Claim Karl Rove was leak in CIA outing

Parent Cafe
221

<p>Part 2 debunking of RNC talking points on Plamegate:
TALKING POINT: The Senate Intelligence Committee said that Valerie Plame was the one who set up Joe Wilson’s trip.
FACT: False and false. (Also see here). (In fact, there is a fair amount of evidence that suggests that Valerie Plame did not even recommend/suggest that Wilson be sent on the trip.) [updated 7/15]</p>

<p>TALKING POINT: The White House/GOP cannot comment on questions regarding Rove or his role because of the ongoing investigation.
FACT: False. A completely bogus claim considering that they are talking behind the scenes (also here) or issuing false/misleading press releases (also see here and here) spreading fakery about Wilson. (Not to mntion, they felt free to comment self-servingly about the whole matter until the Rove story broke.)</p>

<p>TALKING POINT: Bush will not “prejudge the investigation based on media reports”
FACT: False. By claiming Karl Rove did nothing wrong and maintaining the fiction (for long) that there was no White House involvement in the Plame expose, he and the GOP more than prejudged the investigation. [added 7/14]</p>

<p>TALKING POINT: Karl Rove is not a target of Fitzgerald’s investigation.
FACT: He is a subject of the investigation.</p>

<p>TALKING POINT: The Butler Report etc. vindicated Bush’s “uranium in Africa” State of the Union claim
FACT: False. The Butler Report was intended to exonerate Tony Blair and George Bush to prevent them from facing criminal charges. For obvious reasons, it excluded reams of information about Bush’s claim that showed that the White House lied through it’s teeth in defending Bush’s claim. (Indeed, as the link shows, people from the NSA, CIA etc. themselves stated that the SOTU claim did not have a sound backing.)</p>

<p>TALKING POINT: This is all just a partisan attack by Democrats (or Joseph Wilson)
FACT: False. The GOP leadership has a habit of minimizing numerous acts of treason from individuals inside the Bush administration over the last several years, by smearing truth-tellers. This is just the latest episode among many. In private, even Republicans admit that this kind of nonsense would have resulted in Congressional hearings “in a second”, if the President had been a Democrat. Republicans like Dick Armey were calling the Plame expose a “cowardly act of revenge” that should be prosecuted, before Rove was revealed as a leaker. Not to mention the hypocrisy of Rove himself (or that of other Republicans).</p>

<p>TALKING POINT: Even if Karl Rove leaked Valerie Plame’s identity, it’s no big deal and deserves a medal.
FACT: The GOP’s Ed Gillespie and George Bush disagreed (with an emphasis on ‘d’). In fact, if it’s so not a big deal, why all this intrigue about what the White House can or cannot comment on? Why did Rove hide like the coward he is behind Matt Cooper and not come out in 2003 and tell the world about his ‘noble’ efforts? Why let Fitzgerald and Time magazine and Cooper go through all the s*** they went through when he could have stepped forward and revealed he was Cooper’s source, especially considering his boss George Bush asked all Bush administration officials to come forward with the truth? All of this, in itself, shows what a pile of hogwash the claims are about Rove trying to set Cooper straight about his reporting. (As for medals, it probably deserves a medal in prison, to define the “role model” for fellow prisoners at Gitmo - while eating rice pilaf in the process).</p>

<p>TALKING POINT: Karl Rove had “guts” to do what he did.
FALSE: False. Even if one ignores Rove’s lying and leaking Valerie Plame’s identity (above), he hid like a coward for almost 2 years, resulting in wasted taxpayer money, effort and legal fees for Matt Cooper and Time magazine and put them through hell while they tried to protect him in response to a court order. Cowardice is the word that is most appropriate here, and considering that this is an administration of chickenhawks that’s no surprise either. [added 7/14]</p>

<p>TALKING POINT: The leak was justifiable.
FACT: The current crop of GOP leaders have a history of denouncing leaks in the strongest terms - without qualifications. And if it was so justifiable, why have many officials refused to sign waivers to allow the journalists they spoke to on this case to testify and reveal their sources? (Not to mention, by Executive Order 12958 the White House is expected to investigate all leaks of classified information by administration officials). [added 7/14]</p>

