Karl Rove possibly tried for perjury?

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: baoytl

Originally posted by: daveymark
All I see is a bunch of reporters pouncing on Scott like vultures, when all he's doing is respecting the investigator's preference that the WH not comment on the ongoing investigation AFTER he made those statements concerning Rove in '03. The reporters somehow think that Scott can disobey the investigator's requests, just because the requests wre made after he mode those statements in '03. Hilarious, Scott saying "no comment" too many times to count, and the reporters can't get it thorugh their thick heads. Awesome.

Q Do you recall when you were asked --

Q Wait, wait -- so you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore, and since then, you haven't?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation, and I'm just not going to respond any further.

Q When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you peg down a date?

MR. McCLELLAN: Back at that time period.

Q Well, then the President commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

Was it determined when the request was made?

It appears they were talking about it before, now they are all hush-hush. This suggests they are being quiet because it looks bad and they don't want to dig themselves into a hole. This shouldn't be acceptable to the American public.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
He's not a liar. No way, no how.

/watches conjur paddle furiously down the river of denial.

You haven't proven a thing. You're the one in the canoe but you have *no* paddles.

 

[johnnobts]

this is about 20 seconds worth of a conversation that a reporter initiated, that Karl Rove himself tried to discourage the reporter from even writing. its absurd, Rove won't face any legal charges, and he won't be fired.

 

[NJDevil]

TastesLikeChicken,

Doesn't Rove's involvement in this bother you at all? Even if he didn't commit a crime, he sure as hell came close to it. Do you think he should be fired? Do you condone this type of behavior?

And what do you admit he did? The emails from Time indicate that he revealed that Plame was a CIA agent, though not by name. Does that make it any less wrong?

What do YOU think about the whole situation? All you've done is rehash the "liberals are on a witch hunt" argument, etc.

I'm just curious where you stand, and please don't tell me, "i'll wait til the investigation is over" because I'm sure you have some opinion on the issue at the moment.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
this is about 20 seconds worth of a conversation that a reporter initiated, that Karl Rove himself tried to discourage the reporter from even writing. its absurd, Rove won't face any legal charges, and he won't be fired.

Could I introduce you to reality? You seem to not have met before.

Link

Isikoff writes: "In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson's criticisms. . . . Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a 'big warning' not to 'get too far out on Wilson.' Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by 'DCIA' -- CIA Director George Tenet -- or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, 'it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.' "

Isikoff was on MSNBC this morning and said: "Karl Rove has never before acknowledged that he had spoken to Matthew Cooper or anybody else about the Wilson matter prior to the Novak column. The White House initially dismissed claims that Karl Rove was involved, in any way involved, in the outing of Valerie Plame as totally ridiculous and even as recently as last week, Karl Rove's lawyer was saying that it was -- that Rove was never a confidential source for any reporter on this matter. The e-mail conclusively disproves those statements."

Joe Hagan writes in the Wall Street Journal: "After a week of seemingly contradictory reports, one fact appears to have solidified: Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff and architect of President Bush's election victories, was a key confidential source used by Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper in his July 2003 article about a Central Intelligence Agency operative. . . .

So....do you think that Cooper just kept going after Rove? Do you think that he hammered him with questions like:

C'mon Karl, you know something about Wilson that I can use to bury him....what can it be?
C'mon Karl, can you tell me something that will enable me to stop this article from being published cause I think that Joe Wilson is a liar.

NO. Karl VOLUNTEERED the information to prevent the article from being published by casting doubts about Wilson. Pure and simple.


Also, if there isn't a perceived crime, why is the investigation continuing? If the prosecuter or judges that are reviewing the evidence deemed Plame to not fit the definition of covert agent, why continue?

Rove is only "releasing" Cooper from confidentiality because he needs a strawman. This is a feeble attempt to make him look like he is a standup guy who has nothing to hide. Bullsh*t!! Time had already turned over the Cooper e-mails that specifically outted Rove and he had NO CHOICE whatsoever but to try to spin it.

Why was Rove interviewed by the grand jury THREE TIMES? Because they kept finding info that didn't jibe after speaking to others.

