leak from the day the story broke. This sort of dirty trick is his stock in trade and always has been. It's his job.


Of the truth having trouble in THIS White House??? Come on. Were you under a rock during the Clinton years? This administration is at least an upgrade!! w00t.gif

If Karl Rove gets implicated in this, I'd like him to have exactly the same punishment that Hillary got in the Whitewater deals... ummm... nothing! hahahaha...

Seriously, just because the Clintons were/are crooks doesn't mean that Rove shouldn't go to prison if all of this is true. If it is, he's a traitor and he should be locked away.

However, considering we're basing our argument on the word of a Reporter in the American media, I'd have to venture to say that it's about as verifiable as something Dan Rather would put on a Primetime TV show... not at all!!!

If find it hard to read all of these liberals, champions of civil rights crucifying someone who really doesn't even have any real evidence against him. Oh-Wait... yes I can, because he's not a young black man on trial for something like car theft... I'm sorry. I forgot it's a white republican we're talking about! ! ! ! (*DEEP HARD CHUCKLING*)
carlitoswhey
Lawrence O'Donnell on July 2
QUOTE
I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.


Lawrence O'Donnell on July 5
QUOTE
I have a call in to Bob Luskin, Karl Rove’s lawyer, but I’m not holding my breath for a call back. He knows I know too much, since I broke the story last week that his client is one of the secret sources Matt Cooper has been protecting for the last two years.

Mr. O'Donnell has gone from "Rove was the source" on July 2 to "Rove was one of the secret sources" on July 5. I wonder what he'll have to say next week?

For his part, Rove isn't copping to anything, per his lawyer.
Newsweek July 11
QUOTE
But according to Luskin, Rove's lawyer, Rove spoke to Cooper three or four days before Novak's column appeared. Luskin told NEWSWEEK that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." Luskin declined, however, to discuss any other details. He did say that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him. "He has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else,"

And Wertz, thanks for the 'covert' confirmation - apparently she was a "knock" (NOC - Non Official Cover) which means yes indeed covert. But you are wrong about Wilson - he was definitely lying in this deal, maybe looking for a Kerry administration appointment.
(sigh) Washington Post again
QUOTE
By Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 10, 2004; Page A09

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.
<snip>
Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.  The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him.
<snip>
The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.
<snip>
The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly 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 Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.

Wertz
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Jul 6 2005, 02:10 PM)
Of the truth having trouble in THIS White House??? Come on. Were you under a rock during the Clinton years? This administration is at least an upgrade!!  w00t.gif

If Karl Rove gets implicated in this, I'd like him to have exactly the same punishment that Hillary got in the Whitewater deals... ummm... nothing! hahahaha...

Seriously, just because the Clintons were/are crooks doesn't mean that Rove shouldn't go to prison if all of this is true. If it is, he's a traitor and he should be locked away.

However, considering we're basing our argument on the word of a Reporter in the American media, I'd have to venture to say that it's about as verifiable as something Dan Rather would put on a Primetime TV show... not at all!!!

If find it hard to read all of these liberals, champions of civil rights crucifying someone who really doesn't even have any real evidence against him. Oh-Wait... yes I can, because he's not a young black man on trial for something like car theft... I'm sorry. I forgot it's a white republican we're talking about! ! ! ! (*DEEP HARD CHUCKLING*)
*

Only your penultimate paragraph even approaches addressing the topic for debate. If you want to discuss the Whitewater affair - in which it was found that the Clintons were entirely blameless and lied about nothing (do a bit of research, sir) - or if you wish to beat any other dead horses, please start a new thread rather than trying to derail this one. Also, if you want to discuss racism, there's an entire forum devoted to such matters. The actual questions for debate appear in the first post to this thread - and have been repeated by several other contributors. They most often appear in bold face.


QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Jul 6 2005, 02:19 PM)
But you are wrong about Wilson - he was definitely lying in this deal, maybe looking for a Kerry administration appointment.
*

So this seems to come down to a case of "he said, she said" - with one party being Valerie Plame's husband and the other being an unnamed "CIA official". I have no problem with unnamed spokespersons as a rule, but in a case like this it can help to assess who would be in a better position to know what actually happened. The February12, 2002 memo would conform to either version of events. If Plame had been asked to find out if Wilson would "be willing to have a conversation about Niger's uranium industry", that memo could easily have arisen from her speaking with him. It could also be construed to suggest that she initiated the dialogue. So we're left with the two sets of testimony: Wilson, claiming that his wife wouldn't have wanted him to abandon their kids for such a mission, and "a official" conforming to the party line. I guess it's just a matter of who one chooses to believe. I'm going to stick with the guy that George H.W. Bush called "a true American hero".
aevans176
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jul 6 2005, 01:40 PM)
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Jul 6 2005, 02:10 PM)
Of the truth having trouble in THIS White House??? Come on. Were you under a rock during the Clinton years? This administration is at least an upgrade!!  w00t.gif

If Karl Rove gets implicated in this, I'd like him to have exactly the same punishment that Hillary got in the Whitewater deals... ummm... nothing! hahahaha...

Seriously, just because the Clintons were/are crooks doesn't mean that Rove shouldn't go to prison if all of this is true. If it is, he's a traitor and he should be locked away.

However, considering we're basing our argument on the word of a Reporter in the American media, I'd have to venture to say that it's about as verifiable as something Dan Rather would put on a Primetime TV show... not at all!!!

If find it hard to read all of these liberals, champions of civil rights crucifying someone who really doesn't even have any real evidence against him. Oh-Wait... yes I can, because he's not a young black man on trial for something like car theft... I'm sorry. I forgot it's a white republican we're talking about! ! ! ! (*DEEP HARD CHUCKLING*)
*

Only your penultimate paragraph even approaches addressing the topic for debate. If you want to discuss the Whitewater affair - in which it was found that the Clintons were entirely blameless and lied about nothing (do a bit of research, sir) - or if you wish to beat any other dead horses, please start a new thread rather than trying to derail this one. Also, if you want to discuss racism, there's an entire forum devoted to such matters. The actual questions for debate appear in the first post to this thread - and have been repeated by several other contributors. They most often appear in bold face.