<p>TALKING POINT: There was no crime committed with the Plame expose.
FACT: False, false, false, false, false. It’s not just the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) we’re talking about, there’s the Espionage Act, there’s “theft” of government records (there’s a precedent), violation of SF-312 - the “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement”, and there are serious questions about whether purgery or obstruction of justice may have occurred. (So much for offering “a stiff dose of truth” instead of “more lectures, and legalisms, and carefully worded denials”.) [updated 7/16]</p>

<p>TALKING POINT: There was no crime committed since there was no “intent to impair national security” or intent to disclose Plame’s identity “maliciously” or if there was a “careless spilling of the beans”
FACT: None of these conditions have any connection whatsoever to the Law. This is complete B.S. pulled out of thin air. [added 7/15]</p>

<p>TALKING POINT: Bush never said he would fire the leaker of Valerie Plame’s identity.
FACT: False. [added 7/14]</p>

<p>TALKING POINT: Bush only said he would fire the leaker of Valerie Plame’s identity if it was “illegal” or done “knowingly”.
FACT: False and false. [added 7/14; updated 7/16]</p>

<p>TALKING POINT: Joseph Wilson supported John Kerry.
FACT: He voted for George Bush Sr., financially supported Republicans in the past, including a $1000 campaign contribution to George W. Bush in 2000 (before the GOP turned on him and his wife, treasonously) and was recognized by George Bush Sr. for his bravery against Saddam Hussein in Iraq - where he was acting* ambassador before Gulf War I. He not only “sheltered 800 Americans at the embassy in Baghdad during Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait,” his wife has long been a CIA WMD operative working to keeps WMDs away from terrorists. His pre-Iraq war (II) stance even got some support from George Bush Sr. Also see here. [*added/last updated on 7/16]</p>

<p>TALKING POINT: President Bush is committed to upholding the honor and dignity of his office.
FACT: For the umpteenth time, false, false and false.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004870.php[/url]”>http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004870.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

222

<p>Well, I’ve just returned from a fantastic vacation at an undisclosed location (nothing to do with the Cheney family), and lo, not only are the usual wingnuts still mouthing NYT hogwash re Karl Rove, we have a new loopster and she’s even taken the lead on the Rove threads. Welcome, sweetkidsmom! :slight_smile: As I’ve said before, what I find interesting about this manufactured “scandal” is the extent to which the fundamentalist Democrat Moonies (and you know who you are) are literally <em>hoping</em> against hope that it is true–instead of being genuinely concerned, as most responsible citizens would be, about any potential evidence of governmental malfeasance. This is wishful thinking on your parts–as I’ve said before–since you can’t seem to muster a majority of your fellow citizens to rally around the lefty flag. So, you hope that you can derail the political movement that you can’t defeat at the polls with manufactured scandal. Ha. There are more shoes to drop in this affair, and you will be surprised and disappointed where they land. Good article linked below, one of the first I came across after returning from a land where all they care about is tropical depressions. It was nice to not have computer access for a while…everyone should try it. Very refreshing. Snorkeling is better.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp[/url]”>http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

223

<p>Ummm…sorry us lefties like to keep our CIA agents names safe…we are soooo bad!!</p>

<p>So, we have Rove saying to the Adminstration he had NOTHING to do with the Plame name getting out, and gee, he did…</p>

<p>And please, don’t call names…that is so tacky…</p>

<p>And I guess the CIA wanting this checked out was all a liberal plot too</p>

<p>And hae you looked at the polls lately?</p>

224

<p>And Sweetkidsmom, WELCOME!! I like what you are saying…us wingnuts gotta stick together…when people start calling us names because they have no other recourse, it just shows us that we are getting to them, maybe jsut a wee bit</p>

