Is Joe Wilson a credible source?

[mylok]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: mylok

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: mylok

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: mylok
i am confused, why is there an investigation if no law was broken?

For the same reason there was an investigation into the Clintons for Whitewater when no law was broken.

that does not answer the question (WTF does the Clintons have to do with this, please seek help you need it).

I would think the investigation was started because LEAKS are BAD. Now it has been confirmed Rove was one of the sources of the leak and the investigation needs to determine if Rove broke the law.

Now I understand a law may or may not have been broken but... how does any of this change the fact that Rove did something (illegal or legal) that was wrong. How does the party of personal responsibility defend this person. (oh ya they bring up Clinton, priceless)

It doesn't have to be Clinton. It was just an example. Stop being so reactionary. You sound eerily like Bowfinger too with your "seek help" bit. BF, is that you in diguise? Running away from showing some guts, are you?

Investigations are performed to see if a law was broken. If one had to ensure a law was broken in the first place before beginning an investigation, that just throws the whole "innocent before proven guilty" thing right out the window.

I don't get the impression you are asking your question for any other reason than to go off on some sort of Democratic Underground rant though, as is evidenced in your second paragraph.

So, whatever.

no I am not Bowfinger i am just another person who thinks you need help (I am guessing you get that alot).

No, I don't get it a lot. I get it infrequently from the same small group of far lefties in here. They get upset that I point out the faults of liberals and the left and they feel it necessary to make such lame accusations at me as retribution, like you just did.

Did you happen to notice that I wasn't slamming Clinton in my reply? I gave an example of a case where their opposition went on a fishing expedition to try to uncover dirt on the Clintons with some very speculative and flimsy reasoning behind it. Of course it appears there are some people who hit the ceiling any time someone mentions Clinton in this forum and dosn't even stop to think through what is being said. Right now, one of those people would be you.

I do not consider this a fishing expedition, what Rove did was wrong. Bush even thought it was wrong and wanted to find out who it was that leaked (kind of funny it turned out to be his right-hand man)

I do understand why investigations are started but in this case it is now crystal clear that Rove was the leaker (one of them anyway). The question is did he break any laws. Maybe he did or maybe he did not. This does that change the fact that what he did was wrong.

Who decides who is right and who is wrong in their actions? And the wrong based on what, morals? Do we really need more self-appointed morality police in this country?

no what we need is for more people to take responsability for their actions. again the leak was wrong maybe not illegal but wrong. Why did Bush want to find out who the leaker was then if there was nothing wrong with it?

I think the left and right are the same, both full of crap (I do lean more to the left though). It would be refreshing to see one party step up and take responsibility though and not defend their boy at all costs. If any party was going to step up you would think it would be the party of personal responsibility.

Well I've already stated my case that what Rove and Wislon both did was shady. I recognize both sides of the issue. Now which people in here are only focused on one side of the equation?

Ask yourself that before believing I'm full of crap and figure who is really full of crap on this issue.

and if i thought what Wilson did was wrong i would not have a problem stating that. He pissed of the Bush admin by pointing out an error in the state of the union speech. Wilson was right on this issue. The Bush admin. even came out and said that the yellowcake bit should NOT have been in the speech. Then Rove decided to strike back.

As I see it Rove has 3 possible ways to defend his actions.

1. she was not a covert operative so no law was broken (in which case why did we need an investigation? seems to me this would have already been determined)

2. his motive for leaking was not to harm her or any other operative but was just a mean spirited political attack. (I saw this one on FOX news, does the right really want to use this defense)

3. Rove did not know what he was leaking was secret info. (ya this is a good one, Bush's number one guy doesnt know what to say and what NOT to say)


lets also not forget that Scott McCullem (sp?) said he spoke with Rove (not long after the leak took place) and that Rove assured him he was not involved. (we now know that was a lie)

Why would Rove lie to the American people, maybe he hates us for our freedom.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: mylok

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: mylok

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: mylok

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: mylok
i am confused, why is there an investigation if no law was broken?

