• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Exclusive: GOP talking points on Rove seek to discredit Wilson

C

conjur

No Lifer
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Exclusive...oints_on_Rove_seek_to_discre_0712.html
RAW STORY has obtained an exclusive copy of Republican talking points on Bush adviser Karl Rove's leaking the name of a CIA agent to a reporter, circulated by the Republican National Committee to "D.C. Talkers" in Washington.

The document, emblazoned with the words "Special Edition" and dated Tuesday, seeks to discredit claims put forth by Ambassador Joseph Wilson, whose wife was 'outed' as a covert operative by a conservative columnist. After obtaining copies of emails sent from a Time reporter to his editor, Newsweek fingered Rove as a source for the leak which disclosed the agent's identity.

The talking points mirror a release by Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman earlier Tuesday, in which he declared the attacks on Rove were spawned by the 'MoveOn' wing of the Democratic Party. MoveOn later accused the White House of a 'cover up.'
Click to expand...
Image 1 of Talking Points
Image 2 of Talking Points
Image 3 of Talking Points
Image 4 of Talking Points
Image 5 of Talking Points

So, the GOP can't handle this investigation so they have to go and attack the credibility of someone not involved with the investigation. I don't see Fitzgerald falling over himself to get Wilson to testify or filing charges against him. Seems the GOP is trying to divert attention away from the CRIME that was committed.

Interesting, eh? Esp. since this administration came to power under the guise of bringing honesty and integrity back to the White House. From what I'm seeing and hearing, they've turned the White House into a den of thieves.
 
"CRIME that was committed" ? There have not been any charges filed and according to atleast two people who had a hand in the making of the law have stated that Rove doesn't seem to have run afoul it.

 
Originally posted by: CommiesRntCool
"CRIME that was committed" ? There have not been any charges filed and according to atleast two people who had a hand in the making of the law have stated that Rove doesn't seem to have run afoul it.
Click to expand...
Yes, a crime was committed. Valerie Plame's name was leaked to members of the press. That is the crime. Now, it's up to the prosecutor to prove who did it or pull out a confession.
 
In scanning through those points it looks like they are trying to counter the incorrect statements being made by people in the press and some message boards.

First example comes from the OP...

Karl Rove's leaking the name of a CIA agent to a reporter
Click to expand...

So far I haven't seen ANYTHING that says Rove said the name Valerie Plame. It may seem like a simple point but it matters legally. Also, so far nobody has said that she was actively undercover outside the country. Again, a small point but one that has a huge legal implication.

Basically they are trying to take the argument away from right/wrong and move it over to legal/not legal. In this case Rove was probably wrong but not in violation of the law.

Why am I having deja vu?
 
How do you know it matters legally? That's for the judge to decide.

I can't believe the right is going to play the semantics/technicality game after Clinton's ridiculous "is" game.
 
Yes, a crime was committed.
Click to expand...

You don't know that. There currently is an investigation but that doesn't mean a crime has infact happened. The law regarding covert agents does not seem to cover this situation from what the law's authors have been suggesting. If there was a crime committed, those who broke the law will be prosecuted by Fitzgerald but at this time there have been no charges filed and no crimes named by him.
 
An undercover CIA agent's name was leaked. That's a crime no matter how you slice it. The problem exists in pinning on the person that orchestrated this.


But, you're diverting. See the comments I added in the OP.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
How do you know it matters legally? That's for the judge to decide.

I can't believe the right is going to play the semantics/technicality game after Clinton's ridiculous "is" game.
Click to expand...

That is for the judge to decide. But being as I know how to read and all... :roll: it seems to me that the statute in question is very specific. And that when you apply those specifics to the facts as they are now, Rove's actions don't fit the definitions contained therein.

Rove would have had to have outed her by name - he didn't.
She would have had to be actively undercover out of the country - she wasn't.
If the above two were satisfied then he would have had to do it with knowledge of who she was and what she was doing - To date he denies this.

and so on...
 
my quesiton on this whole thing, how does one prove Karl Rove or anyone else knowingly revealed the agent? meaning they knew wilson's wife was a undercover agent.