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Phokus
I don't think i've seen a partisan shill defend anyone with as much effort as TasteLikeChicken.

I see the cognitive dissonance has kicked in to hyperdrive.

Citing facts is defending Rove?

I'm not defending Rove. I'm debunking all the BS and half-truths being spread around by the fruit loops.

If Rove is guilty of anything then he deserves whatever he gets. It appears he's not actually guilty of anything though so their little happy dance isn't even set to music.

Also, I wonder if Wilson himself was cleared to know his wife a CIA operative? I doubt it. So who told him? His wife? Did she out herself illegally? I bet the loopers don't give a flip about looking into that outing.

From Wikipedia

Plame is the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Wilson is her second husband. Plame met him at a Washington party in early 1997. She was able to reveal her CIA role to him while they were dating because he held a high-level security clearance.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: NJDevil
TastesLikeChicken,

Doesn't Rove's involvement in this bother you at all? Even if he didn't commit a crime, he sure as hell came close to it. Do you think he should be fired? Do you condone this type of behavior?

And what do you admit he did? The emails from Time indicate that he revealed that Plame was a CIA agent, though not by name. Does that make it any less wrong?

What do YOU think about the whole situation? All you've done is rehash the "liberals are on a witch hunt" argument, etc.

I'm just curious where you stand, and please don't tell me, "i'll wait til the investigation is over" because I'm sure you have some opinion on the issue at the moment.

imo, Rove was doing what Rove is supposed to do. He's right too...Wilson deserved what he got for initiating his own attempt at a partisan witch hunt, for which he eventually got smacked down by the SCI report, something many of the monkeys chanting 'Get Rove, Get Rove' conveniently neglect.

As far as Plames identity being exposed, apparently the CIA didn't do a very good job of keeping it a secret:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040722-115439-4033r.htm

CIA officer named prior to column


By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame was compromised twice before her name appeared in a news column that triggered a federal illegal-disclosure investigation, U.S. officials say.
Mrs. Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a Moscow spy, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

In a second compromise, officials said a more recent inadvertent disclosure resulted in references to Mrs. Plame in confidential documents sent by the CIA to the U.S. Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Havana.
The documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them, the officials said.
The investigation into who revealed Mrs. Plame's identity publicly has reached the highest levels of the U.S. government. President Bush was questioned by investigators June 24.
Mrs. Plame is the wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a critic of the Bush administration who has accused the president of misusing intelligence to go to war in Iraq. Mr. Wilson also accuses White House officials of deliberately revealing Mrs. Plame's name in an effort to discredit him.
In 2003, Mr. Wilson publicly debunked reports that Iraq was seeking uranium ore from Niger. Mr. Wilson also said his report ruling out the attempted purchase was ignored.
However, recent reports by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the British government have undermined Mr. Wilson's charges. The Senate says Mr. Wilson's report, contrary to his charges, actually bolstered their view that Iraq was seeking uranium ore from Niger.
The British government said it believes intelligence reports obtained by the Joint Intelligence Committee that point to attempts by Saddam Hussein's government to buy uranium from Niger.
The White House announced last year that it erred in including a statement on the attempted ore purchase in Mr. Bush's State of the Union speech about the Niger-Iraq connection.
Mrs. Plame's identity first was revealed publicly by Chicago Sun-Times columnist Robert Novak in a July 14, 2003, column about Mr. Wilson's trip to Niger to investigate reports that Iraq was trying to buy uranium ore for a nuclear-arms program.
The Justice Department then began an investigation of the disclosure under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime to knowingly disclose the name of a covert agent.
However, officials said the disclosure that Mrs. Plame's cover was blown before the news column undermines the prosecution of the government official who might have revealed the name, officials said.
"The law says that to be covered by the act the intelligence community has to take steps to affirmatively protect someone's cover," one official said. "In this case, the CIA failed to do that."
A second official, however, said the compromises before the news column were not publicized and thus should not affect the investigation of the Plame matter.

 

[Genx87]

Are we getting the whole story from the media on this?

From what I am reading it seems like everybody on their grandma knew Mrs Plame was a CIA agent and if what Rove's lawyer is saying is true. It looks like he was discouraging the use of her name in the article.