For the same reason there was an investigation into the Clintons for Whitewater when no law was broken.

that does not answer the question (WTF does the Clintons have to do with this, please seek help you need it).

I would think the investigation was started because LEAKS are BAD. Now it has been confirmed Rove was one of the sources of the leak and the investigation needs to determine if Rove broke the law.

Now I understand a law may or may not have been broken but... how does any of this change the fact that Rove did something (illegal or legal) that was wrong. How does the party of personal responsibility defend this person. (oh ya they bring up Clinton, priceless)

It doesn't have to be Clinton. It was just an example. Stop being so reactionary. You sound eerily like Bowfinger too with your "seek help" bit. BF, is that you in diguise? Running away from showing some guts, are you?

Investigations are performed to see if a law was broken. If one had to ensure a law was broken in the first place before beginning an investigation, that just throws the whole "innocent before proven guilty" thing right out the window.

I don't get the impression you are asking your question for any other reason than to go off on some sort of Democratic Underground rant though, as is evidenced in your second paragraph.

So, whatever.

no I am not Bowfinger i am just another person who thinks you need help (I am guessing you get that alot).

No, I don't get it a lot. I get it infrequently from the same small group of far lefties in here. They get upset that I point out the faults of liberals and the left and they feel it necessary to make such lame accusations at me as retribution, like you just did.

Did you happen to notice that I wasn't slamming Clinton in my reply? I gave an example of a case where their opposition went on a fishing expedition to try to uncover dirt on the Clintons with some very speculative and flimsy reasoning behind it. Of course it appears there are some people who hit the ceiling any time someone mentions Clinton in this forum and dosn't even stop to think through what is being said. Right now, one of those people would be you.

I do not consider this a fishing expedition, what Rove did was wrong. Bush even thought it was wrong and wanted to find out who it was that leaked (kind of funny it turned out to be his right-hand man)

It hasn't been proven yet that what rove did was wrong. Rove was going after Wilson for spreading false information. His focus was Wilson. Outing Plame was meaningless to him.

I do understand why investigations are started but in this case it is now crystal clear that Rove was the leaker (one of them anyway). The question is did he break any laws. Maybe he did or maybe he did not. This does that change the fact that what he did was wrong.

Who decides who is right and who is wrong in their actions? And the wrong based on what, morals? Do we really need more self-appointed morality police in this country?

no what we need is for more people to take responsability for their actions. again the leak was wrong maybe not illegal but wrong. Why did Bush want to find out who the leaker was then if there was nothing wrong with it?

How can it be wrong if Rove didn't know Plame was clandestine? You do know that a lot of people openly work for the CIA in DC, right?

I think the left and right are the same, both full of crap (I do lean more to the left though). It would be refreshing to see one party step up and take responsibility though and not defend their boy at all costs. If any party was going to step up you would think it would be the party of personal responsibility.

Well I've already stated my case that what Rove and Wislon both did was shady. I recognize both sides of the issue. Now which people in here are only focused on one side of the equation?

Ask yourself that before believing I'm full of crap and figure who is really full of crap on this issue.

and if i thought what Wilson did was wrong i would not have a problem stating that. He pissed of the Bush admin by pointing out an error in the state of the union speech. Wilson was right on this issue. The Bush admin. even came out and said that the yellowcake bit should NOT have been in the speech. Then Rove decided to strike back.

Wilson was not right on the issue. We've been over this already in other threads and it's well documented on the internet as well. Wilson's specific claims were false, he hadn't even seen the forgeries because they didn't come out until 8 months after his trip, and he lied about his wife's involvement as well.

As I see it Rove has 3 possible ways to defend his actions.

1. she was not a covert operative so no law was broken (in which case why did we need an investigation? seems to me this would have already been determined)

There's more to it than just Plame qualifying as a covert operative. Classified information got out. the CIA wants to know how it got out. So does Bush.