I'm assuming no one is griping over the fact of her name being said but rather her occupation right? I mean I'm sure Wilson had to have been seen sometime with his wife in some capacity. Or was that hush hush too?

the pictures they show on cnn and others, she looks like just a regular person and I was like she's a spy? she's just an average person.

 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: conjur
How do you know it matters legally? That's for the judge to decide.

I can't believe the right is going to play the semantics/technicality game after Clinton's ridiculous "is" game.
Click to expand...
That is for the judge to decide. But being as I know how to read and all... :roll: it seems to me that the statute in question is very specific. And that when you apply those specifics to the facts as they are now, Rove's actions don't fit the definitions contained therein.

Rove would have had to have outed her by name - he didn't.
She would have had to be actively undercover out of the country - she wasn't.

and so on...
Click to expand...
Why do you focus on Rove. There are others involved. We just don't know who all of the players are.
 
herkulease - Yes, it was known that Plame was Wilson's wife. It was no secret in the beltway.

conjur - you don't know she was an undercover agent. Her covert status was also compromised back in the 90's so it doesn't make much sense for her to still be active covert. Also, "orchestrated this" is a bit presumptuous at this point. Rove did not call Cooper, cooper called Rove and talked about a different topic and it led into Wilson. From all accounts what Rove said was that cooper should be careful with the Wilson thing because of the disinformation swirling about- which Rove was right about.
 
Originally posted by: herkulease
my quesiton on this whole thing, how does one prove Karl Rove or anyone else knowingly revealed the agent? meaning they knew wilson's wife was a undercover agent.

I'm assuming no one is griping over the fact of her name being said but rather her occupation right? I mean I'm sure Wilson had to have been seen sometime with his wife in some capacity. Or was that hush hush too?

the pictures they show on cnn and others, she looks like just a regular person and I was like she's a spy? she's just an average person.
Click to expand...


She was a CIA agent. You have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Originally posted by: CommiesRntCool
herkulease - Yes, it was known that Plame was Wilson's wife. It was no secret in the beltway.

conjur - you don't know she was an undercover agent. Her covert status was also compromised back in the 90's so it doesn't make much sense for her to still be active covert. Also, "orchestrated this" is a bit presumptuous at this point. Rove did not call Cooper, cooper called Rove and talked about a different topic and it led into Wilson. From all accounts what Rove said was that cooper should be careful with the Wilson thing because of the disinformation swirling about- which Rove was right about.
Click to expand...
Disinformation is what your post is all about.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: CommiesRntCool
herkulease - Yes, it was known that Plame was Wilson's wife. It was no secret in the beltway.

conjur - you don't know she was an undercover agent. Her covert status was also compromised back in the 90's so it doesn't make much sense for her to still be active covert. Also, "orchestrated this" is a bit presumptuous at this point. Rove did not call Cooper, cooper called Rove and talked about a different topic and it led into Wilson. From all accounts what Rove said was that cooper should be careful with the Wilson thing because of the disinformation swirling about- which Rove was right about.
Click to expand...
Disinformation is what your post is all about.
Click to expand...

So how come your opinions are facts and other people's opinions (when they conflict with yours) are disinformation?

 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: CommiesRntCool
herkulease - Yes, it was known that Plame was Wilson's wife. It was no secret in the beltway.

conjur - you don't know she was an undercover agent. Her covert status was also compromised back in the 90's so it doesn't make much sense for her to still be active covert. Also, "orchestrated this" is a bit presumptuous at this point. Rove did not call Cooper, cooper called Rove and talked about a different topic and it led into Wilson. From all accounts what Rove said was that cooper should be careful with the Wilson thing because of the disinformation swirling about- which Rove was right about.
Click to expand...

Disinformation is what your post is all about.
Click to expand...

The cornerstone and foundation of the Republicans.

 
conjur:
Disinformation is what your post is all about.
Click to expand...

Wow, you sure did destroy my post. Are you going to start calling me names next instead of addressing my post?
 
