So I got done arguing with my dad about Karl Rove

[KidViciou$]

he says that since joe wilson got his job through his wife's influence, and since he made high-profile statements against the white house, he is the reason why her cover was blown, and that karl rove didn't know that she worked for the CIA

he's basically saying it's all joe wilson's fault. i told him, joe wilson could be a serial killer, the scum of the earth, AND the antichrist, and the only way people would have known valerie plame is that she is his wife, not a CIA agent. this is what fox news is programming their viewers to believe

 

[Strk]

Personal grievences shouldn't excuse potential treason.

 

[KidViciou$]

that was what i told him, that karl rove endangered national security, but my dad's reasoning was that karl rove didn't know she worked for the cia, having learned of her only after reading some report, and that joe wilson made enough ruckus as it is

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Your dad is right. Wilson decided to play partisan politics and fire the first salvo by leaking classified information. Rove returned a salvo by releasing classified information and Wilson's specific claim was eventually shown to be wrong in the SCI report. Wilson brought it upon himself. I know there are those who will roll their eyes over that statement but I say it because if you look at the entire issue, why the hell should Rove care whether Plame was covert or not? To him that was not the issue. The issue, to Rove, was that Wilson's wife was the impetus that sent him on that trip. Rove wanted to demonstrate Wilson's motivation as a partisan snipe hunt in coordination with his wife and the CIA in general, which had its own anti-war contingent. Her status, covert or not, was meaningless to Rove when context is considered.

Also. I'm not saying what was done was right by either side. But that's how the political game is played and has been played forever. Maybe someday that will change, but it hasn't yet and it's doubtful it will change any time in the near future.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Your dad is right. Wilson decided to play partisan politics and fire the first salvo by leaking classified information. Rove returned a salvo by releasing classified information and Wilson's specific claim was eventually shown to be wrong in the SCI report. Wilson brought it upon himself. I know there are those who will roll their eyes over that statement but I say it because if you look at the entire issue, why the hell should Rove care whether Plame was covert or not? To him that was not the issue. The issue, to Rove, was that Wilson's wife was the impetus that sent him on that trip. Rove wanted to demonstrate Wilson's motivation as a partisan snipe hunt in coordination with his wife and the CIA in general, which had its own anti-war contingent. Her status, covert or not, was meaningless to Rove when context is considered.

Also. I'm not saying what was done was right by either side. But that's how the political game is played and has been played forever. Maybe someday that will change, but it hasn't yet and it's doubtful it will change any time in the near future.

There is a certain amounty of sense to this perhaps, and if so though, the assasination of Rove in return as a traitor who outed an CIA agent is just more of the same political game.

 

[Isla]

Blaming the victim is a CLASSIC way abusers get away with abuse.

The truth is just too much for some people to take.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
that was what i told him, that karl rove endangered national security, but my dad's reasoning was that karl rove didn't know she worked for the cia, having learned of her only after reading some report, and that joe wilson made enough ruckus as it is

If I could have a penny for every person who "endangered national security" I'd be a multi-millionaire. Especially from 1992-2000

 

[irwincur]

Actually, it would not be out of the question that Wilson was the one to out his wife. He did talk to the NYT before his trip, and he did have a prepared anti-Bush editorial for his post trip. Never mind the fact that he lied four times in the editorial, and once again four more times to Congress.

There are some in DC that suspect that the journalist that is currently still in jail holds the key. It was either her, or him that 'blew the cover'.

Whatever the case, neither of them would have broken the law, so it is not a big deal. If I was Wilson I would be more concerned with the lies that I told Congress. Even then, they have a pretty lax policy.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$i told him, joe wilson could be a serial killer, the scum of the earth, AND the antichrist, and the only way people would have known valerie plame is that she is his wife, not a CIA agent. this is what fox news is programming their viewers to believe

Yeah, I was thinking along those lines. What Joe said/did is actually not even pertinent to the issue at hand. All that matters is that Rove outed an agent.

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Actually, it would not be out of the question that Wilson was the one to out his wife. He did talk to the NYT before his trip, and he did have a prepared anti-Bush editorial for his post trip. Never mind the fact that he lied four times in the editorial, and once again four more times to Congress.

I do not know much about the contents of his editorial, what was he lying about ?

And, on a related note, why would the NYT lie about the source and blame Rove if it was Wilson - some kind of media conspiracy? I am trying to follow your reasoning, but I am obviously missing something.