Was Plame or Wilson themselves less discrete about her true occupation than they should have been? We may find that out too. If not, I sure wonder why the claim that so many people in DC already knew she worked for the agency.

Truthfully, I think Miller holds the key to this whole mess. Rove and Libby have been exposed. If they were her sources then there's no reason to remain in jail. She wouldn't be stabbing them in the back, and from what I've read of her work I wouldn't exactly describe her to be a woman of principles either. So it makes me think she's hiding something - like Wilson leaking the information to her.

2. his motive for leaking was not to harm her or any other operative but was just a mean spirited political attack. (I saw this one on FOX news, does the right really want to use this defense)

It was a return salvo for a mean sprited political attack by Wilson and to correct his faulty information.

3. Rove did not know what he was leaking was secret info. (ya this is a good one, Bush's number one guy doesnt know what to say and what NOT to say)
[/b]

Rove's position did not necessarily let him in on all kinds of classified information. As I've pointed out numerous times, and it has been patently ignored by many so they can put down their head and bull forward with inuendo and implications, the identities of CIA agents are provided on a need to know basis. Rove would have had no need to know such identities. He is a political advisor, not an inteliigence, military, or strategic advisor.

lets also not forget that Scott McCullem (sp?) said he spoke with Rove (not long after the leak took place) and that Rove assured him he was not involved. (we now know that was a lie)

Why would Rove lie to the American people, maybe he hates us for our freedom.

From Rove's point of view, he probably believed he wasn't involved in the leak, particularly if it's true that Plame's work status was already known around DC. How could he be a leak for what others already knew?

Edit: And try to maintain the quoting system, please, instead of resorting to bolding quotes and replies. It'll help prevent confusion.

Thanks.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Any of the others in here want to take the wager as I outlined it?

DealMonkey?

BBond?

Speak up boys. Let's see you put something meaningful where you're mouth is. Let's see how cocksure you are of your position with something on the line. Or are you guys full of hot air too, just like Chickenfinger?

"What you won't do is provide a quote that proves your case. Why? Because you can't."

Look at all the gutless wonders. Asking for quotes to a TV show for a subject they don't have the fortitude to back.

Yep, the looper chickens are showing their tailfeathers.

:laugh:

Why, knock me over with a (chicken) feather, Sir Chicken's being dishonest again. The quote in question isn't about a TV show (although he's also evading my request for a link to his claim about Andrea Mitchell). No, this quote was about Chicken's continued claims that Wilson's book says Plame never worked overseas after they moved back to D.C. The book actually says nothing of the sort, and I challenged Chicken to produce a quote from the book supporting his claim. He can't, so now he's desperately trying to change the subject, anything to avoid admitting he was wrong (never, ever, ever wrong about anything, you know).

Anyway, here is the actual exchange Chicken desperately wishes would go away:

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Chicken is "mistaken" again.

There is nothing in Wilson's book suggesting his wife had no further overseas or covert assignments after they were married and moved back to D.C. In fact, he does not talk at all about the kinds of assignments she worked on during that period. Wilson barely mentions her (except for their romance) until the White House exposed her. In short, this is just another BushCo propaganda point, more disinformation to draw attention away from shameful, possibly criminal behavior.

[ ... ]

Bull. Your link is mistaken, speculating about information not actually in the book ... just like you. I not only read the book, I own a copy. There's nothing there about what Plame did once they moved back to the U.S. (and before Novak attacked). This is a perfect opportunity to prove me wrong. Provide quotes from the book supporting your claim. You can't because they aren't there. If your quotes are in it, I will gracefully acknowledge my error and apologize (something you'll never have the integrity to do).

In short, put up or slink back under your rock. I'm betting you'll either reply with your usual empty noise, or you'll run away entirely. What you won't do is provide a quote that proves your case. Why? Because you can't. It's just another of your lies.

