Karl Rove Betrayed CIA Agent's Cover - Anyone Surprised? by Knibblet

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Rue- Are you sure??? heh heh heh!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 15, 2005 12:10 AM

Perfessergee, with great trepidation (knowing that he’s going to get flamed), throws his opinion into the breech. He, using the unusual editorial 3rd person singular, expresses his incredulity (translation, he wonders what the hell some people are using for logic) as to the following:

Why on Earth has Ward Churchill’s name come into this thread at all?

Response: It’s mostly a red herring, but it is related and by no means trivial. Churchill expressed a personal political opinion. It may have been an idiotic and hateful opinion, but any rational and objective person must concede that under US political tradition there happens to exist this perhaps trivial document called the US Constitution, which claims that every person has the right to express his/her political opinion. Personally (dropping the 3rd person bit for a moment), I rather like that little document. It lets me proclaim that Churchill’s opinion is idiotic without having to worry about whether powerful individuals and political institutions might proclaim that he’s right.

Pause for thought: Have powerful individuals and political institutions ever proclaimed that despicable and idiotic ideas are “right”? Well, yes, of course, and many times over in human history, but in the US? Could such a thing be? Is it possible that there might be any examples in our own history? Oh, come on, no American could do such a thing as to express and enforce despicable and idiotic ideas, right? Right? For a silly example, would we ever incarcerate anyone, let alone our own citizens, without recourse to the courts to defend their rights? Might there be any examples? Oh surely not……….

Perfessergee hopes that the reader might spend a moment or two in contemplation. Not in chauvinistic arrogance, but in thinking about human history.

History is such an inconvenient thing when you are convinced that you’re right.

Hoping you'll actually apply your brain-pan perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 15, 2005 9:04 AM

BARNSTORMER

Hmmm

Now it seems that Rove did'nt say the name, but the journalist did.

Hmmm

And also it seems the husband of said outed cia covert operative has stated on record that his wife was not a "covert operative" when her name came up. In fact she had not been an operative for at least six years before her name came out.

She's been sitting behind a desk at Langley touting her husband as the perfect guy to go on fact finding missions for the cia.

Hmmmmm, interesting.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 15, 2005 5:58 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"But the context of the interview on the July 14 edition of CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports demonstrates that the AP misconstrued and falsely reported Wilson's remarks. In stating that "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," Wilson was simply noting that Plame's identity was no longer secret after Novak publicly revealed it."

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 15, 2005 6:04 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Evidence indicates that Plame did in fact engage in CIA business abroad between 1998 and 2003, even if she was not stationed abroad. For example, the Post suggested on October 8, 2003, that Plame remained undercover "in recent years" as an "energy consultant," while actually serving as a weapons proliferation analyst for the CIA, and was known by friends and neighbors as someone who "traveled frequently overseas":

For the past several years, she has served as an operations officer working as a weapons proliferation analyst. She told neighbors, friends and even some of her CIA colleagues that she was an "energy consultant." She lived behind a facade even after she returned from abroad. It included a Boston front company named Brewster-Jennings & Associates, which she listed as her employer on a 1999 form in Federal Election Commission records for her $1,000 contribution to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign.

Administration officials confirmed that Brewster-Jennings was a front. The disclosure of its existence, which came about because it was listed in the FEC records, magnifies the potential damage related to the leak of Valerie Wilson's identity: It may give anyone who dealt with the firm clues to her CIA work. In addition, anyone who ever had contact with the company, and any foreign person who ever met with Valerie Plame, innocently or not, might now be suspected of working with the agency.

Friends and neighbors knew Valerie Wilson as a consultant who traveled frequently overseas.

CNN national security correspondent David Ensor reported on the September 29, 2003, edition of Wolf Blitzer Reports:

ENSOR: All I can say is my sources tell me that this is a CIA operative. This is a person who did run agents. This is a person who was out there in the world collecting information.

Both the USA Today report and a separate July 14 article in The Washington Post described Toensing as a co-author of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act without revealing that she is a partisan Republican and personal friend of CNN host and columnist Robert D. Novak, who originally outed Plame in July 2003."

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 15, 2005 11:15 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

By the way- Karl Rove is quoted as saying that Valerie Plame was "fair game". This is in the context of discrediting her husband, Joe Wilson.

Karl Rove, in the past, also bugged his own candidate's office and then claimed it was the opposition that did it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 16, 2005 12:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:

Now it seems that Rove did'nt say the name, but the journalist did.

And also it seems the husband of said outed cia covert operative has stated on record that his wife was not a "covert operative" when her name came up. In fact she had not been an operative for at least six years before her name came out.

She's been sitting behind a desk at Langley touting her husband as the perfect guy to go on fact finding missions for the cia.

