Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Carl Rove leaked CIA operative?

Carl Rove leaked CIA operative? (Page 4)
Thread Tools
RIRedinPA
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2005, 02:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

She hadn't been an undercover agent for years:
That is regardless. In her role as an undercover agent for the CIA she established connections and liasons with foreign nationals involved in nuclear research. I would guess some knew they were dealing with an agent but most didn't and that she was able to glean a lot of data on nuclear proliferation from her relationships. More likely, as she moved on from CIA her contacts were vetted out to other agents in similar roles to keep the information channels open.

With her outing there will be many governments now looking at those who had contact with her and whether they [the contacts] were unwittingly providing information or not a lot of those leads are now gone. Others will stop interacting with those who replaced her on the suspicion that they are CIA or for the safety of their own skins.

Furthermore, outing her name led to the revelation of the front company. Anyone in the world that is dealing with this company or dealt with this company now knows its a CIA front, and whatever other operations it may have been involved in are now either aborted or seriously tainted.

The complaint is not over the singular exposure of Plame, it is over the exposure of an entire covert network, the revelation in some detail of how the CIA works and the hardening of a task (nuclear proliferation intelligence) which is difficult to start with.

Obviously there is some politics and partisanship over the calling for Rove's head. What I can't understand is why all the Republican Hawks et al are not calling for it likewise. If this exposure, particularly during a time of war, not a breach of national security then what is? Had this been the Clinton admin I am sure the NRA would be leading the march on the White House with tar, feathers and torches. What a bunch of hypocrites you are.
( Last edited by RIRedinPA; Jul 18, 2005 at 03:05 PM. )
Take It Outside!

Mid Atlantic Outdoors
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2005, 03:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
Well, I didn't know the history of it all, and so, for that I thank you.
You still don't know the history of it all, only Simey's version.

1. Plame did not "send" Wilson to Niger - by all available accounts, she gave his name to the people in charge, who appear to have concluded that he was qualified, which, by all indications, he was. As far as I know, no one has produced any evidence that this was improper, but Simey has described it as "high-level corruption," while dismissing the impropriety of using Plame's identity as a political weapon. Draw your own conclusions.

2. Plame's identity as a CIA agent was not "common knowledge" or "public knowledge." If it were, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Note the careful wording of Simey's statement: "his relationship to his wife was public knowledge " - well, of course everyone knew they were husband and wife, the question is whether everyone knew she was a covert CIA agent. Apparently, they didn't - they thought she worked for an energy company, which was part of her cover.

3. On the notion that there's no harm done:

I talked to Melissa Mahle, a former CIA covert operative turned author whose career parallels Plame's. She explained what happens when someone's cover is blown. It isn't pretty, especially when, like Plame, you have been under "nonofficial cover" (working for a phony front company or nonprofit), which is more sensitive than "official cover" (pretending to work for another government agency). The GOP's spinners are making it seem that because Plame had a desk job in Langley at the time she was outed, she wasn't truly undercover. As Mahle says, that reflects a total ignorance about the way the CIA works. Being outed doesn't just waste millions of taxpayer dollars; it compromises hundreds of other people in the field you may have worked with in the past.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8598301/site/newsweek/

4. I agree with you that the fact that Wilson might be an arrogant, partisan SOB did not make his wife "fair game." I agree with Simey that it might not have been illegal, and that the Democrats are trying to milk it for all its worth, but I still think it stinks.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2005, 04:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by zigzag
Plame did not "send" Wilson to Niger - by all available accounts, she gave his name to the people in charge, who appear to have concluded that he was qualified, which, by all indications, he was.
There's a story that she was at a specific meeting in which his name was first suggested, but that has been disputed by the CIA. The CIA says that she didn't recommend his name at all, but responded to someone else's request. There's a memo in which Plame recites Wilson's qualifications, but it appears to be a response to a request rather than an initial suggestion.

I read a few days ago that the "news organization" that originally had the story about the disputed meeting was Talon News, i.e., Jeff Gannon. So at the least, there's debate about the question.

But I think the most important thing about this specific issue is the claim that "Wilson said Cheney sent him," and that's why Rove had to set the record straight about who sent him. That is categorically false.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2005, 04:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by zigzag
Plame's identity as a CIA agent was not "common knowledge" or "public knowledge."
The Russians and the Cubans knew she was a CIA agent, which is likely why she hadn't been involved in anything "covert" for years. I'd say that having your cover blown to Russia and Cuba essentially makes your identity "common knowledge" to the people you REALLY don't want knowing, and just about everything else is meaningless after the fact.

- Her cover had already been blown years ago
- She hadn't been engaged in any kind of covert action for years - she worked a desk
- It's likely given those two facts that Rove wouldn't have even known she was EVER covert.

Tempest in a teapot? Yep.
     
TheMosco  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2005, 07:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman
The Russians and the Cubans knew she was a CIA agent, which is likely why she hadn't been involved in anything "covert" for years. I'd say that having your cover blown to Russia and Cuba essentially makes your identity "common knowledge" to the people you REALLY don't want knowing, and just about everything else is meaningless after the fact.

- Her cover had already been blown years ago
- She hadn't been engaged in any kind of covert action for years - she worked a desk
- It's likely given those two facts that Rove wouldn't have even known she was EVER covert.

Tempest in a teapot? Yep.
links? I haven't read that yet. I guess the counter to that would be should rove have assumed she wasn't covert and confirmed with the the CIA before talking about matters involving a CIA agent?
AXP
ΔΣΦ
     
TheMosco  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2005, 07:23 PM
 
Bush adds criminal test to CIA leak row

President George W Bush says anyone in his administration who is found to have committed a crime in a federal investigation of the leak of a covert CIA agent's name will be fired.

Mr Bush, whose top political adviser Karl Rove has been caught up in the investigation, told reporters he did not know all the facts and urged them to wait until the inquiry was complete before "you jump to conclusions".

"I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts and if someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration," Mr Bush said at a news conference with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Asked on June 10, 2004, whether he stood by his earlier pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked the officer's name, Mr Bush replied: "Yes."