[ Edit: trimmed redundant nested quotes ]

Tell you what Finger. Let's cut through the horsesh!t here and see who's really convinced of their position. Let's make a wager for all to see.

We will wait until Fitzgerald releases the truth of the matter.

If I'm wrong about Plame's status of not being a covert agent, I'll stop posting in this forum, forever, as TLC or anyone else.

If you're wrong in your assertion that Plame is a covert agent, then you stop posting here, forever, as Bowfinger or anyone else.

Deal?

"What you won't do is provide a quote that proves your case. Why? Because you can't."

Still no quote, just more evasion. You are a fraud. Even worse, you are a joke. Run, Chicken, run.

I offered you a deal to prove out your so frequent and silly bravodo stance and blustery prose. Yet you ignore it?

So who's the chicken now?

:laugh:

"What you won't do is provide a quote that proves your case. Why? Because you can't."

Still no quote, just more evasion. You're desperately trying to change the subject; why would I let you off the hook? I've nailed you in a lie and everyone knows it. If you had an ounce of integrity, you'd admit you were wrong and move on.

It's just a flesh wound. :laugh:

Note my prescient prediction: "What you won't do is provide a quote that proves your case. Why? Because you can't." (OK, it was easy. Chicken is so predictable when he's cornered.)

So how are you coming on a quote from Wilson's book that demonstrates your claim, Chicken?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

My response to that from another thread:

Now the lefties are jumping up and down about information being leaked (More irony? Where's the outrage?) from a classified memo that claims a paragraph with Plames name was marked secret, even though the article specifically states:

There's nothing ironic and no need for outrage as Plame has already been outed long ago. Or are you conveniently ignoring that? Besides I'm not outraged by the leak itself -- it happens all the time, the outrage comes from the political reasons for the leak and the national security implications.

"Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said."

Was it marked secret because it contained Plame's name, or because there was other secret infromation in that paragraph? No matter, they bull right on ahead and make more jumps to conclusion. Also, we know Plame's name was still kept secret by the CIA, at least half-heartedly after they screwed up themselves and divulged her identity, but that fact still doesn't necessarily qualify her as a covert agent under the law. Nor does it prove that Rove knew Plame was covert either.

I'm sure covert agents are threatened by all kinds of unintentional incidents that threaten to blow their cover, however THIS CASE wasn't unintentional. Rather it appears to be a coldly calculated attempt at political revenge.

But one seemingly can't get those kind of facts through to those taking a header off the conclusions mat.

Sad, isn't it?

And you're speculating just as hard the opposite direction. I say there's enough evidence (memo I just referenced), the fact that we have a CRIMINAL investigation underway, among other things, to determine that Plame was covert. Why is it wrong for me to speculate when I have evidence to back up my assertions, and perfectly fine for you to speculate the opposite?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

My response to that from another thread:

Now the lefties are jumping up and down about information being leaked (More irony? Where's the outrage?) from a classified memo that claims a paragraph with Plames name was marked secret, even though the article specifically states:

There's nothing ironic and no need for outrage as Plame has already been outed long ago. Or are you conveniently ignoring that? Besides I'm not outraged by the leak itself -- it happens all the time, the outrage comes from the political reasons for the leak and the national security implications.

LOL. So there's no political reasons for this latest leak from a classified memo?

Would you care to have me offer you a leg to pull?

"Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said."

Was it marked secret because it contained Plame's name, or because there was other secret infromation in that paragraph? No matter, they bull right on ahead and make more jumps to conclusion. Also, we know Plame's name was still kept secret by the CIA, at least half-heartedly after they screwed up themselves and divulged her identity, but that fact still doesn't necessarily qualify her as a covert agent under the law. Nor does it prove that Rove knew Plame was covert either.

I'm sure covert agents are threatened by all kinds of unintentional incidents that threaten to blow their cover, however THIS CASE wasn't unintentional. Rather it appears to be a coldly calculated attempt at political revenge.

It appears to be a calculated case of correcting false information and lies peddled by Wilson.