Good job with the correct use of the word penultimate, but frankly you missed the point.

The situation with Karl Rove is an utter witch hunt, hinging upon the word of a reporter in the American Media. I'll leave the Clinton Whitewater situation alone for now, but the metaphor was appropriate. (**We all know that Hillary is a crook... !!!!!**Read the book by Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson, or "Because He Could" by Dick Morris)

Finally, debates evolve, Wertz, and as you know not every post is going to directly discuss the question, yet replies as they appear. Refer to any thread on this board, and search subsequent posts. I'd bet you'd be hard pressed to find direct coorelations in all replies.

My position stands, if this were a liberal democrat kronie, no one would care. The reality is that there is no evidence other than a man's word against Karl Rove. My hat is off to the DNC SPIN master that got this one moving...
Jaime
Despite some members' misconceptions, we are required to stay on-topic. The topic is set by the debate questions.

Here they are again in case you forgot:

1. Should Karl Rove go to prison for perjury and treason?

2. Is is plausible that Bush was unaware of this crime?

3. Is this evidence that truth has trouble in this White House, or just one unfortunate incident?


Wertz
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Jul 6 2005, 02:55 PM)
The situation with Karl Rove is an utter witch hunt, hinging upon the word of a reporter in the American Media.

Perhaps - though sometimes witch hunts find witches.

QUOTE(aevans176 @ Jul 6 2005, 02:55 PM)
Finally, debates evolve, Wertz, and as you know not every post is going to directly discuss the question, yet replies as they appear.

There's a difference between evolution and spontaneous creation - as I'm sure you're aware.

QUOTE(aevans176 @ Jul 6 2005, 02:55 PM)
My position stands, if this were a liberal democrat kronie, no one would care.
*

Just like no one cared about all those liberal Democrats during the Clinton administration? I expect Susan McDougal, for example, would disagree with you. The point is that, if a crime has been committed, the guilty party shuld answer for it. Something tells me, though, that even if Linda Tripp a taped phone call of Rove outing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative that nothing would happen. Not in this Congress. Not under this judiciary.
jleavy
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jul 6 2005, 11:33 AM)
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Jul 6 2005, 12:51 PM)
DR, are you saying that Valerie Plame was a 'covert operative' as well? I understand that it's only a crime to reveal a covert operative, not an analyst or regular CIA employee.  This Valerie Plame, as photographed with Ambassador Wilson in the July 20, 2005, pages of Vanity Fair magazine, at least today doesn't seem to qualify.

Valerie Plame was working undercover for the CIA. She was a covert operative. That photo was taken in 2005. Plame's cover was blown in 2003. Once one's cover is blown, it's difficult to unblow it.


She was? Last I heard she was yanked from her undercover status back in 1994 because of Ames' betrayal to the Russians.

QUOTE(NYT Monday @ October 13, 2003)


Valerie Plame - the CIA suspected that Aldrich Ames had given Wilson's name to the Russians before his arrest for espionage in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons.

So Plame ceased to be an undercover agent in 1994. Since then her husband Joe Wilson entered her name in "Wilson's Who's Who" and both Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame have made large contributions to the Democratic Party where they both used their real names and employers on the Federal Election Commission forms they signed with the donations.



QUOTE(Wertz)
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Jul 6 2005, 12:51 PM)
Does anyone that Joe Wilson lied to the 9/11 commission by saying that his wife "had nothing to do with" sending him to Niger, when she had recommended him in the first place?  Are we charging him with perjury as well?
*

That is a lie. The fact that it is a lie published by Robert Novak doesn't make it any less of a lie. From The Politics of Truth by Joseph Wilson:
QUOTE
Apart from being the conduit of a message from a colleague in her office asking if I would be willing to have a conversation about Niger's uranium industry, Valerie had nothing to do with the matter. Though she worked on weapons of mass destruction issues, she was not at the meeting I attended where the subject of Niger's uranium was discussed, when the possibility of my actually travelling to the country was broached. She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip.

He goes on at great length to detail why his wife wouldn't have recommended him even if she had been in a position to do so (which she wasn't) - they had two-year-old twins at home, the trip was pro bono, Niamey is hardly Nassau, etc.


Unfortunately, Wertz, Factcheck blows Wilson's account full of holes:

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

It's highly unlikely that Valerie Plame was covert for the previous 5 years prior to the Novak report of her involvement in this affair. She gave birth to twins in 1999 and so for at least four years as, first, pregnant and then, actual mother of two small children would not have been "undercover" or "covert" in the field. I know childbearing age women have been liberated and all, but, considering the demands of working in the field gathering intelligence, even the CIA would not have been able to leave her "out there" unless Joe Wilson can carry and then nurse his own children all by himself.

Finally, regarding the law that this is all in reference to:

QUOTE
Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations notes a key limitation in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the 1982 law that Robert Novak's sources supposedly violated by revealing that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA: An employee of an intelligence agency is a "covert agent" for the purposes of the statute only if he "is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States." This makes sense; after all, the CIA isn't supposed to spy in the U.S.


Edit: Sorry if this post appears confusing, don't know why it isn't quoting properly.

EDIT: to fix quotes. -Amlord
Paladin Elspeth
1. Should Karl Rove go to prison for perjury and treason?

Yes, if it can be proven that he did it (and to paraphrase Wertz, we have about a snowball's chance in hell of that happening in this White House). I certainly wouldn't put it past Rove with his long-established track record of smearing those who oppose his candidate (Senator McCain and his victimization in the South Carolina whispering campaign of 2000 come to mind).