 

[KidViciou$]

how does bob "douchebag" novak fit into this? i don't hear his name come up except when jon stewart mentions it

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
how does bob "douchebag" novak fit into this? i don't hear his name come up except when jon stewart mentions it

LOL. Love the nickname. I don't like Novak, he's a shady mofo.

 

[KidViciou$]

now that i think about it though, even knowing that rove was the source, or at least one of the sources, i'm kinda sad that reporters were forced to give up their confidential sources. i don't think that's a good road to go down. even before his name was released, i didn't know if it was a good thing or a bad thing that hte reporters were being subpoeaned (sp, too lazy to look it up)

 

[imported_Shivetya]

You cannot out an agent if the "agent" in question doesn't qualify. As she was a desk jockey since the 90s that means she was not covert. That would also mean that no law was broken by the person who released her name.

FWIW, I am more interested in who the NY Times is protecting.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
You cannot out an agent if the "agent" in question doesn't qualify. As she was a desk jockey since the 90s that means she was not covert. That would also mean that no law was broken by the person who released her name.

FWIW, I am more interested in who the NY Times is protecting.

Er, no. Her covert status is protected until it is declassified, not just when she becomes a desk jockey, as far as I know. Why? Well this should be obvious (I would think), since she certainly made contacts and gathered information as a covert agent. Exposing her as a covert agent could expose those contacts and information.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Your dad is right. Wilson decided to play partisan politics and fire the first salvo by leaking classified information. Rove returned a salvo by releasing classified information and Wilson's specific claim was eventually shown to be wrong in the SCI report. Wilson brought it upon himself. I know there are those who will roll their eyes over that statement but I say it because if you look at the entire issue, why the hell should Rove care whether Plame was covert or not? To him that was not the issue. The issue, to Rove, was that Wilson's wife was the impetus that sent him on that trip. Rove wanted to demonstrate Wilson's motivation as a partisan snipe hunt in coordination with his wife and the CIA in general, which had its own anti-war contingent. Her status, covert or not, was meaningless to Rove when context is considered.

Also. I'm not saying what was done was right by either side. But that's how the political game is played and has been played forever. Maybe someday that will change, but it hasn't yet and it's doubtful it will change any time in the near future.

You are missing the point. Exposing classified information is not an ok way to deal with a situation like that, or any situation for that matter. What Wilson did or did not do doesn't make one bit of difference.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
You cannot out an agent if the "agent" in question doesn't qualify. As she was a desk jockey since the 90s that means she was not covert. That would also mean that no law was broken by the person who released her name.

FWIW, I am more interested in who the NY Times is protecting.

She wasn't a desk jockey. Yes, she was recently working in D.C.. But, until Novak outed her, she had a cover story. Everyone thought she was an energy analyst working for Brewster Jennings... which Novak also blew as a CIA cover company.

I don't see how people actually try to defend Rove. He has a history of underhanded behavior. He was fired from George I's campaign for leaking information. He faked a wiretapping of his office in an Illinois campaign. He's by no means an altar boy. If you think he is, you're deluding yourself.

 

[Pepsei]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
You cannot out an agent if the "agent" in question doesn't qualify. As she was a desk jockey since the 90s that means she was not covert. That would also mean that no law was broken by the person who released her name.

FWIW, I am more interested in who the NY Times is protecting.

however she could be working for a front company which other agents are working for too. So if she is exposed, then that front company is exposed, along with all the agents.

in theory.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Actually, it would not be out of the question that Wilson was the one to out his wife. He did talk to the NYT before his trip, and he did have a prepared anti-Bush editorial for his post trip. Never mind the fact that he lied four times in the editorial, and once again four more times to Congress.

There are some in DC that suspect that the journalist that is currently still in jail holds the key. It was either her, or him that 'blew the cover'.

Whatever the case, neither of them would have broken the law, so it is not a big deal. If I was Wilson I would be more concerned with the lies that I told Congress. Even then, they have a pretty lax policy.

Do you even try to get your facts straight? The suggestion Wilson outed his wife is hateful, blame-the-victim, partisan noise. Your claim Wilson talked to the New York Times before his trip is a flat lie, as is your nonsense about his "prepeared anti-Bush editorial". Neither claim has an ounce of evidence supporting it. Your claim he "lied" four times in his op-ed is equally disinformed. There are undoubtedly comments he made that one could nitpick on technicalities. There is no evidence Wilson intentionally mislead anyone. I don't know which dittohead entertainer/blowhard feeds you that crap, but you need to learn he or she is a total idiot. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[imported_tss4]

I think some of you guys are also missing the point that it is NEVER allowable to confirm that someone does or does not work for an intelligence agency. Its not classified information per say, but it is made quite clear NOT to do that to all people that obtain a classified clearance. Even if she is not currently under cover, that doesn't mean that she wouldn't in the future go undercover. Now because of the VP's aid and Rove, a potential asset (possibly in the war on terror) is lost. It shows an unwise, very questionable behavior on the part of very important people. This should worry democrats and Republicans. When high level officials are willing to leak classified info for partisan politics, the interest of the nation is being trumped by the interest of the party. That's not good.