But one seemingly can't get those kind of facts through to those taking a header off the conclusions mat.

Sad, isn't it?

And you're speculating just as hard the opposite direction. I say there's enough evidence (memo I just referenced), the fact that we have a CRIMINAL investigation underway, among other things, to determine that Plame was covert. Why is it wrong for me to speculate when I have evidence to back up my assertions, and perfectly fine for you to speculate the opposite?

If you believe that and you're so sure, then feel free to accept my wager. It's still on the table.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
They get upset that I point out the faults of liberals and the left...

Wait. Haven't you claimed to be a Liberal before? Part of the 'left'?

[C3P0] I'm so confused. [/C3P0]

Are you bashing yourself or were you fibbing?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
They get upset that I point out the faults of liberals and the left...

Wait. Haven't you claimed to be a Liberal before? Part of the 'left'?

[C3P0] I'm so confused. [/C3P0]

Are you bashing yourself or were you fibbing?

I don't bash all liberals and all lefties, just a certain subset, and you know who they are. Most liberals and lefties still have their senses about them and haven't been swallowed by hate, spite, and loopy lies.

Is that so hard to figure out?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
They get upset that I point out the faults of liberals and the left...

Wait. Haven't you claimed to be a Liberal before? Part of the 'left'?

[C3P0] I'm so confused. [/C3P0]

Are you bashing yourself or were you fibbing?

I don't bash all liberals and all lefties, just a certain subset, and you know who they are. Most liberals and lefties still have their senses about them and haven't been swallowed by hate, spite, and loopy lies.

Is that so hard to figure out?

No, it's not. But that's not what you said.

Just to set the record straight...and to borrow from the recent White House Press Briefings...do you stand by what you said earlier?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
They get upset that I point out the faults of liberals and the left...

Wait. Haven't you claimed to be a Liberal before? Part of the 'left'?

[C3P0] I'm so confused. [/C3P0]

Are you bashing yourself or were you fibbing?

I don't bash all liberals and all lefties, just a certain subset, and you know who they are. Most liberals and lefties still have their senses about them and haven't been swallowed by hate, spite, and loopy lies.

Is that so hard to figure out?

No, it's not. But that's not what you said.

Just to set the record straight...and to borrow from the recent White House Press Briefings...do you stand by what you said earlier?

Translation = Gaard is prepared to distort what I said.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
They get upset that I point out the faults of liberals and the left...

Wait. Haven't you claimed to be a Liberal before? Part of the 'left'?

[C3P0] I'm so confused. [/C3P0]

Are you bashing yourself or were you fibbing?

I don't bash all liberals and all lefties, just a certain subset, and you know who they are. Most liberals and lefties still have their senses about them and haven't been swallowed by hate, spite, and loopy lies.

Is that so hard to figure out?

No, it's not. But that's not what you said.

Just to set the record straight...and to borrow from the recent White House Press Briefings...do you stand by what you said earlier?

Translation = Gaard is prepared to distort what I said.

No I'm not.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
That still does not make her a covert agent. Documents take on highest security clearence based on information in them. This rating does not however mean all information becomes rated at the highest level. This also means that a paragraph would not be marked secret as the entire document would be market at least secret. There are also procedures for releasing non secret material from a classified document.

Without more information, one cannot tell from this article if there was anything secret attached to her name. So it appears I am still correct.

I love it -- "... without more information, one cannot tell ..." and yet you believe you are "... still correct..." Awesome, simply awesome.

This article lacked any compelling evidence to prove that she was a covert agent. Having your name appear in a document marked secret does not make one a covert agent.

Let me ask you this: Under what faulty logic would you bother rating individual paragraphs as "S(ecret)" if by doing so, you simply made the entire document also secret? Why not just mark the entire document and be done with it?

There is no fautly logic. Adding classifed data to a non classified file, makes the entire file classified. This is just how it works, if you have problems with the logic take it up with the goverment as that is how they handle classified documents.