On Monday, he added the qualifier that it would have to be demonstrated that a crime was committed.
This seems like the whole "we know where the weapons are" to "we know they had ideas about starting programs that may have been related to WMD". I love this administration. Byden was right.
AXP
ΔΣΦ
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2005, 07:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by TheMosco
links? I haven't read that yet. I guess the counter to that would be should rove have assumed she wasn't covert and confirmed with the the CIA before talking about matters involving a CIA agent?
It's from a link that Simey provided earlier: http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s1...%20(Final).PDF

It's a brief filed on behalf of the entire media to persuade the court that the reporters should not be forced to disclose their sources. One of their arguments was that no harm was done because, according to some other source, the Russians and Cubans discovered Plame's identity a number of years ago. The argument is of dubious merit or sincerity - that the Russians and Cubans knew of her doesn't make her identity public for all other purposes - and the court wasn't persuaded. However, it's a good lesson in how politics makes for strange bedfellows, the media in this case making the same argument as the administration's defenders.

I'd be surprised if criminality is found - there are a lot of legal hurdles. But I still think the whole thing stinks, for reasons that are well-stated here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8598301/site/newsweek/
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2005, 07:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by zigzag
One of their arguments was that no harm was done because, according to some other source, the Russians and Cubans discovered Plame's identity a number of years ago. The argument is of dubious merit or sincerity - that the Russians and Cubans knew of her doesn't make her identity public for all other purposes - and the court wasn't persuaded. [/url]
Just to clarify though, the "other purpose[]" in that case was the entirely separate matter of Miller's duty to answer a grand jury subpoena. That's what the court didn't buy, and quite right too. Whether or not the grand jury and prosecutor eventually determines there is an underlying crime has no bearing whatsoever on whether Miller can obstruct the investigation.

However, that doesn't mean it is irrelevant for other purposes, factually, if not necessarily legally. The fact that Plame's cover was blown a decade ago makes it highly unlikely she was still under cover years later. So the basic premise that has been fueling the hysteria is missing.
     
TheMosco  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2005, 07:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by zigzag
It's from a link that Simey provided earlier: http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s1...%20(Final).PDF

It's a brief filed on behalf of the entire media to persuade the court that the reporters should not be forced to disclose their sources. One of their arguments was that no harm was done because, according to some other source, the Russians and Cubans discovered Plame's identity a number of years ago. The argument is of dubious merit or sincerity - that the Russians and Cubans knew of her doesn't make her identity public for all other purposes - and the court wasn't persuaded. However, it's a good lesson in how politics makes for strange bedfellows, the media in this case making the same argument as the administration's defenders.

I'd be surprised if criminality is found - there are a lot of legal hurdles. But I still think the whole thing stinks, for reasons that are well-stated here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8598301/site/newsweek/
thanks for the links.
AXP
ΔΣΦ
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2005, 08:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
The fact that Plame's cover was blown a decade ago makes it highly unlikely she was still under cover years later. So the basic premise that has been fueling the hysteria is missing.
Then why did the CIA keep her on non-official cover? Why did they refer this to Justice as a crime? Here's my favorite blogger's list of evidence that she was covert. It's from 2 years ago when Republicans first tried to peddle this line that the law doesn't apply to her case. There's a ton of evidence that she was currently undercover, in particular from the CIA itself. It simply isn't plausible that this basic criterion wasn't met.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2005, 10:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by zigzag
That the Russians and Cubans knew of her doesn't make her identity public for all other purposes...]
So if the intelligence communities of major countries knew her identity, what "other purposes" do you think she could serve covertly? Do you think that the competition's spooks don't talk to each other? Who exactly do you think she'd be fooling?

The bottom line is that her covert status was compromised long ago, and she hadn't been involved in anything covert in years. Why would people who heard she worked a desk job at the CIA think she was some kind of undercover spy? Thousands of people work for the CIA who haven't done anything "covert" and it's not illegal to mention that they work there (and there's no evidence that Rove knew she had "covert" status and there wouldn't be any reason for him to believe that). The point of the law is not to jeopardize the lives/work of agents in the field actively involved in covert ops. Not to protect a housewife from Virginia who studied energy usage and used her civil service position to help her husband use taxpayer dollars to fund a political scheme

Why should someone who is doing that sort of thing be protected just because they work doing a CIA office job?
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2005, 10:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
Whether or not the grand jury and prosecutor eventually determines there is an underlying crime has no bearing whatsoever on whether Miller can obstruct the investigation.
I missed this before. I wouldn't say it has no bearing whatsoever. The guidelines for Justice/Special Prosecutors to subpoena reporters includes the following:
"In criminal cases, there should be reasonable grounds to believe, based on information obtained from nonmedia sources, that a crime has occurred, and that the information sought is essential to a successful investigation–particularly with reference to establishing guilt or innocence. The subpoena should not be used to obtain peripheral, nonessential, or speculative information."
If it turns out that Fitzgerald is just tying up loose ends before closing off the investigation without any indictments, then he's abusing his power by jailing Miller. More likely, given the number of courts that have looked at this, a crime really did occur.
     
TheMosco  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2005, 11:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman
So if the intelligence communities of major countries knew her identity, what "other purposes" do you think she could serve covertly? Do you think that the competition's spooks don't talk to each other? Who exactly do you think she'd be fooling?
wait wait wait, how does cuba and russia equal "major countries"?
AXP
ΔΣΦ
     
mojo2
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2005, 02:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
Mojo: the Ambassador has lied repeatedly about what he reported, and what his wife's role in sending him to Niger was. He's not a trustworthy source, and obviously, not a neutral participant. His word carries no weight.

The fact is, his relationship to his wife was public knowledge, and she was not within the protections of the 1982 Act. Wilson is a shill and he lied on the pages of the New York Times. This is entirely a political storm in a teacup -- one in a long line of cooked up scandals the Democrats have tried to sell in an attempt to gain the traction they can't seem to win at the polls.
Well, it's been more than 24 hours and I have yet to hear anyone from the Republican Party or the Administration calling Wilson's CBS appearance a bunch of lies (and you can be SURE they would if they could).


Face the Nation (CBS News) - Sunday, July 17, 2005

Quote:
Ms. JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG (The Chicago Tribune): Well, could we go back to the ambassador in this? You declined to say whether she served abroad within five years of those conversations, but did anyone know that she was working at the agency or driving to Langley? Did her friends or neighbors? Did anyone know that your wife worked for the CIA.

Amb. WILSON: No. No.