So wait a minute here, I'm not quite following your argument. Are you saying that because Plame had a Langley desk job at the time that Novak outed her (let's put our feeble memories together and try to remember who, as a matter of indisputable and very public fact did reveal her name) that she wasn't actually working for the CIA and therefore couldn't really have anything like classified status? And are you also arguing that revealing her previous (or even then-current) job status could have no effect on those who had worked with or for her in what clearly appears to have been clandestine and classified service to the US government?

Well, if that were the case, then perhaps you might be able to explain why the current administration didn't just simply state that Ms. Plame wasn't a protected CIA employee, and that therefore there couldn't be any problem with mentioning her name? Wouldn't this argument quell all but the most ardent conspiracy-theory detractors? Not to mention saving a whole lot of money, and also embarrassment for people who now stand revealed as having dispensed untruths in very public fora (the White House spokesman, for example)?

I don't think I'm the only one who noticed that no such argument was put forth. Could this be that such an argument might contradict the written record (even though the record might be classified - oh, but damn, there's that classified status thing again).

Let's get serious folks. At the very least, somebody violated their security clearance in a most egregious way. As best can be told from the public record, there were 2 such persons, and they both work in or have access to the White House. Security clearances are normally only given to those who can be trusted not to violate confidentiality (and who explicitly agree to maintain confidentiality, under penalty of law). But to not violate the concept, one would have to understand what it actually means. I'm personally pretty confident that no dictionary includes "political expediency" as part of the definition of "confidentiality".

Somebody in the administration abrogated their duty in this matter. Every person who participated in that abrogation should be publicly identifed and pay the full price. Is it right that the only person paying any penalty for holding the administration to account for its conduct in this matter is a journalist (whatever you might think of her recent record) who didn't even actually publish?

Not in my 'verse. And I hope not in any 'verse where people have a sense of common decency.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 16, 2005 12:35 AM

Sorry folks, I just realized that I screwed up in the message I just posted. I said that a journalist was the only person paying a penalty in this appalling affair. I should have acknowledged that everyone who pays US taxes is also paying a penalty, and it ain't a cheap one. Personally, I can think of many, many ways I'd rather have my money spent, but then that would require that malfeasants take responsibility for their actions...........

wishing it would happen perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 16, 2005 7:44 AM

I couldn't agree more AJ. That's the really frustrating part about all of this. IF his latest story is the truth, why didn't we get it two years ago when it could have saved us all a lot of time and money.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 16, 2005 9:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If Karl Rove did this terrible thing why hasn't anything happened to him yet?

Maybe it has to do with the fact that the Justice Department (with Bush's direct political appointee as head) sat on the investigation for over a year before it was given UNDER POLITICAL PRESSURE to a Special Presecutor based outside of Washington? (Chicago) Maybe it's because Rove is so politically connected that any Bush apointee, or anyone who reports to a Bush appointee, is looking at career suicide for pursuing it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 16, 2005 9:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
...I have ask why people are pursuing this with such acrimony.

Andrew Lynch

Well, that's an easy one. Karl Rove, rightly or wrongly, has garnered quite a reputation for dirty pool. It might be fun to have a successful cheater on your side, not so much for the other guys. He's done his share of gloating and media manipulation. There's definitely some payback going on here, regardless of the facts of the case.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 16, 2005 11:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The Special Prosecutor was waiting for the whole issue of confidential sources to be adjudicated, which it fianlly was. The source (Rove) was revealed just within the past week. It's all been in the news.

As far as the Justic Department being openly corrupt- I'm saying the entire Bush administration is corrupt, not just the upper echelons of the Justice Department. And as far as civil servants doing their job regardless of political or personal cost- look at what happens to the ones who do, starting with Joe Wilson. I could compile a whole list of dedicated civil servants who have been fired, maligned, or sidetracked for openly disagreeing with the Bush administration. Where shall I start?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 16, 2005 2:13 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Fitzgerald is the Special Prosecutor who required ppl to testify before the Grand Jury. Time turned Matt Cooper's emails over to the Grand Jury which described the conversation with Rove. The critical email says, in part: "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation....it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip". Cooper also testified before the grand jury last week. I suppose that we will find out what he said later, when he writes his story for Time.

The Special Prosecutor is also looking at where the WH got the information in the first place on Plame's potential connection to Joe Wilson's trip. The State Department had a memo linking Wilson and Plame, and Colin Powell (the link between the WH and the State Department) was seen walking aorund with it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 16, 2005 2:56 PM

It struck me today, the odd parallels between the Karl Rove case and Michael Jackson's latest acquittal - useful ones at that.

I mean, Michael Jackson beat the rap, and for all I know he's perfectly innocent, but can't we all agree that parents would be negligent in the extreme if they sent their kid off to one of MJ's sleepovers? I'm sort of seeing the Karl Rove thing the same way. He'll probably get off, he always does, but do we really want someone like that in a position of such power and influence?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 16, 2005 4:36 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
... KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip.

Was KR spreading slime again? Wilson's wife had nothing to do with Joe Wilson being sent to Niger. And that is old, old information (located somewhere within the Senate Report).