Further, do you suppose that the paragraph containing Plame's name and references to her being the wife of Wilson along with the "S" for "Secret" marked clearly next to this paragraph means that this is the part of the memo you should not release from the document?

Once again I would require more information as I cannot know what parts of the entire paragraph were secret or not. And the the article also stated that just because her name appeared in a secret document, does mean anything about her is secret. These are details we dont know.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison
Once again I would require more information as I cannot know what parts of the entire paragraph were secret or not. And the the article also stated that just because her name appeared in a secret document, does mean anything about her is secret. These are details we dont know.

So the bottom line is you're not sure. Okay, let's look at some other evidence:

The CIA declined to discuss Plame's intelligence work, but an agency official disputed suggestions that she was a mere analyst whose public exposure would have little consequence.

"If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral," the CIA official said, insisting on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation.

link

If this was a mere "leak" case, why would there be a criminal investigation? It would take a federal grandy jury mere hours to determine if Plame was covert or not. Served overseas? Check. In the last 5 years? Check. How difficult would this be? Not very. There would be no good reason for a two-year criminal investigation over anything but the leak of a covert agent.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
Once again I would require more information as I cannot know what parts of the entire paragraph were secret or not. And the the article also stated that just because her name appeared in a secret document, does mean anything about her is secret. These are details we dont know.

So the bottom line is you're not sure. Okay, let's look at some other evidence:

The CIA declined to discuss Plame's intelligence work, but an agency official disputed suggestions that she was a mere analyst whose public exposure would have little consequence.

"If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral," the CIA official said, insisting on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation.

link

If this was a mere "leak" case, why would there be a criminal investigation? It would take a federal grandy jury mere hours to determine if Plame was covert or not. Served overseas? Check. In the last 5 years? Check. How difficult would this be? Not very. There would be no good reason for a two-year criminal investigation over anything but the leak of a covert agent.

Let me ask this, if there was not an investigation right now, how loud would you be screaming about a bush admin cover up?

Once again another quote dealing wth anonymous sources. IF rove outed a plame while she was still a covert operative, I fully support him going to jail for the max penalty. However what I have read so far does not point to any wrong doing.

 

[CQuinn]

Originally posted by: charrison

Let me ask this, if there was not an investigation right now, how loud would you be screaming about a bush admin cover up?

But there is an investigation right now. And there has been plenty of "screaming" (or at least raised eyebrows) over the
whole J.Gannon/J.Gukert press issue, and whether or not the White House press corp has bothered to even review its policies
on giving out day passes. There is also the issue of lowballing the Medicare bill, lowballing or misunderestimating the cost
of continued operations in Afganistan and Iraq, questions of the legal and ethical status claims in the treatment and detention of
"enemy combatants, the political appointment of John Bolton, and what kind of dirty so-and-so does Scott McClellen call
Ari Fleisher on days like this.

Once again another quote dealing wth anonymous sources. IF rove outed a plame while she was still a covert operative, I fully support him going to jail for the max penalty. However what I have read so far does not point to any wrong doing.

Except for the failure to check the status of potentially classified information before passing said information on to at least one non-classified party that one was in contact with. Not then disclosing said failure to the proper authorities, and not revealing said contact for two years
of a special investigation into the very matter that said information covered and impacted on a potentially current intelligence program.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison
Let me ask this, if there was not an investigation right now, how loud would you be screaming about a bush admin cover up?

Irrelevant.

Once again another quote dealing wth anonymous sources. IF rove outed a plame while she was still a covert operative, I fully support him going to jail for the max penalty. However what I have read so far does not point to any wrong doing.

You expect sourced quotes during an ongoing federal criminal investigation like this? Not bloody likely. It's interesting that you mention Rove, since I haven't done so. All I'm interested in at the moment, is whether Plame was covert or not.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: CQuinn

Originally posted by: charrison

Let me ask this, if there was not an investigation right now, how loud would you be screaming about a bush admin cover up?