Ms. GREENBURG: So what did they understand her occupation to be?

Amb. WILSON: Well, they understood her to be an energy analyst, an energy consultant.

Ms. GREENBURG: For a private...

Amb. WILSON: For a private corporation. That's correct.
Attempts to discredit him may not work as well as some might wish. I don't know Simey, it appears as though this story isn't going away quietly.

But, as hard as they may try to touch the Presidency, W put up a FIRE wall today when he reiterated his commitment to firing anyone who broke the law. The lessons of Watergate are valuable in this case.
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2005, 04:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
W put up a FIRE wall today when he reiterated his commitment to firing anyone who broke the law.
That wasn't a reiteration, it was a modification. In June 2004 at Sea Island he said he would fire anyone involved in the leak. Now he says he will fire anyone that has committed a crime. Not the same thing.

Transcript of Press Conference 07/18/2005:

Bush: "I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts, and if someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration."

Reporter: "Do you still intend to fire anyone found to be involved in the C.I.A. leak case?"
Bush: "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."
For Bush to lose the Architect would be like losing your Queen in a game of chess.
     
Y3a
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2005, 06:33 AM
 
The UK Intel said that the attempt to buy cake was true. They stick by it even today. What do they know? If Wilson said something different, and knowing the political agenda he and his wife had, as well as those who took her advise to send him, then the credibility of the CIA is in question, as well as the desire to acquire FACTS. The leak had to originated WITH the CIA about her being covert, so again they are suspect.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2005, 07:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Y3a
The UK Intel said that the attempt to buy cake was true. They stick by it even today.
The British intelligence and the American intelligence was largely based on a set of documents that Italian intelligence had supplied. Wilson reported that those documents were forgeries. German and French intelligence said the same and later, both US intelligence and British intelligence admitted as much. 6 months after the SOTU speech, the White House admitted that without the forged documents, they would not have allowed the 16 words into the SOTU. It's irrelevant what the UK intelligence says today. The White House has admitted that it wouldn't have made the claims without the forged documents.

So, those documents played an integral role in the President saying what he said and the President's words were an integral part of the decision to go to war. The point here is that the White House should have known that the documents were forgeries because Wilson had told them as much before the SOTU. He says they ignored his report. That's the allegation that started the Architect's smear campaign and the fact that the UK still believes that information doesn't answer the allegation Wilson made.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2005, 08:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
I missed this before. I wouldn't say it has no bearing whatsoever. The guidelines for Justice/Special Prosecutors to subpoena reporters includes the following:If it turns out that Fitzgerald is just tying up loose ends before closing off the investigation without any indictments, then he's abusing his power by jailing Miller. More likely, given the number of courts that have looked at this, a crime really did occur.

Obviously, a special prosecutor (like any prosecutor) has to have probable cause to issue an indictment. But an indictment hasn't been issued. Probable cause isn't that high a standard. It's much less, for example, than a civil trial standard, which is preponderance of the evidence. But it is more than the reasonable suspicion standard a cop needs to pull you over in the street to stop and frisk you.

In an investigation, in order to get to the point when an indictment is issued, the prosecutor needs the information that leads to probable cause. The standard for that is less even than probable cause since a collection of evidence can be added together to build probable cause. So you aren't talking a very high threshold of likeliness of a crime to support a subpoena in a grand jury investigation. So put it all together to see how far from a conviction we could really be and still see subpoenas issued.

Something that meets that low threshold could support a subpoena. Information gathered from the subpoena and other sources could together add up to the low level of common sense likelihood of a crime that constitutes probable cause. Probable cause can support an indictment, but for an indictment to support a conviction, the jury or judge has to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a very high threshold, a world away from that needed for a mere evidentiary subpoena.

What the Times was trying to do was reverse the entire process and hold a mini trial -- judging the need for a subpoena based on what could happen if a trial were held today. That puts the cart before the horse in an extraordinary way. The point of the subpoena is simply to gather the information that might lead to probable cause. The subpoena could just as easily cause the prosecutor to conclude that there is no probable cause -- in which case, the prosecutor is ethically and legally bound not to prosecute. But it is not for the subpoenaed party to make that decision, and whether or not there is ultimately a prosecution has nothing to do with whether the subpoena itself is proper and must be obeyed. You have to obey it no matter what. Not to do so is contempt, which is why Judy Miller is in jail.

Mojo2: Washington feeding scandals generate a life of thier own once the feeding frenzy gets going. Remember Gary Condit? That was another summertime scandal. This one involves the White House and spies and the Democrat's (and the media's -- same thing) favorite obsession -- Karl Rove. All it lacks for the perfect summertime political scandal is sex. Sure, the frenzy is still going, but that doesn't mean there is any substance. It all depends on what happens when Fitzgerald finishes. He hasn't indicated how long that will be, but Miller's obstruction obviously doesn't help. But if as seems likely to me he ends up with no indictments, it's going to be awfully hard for even the Washington press corps to keep this one alive. Already, they are trying to shift things to what happens if there is no crime and trying to build a scandal over nothing but partisan outrage at politics as both sides play it (which most people instinctively understand). That's going to be a tough sell. Particularly when you have a president who at the best of times (i.e. when he still faced reelection) doesn't give a rats ass what the media thinks, and a media which has much less ability to manufacture a story than they had even five years ago.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2005, 08:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
Attempts to discredit him may not work as well as some might wish.
You don't have to attempt to discredit him. He does a pretty good job doing it all by himself. There's an old saying..."when an enemy is defeating himself, stand back and let him". Joe Wilson has been proven to be a liar, a partisan with an agenda, and wrong about the fact that Iraq sought nuclear materials. What reasonable person is going to take him seriously now?

Dick Morris (who I personally don't like, but have to respect his political skills) explained yesterday just how big of a "tempest in a teapot" this was. He compared it to when the Republicans used to attack HIllary. He said he used to love it when he worked for the President and the Reps used to come after her. It took the focus off of Bill, and Bill was the guy they needed to defeat - not Hillary. Morris rightly says that "middle America" couldn't give two hoots about Karl Rove, and the Democrats are wrongly spending their time talking about him because they don't like him, instead of pointing out that gas is over 2 dollars a gallon and the administration can't seem to fix that. It's this kind of detraction that the Republicans have learned to avoid post Clinton, and the Democrats can't see to get over and is likely while they'll stay a minority party for quite some time.