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 17, 2005 4:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Karl Rove has a special talent for skating away from his misdeeds, of which there are plenty. However, the person that I find leaves the fewest fingerprints is Cheney. Try researching him on the inet. His only affiliation is with Halliburton. But according to O'Neill (ex- Treasury Sc'y) Bush never made a decision without first speaking in private with Cheney. After the two of them had gone off into another room for a few minutes, Bush would then emerge and announce "his" decision.

Cheney was there to hold Bush's hand before the 9-11 Commission. According to the CIA people, Cheney and his aide Libby checked into the CIA Langley offices "multiple" times- an unheard of level of personal interest- when the WMD information was being compiled (eg cherry-picked). www.detnews.com/2003/nation/0306/05/nation-184523.htm

Rumor says that Cheney selected Rumsfeld, who then appointed Wolfowitz and Feith. Cheney also chaired the infamously secret Energy Commission. He is truly is the other half of Bush's brain.

"Never use a letter when a conversation will do, never use a conversation when a wink and a nod will do."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 17, 2005 4:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I don't think anyone should be referring to Karl Rove as someone who has committed a criminal act because he is innocent until proven guilty. Calling Karl Rove nasty names based on unproven beliefs is an unjustified smear. I haven't seen any facts indicating his guilt but a lot of unfounded assertions

It is a proven fact that Rove mishandled classified information. That may not rise to the level of a crime, but look at the purpose of that action- by his own admission to malign Joe Wilson, one of the few dedicated govt employees who did exactly what you said they should do- come forward publically to tell the truth. Karl did the same thing that you accuse his detractors of- he maligned someone and made "fair game" of that person's wife, ruined her career, and potentially undercut our "war on terror" by removing/ endangering operatives and sources from our roster.

And you think we should wait until he's been proven to have committed a crime before we call him "nasty names"? I guess what you're saying is... you approve of such actions, even if they don't meet the "criminality" threshold?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 17, 2005 4:46 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

AJ- I don't assume guilt. But I recognize it when I find it. I know we've been through this discussion before, but I can list you a number of documented cases... not counting MWD... where the Bush administration lied and then beat down the civil servants who dared to tell the truth. Do you agree with that behavior?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 17, 2005 5:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

AJ- you seem to be fundamentally confused. Mishandling classified information is not necessarily a crime. It's a proven fact that Karl mishandled classified information, and yet it's entirely possible that no charges will ever be filed if he can show that he didn't know it was classified, for example.

Do you think it's acceptable for an Administration to lie to Congress and to the American people? (This is outside of the WMD question, which I know we will never agree on.) What is your opinion? It's a simple question- "yes" or "no" will do. Thanks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 17, 2005 5:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
However, as it stands right now no charges are filed against Karl Rove and the grand jury has not decided to send him to trial. Unless something dramatic happens we really can only assume the same thing about Karl Rove as we can about MJ: that he is not guilty. At least that is the court's apparent position so far.

Like with MJ, I don't think anyone should be referring to Karl Rove as someone who has committed a criminal act because he is innocent until proven guilty. Calling Karl Rove nasty names based on unproven beliefs is an unjustified smear. I haven't seen any facts indicating his guilt but a lot of unfounded assertions. I think the first step the special prosecutor should do is establish IF a crime has been committed at all -- even that basic fact is less than clear at present.

So.... you would send your kids to MJ's for a sleepover?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 17, 2005 5:22 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If it can be proved that civil servants told the truth and were retaliated against then it is a violation of federal law. I assure you that we would have heard about it if that had occurred.

http://actforvictory.org/act.php/truth/articles/admitted_medicare_liar
_is_bushs_new_health_care_surrogate/

Bush lied about cost to Medicare

Quote:
...Thomas Scully was issued a $84,933 fine for illegal acts last month. “The Bush administration illegally withheld data from Congress on the cost of the new Medicare law, and as a penalty, the former head of the Medicare agency, Thomas A. Scully, should repay seven months of his salary to the government federal investigators said Tuesday… [Source: New York Times, 9/8/04]

On June 11, 2003 Chief Medicare actuary Richard Foster estimates the cost of Bush’s Medicare bill at $551 billion. [Source: New York Times, 3/18/04] Yet despite this estimate, Congress was assured that “the cost would not exceed $400 billion over 10 years, the amount proposed by President Bush” [Source: Newy York Times, 3/14/04] Defying the cost estimate [that] his chief actuary came up with, Bush Medicare chief Thomas Scully refuses to answer a Congressman’s inquiry about the cost of Bush’s Medicare bill. Scully threatens his actuary, Richard Foster, warning him not to give out the true estimate of the Medicare bill’s cost. Scully tells the inquiring Congressional staffer, “If Rick Foster gives that to you, I’ll fire him so fast his head will spin.” [Source: New York Times, 3/18/04]

“President Bush urged Congress on Thursday to quickly finish work on a Medicare prescription drug bill and said he was not deterred by concerns that the $400 billion program would add to budget deficits...” [Source: AP , 9/23/04]

January 29, 2004: Bush White House concedes that the real Medicare cost is nearly $550 billion.