2. Is is plausible that Bush was unaware of this crime?

It is well known that this President never admits to mistakes. It is also well known that this President is not famous for doing his homework or knowing details of anything. As long as some underling is willing to take the fall, Bush won't admit to being aware of it. So whether he knew about it or not, it won't figure into the equation.

3. Is this evidence that truth has trouble in this White House, or just one unfortunate incident?

I know that my opinion of this has already been discounted by some readers due to the fact that I am "slightly liberal" and a Democrat, but the proof of the pudding is still in the eating. Let's see--WMDs? Uranium from Niger? 9/11 terrorists from Iraq? These were all claimed but shown to be false. I don't see that the truth is something that is welcome in this administration.
lordhelmet
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jul 6 2005, 06:33 PM)

1. Should Karl Rove go to prison for perjury and treason?

Yes, if it can be proven that he did it (and to paraphrase Wertz, we have about a snowball's chance in hell of that happening in this White House). I certainly wouldn't put it past Rove with his long-established track record of smearing those who oppose his candidate (Senator McCain and his victimization in the South Carolina whispering campaign of 2000 come to mind).


What if Rove wasn't the source? What if there were no laws broken? It's going to be pretty hard to convict ANYONE on the basis that someone outed a clandestine CIA agent when the woman in question wasn't one at the time.

Should we just hang Rove and ask questions later or only send him to Gitmo?

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jul 6 2005, 06:33 PM)

2. Is is plausible that Bush was unaware of this crime?

It is well known that this President never admits to mistakes. It is also well known that this President is not famous for doing his homework or knowing details of anything. As long as some underling is willing to take the fall, Bush won't admit to being aware of it. So whether he knew about it or not, it won't figure into the equation.


laugh.gif Then how did Kerry (and Gore) lose to such a guy.....

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jul 6 2005, 06:33 PM)

3. Is this evidence that truth has trouble in this White House, or just one unfortunate incident?

I know that my opinion of this has already been discounted by some readers due to the fact that I am "slightly liberal" and a Democrat, but the proof of the pudding is still in the eating. Let's see--WMDs? Uranium from Niger? 9/11 terrorists from Iraq? These were all claimed but shown to be false. I don't see that the truth is something that is welcome in this administration.
*



WMD's? Bush hardly invented that charge. Bill Clinton bombed Iraq twice because of their alleged existence. I know I'm beating a dead horse here but EVERYONE in the world intelligence community thought Iraq had WMD's and they themselves were acting guilty.

Uranium from Niger? Jury is still out on that one.

9/11 terrorists from Iraq? Who in the Bush administration ever made that charge? I think you just invented that one.

Actually, the truth is lacking from those who have constantly attacked this president since 2000. With respect to honesty, I can say with a clear conscience that Bush is an honest man and FAR more honest than the previous president. There is no comparison, really.
carlitoswhey
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jul 6 2005 @ 06:33 PM)
I know that my opinion of this has already been discounted by some readers due to the fact that I am "slightly liberal" and a Democrat, but the proof of the pudding is still in the eating. Let's see--WMDs? Uranium from Niger? 9/11 terrorists from Iraq? These were all claimed but shown to be false. I don't see that the truth is something that is welcome in this administration.

PE, I would never discount your opinion. On this one claim, though, I'd love to know your source for disputing the Niger uranium claims? Joe Wilson first bolstered the CIA's claims, then said he saw "forged documents" which he didn't see because we didn't have them until 5 months after his trip, then he says he "mis-spoke" to the Washington Post, etc. At the very least, we know that British and American intelligence believed the claim to be true.

Butler report

QUOTE(wikipedia)
The report indicated that there was enough intelligence to make a “well-founded” judgment that Saddam Hussein was seeking, perhaps as late as 2002, to obtain uranium illegally from Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo (6.4 para. 499). In particular, referring to a 1999 visit of Iraqi officials to Niger, the report states (6.4 para. 503): “The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.”

This intelligence (which had controversially found its way into George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech) had previously (before September 2003 [C. May, 2004]) been thought to rely on forged documents. The Butler Review stated that “the forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made.” (6.4 para. 503) Taking into account the American intelligence community’s findings on the matter, it is true that in December 2003, then CIA director George Tenet conceded that the inclusion of the claim in the State of the Union address was a mistake. (CNN.com, 2003) However, Tenet believed so, not due to any compelling evidence to the contrary, but rather because the CIA (criticized concerning this matter by the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq [Schmidt, 2004]) had failed to investigate the claim thoroughly; however again, the Butler Review states (6.4 para. 497) in 2002 the CIA “agreed that there was evidence that [uranium from Africa] had been sought.” In the run-up to war in Iraq, the British Intelligence Services apparently believed that Iraq had been trying to obtain uranium from Africa; however, no evidence has been passed on to the IAEA apart from the forged documents (6.4 Para. 502). (Times Online, 2003)
I see no evidence that Iraq didn't try to purchase Uranium, but of course it's hard to prove a negative. What is true is that we haven't given the IAEA any evidence other than the forged documents. Which, given the head of the IAEA isn't exactly on our side in the 'war on terra,' seems like a prudent move.
Paladin Elspeth
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Jul 6 2005, 06:40 PM)
What if Rove wasn't the source?  What if there were no laws broken?  It's going to be pretty hard to convict ANYONE on the basis that someone outed a clandestine CIA agent when the woman in question wasn't one at the time.

Should we just hang Rove and ask questions later or only send him to Gitmo?


Oh, there were laws broken... thumbsup.gif

Aren't you blowing this a little out of proportion, lordhelmet? I'd like to see the culprit prosecuted, not executed or, as Bush likes to say it, "brought to justice." cool.gif

As far as sending him to Gitmo, I would assert that there are people in Gitmo, "persons of interest," who probably have fewer things to implicate them in terrorism than Rove has to implicate him in a little revenge-taking since former Ambassador Wilson cast aspersions on the Niger uranium deal.