Originally Posted by Troll
That wasn't a reiteration, it was a modification. In June 2004 at Sea Island he said he would fire anyone involved in the leak.
To be fair, the original claim regarding the "leak" was that someone ILLEGALLY released information and Bush said he'd fire anyone involved with doing that. If it turned out that all Rove did was legally expose a CIA employee who was helping her husband use tax dollars for a partisan political scheme, and there was in fact no illegal leak by him, you could hardly expect him to fire his top aide for that. It's not really a "modification" more than a clarification.

Originally Posted by Troll
The British intelligence and the American intelligence was largely based on a set of documents that Italian intelligence had supplied. Wilson reported that those documents were forgeries.
All the information I've seen stated that their intelligence was above and beyond the forged documents, and the Senate report stated that Wilson's own report led the CIA to give additional credence to the foriegn intelligence, given that Nigerian officials told Wilson that Iraq had attempted, but not succeeded in getting uranium. The British did an internal investigation AFTER it was revealed that the documents where likely forgeries and STILL maintain the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium. Again...this is AFTER the fact that the documents where seen to be forgeries. Unless Joe Wilson knows more than the senate committee that investigated this, or the British Government, then he hasn't got a credible bone in his body.
     
Moderator
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: NYNY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2005, 09:12 AM
 
This is a joke...if you guys can find a way to rationalize the Iraq war...than of course you'll find some way, however ridiculous, to justify this.

You all know in your hearts that you're on the wrong side of this...the thing is its not THAT bad what Rove did..its typical politics..he's an attack dog, this time he got nabbed....big deal...so just say that...why bullsh!t?
     
funkboy
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: North Dakota, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2005, 09:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
Sure, the frenzy is still going, but that doesn't mean there is any substance. It all depends on what happens when Fitzgerald finishes.
That's like saying there was no substance to Kenneth Starr's investigation. To the public, there was, even if the final focus (Lewinsky) was completely unrelated to the original inquiry.

I don't mean to compare unlike things, but an investigation involving evidence just as public as the Starr evidence sure means something.
     
bewebste
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ithaca, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2005, 09:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman
George Bush has been proven to be a liar, a partisan with an agenda, and wrong about the fact that Iraq sought nuclear materials. What reasonable person is going to take him seriously now?
T,FTFY

Sorry, just couldn't resist.
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2005, 10:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
All it lacks for the perfect summertime political scandal is sex.
It's never too late . . . .
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2005, 11:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by bewebste
T,FTFY

Sorry, just couldn't resist.
Okay..the facts:

Liar: I've not seen any proof of this in regards to Bush. I've seen evidence that he got things wrong, and that he's changed his mind on things, but not that he KNOWINGLY said something that wasn't true. He may well have lied about something, but all I normally see is the type of false accusation that Wilson made, which ends up being either completely false, or simply a matter of opinion. In order to call someone a liar, you've got to have some pretty concrete evidence that someone knew something was not true before they said it. Wilson tried, and failed. When someone makes unsupportable claims like this, I think it hurts their credibility worse than the guy they are accusing. This is what always helped Bill Clinton. People make tons of unsupportable accusations about him, and the stuff that was probably true didn't matter as much because people got sick of hearing the unsubstantiated venom.


Wrong about the fact that Iraq sought nuclear materials: The senate comittee and the British government disagrees with your assessment. Both investigated after Wilson's claims and both state that Iraq was seeking nuclear materials.

A partisan with an agenda: Okay..you got me there
     
bewebste
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ithaca, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2005, 11:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman
Okay..the facts:

Liar: I've not seen any proof of this in regards to Bush. I've seen evidence that he got things wrong, and that he's changed his mind on things, but not that he KNOWINGLY said something that wasn't true.
This is a bit offtopic and has been hashed out elsewhere in the forums numerous times, so I'll try to keep it brief. Firstly, there are things the president has said that are out and out lies. A couple examples include "The vast majority of my tax cuts go to the middle class" and "I never said I wasn't concerned about Bin Laden". Irregardless of that, my problem with our president is his persistent dishonesty, including misleading statements, implications, and, yes, plain old lies.

When he said that he wanted to get to the bottom of the leak and he would deal with anyone involved, he obviously didn't mean it. He could have just asked his staff the very next day who'd been talking to reporters about Plame and come clean with the whole thing (although I suppose it's still possible that he did ask Rove, and Rove lied to him as well), but instead he decided to try to cover it up and hope the whole thing would go away. You can parse his words if you want to say that, "well, technically if a crime wasn't committed, then it wasn't really a full-fledged "leak", and therefore his statement doesn't apply to Rove, and therefore he didn't technically lie," and so on and so forth, but to me that's just as dishonest as a flat out lie. And yes, Clinton and plenty of others have tortured the language similarly, I'm not going to deny that, but I do think Bush has made dishonesty and secrecy a pervasive part of the way he runs the country, and I think that hurts our nation, and I want it to stop.

A partisan with an agenda: Okay..you got me there
Hehe, at least we can agree on something, eh?
     
Y3a
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2005, 12:50 PM
 
<< ........ Irregardless ..........>>

Bewebste! it THAT a REAL WORD??? LOL

BTW - The rest of your posts are just as funny!
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2005, 01:04 PM
 
If you're going to point out exagerations, flip-flops and pointing out what people MEANT to say when they mispoke, then I'm afraid that every President since Washington likely could be found to be a "liar" based on that sort of evidence. Bill Clinton didn't go a day without some sort of less than honest statement as you've highlighted. I wouldn't consider calling him a "liar" for that sort of stuff. Lying under oath on the other hand, concerning matters it can be proved he knew not to be true...

"When he said that he wanted to get to the bottom of the leak and he would deal with anyone involved, he obviously didn't mean it."

Opinion.

"...and hope the whole thing would go away."

Which it likely will, or the prosecutor will prosecute and Rove will resign.

"You can parse his words if you want to say that, "well, technically if a crime wasn't committed, then it wasn't really a full-fledged "leak", and therefore his statement doesn't apply to Rove, and therefore he didn't technically lie," and so on and so forth, but to me that's just as dishonest as a flat out lie."