EDITED TO ADD: The context of this LIE was that a critical number of Republicans had said they would not vote for the bill if the cost exceeded 400 billion.

The Bush Administration was so disturbed by Scully's underhanded and illegal actions that it offered him a place on the campaign trail.

Do you agree with such actions? Is it right or wrong for the President and his appointees to lie to Congress or the American people? Is it right or wrong for the President or his appointees to threaten civil servants not to tell the truth, or in retaliation for telling the truth?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 17, 2005 7:53 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Advancing negative unfounded assertions based solely on personal beliefs is a smear.

AJ: Let me toss another softball to you: Am I to assume that this ethical standard should apply to the Bush administration as well?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 17, 2005 10:21 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

AJ

Yowza! Are you arguing for its own sake and not really cognizant of how bent it seems?

This is a serious question. There are so many other things you accept (like WMD) without requiring this level of proof (in fact, on faith almost like a religion, without any proof at all).

Rue

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 17, 2005 10:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
There apparently is not enough evidence against Karl Rove to file charges or get a grand jury to indict. Therefore, there is no trial. So without a trial, Karl Rove retains the presumption of innocence.

Andrew Lynch

Well, that remains to be determined, but you're still missing my point. (Intentionally perhaps?) I'll lay it out there again, just in case I wasn't clear. When someone is repeatedly suspected of foul play, even if they're clever enough to avoid prosecution, is that really someone we want in a position of power and leadership? What does that say about the character of the Bush White House?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 17, 2005 11:08 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

General comment. You seem to believe quite emphatically there are/were massive stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. As the basis for your position you cite intellgence reports.

OTOH you say that because nothing has legally happened to Rove (caveat - yet), it means that nothing happened at all. You seem to think Rove did not talk to reporters and reveal the identity (named or not) of an agent, despite ample testimony from those who talked directly with him that yes indeedee-do, that's what he did. (That's not hearsay BTW, it's direct evidence. Hearsay would be the testimony of someone who heard of the conversation from someone involved, or even further removed. The person who was directly involved proffers direct testimony as a witness.)

If you were to bring the same 'Rove' level of disbelief to the WMD question, you'd say - well of course they were only intelligence estimates, and estimates depend on what assumptions you make, and so of course they could have been wrong.

And the other way around.

But your demands vary depending on who you cite, which leads me to think you accept whatever the administration says with a religious faith.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 17, 2005 11:49 AM

RUXTON

"Bush is ... a man of his word, honest, and his administration has been free of scandal."

It boggles the mind that ANYONE today could be so totally blind and uninformed as LYNCHAJ.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 17, 2005 11:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
So far, I haven't seen ANY indications of foul play by Karl Rove or the President Bush administration....

riiiiight!

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 17, 2005 12:09 PM

Several selected points that I have not been able to address due to prior commitments.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Whatever nit-picking feud you may have going with Rue here, the rest of us still get to say what we think is obvious. None of us has the power to fire any of these folks, so we're all just mouthing off here. Do you mind?

I don’t mind at all. Furthermore, I don’t see anyone preventing you.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Ah, now, what are you dragging me into this nonsense for? I added the "I think" precisely because I wasn't sure of my facts and was too lazy to go look 'em up.

Perhaps you might have explained this to rue. Now, for what it’s worth, I agree with you. Phrases like “I think” are essential to intelligent debate, qualifying statements as opinion instead of asserting them as fact. This is one of the hallmarks of intelligent fair-minded discussion.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- Look, I know you're on the defensive here, but at this point you're in blatant denial of reality. It has already been verified that Plame's indentity was classified. It has already been verified that Rove was ONE OF the sources. Ipso facto, Rove mishandled classified information. Whether he did this maliciously or stupidly, whether he placed CIA officers in jeopardy or broke a law has yet to be determined, which is why I said it APPEARS that he has broken a law. You don't wait until AFTER the investigation is concluded to suspend someone. Suspension is normal operating procedure when serious ALLEGATIONS are made against a government official or employee, and is invoked while the invetigation is taking place. Here are some examples of allegations that would probably result in suspension: sexual harassment, mishandling accounts, mishandling sensitive information, or (in the case of police officers) excessive use of force.

Actually I have yet to see any evidence that Rove did anything wrong. Maybe Rove was responsible for illegally releasing classified information about a covert government agent or maybe he was not, but you stating so, does not make it true.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If it seems like I'm beating this dead horse, it is because you appear to fail to understand what suspension is and when it is used.

Curious. I don’t remember either you or rue calling for Churchill’s suspension.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn,
Just because certain words can be used as dodge words, doesn't mean that in every instance they are.