225

<p>Hi Driver, when you come off the Mai Tai high( IV infused judging by your personal attacks that bare no resemblance to Fitzgeralds findings thus far) how about you check out Lt.General Fulford’s letter to the editor to the NYTimes. He backed Wilson. Do you want to call a top notch highly respected Marine General a liar.(Thats Bush’s dishonorable style, send troops to die in battle while you smear their commanders, Shinseki) My husband served and new Fulford. As well as Gen’s Zinni and Hoar while on active duty in the Marine Corps for 22 years. (Lt. Col ret). I am hardly a loopster. Printing an opposing view point in the face of repub talking points that out and out twist and misstate facts is my democratic right your President has done his best to snuff out. While you look at the political risks to your party and argue the talking points ala Mehlman, you are ignoring the nearly 18oo men and women, and 100’s of thousands of iraq’s killed by Bush’s misleading this country into war.</p>

<p>The National Review is not independent. You watch FOX 24/7 too?</p>

226

<p>SKM, don’t expect the Republican modus operandi to change. This whole mess started when the White House set out to discredit Wilson. It’s always about evading the substance and throwing up smoke and mirrors. </p>

<p>But the public is catching on, particularly if they aren’t Republicans.<br>
According to ABC News, only 47 percent of Republicans think the White House is cooperating with Fitzgerald’s investigation; that figure drops to 25 percent of Independents and barely 10 percent of Democrats…the only wingnuts digging in are the ones in the Bush camp.</p>

<p>One might wish to ask Driver what flavors of sauce she likes on her game birds.</p>

<p>I also note Bush’s weasely retreat, from promising to fire anyone who leaked classified information to now promising to fire anyone who committed a crime. What’s the standard for the latter? Indictment? Criminal conviction? Does a plea bargain get one off the hook? Inquiring minds want to know.</p>

227

<p>Oh, spare us the offended rethoric and the diatribes about the White House. </p>

<p>The current “scandalous” actions by the current occupant do not compare to the blatant disregard for morals and justice exhibited by the Clintons and their FOB. Was there a stellar cooperation by the White House during the scandal- filled eight years of Bill and Hillary? </p>

<p>The majority of the “opinions” in this thread reflect nothing more than the most simplistic partisan ideologies I ever had the displeasure to read. The sting of the last two presidential defeats does not seem to away. How true it is that the empty barrels make the most noise.</p>

228

<p>Driver,</p>

<p>Thank you for “being genuinely concerned, as most responsible citizens would be, about any potential evidence of governmental malfeasance.” As a responsible citizen, I share that concern.</p>

<p>I’ve read the National Review since 1970, and read the link to its on-line version that you posted. I note that it quoted approvingly from the Washington Times, a newspaper published by the Unification church. (In view of Washington Times’ editorial policy, don’t you think “Democratic Moonies” is a bit of an oxymoron, by the way?) </p>

<p>The National Review article says the New York Times is “currently spearheading the campaign against Rove and the Bush administration,” and implies that it was hypocritical for lawyers the NY Times retained to defend Judith Miller to argue that she shouldn’t have to testify, as no crime was committed.</p>

<p>I question the NR’s characterization of the New York Times as “spearheading” an anti-Bush campaign. Sure, they’ve published some articles recently on the subject, including one in which someone who seems to be associated with Rove’s defense revealed that Rove was Novak’s “second source” while arguing that this somehow exonerated Rove. But the Times fought to the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent the questioning of Judith Miller.</p>

<p>It’s hardly surprixing that Judith Miller’s attorneys would argue that no crime had been committed. That’s hardly evidence of hypocracy, even if others at the NY Times believe it’s possible that one or more crimes has been committed.</p>

<p>The NRO article also naively assumes that if Plame’s identity hard been learned by the Kremlin, and by Castro’s thugs, that it was blown to the world.</p>

<p>That’s naive. “Cover” isn’t a binary function in the real world, where one is either “blown” or unknown to the world. There comes a point where a covert agent becomes useless in that function (when Novak reveals your ID to the world, for example). But there’s no reason to assume that either the Kremlin or Havana is opposed to efforts to curtail the proliferation of nuclear weapons, or other “weapons of mass destruction,” and would thus reveal Plame’s identity to those who who are helping the Chechyans, or the Israelis, or the Taiwanese, or the North Koreans, or the Iranians, or whoever, develop weapons of mass destruction. </p>