Originally posted by: CommiesRntCool
conjur:
Disinformation is what your post is all about.
Click to expand...

Wow, you sure did destroy my post. Are you going to start calling me names next instead of addressing my post?
Click to expand...
The disinformation in your post is already addressed in the other Rove/Plame thread. Perhaps you might read it and educate yourself before posting again.
 
Bowfinger - perhaps I already have read a bit of that thread. perhaps that other thread is filled with just as much bullsh!t and conjecture as this one is being filled with by conjur. perhaps conjur should just admit he jumped the gun on his claim that a crime had been committed because it is quite clear that no charges have been filed at this point as it is only an investigation.
What conjur has is conjecture and allegations, he has no legal evidence that an actual crime has been commited no matter how much he wants it to be true.

 
dmcowen674 - huh? First I had the Anandtech Moderator asking me if I was already a member, and now you? If you care to know, I am a new member who found this place though a gamer forum(firing squad). BTW, hello.

Whoozyerdaddy - I guess some people can't handle other people's opinions so they just dismiss it out of hand.
 
Originally posted by: CommiesRntCool
Bowfinger - perhaps I already have read a bit of that thread. perhaps that other thread is filled with just as much bullsh!t and conjecture as this one is being filled with by conjur. perhaps conjur should just admit he jumped the gun on his claim that a crime had been committed because it is quite clear that no charges have been filed at this point as it is only an investigation.
What conjur has is conjecture and allegations, he has no legal evidence that an actual crime has been commited no matter how much he wants it to be true.
Click to expand...
There is plenty of legal evidence. It just won't be conclusive until there's a conviction.
 
Maybe I'm just imagining it, but lately the Republicans seem to be showing the exact same kind of behavior they jumped all over Clinton for in the past. In other words, splitting hairs and arguing about what the defintion of "is" is. Everything is cut and dry, right and wrong, black and white, good and evil, etc, etc. They've made this very clear, and on some level you have to admire that, even if it doesn't always tell the whole story. But it seems that the second some situation might reflect poorly on them, they suddenly start mumbling and uh-ing and um-ing and using the words technically and legally a lot.

Jon Stewart (as usual) did a great job pointing this out in regards to the whole "last throes" nonsense, and now we have the Rove situation. It can't just be that the Republican values of being honest and straightforward just applied when they could bash Clinton, can it?
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Maybe I'm just imagining it, but lately the Republicans seem to be showing the exact same kind of behavior they jumped all over Clinton for in the past. In other words, splitting hairs and arguing about what the defintion of "is" is. Everything is cut and dry, right and wrong, black and white, good and evil, etc, etc. They've made this very clear, and on some level you have to admire that, even if it doesn't always tell the whole story. But it seems that the second some situation might reflect poorly on them, they suddenly start mumbling and uh-ing and um-ing and using the words technically and legally a lot.

Jon Stewart (as usual) did a great job pointing this out in regards to the whole "last throes" nonsense, and now we have the Rove situation. It can't just be that the Republican values of being honest and straightforward just applied when they could bash Clinton, can it?
Click to expand...

They haven't started defining "is" just yet. But it's getting close.

 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Maybe I'm just imagining it, but lately the Republicans seem to be showing the exact same kind of behavior they jumped all over Clinton for in the past. In other words, splitting hairs and arguing about what the defintion of "is" is. Everything is cut and dry, right and wrong, black and white, good and evil, etc, etc. They've made this very clear, and on some level you have to admire that, even if it doesn't always tell the whole story. But it seems that the second some situation might reflect poorly on them, they suddenly start mumbling and uh-ing and um-ing and using the words technically and legally a lot.

Jon Stewart (as usual) did a great job pointing this out in regards to the whole "last throes" nonsense, and now we have the Rove situation. It can't just be that the Republican values of being honest and straightforward just applied when they could bash Clinton, can it?
Click to expand...

No one who's honest and straightforward will ever win a national election. We love liars, the kind of people who will tell us we can have both tax cuts and free pills for seniors, common sense be damned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top