Oh, I have no doubt. If a Liberal Democrat espouses a Postmodern Liberal opinion by qualifying said opinion with the words “I think,” undoubtedly you would find such an opinion appropriately stated. This is simply a rhetorical stunt by which you are able to insulate yourself from any opinion that you don’t happen to agree with. From your point of view, evidently, the only opinions that are honestly stated are those with which you agree. That is a degree of closed mindedness that is so well crafted that one imagines it to be basically impossible for you to learn anything that doesn’t adhere to previously conceived or accepted ideas.

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
So wait a minute here, I'm not quite following your argument. Are you saying that because Plame had a Langley desk job at the time that Novak outed her (let's put our feeble memories together and try to remember who, as a matter of indisputable and very public fact did reveal her name) that she wasn't actually working for the CIA and therefore couldn't really have anything like classified status? And are you also arguing that revealing her previous (or even then-current) job status could have no effect on those who had worked with or for her in what clearly appears to have been clandestine and classified service to the US government?

I think that what Barnstormer is arguing is that by definition within the law in question Plame was not, in fact, a covert agent; and that is true.

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
Let's get serious folks. At the very least, somebody violated their security clearance in a most egregious way. As best can be told from the public record, there were 2 such persons, and they both work in or have access to the White House. Security clearances are normally only given to those who can be trusted not to violate confidentiality (and who explicitly agree to maintain confidentiality, under penalty of law). But to not violate the concept, one would have to understand what it actually means. I'm personally pretty confident that no dictionary includes "political expediency" as part of the definition of "confidentiality".

It’s not necessarily that black and white. It is quite possible for the information to be released with no violation at all and recent information suggests that may have been the case. Evidently, Mathew Cooper, the reporter who spoke to Rove, may have been fishing for classified information. Cooper may have suspected Valerie Plame’s association with the CIA, and may have been looking for clues from Rove to confirm this. It is quite typical for reporters and others to fish for information from the government. I don’t know if Cooper found those clues or not. Rove evidently may have known what Cooper was after, and avoided telling him anything that would reinforce Cooper’s opinion, but Rove still may have inadvertently said whatever Cooper needed to hear to confirm his assumptions, at least in Cooper’s own head. Cooper either took something Rove said as reinforcement, or was confident enough in his own assumption to go out on a limb; either way, it turns out he may have been right. It is possible that Rove, and the government, is innocent of these accusations and may have been a victim of a reporter’s fishing scam.

Personally, this looks a lot like anti-Bush tantrum. There’s just not enough here, that I'm aware of, to constitute this much media attention. If Kerry had been elected instead of Bush, would Rove be under suspicious right now? I doubt it.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 17, 2005 12:27 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
but you stating so, does not make it true.

Emails and direct testimony under oath don't count?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 17, 2005 12:31 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If Karl Rove committed a crime then he should be charged, indicted, tried, and severely punished if convicted of violating the terms of his security clearance. Otherwise, he is innocent.

Then I guess I'm free to "smear" away, since it's unlikely that I'll be convicted of a crime. Therefore, by your logic I will ignore your appeals for ethcial behavior, since according to you ethics don't count.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 17, 2005 12:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
but you stating so, does not make it true.
Emails and direct testimony under oath don't count?

Certainly, not your interpretation of them.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 17, 2005 12:46 PM

.... must hold on... to sanity.. must resist. (through sheer, glassy-eyed repetition, the talking points are invading my mindspace)... help me..

Yes. I see now. Karl Rove has done nothing wrong. These aren't the droids we're looking for...

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 17, 2005 12:50 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn- perhaps you missed the quote email? At this point I'm going to end my discussion w/ AJ and Finn, for what I think are pretty obvious reasons.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 17, 2005 1:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- perhaps you missed the quote email? At this point I'm going to end my discussion w/ AJ and Finn, for what I think are pretty obvious reasons.

I don’t know which “quote email” you are referring to, but if it is one that contains the “proven fact” that Rove mishandled classified information as you assert, then I must have missed it.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 17, 2005 1:10 PM

Finn, AJ, you guys have really outdone yourselves on this one. And pretty much shot your wad as far as speaking with any moral integrity goes.

You've steadfastly supported the notion that as long as Karl Rove cannot be 'convicted' everything is hunky dory. Moral: "Don't get caught".

How can you be proud of supporting those kinds of ethics? Rove gets caught in yet another underhanded attempt to manipulate the media and all you can do is look for loopholes. Doesn't it bother you that Karl Rove wasn't confident enough in his administration's position to rely on honest politics to support it?

It would be soooo refreshing to hear just one Bush supporter speak up and at least say "Hey. Karl Rove is repeatedly involved in shady business. It's not the kind of thing we approve of and he needs to be put on a short leash." But we don't get that. Instead, it's just the droning litany of excuses and technicalities that make it OK to support a scumbag.