<p>It’s naive to assume that the enemies of the US are some sort of monolith. It’s likewise naive to assume that everyone interested in this story is only using it to derail a political movement. Some of us really are concerned about possible governmental malfeasance.</p>

229

<p>Xiggi,</p>

<p>BJ’s in the oval office is a “blatant disregard for morals and justice”?
Impeachment for this is somehow worse than our own WH outing a CIA agent and endangering dozens of others? You may not like hearing about the BJ’s others engage in, but the BJ Bush has done on America will do damage for decades. Even Ken Starr has come out against Bush.</p>

<p>I think most people compare Bush to Nixon, after all the attack on Clinton was payback for the impeachment of " I am not a crook" Nixon. The repugs will not hold onto power now anymore than Nixon was able to. The school of Atwater politics and Ginrich divisiveness he introduced in the Senate years ago is just not what mainstream America wants.</p>

230

<p>

Greybeard, a very funny remark. Well done. Tony Blankley’s no moonie, though. </p>

<p>I guess you could call McCarthy’s piece a “National Review article,” but he was a federal prosecutor, and as such his opinion on the Plame farce is worth considering. If you don’t think that the NYT has been trying to damage President Bush for a very long time, I don’t know what else to say to you…the sky is blue, grass is green, they’ve been dumping on him in a most egregious way, and if you don’t see it, well, there it is.</p>

<p>You mention “hypocricy,” although I think irony would be a better word. The NYT and the rest of the big media outlets hyped the Plame farce as a crime committed by the Bush administration. And of course, the CC wingnuts bought it. But when the big media’s own got caught up in their own web, they then changed their tune, and said that no crime had been committed–so the reporters should walk. Read the amicus brief linked in the NRO article.</p>

<p>You guys are engaging in malignant wishful thinking. Some of you actually have interesting and useful things to say, but when the subject of Bush comes up, you totally lose it. This thing is obviously going to play out for a while longer, but it seems more and more obvious that I’ll be preparing crow for TheDad, and I make a nice Bordelaise sauce.</p>

<p>Oh, and SKM, Fitzgerald has had no “findings thus far.”</p>

231

<p>Whether this whole issue is a farce or not, Bush is changing his tune in the face of it, a move that comes off as defensive and weak, and that compounds his credibility/integrity problems.</p>

232

<p>“BJ’s in the oval office is a “blatant disregard for morals and justice”?”</p>

<p>SWM, the extra-marital sexcapades in the White House did not start with Clinton, and were routinely ignored or accepted by the citizens. It should not be that hard to remember the REAL issues that prompted me to categorize the Clinton’s reign as such. I’m sure the right wings nuts still maintain lists of the C’s numerous misdeeds and cover-ups on their website. </p>

<p>I am too young to know much about Nixon, and to a certain extent about Gingrich, so I will assume you are correct. However, if “divisiveness” was brought by Atwater and his ilk, the current democrats in Congress and the Senate are showing to be ruthless experts in the art of partisan division. </p>

<p>And you’re correct that it is NOT what mainstray America wants - as voters have shown in the latest elections to candidates who believe to be intouchable despite their ultra negative and overly partisan positions.</p>

233

<p>Oh, and SKM, Fitzgerald has had no “findings thus far.”
driver is online now </p>

<p>I’m sure we will all be waiting with baited breath for Fitzgeralds report. Fitzgeralds direction in his current investigation might have been a better choice.
And </p>

<p>For anyone wishing to see for themselves if the NYT is doing a fare job I provide a listing for you to review. <a href=“The New York Times > International > Middle East > From the Editors: The Times and Iraq: A Sample of the Coverage”>The New York Times > International > Middle East > From the Editors: The Times and Iraq: A Sample of the Coverage;