Wilson probably should have kept his mouth shut instead and just let the lie go uncontradicted. He might have ended up receiving the President Medal of Freedom along with George "Slam Dunk" Tenet and Paul Bremer.

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jul 6 2005, 06:33 PM)

2. Is is plausible that Bush was unaware of this crime?

It is well known that this President never admits to mistakes. It is also well known that this President is not famous for doing his homework or knowing details of anything. As long as some underling is willing to take the fall, Bush won't admit to being aware of it. So whether he knew about it or not, it won't figure into the equation.


QUOTE(lordhelmet)
laugh.gif Then how did Kerry (and Gore) lose to such a guy.....


Maybe because Kerry should have invested in Diebold... cool.gif

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jul 6 2005, 06:33 PM)

3. Is this evidence that truth has trouble in this White House, or just one unfortunate incident?

I know that my opinion of this has already been discounted by some readers due to the fact that I am "slightly liberal" and a Democrat, but the proof of the pudding is still in the eating. Let's see--WMDs? Uranium from Niger? 9/11 terrorists from Iraq? These were all claimed but shown to be false. I don't see that the truth is something that is welcome in this administration.
*



QUOTE(lordhelmet)
WMD's?  Bush hardly invented that charge.*  Bill Clinton bombed Iraq twice because of their alleged existence.  I know I'm beating a dead horse here but EVERYONE in the world intelligence community thought Iraq had WMD's and they themselves were acting guilty.

Uranium from Niger?  Jury is still out on that one.**

9/11 terrorists from Iraq?  Who in the Bush administration ever made that charge?  I think you just invented that one.***


I asterisked the phrases I will be answering:
*No, he used it to invade Iraq, not Clinton.

**It's been what, two years or three now? Let me know when the jury is in.

***That was a result of very carefully crafted speeches from Bush & Company designed to make Americans think 9/11=Iraq. Again, Bush used a misperception that he had no intention of clearing up in his haste to invade Iraq and capture Saddam Hussein. He could have cleared it up, but it was working to his advantage. Another Rove strategem. No, lordhelmet, it was your Republican neo-cons who were the inventive ones.
Dontreadonme
Is Dayton off his Rocker because Karl Rove is innocent?

I won't proclaim that Dayton is off his rocker, because we don't yet know any of the facts.

However that doesn't stop the assumption of guilt being placed squarely on Rove, if for no other reason than 'we don't like him'.

QUOTE
I certainly wouldn't put it past Rove with his long-established track record of smearing those who oppose his candidate


What long established track record do you speak of PE?
I started a thread here about a year ago, and all we came up with is three possible incidents that Rove may have masterminded.

That doesn't seem to stop people from proclaiming him the devil incarnate.......or from naming him innocent until proven guilty. whistling.gif

Some claim that America needs a boogyman in the fight on the war on terror to instill a sense of fear in the citizenry. I might claim that political parties do the exact same thing.

That being said, if guilty, then prosecute.
Paladin Elspeth
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jul 6 2005, 07:07 PM)
What long established track record do you speak of PE?
I started a thread here about a year ago, and all we came up with is three possible incidents that Rove may have masterminded.

That doesn't seem to stop people from proclaiming him the devil incarnate.......or from naming him innocent until proven guilty. whistling.gif

Some claim that America needs a boogyman in the fight on the war on terror to instill a sense of fear in the citizenry. I might claim that political parties do the exact same thing.

That being said, if guilty, then prosecute.


Sorry, DTOM, perhaps BoF would do better at answering that. Are you aware of the book (and movie) Bush's Brain? It speaks of Rove and the previous candidates he backed, how they won, in Texas politics. Forgive me if I do not have the book on hand now.
Dontreadonme
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jul 6 2005, 06:11 PM)
 
Sorry, DTOM, perhaps BoF would do better at answering that. Are you aware of the book (and movie) Bush's Brain? It speaks of Rove and the previous candidates he backed, how they won, in Texas politics. Forgive me if I do not have the book on hand now. 


Saw the movie (thank you Sundance Channel), and still only saw a great deal of speculation and innuendo. I'm not exhonorating him on the current affair or past, if proven, but I see the makings of a public lynching here at AD on zero evidence.

BTW......is Texas politics any different or worse than Chicago politics?
lordhelmet
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jul 6 2005, 06:57 PM)

QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Jul 6 2005, 06:40 PM)
What if Rove wasn't the source?  What if there were no laws broken?  It's going to be pretty hard to convict ANYONE on the basis that someone outed a clandestine CIA agent when the woman in question wasn't one at the time. 

Should we just hang Rove and ask questions later or only send him to Gitmo?


Oh, there were laws broken... thumbsup.gif

Aren't you blowing this a little out of proportion, lordhelmet? I'd like to see the culprit prosecuted, not executed or, as Bush likes to say it, "brought to justice." cool.gif

As far as sending him to Gitmo, I would assert that there are people in Gitmo, "persons of interest," who probably have fewer things to implicate them in terrorism than Rove has to implicate him in a little revenge-taking since former Ambassador Wilson cast aspersions on the Niger uranium deal.

Wilson probably should have kept his mouth shut instead and just let the lie go uncontradicted. He might have ended up receiving the President Medal of Freedom along with George "Slam Dunk" Tenet and Paul Bremer.

*



Which laws, specifically, were broken?

Don't we have to have laws broken before people are prosecuted? Or, is political hate enough?

If laws designed to protect undercover CIA assets (enacted after undercover assets were killed after the socialist Agee outed them in the 70's) and Plame WASN'T an undercover asset.... and made no efforts to conceal her CIA job in Langley... what laws were broken?