The only conviction I'm seeing here is to victory. Karl Rove wins elections and runs the media like his own personal three ring circus. You don't care what he does to achieve this, how deceptive or underhanded his smear campaigns get, as long as he wins. So much for bringing dignity back to the White House.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 17, 2005 1:25 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sarge- Let me add one more thing. If there are any reasonable conservatives (Geezer, for example) who want to know if ardent Bush supporters have even one toe dabbling in reality, just read this thread. It should answer that question.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 17, 2005 2:23 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
PS, what do you guys expect from someone from Manticore? (thanks to Chrisisall !)

I expect you could introduce me to Max...

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 17, 2005 3:09 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So, hey, if you're as bummed about Rove as I am, why don't you sign 'em all??

www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?ItemId=19325
www.political.moveon.org/firerove/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 17, 2005 11:21 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Hat tip on the post, SergeantX. And to Rue, and Signym, and Knibblet, and HKCavalier, and anyone else who I'm missing who are slogging through the latest round of Rove-redemption-rationales being pulled out.

I've been ghosting the thread and not posting up until now, but just had to drop a few pennies worth of my thoughts. It's probably the beer talking...

Am I surprised that Karl Rove would put partisan politics above national security? No. This is absolutely consistent with his actions in the past. There's a reason George HW Bush dumped him. Ask John McCain about Rove's tricks. Or the governor of Texas who was rumored to be a lesbian while Bush was running against her. Or the opponent of one of Rove's clients who was labeled as a pedophile right before the election. Katherine Harris found out what happens when you cross Rove. He's the iron fist beneath a not-so-velvet glove. Not surprising that he doesn't run for public office. The last thing he wants is to be in a position where he's held accountable.

Rove's defenders have invested way more thought and effort into rationalizing his actions than he did before he leaked Plame's status to multiple reporters. I honestly don't think he gave it much thought. Wilson needed to be attacked and he had the ammunition. The fact that the ammunition was classified probably didn't enter into the equation.

I've been following this story since July 2003. It dies down and then flares up months later. And each time it flares up people have jumped to Rove's defense with the same bogus rationalizations. There will be a resolution soon (at least by October 2005) where we'll known one way or the other whether Rove will be charged. I'm not holding my breath. I think there's enough wiggle room in the "knowingly" part for Rove to escape. I hope I'm wrong. But Bush will be fighting like mad to keep Rove around. Without Rove, Bush isn't elected governor of Texas, let alone President. It says something to me when the man most responsible for your success is morally bankrupt.

A couple of other surprises... Fitzgerald is running a very tight ship. Most of the leaks have come from people who are the subject of the investigation. All accounts that I have read which quote someone inside the investigation also make it a point that the sources wish to remain anonymous because Fitzgerald doesn't want any leaks. So it's hard to say what criminal charges are being considered. There's a huge list of people who have given testimony. Once again, we'll have to wait and see.

There is one aspect that is troubling me, and that's Judith Miller being incarcerated. Much as I think she deserves to be in jail for serving as a pipeline for Chalabi disinformation in the lead up to the Iraq War, I don't think she should be jailed for refusing to name her sources. Even though this administration is notorious for abusing anonymous sourcing to spread bullshit, I still think we should be bending over backwards to allow geniune whistleblowers the option. Of course, I'm open to the argument that Judith Miller might as well be a member of the administration, there's no fourth in that estate. Pretty much the only rational for incarceration that would sit well with me was if Miller had actually passed along classified information, rather than just receiving it.

I guess I see this incident as a litmus test. Most of the people I know and talk to, whatever their political persuasion, are not happy with CIA agents getting outed as part of a partisan political attack. That's to put it mildly. The few who see nothing wrong will, in my opinion, never see anything wrong as far as this administration goes. They are the true believers. Party-over-all and all that. I'm almost to the point of thinking that they see themselves as members of a political party first and citizens of a country second. Almost

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 18, 2005 2:42 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

For those of us who actually pay attention to testimony under oath, here's another Bush administration appointee behaving in an unpatriotic and unethical manner-

Quote:
Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff [ Libby] confirmed the identity of a CIA agent [to Matt Cooper]

www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/cia.leak/index.html
This pretty much confirms CIA sources: a perpetrator is in the Old Executive Office Building. I challenge anyone to find out who actually works in that building; as a matter of security, it's not easy to find a building directory on-line or anyplace else for that matter. In fact, I believe I posted the info when the leak and its potential sources became a news item two years ago. But to make things easier on everyone, there are two relevant offices in that building- the office of the Vice President (Cheney) and the Office of the National Security Advisor (at the time Rice).

Don't forget that we have not found the person who actually told NOVAK about Valerie Plame. There is still a major untold story here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 18, 2005 2:57 AM

So let me get this right, now your story is that Rove didn't have anything to do with it?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 18, 2005 3:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
There is one aspect that is troubling me, and that's Judith Miller being incarcerated. Much as I think she deserves to be in jail for serving as a pipeline for Chalabi disinformation in the lead up to the Iraq War, I don't think she should be jailed for refusing to name her sources.