234

<p>Hi xiggi,
Agreed. I did not vote for Clinton the first time he ran because I didn’t trust him. Voted for Perot. I am a former republican, left after Reagan’s first term. As far as the Clinton coverups I wasn’t online then and did not pay attention to all that was going on, good or bad. </p>

<p>The current feel in the democratic party is that of being the loyal opposition. Many still don’t think enough is being said or done to blunt the Bush admin. </p>

<p>What I do know is we seem to have returned to the kind of politics seen, I don’t know,
say maybe a century ago. Dirty tricks have always been played on both sides, we can agree there. The extent to which it is occurring now and involving all branchs and departments of government is frightening to many who are closely following this admin. We will not agree Stric11 and driver, but in a decade or two we can look back and hope we have no regrets for not standing up for American ideals of freedom and liberty here at home while fighting for them abroad for other countries.</p>

235

<p>Xiggi, this is one of the rare cases where I’m going to hold your age against you. You were approximately 13 or 14 when Clinton left office and with all due respect, I think you know diddly about the Clinton years beyond the propaganda you were exposed to in Bushevik Texas.</p>

<p>And your post makes what I regard as one of the darkly laughable, and despicable, equivalence between lying about a consensual sex act and taking the ship of state and ramming it upon the rocks at full speed,
an administration that conceives of two extremely narrow elections as “mandates,” whose notion of “bi-partisanship” is “bend over, smile, and do it my way.” I don’t think you can find an administration that has actively worked harder to divide the country. Certainly, the partisan index in the Presidential support polls has never been so extreme since modern polling started about 50 years ago.</p>

236

<p>from daily kos for anyone thinking about this:
Should Karl Rove Be Fired If He Leaked Classified Information?
Yes No
All 75% 15%
Republicans 71 17
Independents 74 17
Democrats 83 12</p>

<pre><code>Skepticism about the administration’s cooperation has jumped. As the initial investigation began in September 2003, nearly half the public, 47 percent, believed the White House was fully cooperating. That fell to 39 percent a few weeks later, and it’s lower still, 25 percent, in this new ABC News poll.

This view is highly partisan; barely over a tenth of Democrats and just a quarter of independents think the White House is fully cooperating. That grows to 47 percent of Republicans – much higher, but still under half in the president’s own party. And doubt about the administration’s cooperation has grown as much among Republicans – by 22 points since September 2003 – as it has among others.
</code></pre>

<p>These results mean two things – first of all, the efforts by the GOP and their allies to muddy the waters and turn this into a partisan issue are failing.</p>

<p>Second, this illustrates a growing disconnect between the GOP elite and the rest of the country. While the party leadership, conservative punditry and wingnutophere place the elephant above the stars and stripes (see last night’s rant), it’s clear that the vast majority of the Americans still place their country first. And that thankfully goes for the Republican rank and file.</p>

<p>Most people – Red, Blue, or Independent – still know the difference between right and wrong, and aren’t willing to let partisanship cloud their judgment.</p>

237

<p>The President now seems to be implying that he will only fire Rove if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions matched each element of a felony punishable by five or ten years in a federal penitentiary.</p>

<p>That’s setting the bar for conduct in office a little low, isn’t it?</p>

238

<p>And he is backtracking, but as Gomer so eloquently put it Suprise Suprise Suprise</p>

239

<p>Here’s what the president said two years ago:

No inconsistency, no backtracking. But why let facts enter your fantasy this late in the game?</p>

<p><a href=“Briefing Room | The White House”>Briefing Room | The White House;

240

<p>The important point is the FIRST sentence. He wants to know who it is. Did he? Has he been covering up for 22 months? Or was he kept in the dark the entire time?</p>

<p>What did he know, and when did he know it?</p>

<p>"McClellan vowed: “The president has set high standards, the highest of standards, for people in his administration. He’s made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.”</p>

<p>Bush replied “yes” when asked in June 2004 if he would fire anyone who leaked the agent’s name."</p>

<p>Nothing about crimes committed here. But if he wants to keep Rove around until he is charged, tried, or convicted, that seems just fine to me. I hope he stays around as long as possible (and I’ll bet Democrats do, too.)</p>