And, which people, specifically, in Gitmo are there for doing less than what Rove has been alleged to doing (by yourself and a rabid democrat operative named O'Donnell)?

It would seem that Wilson and his wife were partisan democrats who didn't like Bush at all. One could characterize his actions along with the NY Times as a "vast left wing conspiracy" and not be too far off.

With respect to Clinton's CIA chief Tenet, one could say he got it wrong with the "slam dunk" remark. Perhaps Bush's biggest problem is his personal loyalty to his staff? Even ones who he didn't appoint?
nighttimer
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Jul 6 2005, 07:17 PM)
Which laws, specifically, were broken? 

Don't we have to have laws broken before people are prosecuted?  Or, is political hate enough?

If laws designed to protect undercover CIA assets (enacted after undercover assets were killed after the socialist Agee outed them in the 70's) and Plame WASN'T an undercover asset.... and made no efforts to conceal her CIA job in Langley... what laws were broken? 


The assertion has been made several times in this thread that "no laws were broken" by revealing Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative because she was not undercover.

But Valerie Plame was a covert operative for the CIA until Robert Novak exposed her identity.

Besides the fact that the CIA's request to the Justice Department for an investigation confirms the insinuation that Plame was an undercover agent until Novak and the leakers blew her cover, what we've now learned is the number of journalists the two administration leakers tried the Wilson-Plame story out on before striking hot with Novak (six).

http://slate.msn.com/id/2089017/

And here's what Bob 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.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertn...n20030714.shtml

Let's get something straight here. Plame was an undercover operative and if she wasn't somebody should tell federal prosecutor Patrick Fitgerald to stop wasting time and taxpayer dollars and Judith Miller should get sprung from jail immediately. Lordhelmet's dissembling attempts to minimize the significance of Plame's outing indicate a greater desire to not embarrass the Bush Administration than to punish those who broke the law.

Those "two senior adminstration officials" were, and probably still are members of The Bush Administration, despite the nostalgic musings of aevans176 and lordhelmet to cheap-shot The Clinton Administration again (and again, and again). Wrong is wrong, fellas no matter who's got the keys to the Oval Office. But apparently only when Democrats get caught with their hands in the cookie jar does it matter to you.

Part of the issue here is until you read The Intelligence Identities Protection Act you may not understand why somebody needs to go to jail. The Act reads in part:

Sec. 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to
classified information that identifies covert agent

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(cool.gif Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information

Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

© Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents

Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $15,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both


http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html

John Dean, of Watergate infamy, knows a little something about "senior adminstration officials" who try to destroy their political enemies. Dean explains what the Act means in the case of Valerie Plame:

First, the leak must be to a person "not authorized to receive classified information." Any journalist - including Novak and Time - plainly fits.

Second, the insider must know that the information being disclosed identifies a "covert agent." In this case, that's obvious, since Novak was told this fact.

Third, the insider must know that the U.S. government is "taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States." For persons with Top Secret security clearances, that's a no-brainer: They have been briefed, and have signed pledges of secrecy, and it is widely known by senior officials that the CIA goes to great effort to keep the names of its agents secret.

A final requirement relates to the "covert agent" herself. She must either be serving outside the United States, or have served outside the United States in the last five years. It seems very likely that Mrs. Wilson fulfills the latter condition - but the specific facts on this point have not yet been reported.


http://www.yuricareport.com/Impeachment/De...eThanNixon.html

Dean called the exposing of Plame, "the most vicious leak I have seen in over 40 years of government-watching." People leak in Washington for a lot of reasons. Some good and some bad. Some to blow the whistle on skullduggery and some because they've got an axe to grind and a head they'd love to see lopped off with it. That doesn't mean Rove and Novak were sitting around over brandy and cigars trying to come up with a way to really screw Joe Wilson. But it doesn't mean they didn't either.

It would be nice if those posters who so loudly proclaim Rove is the victim of a witch-hunt by a liberal lynch mob were equally as concerned by craven politicos who put CIA agents at risk to serve their own selfish and petty agendas.
Alexander
I genuinely don't think Rove leaked the information. The man's just too devious to have made a mistake like that. Sure, it's certainly very possible that he's behind the leak... but personally leaking the material? Why wouldn't he put some buffer inbetween him and the reporters? It doesn't make sense.

QUOTE
1. Should Karl Rove go to prison for perjury and treason?

2. Is is plausible that Bush was unaware of this crime?

3. Is this evidence that truth has trouble in this White House, or just one unfortunate incident?

4. Is Dayton off his Rocker because Karl Rove is innocent?

1. If he had a hand in the leak, sure.
2. Assuming Rove did leak it, I think Bush being unaware is equally plausible as Bush knowing about it.
3. Assuming Both that Rove leaked it and that his action was sanctioned, I don't think this has anything to do with the white house's handle on "Truth". But I'd definently take it as an indictment of their ethics...
4. Couldn't personally say. hmmm.gif
DaytonRocker
I don't see why it's so implausible that Rove leaked the name.

As reported here, Rove called Chris Matthews of the show "Hardball" the day Novak released his column.
QUOTE
In early October 2003, NEWSWEEK reported that immediately after Novak's column appeared in July, Rove called MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews and told him that Wilson's wife was "fair game.

Chris Matthews and the producers of that show testified to the Grand Jury that this happened. Notice in this column that Novak did not call Plame an employee, analyst, agent, etc. He specifically called her an "operative".

There was nothing "unknowing" about this.
Wertz
QUOTE(jleavy @ Jul 6 2005, 05:08 PM)
Last I heard she was yanked from her undercover status back in 1994 because of Ames' betrayal to the Russians.
QUOTE(NYT Monday @  October 13, 2003)
Valerie Plame - the CIA suspected that Aldrich Ames had given Wilson's name to the Russians before his arrest for espionage in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons.