But there is an investigation right now. And there has been plenty of "screaming" (or at least raised eyebrows) over the
whole J.Gannon/J.Gukert press issue, and whether or not the White House press corp has bothered to even review its policies
on giving out day passes. There is also the issue of lowballing the Medicare bill, lowballing or misunderestimating the cost
of continued operations in Afganistan and Iraq, questions of the legal and ethical status claims in the treatment and detention of
"enemy combatants, the political appointment of John Bolton, and what kind of dirty so-and-so does Scott McClellen call
Ari Fleisher on days like this.

Once again another quote dealing wth anonymous sources. IF rove outed a plame while she was still a covert operative, I fully support him going to jail for the max penalty. However what I have read so far does not point to any wrong doing.

Except for the failure to check the status of potentially classified information before passing said information on to at least one non-classified party that one was in contact with. Not then disclosing said failure to the proper authorities, and not revealing said contact for two years
of a special investigation into the very matter that said information covered and impacted on a potentially current intelligence program.

Well novac questioned the cia on the information before he published his article that broke this story. They had noproblem with his article. Rove has signed waivers allowing those that talked to him to speak. One still sits in jail and has not mentioned him as the source. I guess she likes jail better than outing rove as the leak.

All of this does not point to rove.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison
Well novac questioned the cia on the information before he published his article that broke this story. They had noproblem with his article. Rove has signed waivers allowing those that talked to him to speak. One still sits in jail and has not mentioned him as the source. I guess she likes jail better than outing rove as the leak.

All of this does not point to rove.

There's a principle at stake here for the reporters. Obviously, they will have difficulties working with anonymous sources in the future if they have a habit of caving and turning over their sources whenever the government threatens them. Time Magazine has reportedly already experienced sources that refuse to work with them because Time/Cooper flopped on them without much of a fight. Judith Miller may not be protecting her source so much as her and her organization's journalistic integrity.

Some food for thought.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
Well novac questioned the cia on the information before he published his article that broke this story. They had noproblem with his article. Rove has signed waivers allowing those that talked to him to speak. One still sits in jail and has not mentioned him as the source. I guess she likes jail better than outing rove as the leak.

All of this does not point to rove.

There's a principle at stake here for the reporters. Obviously, they will have difficulties working with anonymous sources in the future if they have a habit of caving and turning over their sources whenever the government threatens them. Time Magazine has reportedly already experienced sources that refuse to work with them because Time/Cooper flopped on them without much of a fight. Judith Miller may not be protecting her source so much as her and her organization's journalistic integrity.

Some food for thought.

So why would she sit in jail to protect her sources after rove has given her a waiver to reviel him as the source. Sounds like she is protecting someone else and not rove.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
Well novac questioned the cia on the information before he published his article that broke this story. They had noproblem with his article. Rove has signed waivers allowing those that talked to him to speak. One still sits in jail and has not mentioned him as the source. I guess she likes jail better than outing rove as the leak.

All of this does not point to rove.

There's a principle at stake here for the reporters. Obviously, they will have difficulties working with anonymous sources in the future if they have a habit of caving and turning over their sources whenever the government threatens them. Time Magazine has reportedly already experienced sources that refuse to work with them because Time/Cooper flopped on them without much of a fight. Judith Miller may not be protecting her source so much as her and her organization's journalistic integrity.

Some food for thought.

So why would she sit in jail to protect her sources after rove has given her a waiver to reviel him as the source. Sounds like she is protecting someone else and not rove.

As has been explained before, both she and Cooper felt the blanket waivers Rove, et al, signed at the "request" of the White House were signed under duress, and were therefore not valid. Cooper changed his tune only when Rove gave Cooper's attorney a specific, written release. We've heard no evidence Rove has given a similar individual release to Miller (or that she's asked for one, as far as that goes). That said, I agree Miller may be protecting any number of sources including, or instead of Rove. We just don't know.