No need to go to that extreme. All you've got to do is use the "reasonable man" standard. Would a reasonable man believe that the President was refering to the claims of an illegal leak, or simply responding to whether or not his staff would be fired for legally telling the press who it was that suggested Wilson for the job despite his false claims. I believe a reaonable, unbiased man would understand the former, not the latter. Someone out to get the President or Rove would hope for the latter.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2005, 01:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman
Okay..the facts:

Liar: I've not seen any proof of this in regards to Bush.
A lie like "I did not have sex with that woman" is a nice succinct sentence that is contradicted by facts. A long-term strategy of basic deception about the reasons for a war - trumped-up evidence of WMDs, a linkage to 9/11 - repeated over and over, is what's been called the big lie: It's so big that it's harder to narrow down to a specific statement. It's the difference between a child saying he didn't take the cookies and a man cheating on his wife for two years.

Wrong about the fact that Iraq sought nuclear materials: The senate comittee and the British government disagrees with your assessment. Both investigated after Wilson's claims and both state that Iraq was seeking nuclear materials.
Jeez. The White House has admitted that Bush shouldn't have made the Africa-nuke allegation. The senate committee absolutely did not disagree with Wilson. It was pretty harsh on him individually, but it confirmed that Iraq did not have WMDs and was not reconstituting its nuke program. Here's the introduction to the report. Look at page 14 for the conclusion about WMDs. It very clearly states that the intelligence did not support the statements made by the administration to justify the war. And that Senate committee was Republican controlled, and seen by many Democrats as a whitewash. But it still wasn't able to say the intelligence was there to support the nuke allegations, and the White House has admitted it. Why can't the WH's supporters admit it too?
     
TheMosco  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2005, 02:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman
Okay..the facts:
Wrong about the fact that Iraq sought nuclear materials: The senate comittee and the British government disagrees with your assessment. Both investigated after Wilson's claims and both state that Iraq was seeking nuclear materials.

A partisan with an agenda: Okay..you got me there
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3060817.stm

Right, so I guess Tenet was apologizing for nothing. Who cares if the british still think its true? There is no possibility that they just don't want to admit they are wrong? They admitted they were wrong about so many other intelligence claims isn't there the posibility that they were wrong on this? Your "facts" are hardly convincing.
AXP
ΔΣΦ
     
bewebste
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ithaca, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2005, 02:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman
If you're going to point out exagerations, flip-flops and pointing out what people MEANT to say when they mispoke, then I'm afraid that every President since Washington likely could be found to be a "liar" based on that sort of evidence. Bill Clinton didn't go a day without some sort of less than honest statement as you've highlighted. I wouldn't consider calling him a "liar" for that sort of stuff. Lying under oath on the other hand, concerning matters it can be proved he knew not to be true...
If a liar is somebody that has told at least one lie, then yes, every president we've ever had is a liar. What I'm saying is that Bush has had a particularly agregious record of misleading people, probably worse than most, if not all, of our previous presidents. But that's really a whole other discussion there.

No need to go to that extreme. All you've got to do is use the "reasonable man" standard. Would a reasonable man believe that the President was refering to the claims of an illegal leak, or simply responding to whether or not his staff would be fired for legally telling the press who it was that suggested Wilson for the job despite his false claims. I believe a reaonable, unbiased man would understand the former, not the latter. Someone out to get the President or Rove would hope for the latter.
Hehehe, so basically it's our opinion of what a "reasonable man" is that differs. At the time Bush made his statement back in 2003, it appeared that he was taking this matter very seriously, treating the release of information as thought it were in fact an illegal leak of information, or at the very least that he was genuinely upset that the information had been released. I'm referring more to his "anyone involved will be dealt with" claim here than his subsequent "anyone who leaked information will be fired" claim a few days later. I don't think revoking Rove's security clearance until the matter can be cleared up is unreasonable, but I do also think it might be premature to fire him at this point.

I'd still like to know whether the president ever asked Rove who he'd talked to and what Rove told him if he did. If Bush knew Rove talked to Cooper and Novak, and he really was upset at the release of that information, he could have taken action right then and there without having to have a prosecutor spend two years digging into it. The problem is that they would have had to admit that Rove (and perhaps Libby and others as well) was actively trying to discredit Wilson by pushing forward information about his wife's role in the Niger trip, which may have resulted in some bad PR.

IMO, I think they didn't expect it to get that far and that they could make due with a relatively light examination from Ashcroft's Justice Department and just put it all behind them, similarly to how Clinton thought he could just deny the Lewinsky incident and put it behind him. They then turned out to be wrong, and then the resulting digging may end up getting them into more trouble than they would have been if they'd come clean in the first place (again, just like Clinton). I think, given the length of time and detail the prosecutor, judge, and grand jury have gone to (jailing reporters, etc.), that there will turn out to be more going on here than we know about so far. It just doesn't seem to me that they would go to these lengths unless they really thought that a crime had been committed. But, we'll just have to wait until Fitzgerald finishes up to see what all was really going on.
     
Y3a
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2005, 02:50 PM
 
Any truth to the rumor that Plaine used a CIA cover business name and address when donating money to the Democrats in 1999 ????? If that was the case then she outted herself.
     
bewebste
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ithaca, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2005, 02:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Y3a
Any truth to the rumor that Plaine used a CIA cover business name and address when donating money to the Democrats in 1999 ????? If that was the case then she outted herself.
Um, yes, she did use the name of her cover business, that what's the cover business is for. If she wanted to out herself, she would have put down "Central Intelligence Agency" as her employer.
     
mojo2
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2005, 12:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Troll
That wasn't a reiteration, it was a modification. In June 2004 at Sea Island he said he would fire anyone involved in the leak. Now he says he will fire anyone that has committed a crime. Not the same thing.

For Bush to lose the Architect would be like losing your Queen in a game of chess.
Ultimately, the political counsel provided by Rove might be better given by a different, less odious queen. The wartime consiglieri Sonny Corleone thought he wanted was, I suspect, someone like Karl Rove.

With the MAJOR war having been won, the advisor the President needs may be someone more like our "mick/kraut" friend, Tom Hagen.
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
mojo2
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2005, 12:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
Obviously, a special prosecutor (like any prosecutor) has to have probable cause to issue an indictment. But an indictment hasn't been issued. Probable cause isn't that high a standard. It's much less, for example, than a civil trial standard, which is preponderance of the evidence. But it is more than the reasonable suspicion standard a cop needs to pull you over in the street to stop and frisk you.