So Plame ceased to be an undercover agent in 1994. Since then her husband Joe Wilson entered her name in "Wilson's Who's Who" and both Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame have made large contributions to the Democratic Party where they both used their real names and employers on the Federal Election Commission forms they signed with the donations.

The Times also mentions that at that time she was "brought back to Washington" - not that her covert status had changed. There is no mention of when, where, or whether she returned to the field. But it does go on to say (again on the basis of an unnamed source - in an opinion piece) that in 2003 she was "in transition away from undercover work to management, and to liaison roles with other intelligence agencies. So this year, even before she was outed, she was moving away from 'noc' - which means non-official cover." The emphasis is mine. By the time of the leak, she may have been "moving" and "in transition", but - according to your source - she was still NOC.

QUOTE(jleavy @ Jul 6 2005, 05:08 PM)
Unfortunately, Wertz, Factcheck blows Wilson's account full of holes:
QUOTE
It's highly unlikely that Valerie Plame was covert for the previous 5 years prior to the Novak report of her involvement in this affair. She gave birth to twins in 1999 and so for at least four years as, first, pregnant and then, actual mother of two small children would not have been "undercover" or "covert" in the field. I know childbearing age women have been liberated and all, but, considering the demands of working in the field gathering intelligence, even the CIA would not have been able to leave her "out there" unless Joe Wilson can carry and then nurse his own children all by himself.

"Highly unlikely"? Not according to the first item you cited. In any event, were pregnancy to change one's covert status, she would have needed to have been instantly recommisioned from the moment of conception in order to conform to the "four years" referred to at Factcheck by the time of the leak (I'm not sure where they got the "five years" they first mention - maybe they should check their facts). In any event, even that four years is well within a violation of the law, again according to your source:
QUOTE
An employee of an intelligence agency is a "covert agent" for the purposes of the statute only if he "is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States.
*

It looks like Plame was still under covert status - or would have been within the five year limitation. Rather than relying on any more unnamed sources and media speculation, I'd suggest we let the investigation take its course. If there was a glaring, irrefutable violation of the law with absolutely concrete evidence, it might eventually come out. If there's any wiggle room whatsoever, we'll never know more than we know now. Hopefully, justice will take its course - though I rather doubt it.

This affair has been under investigation since October, 2003. If Plame wasn't a covert operative at the time of the leak, why hasn't the CIA simply stated as much and ended the whole thing?
DaytonRocker
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jul 6 2005, 11:00 PM)
This affair has been under investigation since October, 2003. If Plame wasn't a covert operative at the time of the leak, why hasn't the CIA simply stated as much and ended the whole thing?

Great point, Wertz.

Does anybody think it's plausible that after all this time, Fitzgerald hasn't resolved this part of the debate? Do the defenders of this outing truly believe Fitzgerald is that stupid?

But, here we go. We didn't need to spend millions on a special prosecutor when we could just use factcheck.org for free. Maybe Fitzgerald should have just went to Americas Debate before investigating to make sure he has a case.

The gullibility of the Bush apologists is simply astounding. They appear to hang onto the most implausible things imaginable (like our intelligence being wrong about WMD and links to Al Qaida were a mistake and an Iraq/Al Qaida link was a mistake and Al Qaida/Iraqi an intelligence meeting in Prague was a mistake and Iraq helped with 9/11 was a mistake and mobile weapons labs were a mistake and gliders to release WMD were a mistake and uranium enrichment programs were a mistake and WMD being in that area between Bagdad and Tikrit was a mistake and being saying we'd be welcomed as liberators was a mistake and we'd be out of Iraq in 6 weeks was a mistake and the war would be paid for by Iraq was a mistake and Scott Ritter lying was a mistake and Paul O'neill lying was a mistake and Richard Clarke lying was a mistake and Joe Wilson was lying and Jack Straw lying was a mistake and the Downing Street Minutes are wrong - in other words, our intelligence was accidentally 100% wrong) to be "correct".

Of course, while our intelligence was 100% wrong on Iraq, they knew who every hijacker was from 9/11 and everything about them before the first plane hit.
Dontreadonme
Another twist to the case where we know no facts, yet each side has drawn up it's battle lines.

QUOTE
On Saturday, Rove's attorney said that Rove spoke with Cooper during the critical period in July 2003, just after Wilson's piece appeared, when reporters were calling the White House to ask questions about Wilson's assertions. But he said that Rove did not reveal Plame's identity and that Fitzgerald has assured him Rove is not a target of the investigation.

Fitzgerald may learn more details from Cooper's notes. Sources close to the investigation say there is evidence in some instances that some reporters may have told government officials -- not the other way around -- that Wilson was married to Plame, a CIA employee.

WaPo

I'm waiting on evidence before pasing judgement..........isn't anyone else?
lordhelmet
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jul 7 2005, 10:10 AM)

Another twist to the case where we know no facts, yet each side has drawn up it's battle lines.

QUOTE
On Saturday, Rove's attorney said that Rove spoke with Cooper during the critical period in July 2003, just after Wilson's piece appeared, when reporters were calling the White House to ask questions about Wilson's assertions. But he said that Rove did not reveal Plame's identity and that Fitzgerald has assured him Rove is not a target of the investigation.

Fitzgerald may learn more details from Cooper's notes. Sources close to the investigation say there is evidence in some instances that some reporters may have told government officials -- not the other way around -- that Wilson was married to Plame, a CIA employee.

WaPo

I'm waiting on evidence before pasing judgement..........isn't anyone else?
*



Apparently not. A few of the partisan democrats have already declared Rove guilty and are asking for his imprisonment.

The same people who have given Saddam Hussein every benefit of the doubt, who supported a president candidate and now DNC chair (Howard Dean) who said that Bin Laden was "innocent until proven guilty in court" and who decry the alleged and unsubstantiated treatment of terrorists in Gitmo, are screaming for Rove's head.