I don't neccesarily believe that Rove actually committed a "crime" (that's for the special prosecution to decide), but I do hold him up to a more stringent standard of conduct (the lieing about his involovement and the decision to leak this info) as one of the most powerful government officials in the land. He failed to uphold that standrad. We should demand more from our officials. Such a lack of integrity in the name of partisan politics does not reflect well on him or our government.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
You cannot out an agent if the "agent" in question doesn't qualify. As she was a desk jockey since the 90s that means she was not covert. That would also mean that no law was broken by the person who released her name.

FWIW, I am more interested in who the NY Times is protecting.

WRONG ! As others have stated you cannot disclose any agents status in the agency until it becomes declassified. It does not matter if she was serving food in the CIA headquarters building cafeteria. She was still classified as a undercover agent at the time. If you cannot trust someone to keep their mouth shut about a desk jockey undercover agent I would hate to see what would happened to a CIA field agent. Then again all CIA agents when not doing field work are considered desk jockeys. It's the little things that all intelligence agencies across the world go after and tug at to see if they unravel into larger pieces of information. There is no question Rove did it. The only question is what were his motives for doing so at the time.

Of course Bush already stated in the past that he would fire anyone for leaking classified information for whatever reason to the press.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Your dad is right. Wilson decided to play partisan politics and fire the first salvo by leaking classified information. Rove returned a salvo by releasing classified information and Wilson's specific claim was eventually shown to be wrong in the SCI report. Wilson brought it upon himself. I know there are those who will roll their eyes over that statement but I say it because if you look at the entire issue, why the hell should Rove care whether Plame was covert or not? To him that was not the issue. The issue, to Rove, was that Wilson's wife was the impetus that sent him on that trip. Rove wanted to demonstrate Wilson's motivation as a partisan snipe hunt in coordination with his wife and the CIA in general, which had its own anti-war contingent. Her status, covert or not, was meaningless to Rove when context is considered.

Also. I'm not saying what was done was right by either side. But that's how the political game is played and has been played forever. Maybe someday that will change, but it hasn't yet and it's doubtful it will change any time in the near future.

Run, Chicken, run. Decide to spread your disinformation to a new thread since you're tired of being exposed in the others?

You are lying about Wilson leaking classified information. That is your personal delusion, unsupported by any factual evidence or even the tiniest bit of logical analysis. You, and perhaps a few other freepers, are the only ones making this claim.

You then say, "Rove returned a salvo by releasing classified information." If so, Rove committed a crime and should be incarcerated. The rest of your bluster is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether Rove cared about Plame's covert status. It doesn't matter if you think it was an eye for an eye. No matter how much you spin and cry, no matter how you think the political game is played, any alleged wrongs by Wilson cannot justify your admitted wrongs by Rove.

(By the way, I love your loony conspiracy theory about the CIA's "anti-war contingent". Great entertainment -- but I think you might want to consider professional help.)

The Senate SCI report did not prove Wilson "wrong", though the partisans on the Committee did abuse their position to attack Wilson in their special addendum. Point of fact, Wilson's finding about Iraq and Niger were corrroborated by other reports at the time, and have since been pretty conclusively shown to be exactly right. The Bush administration, on the other hand, clearly lied, claiming Iraq had "reconstituted" its nuclear weapons program when the actual evidence strongly suggested otherwise.

That's why you and the other Bush drones hate Wilson so much; he exposed your boy in the White House. Boo hoo, sucks to be you, "But that's how the political game is played and has been played forever."

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: tss4
I think some of you guys are also missing the point that it is NEVER allowable to confirm that someone does or does not work for an intelligence agency. Its not classified information per say, but it is made quite clear NOT to do that to all people that obtain a classified clearance. Even if she is not currently under cover, that doesn't mean that she wouldn't in the future go undercover. Now because of the VP's aid and Rove, a potential asset (possibly in the war on terror) is lost. It shows an unwise, very questionable behavior on the part of very important people. This should worry democrats and Republicans. When high level officials are willing to leak classified info for partisan politics, the interest of the nation is being trumped by the interest of the party. That's not good.