I agree. Many people on the left accept her incarceration on the basis that she was protecting government retaliation against a whistleblower. BUt the ruling seems pretty broad. Unfortunately, it contains eight redacted pages (due to sensitive information) which would probably explain why this particular ruling should be an exception. Here is an interesting view: editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000977538
Until the reason for her incarceration is made clear and/or the limits of the ruling are tested, Miller's incarceration ALREADY has had a chilling effect on investigative reporting. The Cleveland Plain Dealer spiked two articles based on confidential sources. Miller has effectively wrapped herself in the mantle of a reporter, and it's impossible to touch her without touching everyone else. www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/07/10/news/scribes.
php

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 18, 2005 3:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So let me get this right, now your story is that Rove didn't have anything to do with it?

I have been clear throughout my postings that there is more than one source. Just to make it pellucidly clear, I underlined another in my previous post.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 18, 2005 9:48 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

response to various topics:

Quote:
Curious. I don’t remember either you or rue calling for Churchill’s suspension.

Previously answered - constitutional first amendment protection. As to dodge words, that's a lengthy topic I don't have time for. But it was quite inventive of you to pick an argument with uninvolved people and then blame me. You really gave yourself a stellar reputation with that one. Does it feel good?

Quote:
It is possible that Rove ... may have been a victim of a reporter’s fishing scam.

In my job I too need to keep certain information confidential. With that responsibility one becomes sensitized to approaches toward that information. The standard reply is something like - I'm not able to discuss that. (Repeat as needed.) Perhaps he was caught short the first time. But if that mastermind Rove couldn't figure out a way to keep his mouth shut the second, third and fourth time the topic he shouldn't have been discussing came up, he doesn’t deserve his security clearance.

Quote:
There are different standards for different things.

And what are the standards specifically?

Quote:
President Bush was fully within his rights to go to the UN and to seek "severe consequences".

Which he did not get. According to UN charter NO country is allowed to attack another country under the GUISE of UN action without a SPECIFIC authorizing vote. It was absent. US action in Iraq was illegal. Honestly, get yourself a different excuse.

Quote:
we never found the "massive stockpiles" but that does not mean they did not exist in the recent past, only that we could not find them.

So, in your opinion, were they there?

Quote:
I do not believe Karl Rove has done anything wrong and until someone is able to prove otherwise he will remain "innocent until proven guilty".

Now there you go again. Equating the lack of legal consequences (up until now) with virginal virtue. Despite the fact you've already admitted he certainly talked with several reporters about Valerie Plame. C'mon man! Get a grip on yourself! Something most assuredly did happen. Whether it was a crime or not is a completely different question.

Quote:
I challenge anyone to find out who actually works in that building ...

I remember it from back then. I tried my darndest to find out and, despite the fact that I consider myself to be pretty good at that kind of thing, didn't come up with anything after a few hours of searching. I still have some envy that you managed and I could not.

Wow, that's a broad scatter of topics.

Bye all for now, it's back to several more hours of following the money.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 18, 2005 2:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:

This from the guys that have assumed the "entire Bush administration is corrupt" and Karl Rove is an underhanded criminal before the Special Prosecutor has even filed a single charge against him? Please, spare me the histrionics and melodrama.

AJ, I've been trying to follow your reasoning throughout this thread, and it appears to me to come down to the following: "If Rove had done anything wrong, he would have been indicted and/or convicted. Rove hasn't been indicted or convicted, so therefore he hasn't done anything wrong". In other words, you are using a lack of a result as a priori evidence of a lack of any wrongful conduct (and here I'm only referring to the Plame affair, not the rest of Rove's political record). In addition to its complete circularity, this is some very seriously fallacious reasoning. Logic just doesn't work this way (illogic, on the other hand, flies free....).

Quote:

I do not believe Karl Rove has done anything wrong and until someone is able to prove otherwise he will remain "innocent until proven guilty". Demonize me all you want but you cannot change the facts.

Wow! That's a pretty amazing assertion. Since you were rather unspecific here, I'll take my leave to re-raise the issue of the rest of Rove's record. Do you know anything about Rove's political record? It makes an open sewer smell like perfume. I'll not repeat the specifics that others have already noted in this thread, but I do have to wonder what a political operative would have to do to have it be considered "wrong" in your 'verse.

I shake my head in wonderment.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 18, 2005 5:49 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Lynch asks:

Quote:
Where are the facts that Karl Rove did something wrong?

The answer is

Quote:
But Cooper said he was told by Mr Rove that information was about to be “declassified” and made public to discredit the woman’s husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who had accused the Bush Administration of exaggerating the threat of Iraq’s weapons.

Cooper said Mr Rove told him that Mr Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA on weapons of mass destruction issues, and ended the call by saying: “I’ve already said too much.”