The double standard demonstrated by those who hate Rove is glaring.
Wertz
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Jul 7 2005, 10:40 AM)
Apparently not. A few of the partisan democrats have already declared Rove guilty and are asking for his imprisonment. 

The same people who have given Saddam Hussein every benefit of the doubt, who supported a president candidate and now DNC chair (Howard Dean) who said that Bin Laden was "innocent until proven guilty in court" and who decry the alleged and unsubstantiated treatment of terrorists in Gitmo, are screaming for Rove's head.

The double standard demonstrated by those who hate Rove is glaring.
*

I expect that people are somewhat more complex than you imagine. As an example, I am not a Democrat and never have been, nor did I support Howard Dean, but I have long felt that the Plame leak had Rove's fingerprints all over it. I also feel that Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant (and felt that way even when our government was supporting him) and that Osama bin Laden is a dangerous terrorist (and felt that way even when our government was supporting him). But I also believe that Rove - like Hussein and bin Laden - should legally be considered innocent until proved guilty. And I don't see that as a double standard, Democratic or not. I see that as justice.

So, just as a point of information, who are these "partisan Democrats" that are declaring Rove guilty and asking for his imprisonment and who have given Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt, supported Howard Dean (and his opinion regarding Osama bin Laden), and decried the treatment of suspects at Guantanamo Bay?

For example, there is no one contributing to this discussion that fits that description - indeed, there is no one contributing to this discussion that even fits the bill in terms of "declaring Rove guilty". So who are you talking about? To whose double standards are you referring? And how do these hypothetical people figure in answering the questions for debate?
BoF
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Jul 7 2005, 08:40 AM)
Apparently not.  A few of the partisan democrats [sic] have already declared Rove guilty and are asking for his imprisonment.


Lordhelmet I want to add a little to what Wertz said so well.

Who are the "few partisan democrats" you are talking about? Are they members of this board? Are they members of Congress?

If you are going to make such statements, you need to back them up with something (other than RNC's webpage or something similar). Please link us to statements made by Democrats who want to imprison Rove, or for that matter, Tom DeLay, without going through the mechanics of due process.

BTW: Karl Rove has started speaking at Republican fundraisers. That's fine. It's a partisan audience. Still, the news media covers it for wider distribution. He also did an interview recently with David Gregory substituting for Chris Matthews on Hardball. My guess is that the more people see Rove the less they are going to like him. He is not a good image for electronic media. Rove, of all people, needs to be the force behind the story--not the story itself. (Note: This is a paraphrase of Keith Olbermann) I think this is what will lead to Rove's eventual demise.
Cube Jockey
I suppose we'll all see where this leads but I just ran across this posted on a blog - source.
QUOTE
Yet tonight I received this as-solid-as-it-gets tip: on Sunday Newsweek is posting a story that nails Rove. The newsmagazine has obtained documentary evidence that Rove was indeed a key source for Time magazine's Matt Cooper and that Rove--prior to the publication of the Bob Novak column that first publicly disclosed Valerie Wilson/Plame as a CIA official -- told Cooper that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife apparently worked at the CIA and was involved in Joseph Wilson's now-controversial trip to Niger.

To be clear, this new evidence does not necessarily mean slammer-time for Rove. Under the relevant law, it's only a crime for a government official to identify a covert intelligence official if the government official knows the intelligence officer is under cover, and this documentary evidence, I'm told, does not address this particular point. But this new evidence does show that Rove -- despite his lawyers claim that Rove "did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA" -- did reveal to Cooper in a deep-background conversation that Wilson's wife was in the CIA. No wonder special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald pursued Cooper so fiercely. And Fitzgerald must have been delighted when Time magazine -- over Cooper's objection--surrendered Cooper's emails and notes, which, according to a previous Newsweek posting by Michael Isikoff, named Rove as Cooper's source. In court on Wednesday, Fitzgerald said that following his receipt of Cooper's emails and notes "it is clear to us we need [Cooper's] testimony perhaps more so than in the past." This was a clue that Fitzgerald had scored big when he obtained the Cooper material.


So, make of that what you will, but I'd definitely suggest checking out Newsweek this Sunday when that story hits. Obviously I haven't read the story yet so I don't have any commentary on it, I'm just posting this as an FYI for all those currently participating in this topic. I'm very skeptical about Newsweek having the goods, but we'll see - I think this story is really going to blow up over the coming weeks.

Edited to add: Apparent the story is up - The Rove Factor? - enjoy!

Edited to add again: Ooops, that is last week's article. This is the new one - Matt Cooper's Source
Argonaut
Having just read through and contemplated the entire thread up to and including the entire link to Newsweek's most recent "story" regarding same.......I yawned.

1. Should Karl Rove go to prison for perjury and treason?

Absolutely not! Unless and until he is found guilty of perjury and treason!

2. Is is plausible that Bush was unaware of this crime?

Fallacy Alert! The question falsely implies as fact the finding of a crime.

3. Is this evidence that truth has trouble in this White House, or just one unfortunate incident?

Fallacy Alert Continues! Please review relevant sections of this Forum which describe tactics that undermine credibility.

4. Is Dayton off his Rocker because Karl Rove is innocent?

Fallacy Alert III...Whether or not Dayton is indeed off his Rocker cannot be established by a non-existent charge yet to be announced thus ruling that Karl Rove is innocent or guilty of anything.
DaytonRocker
QUOTE(Argonaut @ Jul 10 2005, 03:21 AM)
Having just read through and contemplated the entire thread up to and including the entire link to Newsweek's most recent "story" regarding same.......I yawned.

Of course, Just because it looks, feels, and smells like a steaming pile of excrement, doesn't mean it actually is. Don't tell me - you actually believe our intelligence was accidentally 100% wrong on Iraq too, huh?