In an investigation, in order to get to the point when an indictment is issued, the prosecutor needs the information that leads to probable cause. The standard for that is less even than probable cause since a collection of evidence can be added together to build probable cause. So you aren't talking a very high threshold of likeliness of a crime to support a subpoena in a grand jury investigation. So put it all together to see how far from a conviction we could really be and still see subpoenas issued.

Something that meets that low threshold could support a subpoena. Information gathered from the subpoena and other sources could together add up to the low level of common sense likelihood of a crime that constitutes probable cause. Probable cause can support an indictment, but for an indictment to support a conviction, the jury or judge has to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a very high threshold, a world away from that needed for a mere evidentiary subpoena.

What the Times was trying to do was reverse the entire process and hold a mini trial -- judging the need for a subpoena based on what could happen if a trial were held today. That puts the cart before the horse in an extraordinary way. The point of the subpoena is simply to gather the information that might lead to probable cause. The subpoena could just as easily cause the prosecutor to conclude that there is no probable cause -- in which case, the prosecutor is ethically and legally bound not to prosecute. But it is not for the subpoenaed party to make that decision, and whether or not there is ultimately a prosecution has nothing to do with whether the subpoena itself is proper and must be obeyed. You have to obey it no matter what. Not to do so is contempt, which is why Judy Miller is in jail.

Mojo2: Washington feeding scandals generate a life of thier own once the feeding frenzy gets going. Remember Gary Condit? That was another summertime scandal. This one involves the White House and spies and the Democrat's (and the media's -- same thing) favorite obsession -- Karl Rove. All it lacks for the perfect summertime political scandal is sex. Sure, the frenzy is still going, but that doesn't mean there is any substance. It all depends on what happens when Fitzgerald finishes. He hasn't indicated how long that will be, but Miller's obstruction obviously doesn't help. But if as seems likely to me he ends up with no indictments, it's going to be awfully hard for even the Washington press corps to keep this one alive. Already, they are trying to shift things to what happens if there is no crime and trying to build a scandal over nothing but partisan outrage at politics as both sides play it (which most people instinctively understand). That's going to be a tough sell. Particularly when you have a president who at the best of times (i.e. when he still faced reelection) doesn't give a rats ass what the media thinks, and a media which has much less ability to manufacture a story than they had even five years ago.
On Sunday I saw the look of a man who believed he had been unfairly, unjustly and illegally attacked (through his WIFE!!!) and the ONLY thing he had to hold up as a shield or hold onto to keep his nose above the water was the TRUTH and a belief that JUSTICE will prevail.

There's a look that comes only when the truth is your last best hope.

I don't care what anyone says about what he did or didn't, may or may not have done up until then, I saw he had that look and beyond that I'll await the facts to be revealed.

Simey...counsellor, if you haven't already done so I hope you get a chance to see someone with that look I'm talking about because when you do it will tell you everything about what a person believes in that moment.
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
mojo2
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2005, 12:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by RIRedinPA
What I can't understand is why all the Republican Hawks et al are not calling for it likewise. If this exposure, particularly during a time of war, not a breach of national security then what is? Had this been the Clinton admin I am sure the NRA would be leading the march on the White House with tar, feathers and torches. What a bunch of hypocrites you are.
I agree with your assertions about the damage her outing would cause.

And as for the hypocrite thing, I (ahem) question whether that's a COMPLETELY fair and accurate accusation.

Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2005, 07:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
A long-term strategy of basic deception about the reasons for a war - trumped-up evidence of WMDs, a linkage to 9/11 - repeated over and over, is what's been called the big lie: It's so big that it's harder to narrow down to a specific statement. It's the difference between a child saying he didn't take the cookies and a man cheating on his wife for two years.
Yeah..so big you really can't prove it! That's genius, I tells ya!

I've seen claims, and evidence that wrong information was used, and I understand it's possible that it was a calculated attempt. But, the fact remains that it's YOUR (and those who share it) OPINION that he knowingly said or did something false. It's just like when Wilson INSISTED that Bush lied when he claimed that Iraq was seeking uranium in his SOTU address. People parroted the same claim and added other equally unprovable claims. It turned out that everyone credible who did an in-depth investigation found that there was indeed sound evidence to support a claim that Iraq was seeking uranium.

Indeed.

The White House has admitted that Bush shouldn't have made the Africa-nuke allegation.
...at first, based on the assumption that Wilson and other critics were right. This was before the senate and British Government investigated and determined it was Wilson who was making false claims, and it was Bush who had made a credible claim.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2005, 07:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by TheMosco
Who cares if the british still think its true? There is no possibility that they just don't want to admit they are wrong? They admitted they were wrong about so many other intelligence claims isn't there the posibility that they were wrong on this? Your "facts" are hardly convincing.
I guess because our own Senate, in it's investigation, agree with the British. It turns out that Wilson was wrong about Iraq's attempts. People shouldn't have listened to him in that regard, especially Tenet. When all the facts came out, it was apparent that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2005, 08:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by bewebste
At the time Bush made his statement back in 2003, it appeared that he was taking this matter very seriously, treating the release of information as thought it were in fact an illegal leak of information, or at the very least that he was genuinely upset that the information had been released.
He assumed as fact that there was an illegal leak. I agree that his statements where predicated upon that assumption. If that assumption was wrong, then situation is different.


They then turned out to be wrong, and then the resulting digging may end up getting them into more trouble than they would have been if they'd come clean in the first place (again, just like Clinton).
Um...come clean..for..exposing a government employee who was using her position to help her husband with a politically partisan attack? Again, I think the assumption that Rove did anything "illegal" can be dropped at this point. He may still have, but that's up to a prosecutor to decide, and Bush says if anyone did anything illegal, they'd be fired.