It seems like some pieces to the puzzle are still missing. If it was such a huge cover up I am still trying to fathom why Rove signed an agreement over a year ago to allow the reporters to give up him as a source. And since he signed that agreeement why are the two reporters putting up such a fight to protect their "sources"? Is there another smoking gun out there we dont know about yet?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: montanafan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Phokus
I don't think i've seen a partisan shill defend anyone with as much effort as TasteLikeChicken.

I see the cognitive dissonance has kicked in to hyperdrive.

Citing facts is defending Rove?

I'm not defending Rove. I'm debunking all the BS and half-truths being spread around by the fruit loops.

If Rove is guilty of anything then he deserves whatever he gets. It appears he's not actually guilty of anything though so their little happy dance isn't even set to music.

Also, I wonder if Wilson himself was cleared to know his wife a CIA operative? I doubt it. So who told him? His wife? Did she out herself illegally? I bet the loopers don't give a flip about looking into that outing.

From Wikipedia

Plame is the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Wilson is her second husband. Plame met him at a Washington party in early 1997. She was able to reveal her CIA role to him while they were dating because he held a high-level security clearance.

Sounds like a poorly reasoned excuse to me. Knowledge of CIA operatives is divulged strictly on a case-by-case, need-to-know basis. Wilson simply having a high-level secret clearance would not be sufficient enough reason for Plame to have outed herself to him.

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Sounds like a poor reasoned excuse to me. Knowledge of CIA operatives is divulged strictly on a case-by-case, need-to-know basis. Wilson simply having a high-level secret clearance would not be sufficient enough reason for Plame to have outed herself to him.

But it is OK for Rove to know and to mention it to a reporter (even his lawyer admits he said she worked at the CIA). He should have his security clearance revoked until this investigation is complete just like any other non-politico would.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: jimkyser

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Sounds like a poor reasoned excuse to me. Knowledge of CIA operatives is divulged strictly on a case-by-case, need-to-know basis. Wilson simply having a high-level secret clearance would not be sufficient enough reason for Plame to have outed herself to him.

But it is OK for Rove to know and to mention it to a reporter (even his lawyer admits he said she worked at the CIA). He should have his security clearance revoked until this investigation is complete just like any other non-politico would.

Did Rove have access to the names of CIA operatives?

Doubtful.

So who told Rove?

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: NJDevil
TastesLikeChicken,

Doesn't Rove's involvement in this bother you at all? Even if he didn't commit a crime, he sure as hell came close to it. Do you think he should be fired? Do you condone this type of behavior?

And what do you admit he did? The emails from Time indicate that he revealed that Plame was a CIA agent, though not by name. Does that make it any less wrong?

What do YOU think about the whole situation? All you've done is rehash the "liberals are on a witch hunt" argument, etc.

I'm just curious where you stand, and please don't tell me, "i'll wait til the investigation is over" because I'm sure you have some opinion on the issue at the moment.

imo, Rove was doing what Rove is supposed to do. He's right too...Wilson deserved what he got for initiating his own attempt at a partisan witch hunt, for which he eventually got smacked down by the SCI report, something many of the monkeys chanting 'Get Rove, Get Rove' conveniently neglect.

As far as Plames identity being exposed, apparently the CIA didn't do a very good job of keeping it a secret:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040722-115439-4033r.htm