No wonder Ponzi schemes work so well. P.T. Barnum would be doing cartwheels if he were alive today.

The email evidence is very damning no matter how you spin it. But the biggest question to me is, what is Judith Miller hiding? If Fitzgerald is pursuing conspiracy charges, is she culpable? Does she have direct evidence that ties these loose ends together?

Maybe that's why the courts have ruled against her. There's a difference between protecting a source and using the Constitution to help perperate a crime.

Edited to fix premature postulation.
Cube Jockey
Well based on this Newsweek article it appears that a case for perjury could be made, but I think Fitzgerald is just getting started here and won't settle for that quite yet.

Before the content of Cooper's email exchanges came to light there wasn't really anything solid linking Rove to this other than tin foil hat theories. Now for the first time there is hard evidence implicating him in the whole thing. As the blogger I cited said, there isn't enough for slammer time quite yet but I believe that Fitgerald is now on the case and following up on this line of thinking.

The smart money says that over the coming weeks more will come to light about Karl Rove. Anyone who believes this is simply going to go away now will be very wrong.
DaytonRocker
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Jul 10 2005, 12:23 PM)
Well based on this Newsweek article it appears that a case for perjury could be made, but I think Fitzgerald is just getting started here and won't settle for that quite yet.

If reports are accurate, this point looks like a done deal. Rove is reported to have told the grand jury he never talked to a reporter about Plame until after Novak broke the Plame story.

Edited to add:
It doesn't look like Rove outed Plame by name, so he must have referred to one of Wilson's other wives who works for the CIA.
Dontreadonme
Though the latest news is in no way a smoking gun, it is making the case more compelling. If guilty, Rove must be prosecuted as if it were any ordinary citizen. I certainly wouldn't be given a break or protected if I had outed a CIA agent, and nor should Rove. I think the fine points of this may boil down to the official record and timeline of Mrs. Plame's agency status.

But this could be a double edged sword for Democrats......if their boogyman is in the big house, who will they blame their woes on?
Wertz
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Jul 10 2005, 01:57 PM)
It doesn't look like Rove outed Plame by name, so he must have referred to one of Wilson's other wives who works for the CIA.
*

Exactly. Rove has been very careful to say things like "I never named Valerie Plame" and "I did not leak her name" and that sort of thing. No one seems to have asked if he ever leaked that "Wilson's wife" was a CIA operative. He remains as slippery as KY Jelly. The only question is whether that's slippery enough to escape a perjury charge.
carlitoswhey
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jul 10 2005, 03:54 PM)
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Jul 10 2005, 01:57 PM)
It doesn't look like Rove outed Plame by name, so he must have referred to one of Wilson's other wives who works for the CIA.
*

Exactly. Rove has been very careful to say things like "I never named Valerie Plame" and "I did not leak her name" and that sort of thing. No one seems to have asked if he ever leaked that "Wilson's wife" was a CIA operative. He remains as slippery as KY Jelly. The only question is whether that's slippery enough to escape a perjury charge.
*


I can't find a transcript this morning, but someone over the weekend asked Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC whether it was "common knowledge" in the press that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA (back when this "leak" happened). She said "yes," and kind of squirmed uncomfortably. I have a hunch that it will come out in Fitzgerald's case that everybody pretty much knew this, based on the Washington Post's article that some journalists told "sources" as well as vice-versa.

Whether he committed a crime or not, it's kind of ironic that Rove is in trouble for providing truthful information to reporters. Doesn't seem like him at all! laugh.gif

edited for clarity
Cube Jockey
I found this to be a highly amusing turn of events.
QUOTE
For two years, the White House has insisted that presidential adviser Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak of a CIA officer's identity. And President Bush said the leaker would be fired.

But Bush's spokesman wouldn't repeat any of those assertions Monday in the face of Rove's own lawyer saying his client spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified in a newspaper column.


Isn't the administration in a nice little bind these days whistling.gif
nighttimer
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jul 10 2005, 02:10 PM)
But this could be a double edged sword for Democrats......if their boogyman is in the big house, who will they blame their woes on?


laugh.gif Oh, I imagine they'll find someone...

It's just about that time when we start hearing the dreaded "vote of confidence" from the White House. Something along the lines of, "The President stands 110 percent behind Mr. Rove and he has the complete confidence of the President."

That's when we will start to know that Karl is soon going to find his security clearance to the West Wing revoked. If Judith Miller deserves to go to jail so does Rove.

And it couldn't happen to a more rotten guy. bye.gif
BoF
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jul 11 2005, 05:34 PM)
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jul 10 2005, 02:10 PM)
But this could be a double edged sword for Democrats......if their boogyman is in the big house, who will they blame their woes on?


laugh.gif Oh, I imagine they'll find someone...


I think we already have, Tom DeLay. With any luck we'll eventually be able to wave bye-bye to him also. mrsparkle.gif

QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Jul 11 2005, 02:28 PM)
I found

this to be a highly amusing turn of events.

QUOTE
For two years, the White House has insisted that presidential adviser Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak of a CIA officer's identity. And President Bush said the leaker would be fired.

But Bush's spokesman wouldn't repeat any of those assertions Monday in the face of Rove's own lawyer saying his client spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified in a newspaper column.


Isn't the administration in a nice little bind these days whistling.gif


The question might be, “Has Rove been lying to the President” or has the President known more all along than he’s let on? It might come down to the question Howard Baker asked about Nixon: “What did the President know and when did he know it?

This may sound cold hearted, but I hope Rove spends the next few months tossing and turning at night wondering what is going to happen to him. It couldn’t happen to a nicer person. thumbsup.gif

Actually, I’d be happy if it just takes Rove out of the 2006 and 2008 election equations. w00t.gif
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2021 Invision Power Services, Inc.