I think, given the length of time and detail the prosecutor, judge, and grand jury have gone to (jailing reporters, etc.), that there will turn out to be more going on here than we know about so far. It just doesn't seem to me that they would go to these lengths unless they really thought that a crime had been committed. But, we'll just have to wait until Fitzgerald finishes up to see what all was really going on.
I remember people saying the same thing about the Lewinsky/Whitewater affair. Some small fish fried (and that was after a MUCH longer and wider scoping investigation), but in the end it did little more than cause embarrassment and a lot of wasted time in regards to the Clintons.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2005, 08:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
Simey...counsellor, if you haven't already done so I hope you get a chance to see someone with that look I'm talking about because when you do it will tell you everything about what a person believes in that moment.
Yeah yeah yeah. Join me in a thought experiment. Suppose Rove (or whoever) knew only that Plame worked a desk job at CIA. It's not unusual inside the beltway to know desk CIA employees. None of those employees are under cover - even nominally. So suppose that is all Rove (or whoever) knew about Plame. In other words, assume that he didn't know she was under cover (if, indeed she is) and that he had no reason based on her employment circumstances as a desk employee to even suppose that she might be under cover. So join me in supposing that in the leaker's mind she was a CIA employee who recommended her own husband to go on a spying mission, even though he wasn't a spy. And who recommended him to check on some sensitive information with policy ramifications, even though he was known to be a partisan Democrat and part of the State Department don't-depose-Saddam crowd. So he's political, and your job is politics.

Now suppose that person writes an op-ed that makes some gross misstatements, but which is politically damaging in the run-up to an election. And then the telephone rings, and it is a reporter who is supposed to be calling about domestic policy, but he shifts the conversation over to the op-ed. The reporter asks how such a person came to be sent even though he obviously had personal views that conflicted. The reporter goes on: you know, I heard the only reason he was sent was because his wife pulled strings for him. And you say, "yeah, I heard that too." That information ends up in a series of newspaper articles.

What I am getting at is that you are taking Wilson's outrage, whether it is genuine or manufactured, as prima facie evidence that there was an attempt to attack Wilson by hurting Plame. But that isn't the only explanation. An equally plausible one is simply that Plame's name came up by way of explanation of how Wilson came to get the government contract.

Essentially, what you are saying is that if a spouse acts, whatever the spouse does, however intimately connected to that action is off limits simply because that person is a spouse. So if the question is "how did Wilson happen to be at the grocery story on Friday night" and you answer "his wife sent him" and then for some reason that you don't know that is an embarrassing answer to his wife even though it is a perfectly truthful response and the only one that answers the question, then you are guilty of attacking his wife, and should go to jail. And Wilson gets to go on friendly chat shows and act outraged.

This tissue thin skin standard is interesting considering that Wilson has publicly accused Rove of committing a felony. Should Rove go on a friendly chat show and get teary-eyed about how Wilson hurt his feelings? Maybe after he is cleared he should sue Wilson. That accusation is actually slander per se, although a public figure like Rove would have a hard time surmounting the additional constitutional restrictions. But if Rove were a private figure, he'd certainly have a live lawsuit.
     
TheMosco  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2005, 09:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
Yeah yeah yeah. Join me in a thought experiment. Suppose Rove (or whoever) knew only that Plame worked a desk job at CIA. It's not unusual inside the beltway to know desk CIA employees. None of those employees are under cover - even nominally. So suppose that is all Rove (or whoever) knew about Plame. In other words, assume that he didn't know she was under cover (if, indeed she is) and that he had no reason based on her employment circumstances as a desk employee to even suppose that she might be under cover. So join me in supposing that in the leaker's mind she was a CIA employee who recommended her own husband to go on a spying mission, even though he wasn't a spy. And who recommended him to check on some sensitive information with policy ramifications, even though he was known to be a partisan Democrat and part of the State Department don't-depose-Saddam crowd. So he's political, and your job is politics.

Now suppose that person writes an op-ed that makes some gross misstatements, but which is politically damaging in the run-up to an election. And then the telephone rings, and it is a reporter who is supposed to be calling about domestic policy, but he shifts the conversation over to the op-ed. The reporter asks how such a person came to be sent even though he obviously had personal views that conflicted. The reporter goes on: you know, I heard the only reason he was sent was because his wife pulled strings for him. And you say, "yeah, I heard that too." That information ends up in a series of newspaper articles.
Partison democrat who voted for bush in 2000? Partison democrat who never talked to the kerry campagn?

Again, calling it a spy mission is misleading. The trip was not covert althought it was discreet. Aperently everyone that he talked to knew he was there for the CIA.

Lastly, I was under the impression that Cooper didn't know about Wilson's wife sending him. You are confusing the "yeah I heard that too" with something else.

"So did [Karl] Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that [Joe] Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him to Niger? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the 'agency' on 'WMD'. Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know."
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/..._id=1000980364
AXP
ΔΣΦ
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2005, 10:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by TheMosco
Again, calling it a spy mission is misleading. The trip was not covert althought it was discreet. Aperently everyone that he talked to knew he was there for the CIA.[/url]
You mean like everyone knew that Plame worked for the CIA.

You can defend the CIA's decision to act on his wife's recommendation to send him if you like. But the point is, can you conceive that others might disagree? I headed up my post above as a thought experiment. Wilson's allegation is that Rove (or whoever) mentioned his wife in order to hurt her and thus him. That's speculation about someone's motives. I'm asking you and mojo2 as a thought experiment to try to think a little more about it, see whether other explanations are possible.

Sure, if YOU were Rove asked that question, you might have said "Joe Wilson is a stud, a total professional, who would never let his personal views color his judgment" But you weren't sitting in that chair, and thus your subjective opinions about Wilson aren't the subjective opinions that matter. Rove probably thought Wilson was a terrible choice to send to Niger, and an incomprehensible one at that. But he was asked how it was that he came to be sent anyway. Rove was apparently asked a question that could only be answered by mentioning Wilson's wife, because Wilson's wife was why Wilson was sent to Niger (something that Wilson subsequently lied about, by the way). You can't convict a man for having a different opinion than you. Just because Wilson assumes Rove's subjective intent was to hurt Plame doesn't make it so.

And in addition, as we have discussed, Plame working for the CIA doesn't mean she was under cover. And even if she was under cover, it doesn't mean that Rove KNEW she was under cover. That subjective knowledge is part of the statutory test. It's not enough to out someone, you have to do so knowing that someone is under cover and with the intent to blow that cover. Maybe you don't have much experience with this, but most people around here would assume anyone they know who works a desk job at CIA isn't under cover. Being an analyst isn't a secret agent position.