CIA officer named prior to column


By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame was compromised twice before her name appeared in a news column that triggered a federal illegal-disclosure investigation, U.S. officials say.
Mrs. Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a Moscow spy, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
In a second compromise, officials said a more recent inadvertent disclosure resulted in references to Mrs. Plame in confidential documents sent by the CIA to the U.S. Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Havana.
The documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them, the officials said.
The investigation into who revealed Mrs. Plame's identity publicly has reached the highest levels of the U.S. government. President Bush was questioned by investigators June 24.
Mrs. Plame is the wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a critic of the Bush administration who has accused the president of misusing intelligence to go to war in Iraq. Mr. Wilson also accuses White House officials of deliberately revealing Mrs. Plame's name in an effort to discredit him.
In 2003, Mr. Wilson publicly debunked reports that Iraq was seeking uranium ore from Niger. Mr. Wilson also said his report ruling out the attempted purchase was ignored.
However, recent reports by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the British government have undermined Mr. Wilson's charges. The Senate says Mr. Wilson's report, contrary to his charges, actually bolstered their view that Iraq was seeking uranium ore from Niger.
The British government said it believes intelligence reports obtained by the Joint Intelligence Committee that point to attempts by Saddam Hussein's government to buy uranium from Niger.
The White House announced last year that it erred in including a statement on the attempted ore purchase in Mr. Bush's State of the Union speech about the Niger-Iraq connection.
Mrs. Plame's identity first was revealed publicly by Chicago Sun-Times columnist Robert Novak in a July 14, 2003, column about Mr. Wilson's trip to Niger to investigate reports that Iraq was trying to buy uranium ore for a nuclear-arms program.
The Justice Department then began an investigation of the disclosure under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime to knowingly disclose the name of a covert agent.
However, officials said the disclosure that Mrs. Plame's cover was blown before the news column undermines the prosecution of the government official who might have revealed the name, officials said.
"The law says that to be covered by the act the intelligence community has to take steps to affirmatively protect someone's cover," one official said. "In this case, the CIA failed to do that."
A second official, however, said the compromises before the news column were not publicized and thus should not affect the investigation of the Plame matter.

So you assert that she was not an undercover CIA operative and then quote an article where "anonymous governement officials" state that she was one.

Sounds like it's going to be another round of Blame the CIA. Where have we heard that before.

What seems to be lost in all of this is that it was the CIA who asked that this investigation be started in the first place because of National Security matters.

None of it matters anyway. Karl Rove is not going to be convicted of doing anything wrong. The timing of all of this should not surprise anyone. The plan has been devised and is now going into overdrive. Who is investigating this? The Justice Department. Who is the head of the Justice Department? Alberto Gonzales. Why would Novak and the administration like to speed things up and get them over with now? Perhaps Gonzales is going to be leaving his current position soon for one in, oh let's say, the judiciary. Time to wrap it all up. There's no way of proving that Rove "knowingly" outed a covert operative even if that is the way Novak described her in his article. And now they have Mrs. Alan Greenspan, Victoria Toensing, and anonymous government officials talking to the press trying to minimize Plame's role in the CIA and therefore any damage done even if you think what Novak and Rove did was morally, if not criminally wrong.

Might as well right this one off. Watch Gonzales take his seat on the Supreme Court and then prepare for the next Bush buddy to get off when Ken Lay finally goes to trial for his part in the Enron debacle in January.

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: jimkyser

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Sounds like a poor reasoned excuse to me. Knowledge of CIA operatives is divulged strictly on a case-by-case, need-to-know basis. Wilson simply having a high-level secret clearance would not be sufficient enough reason for Plame to have outed herself to him.

But it is OK for Rove to know and to mention it to a reporter (even his lawyer admits he said she worked at the CIA). He should have his security clearance revoked until this investigation is complete just like any other non-politico would.

Did Rove have access to the names of CIA operatives?

Doubtful.

So who told Rove?

Damn good question. But I can pretty much guarantee we will never know the answer to that question.

But that really doesn't matter relative to whether Rove broke the law or not. He DID know she worked at CIA and he DID tell the reporter that she worked at CIA. He should lose his security clearance post haste.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: montanafan
So you assert that she was not an undercover CIA operative and then quote an article where "anonymous governement officials" state that she was one.

Where did I assert Plame was not an undercover operative?

I assert that the CIA didn't do a very good job of maintaining her cover.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: jimkyser

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: jimkyser

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Sounds like a poor reasoned excuse to me. Knowledge of CIA operatives is divulged strictly on a case-by-case, need-to-know basis. Wilson simply having a high-level secret clearance would not be sufficient enough reason for Plame to have outed herself to him.

But it is OK for Rove to know and to mention it to a reporter (even his lawyer admits he said she worked at the CIA). He should have his security clearance revoked until this investigation is complete just like any other non-politico would.

Did Rove have access to the names of CIA operatives?

Doubtful.

So who told Rove?

Damn good question. But I can pretty much guarantee we will never know the answer to that question.