Cooper said yesterday: “This could have meant he was worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting . . . but that sign-off has been in my memory for two years.” Cooper also disclosed for the first time that the other White House source for an article he wrote about Mr Wilson in July 2003 was Vice-President Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter ” Libby, who also did not mention Ms Plame by name.

If Rove said the information was about to be declassified he obviously knew it was classified.

Rove was required to sign Standard Form 312 (SF-312) which requires not only that he not divulge classified information, but also that

Quote:
Before ... confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, ... confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure

Both Rove and Libby have certainly violated the terms of their security clearance. Now that Bush has an idea how deep in shit Rove is, Bush is flip-flopping from his original stance to fire anyone who was "involved" to anyone who is convicted of a crime. Criminals will protect criminals, I guess.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 1:14 PM

Note to readers: I have selectively edited the post to which I am responding. Please scroll up a bit if you’d care to see the context in which it arose.

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Since we are analyzing each other now, let me see if I understand YOUR position. In short, since no one can PROVE Karl Rove is innocent, therefore he must be guilty of wrong doing because you suspect he is up to no good. Did I capture it?

This is not my reasoning at all, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the post you are responding to. Some of my reasoning as to the point of this thread can be analyzed in my earlier posts in this thread, though I have yet to throw my full opinion as to Rove into the breech. Further, I wasn’t analyzing you at all (unless you have no personality or life beyond your posts on this board - I presume that you do). My post covered 2 independent points, neither of which you have responded to. I hope you will actually read this post and think about it before you respond.

The first point was a serious intellectual criticism of your reasoning process, to which I shall return below. It’s actually much the most important of the two, but the second is easier:

The second point was a pair of questions, and I must confess that I was rather snarky in the way that I asked them. I apologize for that; I actually try to avoid the ad hominem, though I fail more often than I’d like. But, there really are 2 serious questions here that have great bearing on how I and others on this thread might interpret your posts. So, please let me try to restate them in a less snarky manner:

1) What is the degree of your awareness of (and what are your sources for said awareness) of Karl Rove’s record as a political operative, in the GHW Bush Presidency, in Texas in the GW Bush political era, and during the GW Bush Presidency? Does that awareness include recognition that there are multiple credible allegations that he (Rove) has engaged in ethically questionable conduct (not proof, not indictments, but allegations that have been publicly acknowledged as credible even by mainstream Republicans)? Any recognition at all?

2) I honestly want to know what kinds of conduct by political operatives within the US you might consider to be wrongdoing in the light of national and international politics, where the reputations, careers and the lives of human beings (Americans and others) might be at risk. This is not remotely trivial; killing is obviously beyond the pale, but what about character assassination or career destruction? Please tell us what you think is acceptable. I suggest you might want to consider your answer carefully in the light of your defense of Rove in the thread above.

Quote:

Pathetic.

Disgusting

Andrew Lynch.

This are quotes from your response to my previous post (and I’m not being snarky by pointing out that out). Nor in pointing out that those statements are not a particularly effective form of reasoning or argument.

So now we get to the (much) more important point:

You have not responded to my most serious criticism, about your reasoning. As best I can parse it, your arguments (repeated multiplex throughout this thread) amount to a syllogism, which, if properly followed, is an extremely powerful form of logical argument. A syllogism is a form of deductive reasoning, in which two premises (or three or a few more, in the expansive form of formal logic), are put forth. A conclusion is drawn from the premises, and if the premises are complete and correct, then the conclusion is necessarily correct. That’s how deductive logic works.

So here’s the lynchaj syllogism (repetitively argued by him and others on this thread):

Premise 1) If Rove had done anything wrong, he would have been indicted and/or convicted.

Premise 2) Rove has not been indicted or convicted.

Conclusion: Rove didn’t do anything wrong.

This is a deductively valid argument as stated, but all such arguments depend on two absolutely crucial elements 1) the premises must be complete, and 2) the premises must be factually correct.

Premise 2 is indisputably correct, but it would pass absurdity to think that premise 1 is indisputably true. One can imagine many, many reasons why it might be false, ranging from the incompleteness of the investigation to full-blown stonewalling by powerful persons (the latter would be the conspiracy-theory end of the spectrum, and please note that I am not arguing that this is the case – just that it’s possible). For a deductive conclusion to be true, it’s premises must be absolutely true, not maybe true. I think I’ll leave the issue of circular reasoning alone, it’s pretty obvious.

The point I was trying to make (originally, and to clarify here), and to which you have not responded, is that your reasoning is fallacious; it is logically invalid. The most insistent (or even elegant or beautiful) rhetoric is meaningless when it seeks to explain invalid reasoning. Sorry if this sounds snarky, but it’s true.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 2:06 PM

CHRISISALL

perfessergee, I wish I could hug you. This is exactly what Andrew needs to wrap his head around, but I posess neither the background in logic nor the eloquence to express it to him.

Andrew, don't blow this off, man.
Absorb.

This does compute Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 3:58 PM