So conduct another thought experiment. Change the facts a little. Suppose Plame worked for the State Department or the Department of Defense, not the CIA. Those agencies have analogous desk jobs to the one that Plame held, but definitely not under cover. Say then that Rove is popped the same question "who sent Wilson" and Rove answers "his wife, who works for State/Defense" is there an attack on Plame then?

I think the answer is no. But then that begs the question. IF Rove didn't know that she was under cover (if, indeed she was) but knew only that she worked for CIA in much the same way as all the comparable people he knows who work for State or Defense, then where is the malicious intent? The answer is there is none. It's all based on supposition. No matter what Wilson assumes, it isn't so until it is proven to be so.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2005, 10:53 AM
 
Well, Simey, she didn't work for the DOD, but for the CIA. Apparently it is illegal to blow the cover of CIA agents in the States. It also doesn't make a difference what Rove thought about her husband, legally, that is.

Furthermore, I don't think legal responsibility equals legal responsibility, Rove should step back to protect Bush. The longer he stays, the longer the whole thing is smeared out in the media and I don't think this will help improve the current approval rating of Bush.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
TheMosco  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2005, 10:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
I think the answer is no. But then that begs the question. IF Rove didn't know that she was under cover (if, indeed she was) but knew only that she worked for CIA in much the same way as all the comparable people he knows who work for State or Defense, then where is the malicious intent? The answer is there is none. It's all based on supposition. No matter what Wilson assumes, it isn't so until it is proven to be so.
Right... I don't think anywhere in this thread I have argued that he is guilty. Even in my first post I said, "if true". I have just tried to point out that he earlier claimed to not be involved in the leak at all, when its clear that he was involved. Whether he did anything illegal is not yet known.

My reply to your post was simply to show that the "facts" of your thought experient weren't facts.

From what I can gather about Karl Rove, this isn't below him though.
AXP
ΔΣΦ
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2005, 11:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
Well, Simey, she didn't work for the DOD, but for the CIA. Apparently it is illegal to blow the cover of CIA agents in the States. It also doesn't make a difference what Rove thought about her husband, legally, that is.
Wrong! Completely, utterly, wrong! This is getting frustrating. Read the ****ing statute. Don't make comments about the law that aren't what the law actually says.

SEC. 601. [50 U.S.C. 421] (a) 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 under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identity 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 under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) 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 under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(d) A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.


DEFENSES AND EXCEPTIONS
SEC. 602. [50 U.S.C. 422] (a) It is a defense to a prosecution under section 601 that before the commission of the offense with which the defendant is charged, the United States had publicly acknowledged or revealed the intelligence relationship to the United States of the individual the disclosure of whose intelligence relationship to the United States is the basis for the prosecution.

(b)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), no person other than a person committing an offense under section 601 shall be subject to prosecution under such section by virtue of section 2 or 4 of title 18, United States Code, or shall be subject to prosecution for conspiracy to commit an offense under such section.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply (A) in the case of a person who acted 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, or (B) in the case of a person who has authorized access to classified information.

(c) It shall not be an offense under section 601 to transmit information described in such section directly to either congressional intelligence committee.

(d) It shall not be an offense under section 601 for an individual to disclose information that solely identifies himself as a covert agent.

Intent is one of the many elements. This has been discussed many times. The fact that you are still under the misimpression that the law is a strict liability statute seems to be a symptom of the way this story has been reported. Now go back and reread my post with the correct understanding of the law.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2005, 11:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
Wrong! Completely, utterly, wrong! This is getting frustrating. Read the ****ing statute. Don't make comments about the law that aren't what the law actually says.

Intent is one of the many elements. This has been discussed many times. The fact that you are still under the misimpression that the law is a strict liability statute seems to be a symptom of the way this story has been reported. Now go back and reread my post with the correct understanding of the law.
Excuse me? How does that invalidate my point about political responsibilities? Quoting laws won't help here.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
bewebste
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ithaca, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2005, 11:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman
Um...come clean..for..exposing a government employee who was using her position to help her husband with a politically partisan attack? Again, I think the assumption that Rove did anything "illegal" can be dropped at this point. He may still have, but that's up to a prosecutor to decide, and Bush says if anyone did anything illegal, they'd be fired.
I disagree that Wilson's trip was a partisan attack, and I think there would be plenty of voters that would frown on Bush et al smearing them in response. Even if they did so legally, it's still a pretty slimeball maneuver. Also, I'm not assuming Rove broke the law at this point, but nor am I assuming he didn't. We the public simply don't have enough information yet. But, because of the White House's reluctance to come forward with information, some of them may end up being charged because of lying to the court, as this article claims. Yes, this is still speculation at this point, but it's certainly possible, and it wouldn't have been had Rove revealed that he talked to Novak and Cooper back in 2003. Just like if Clinton had admitted the Lewinsky affair instead of lying about it, they couldn't have pinned perjury charges on him later.

And just to repeat the refrain once more, we don't have enough information to make any solid conclusions at this point. But speculating certainly is fun in the meantime.
     
bewebste
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ithaca, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2005, 11:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
Furthermore, I don't think legal responsibility equals ethical/political responsibility,
Is this what you meant to say, Oreo?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2005, 11:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by bewebste
Is this what you meant to say, Oreo?
I would be careful having the words ethical and political in the same sentence
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2005, 11:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
Excuse me? How does that invalidate my point about political responsibilities? Quoting laws won't help here.
I give up.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie
Well, Simey, she didn't work for the DOD, but for the CIA. Apparently it is illegal to blow the cover of CIA agents in the States. It also doesn't make a difference what Rove thought about her husband, legally, that is.

You made a statement about the law not requiring intent, which is wrong. So I posted the statute at issue. Look at all the words "intentionally" and "knowingly" in it. It's a specific intent statute.

And don't use the word "legally" if you haven't the first clue what you are talking about.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2005, 11:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
I give up.

You made a statement about the law not requiring intent, which is wrong. So I posted the statute at issue. Look at all the words "intentionally" and "knowingly" in it. It's a specific intent statute.

And don't use the word "legally" if you haven't the first clue what you are talking about.
No, I didn't say that.
I was merely saying you can stop thinking about alternatives (e. g. Palmer working for the DOD) and instead stick to the facts.

Every day Rove is in the media about this (and this doesn't require any legalese), he hurts the Bush administration. My argument is in the realm of politics and media, not of a court house.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:40 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,