But that really doesn't matter relative to whether Rove broke the law or not. He DID know she worked at CIA and he DID tell the reporter that she worked at CIA. He should lose his security clearance post haste.

Actually, it does matter relative to the law. In order to be in violation of the law that is being cited, Rove would have to have access to that classified information. There has been no indication that that is the case.

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: NJDevil
TastesLikeChicken,

Doesn't Rove's involvement in this bother you at all? Even if he didn't commit a crime, he sure as hell came close to it. Do you think he should be fired? Do you condone this type of behavior?

And what do you admit he did? The emails from Time indicate that he revealed that Plame was a CIA agent, though not by name. Does that make it any less wrong?

What do YOU think about the whole situation? All you've done is rehash the "liberals are on a witch hunt" argument, etc.

I'm just curious where you stand, and please don't tell me, "i'll wait til the investigation is over" because I'm sure you have some opinion on the issue at the moment.

imo, Rove was doing what Rove is supposed to do. He's right too...Wilson deserved what he got for initiating his own attempt at a partisan witch hunt, for which he eventually got smacked down by the SCI report, something many of the monkeys chanting 'Get Rove, Get Rove' conveniently neglect.

As far as Plames identity being exposed, apparently the CIA didn't do a very good job of keeping it a secret:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040722-115439-4033r.htm

So because her "secret identity" was known by some (not by her neighbors if you read anything about their reaction to her outing), it's ok for Rove to just rattle it off to a reporter? Can you imagine how some would react if Clinton's top political advisor did this in retaliation for someone speaking out against him? It would be 10x bigger than Monica Lewinsky.

He's right to relatiate by releasing the identity of a CIA agent? You and I must be from a different planet, because that is pretty damn serious. While she wasn't the most secret spy etc, revealing her identity is no small matter. Why else do you think they tried to cover up that it was Rove for so long?

I don't get people like you. You get all up in arms when Clinton commits perjury (based on questions that had no relevance to Starr's investigation) but when a senior Bush administration member is thought to reveal the identity of an undercover agent in retaliation, you don't bat an eye.

How someone can defend what he did is beyond me.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Actually, it does matter relative to the law. In order to be in violation of the law that is being cited, Rove would have to have access to that classified information. There has been no indication that that is the case.

Other than the reports about Rove requesting information on Wilson and Plame before calling his media shills.

And there is always the perjury problem, isn't there?

And the problem Rove has with a White House that won't have anyone like him in their administration. It's not the way this White House operates, I've been told.

 

[BBond]

Heh. You Republicans always preach to Democrats about how our ways are the reason we're losing. But your own ways will sink you too. Especially when you refuse to see the coming tsunami and instead continue to rely on the cynical use of the media as a narcotic of the masses.

It ain't workin' no more. You've got real problems now and just shutting yourselves up in the White House and hoping they'll go away isn't going to work.

But politically, this is a bombshell. Rove, who has insisted he did not leak Plame's name, had something to do with this effort, even if he didn't "name" her. ( The defense: It all depends on the meaning of the word "leak?") He was attempting to undercut Wilson when he told Cooper that wifey had helped set up Wilson's fact-finding trip to Niger (where Wilson didn't find the facts the administration wanted on Saddam seeking uranium) and that the uranium business could still be true (it wasn't). And didn't the White House promise to fire anyone involved in the leak?

What does Rove do now? Give a couple of interviews and explain his role? Or remain in the background while his lawyer issues carefully parsed statements?

The newspapers all jump on the White House in stonewall mode, beginning with the New York Times :

"Nearly two years after stating that any administration official found to have been involved in leaking the name of an undercover C.I.A. officer would be fired, and assuring that Karl Rove and other senior aides to President Bush had nothing to do with the disclosure, the White House refused on Monday to answer any questions about new evidence of Mr. Rove's role in the matter.

"With the White House silent, Democrats rushed in, demanding that the administration provide a full account of any involvement by Mr. Rove, one of the president's closest advisers, turning up the political heat in the case and leaving some Republicans worried about the possible effects on Mr. Bush's second-term agenda. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, cited Mr. Bush's statements about firing anyone involved in the leak and said, 'I trust they will follow through on this pledge.'. . . .