I don't neccesarily believe that Rove actually committed a "crime" (that's for the special prosecution to decide), but I do hold him up to a more stringent standard of conduct (the lieing about his involovement and the decision to leak this info) as one of the most powerful government officials in the land. He failed to uphold that standrad. We should demand more from our officials. Such a lack of integrity in the name of partisan politics does not reflect well on him or our government.

Well said.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Shivetya
You cannot out an agent if the "agent" in question doesn't qualify. As she was a desk jockey since the 90s that means she was not covert. That would also mean that no law was broken by the person who released her name.

FWIW, I am more interested in who the NY Times is protecting.

WRONG ! As others have state you cannot disclose any agents status in the agency until it becomes declassified. It does not matter if she was serving found in the CIA headquarters building cafeteria. She was still classified as a undercover agent at the time. If you cannot trust someone to keep their mouth shut about a desk jockey undercover agent I would hate to see what would happened to a CIA field agent. Then again all CIA agents when not doing field work are considered desk jockeys. It's the little things that all intelligence agencies across the world go after and tug at to see if they unravel into larger pieces of information. There is no question Rove did it. The only question is what were his motives for doing so at the time.

Of course Bush already stated in the past that he would fire anyone for leaking classified information for whatever reason to the press.

another good point is that while she was not currently an agent abroad, as we know and can be determined that was true for a number of years because of her children, that does not mean that in another year (when she would once again be eligible) she would not be sent out.
it is worth noting that a "desk jokey" can still do work that, if exposed, may not be a direct danger to herself or our national security but could put the life of any foreign contacts, american agents or otherwise, in danger.

i should also like to add on a more personal note that i dont ever want to hear any conservative talk about "moral relativism" again while wagging their finger at the whole of the democratic party. if adding all sorts of qualifiers to the "dont expose american agents" rule of being a "great american" isnt morally unsound, i dont know what is.

 

[Bowfinger]

(I posted this in the main Rove/Plame thread, but since the topic has come up here as well ...)

The new Time magazine is now out. It includes Cooper's brief article about his grand jury testimony, plus a long article about the whole "Rove Problem". It's a good read in general, but I found this part especially interesting, for all the Bush apologists who declare Plame to no longer be covert:

But while she may no longer have been a clandestine operative, she was still under protected status. A U.S. official told TIME that Plame was indeed considered covert for the purposes of the Intelligence Identities Protection law. And even if the leak was not illegal, intelligence officials argue, it is not defensible. "I'm beyond disgusted," a CIA official said last week. I am especially angry about the b_______ explanations that she is not a covert agent. That is an official status, and there are lots of people in this building who are on that status. It's not up to the Republican Party to determine when that status will end for an agent."

Whatever the damage to Plame, there remains the cost paid by the CIA generally. In the wake of the disclosure, foreign intelligence services were known to have retraced her steps and contacts to discover more about how the CIA operates in their countries. Outside of a James Bond movie, spies rarely steal secrets themselves; they recruit foreigners to do it for them. That often means bribing a government official to break his country's laws and pass state secrets to the CIA. "It becomes extremely hard if you're working overseas and recruiting [foreign] agents knowing that some sloth up in the Executive Branch for political reasons can reveal your identity," says Jim Marcinkowski, who served four years in the agency and is now the deputy city attorney for Royal Oak, Mich. "Certainly this kind of information travels around the world very quickly. And it raises the level of fear of coming in contact with the United States for any reason." On the other hand, some critics charge that the agency tends to overstate the value of its undercover operations, whose lapses in recent years have certainly been the subject of much debate.

"A U.S. official told TIME that Plame was indeed considered covert for the purposes of the Intelligence Identities Protection law." There may be other loopholes Rove can exploit, but not that one. I'd say it's well past time to move to the next BushCo diversion.


This part was amusing, nicely summing up the BushCO spin here:

And all the while, Rove's defenders were artfully pivoting from saying he hadn't done anything to saying he hadn't done anything wrong, that Plame wasn't really a secret agent anyway, or if she was, Rove didn't know that, or if he did, he only brought her up because he was trying to keep reporters from writing a bad story based on Wilson's false charges, and besides, it was a reporter who blew Plame's cover to him in the first place and not the other way around.

Who does that remind you of?


(Here's the link, but you have to be a subscriber to get the article: The Rove Problem )