"In two contentious news briefings, the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, would not directly address any of a barrage of questions about Mr. Rove's involvement."

"Reporters at Monday's question-and-answer session at the White House peppered spokesman Scott McClellan with 41 questions in 35 minutes," says USA Today .

Frog-Marching Time for Rove?

 

[conjur]

Rush was going batsh*t crazy today!

I listened to his show on the way back from lunch. Oh I needed the laughs!!

Here are the (low?) highlights:

1) This is a non-story.
2) The rabid press never pressed Janet Reno like they did yesterday. (btw, Rush played ALL of the questions asked by the reporters. It was great!)
3) The CIA operative's name was already known
4) The left never cared about the CIA before. The left wanted to cut/dismantle the CIA. The left would have wanted Plame arrested simply for working at the CIA but now she works to their benefit.
5) Called Wilson a liar.


You could hear the spittle flying! It was great!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: NJDevil

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: NJDevil
TastesLikeChicken,

Doesn't Rove's involvement in this bother you at all? Even if he didn't commit a crime, he sure as hell came close to it. Do you think he should be fired? Do you condone this type of behavior?

And what do you admit he did? The emails from Time indicate that he revealed that Plame was a CIA agent, though not by name. Does that make it any less wrong?

What do YOU think about the whole situation? All you've done is rehash the "liberals are on a witch hunt" argument, etc.

I'm just curious where you stand, and please don't tell me, "i'll wait til the investigation is over" because I'm sure you have some opinion on the issue at the moment.

imo, Rove was doing what Rove is supposed to do. He's right too...Wilson deserved what he got for initiating his own attempt at a partisan witch hunt, for which he eventually got smacked down by the SCI report, something many of the monkeys chanting 'Get Rove, Get Rove' conveniently neglect.

As far as Plames identity being exposed, apparently the CIA didn't do a very good job of keeping it a secret:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040722-115439-4033r.htm

So because her "secret identity" was known by some (not by her neighbors if you read anything about their reaction to her outing), it's ok for Rove to just rattle it off to a reporter? Can you imagine how some would react if Clinton's top political advisor did this in retaliation for someone speaking out against him? It would be 10x bigger than Monica Lewinsky.

He's right to relatiate by releasing the identity of a CIA agent? You and I must be from a different planet, because that is pretty damn serious. While she wasn't the most secret spy etc, revealing her identity is no small matter. Why else do you think they tried to cover up that it was Rove for so long?

I don't get people like you. You get all up in arms when Clinton commits perjury (based on questions that had no relevance to Starr's investigation) but when a senior Bush administration member is thought to reveal the identity of an undercover agent in retaliation, you don't bat an eye.

How someone can defend what he did is beyond me.

Actually, people 'like me' defended Clinton way back when the rabid right were all over him making stupid proclamations and bouncing around innuendo like a superball.

You see, it's the over-the-top rabidity I can't stand, whether it be right or left, and those complaining about the reaction to Clinton are doing the very same they claim to have despised.

Hypocrites? You betcha.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
this is about 20 seconds worth of a conversation that a reporter initiated, that Karl Rove himself tried to discourage the reporter from even writing. its absurd, Rove won't face any legal charges, and he won't be fired.

:laugh:

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: NJDevil

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: NJDevil
TastesLikeChicken,

Doesn't Rove's involvement in this bother you at all? Even if he didn't commit a crime, he sure as hell came close to it. Do you think he should be fired? Do you condone this type of behavior?

And what do you admit he did? The emails from Time indicate that he revealed that Plame was a CIA agent, though not by name. Does that make it any less wrong?

What do YOU think about the whole situation? All you've done is rehash the "liberals are on a witch hunt" argument, etc.

I'm just curious where you stand, and please don't tell me, "i'll wait til the investigation is over" because I'm sure you have some opinion on the issue at the moment.

imo, Rove was doing what Rove is supposed to do. He's right too...Wilson deserved what he got for initiating his own attempt at a partisan witch hunt, for which he eventually got smacked down by the SCI report, something many of the monkeys chanting 'Get Rove, Get Rove' conveniently neglect.

As far as Plames identity being exposed, apparently the CIA didn't do a very good job of keeping it a secret:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040722-115439-4033r.htm

So because her "secret identity" was known by some (not by her neighbors if you read anything about their reaction to her outing), it's ok for Rove to just rattle it off to a reporter? Can you imagine how some would react if Clinton's top political advisor did this in retaliation for someone speaking out against him? It would be 10x bigger than Monica Lewinsky.

He's right to relatiate by releasing the identity of a CIA agent? You and I must be from a different planet, because that is pretty damn serious. While she wasn't the most secret spy etc, revealing her identity is no small matter. Why else do you think they tried to cover up that it was Rove for so long?

I don't get people like you. You get all up in arms when Clinton commits perjury (based on questions that had no relevance to Starr's investigation) but when a senior Bush administration member is thought to reveal the identity of an undercover agent in retaliation, you don't bat an eye.

How someone can defend what he did is beyond me.

Actually, people 'like me' defended Clinton way back when the rabid right were all over him making stupid proclamations and bouncing around innuendo like a superball.

You see, it's the over-the-top rabidity I can't stand, whether it be right or left, and those complaining about the reaction to Clinton are doing the very same they claim to have despised.

Hypocrites? You betcha.

No mirrors in your house I take it?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Did Rove have access to the names of CIA operatives?

Doubtful.

So who told Rove?

Umm.... George W. Bush has access to that information. So does Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Dennis Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and a bunch of other Whitehouse insiders, none of whom I would trust any further than I can throw you from here.

TLC -- You spit more lies out of more sides of your mouth than anyone I can recall outside of the Whitehouse staff, itself. Reading your posts in this thread, alone, is a cartoon show of contradictions, distractions, diversions and generalized bullsh8.

Go ahead. Call me names again. That's seems to be the only thing all you ever manage to do when you can't stand the reality of being called for what you are. :laugh:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Did Rove have access to the names of CIA operatives?

Doubtful.

So who told Rove?

Umm.... George W. Bush has access to that information. So does Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Dennis Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and a bunch of other Whitehouse insiders, none of whom I would trust any further than I can throw you from here.

TLC -- You spit more lies out of more sides of your mouth than anyone I can recall outside of the Whitehouse staff, itself. Reading your posts in this thread, alone, is a cartoon show of contradictions, distractions, diversions and generalized bullsh8.

Go ahead. Call me names again. That's seems to be the only thing all you ever manage to do when you can't stand the reality of being called for what you are. :laugh:

I don't have to call you names Harvey. What you do to yourself in your replies, apparently cluelessly, is more damning and telling than anything anyone could ever call you. You're your own worst enemy.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Did Rove have access to the names of CIA operatives?

Doubtful.

So who told Rove?

Umm.... George W. Bush has access to that information. So does Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Dennis Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and a bunch of other Whitehouse insiders, none of whom I would trust any further than I can throw you from here.

TLC -- You spit more lies out of more sides of your mouth than anyone I can recall outside of the Whitehouse staff, itself. Reading your posts in this thread, alone, is a cartoon show of contradictions, distractions, diversions and generalized bullsh8.

Go ahead. Call me names again. That's seems to be the only thing all you ever manage to do when you can't stand the reality of being called for what you are. :laugh:

I think we have our answer??

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/11/ip.01.html

CROWLEY: Right. So what we are seeing here it looks like is some pushback from the White House, going, well, wait a minute, first of all, it's not right that the CIA send him. His wife sent him over there. So it could be something...

ISIKOFF: But the problem that people in the White House, Rove among them, may have is how did they know that Valerie Plame, or Wilson's wife worked at the CIA? What we do know is there was a classified State Department report that said this, that was taken by Secretary of State Powell with him on the trip to Africa that President Bush was then on, and many senior White House aides were on.

That classified State Department report appears to have been -- or may well have been the source for the information that Rove and others were then dishing out to reporters. And if that's the case, there still may be -- we don't know yet, but there still may be an instance where classified information was provided to reporters.

7/13/2003 9:47 PM http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-13-bush-africa-voters_x.htm

President Bush's five-nation trip to Africa last week

[...]

Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was with Bush in Africa,