Not Another Rove Thread

[LoungeMachine]

Source: Novak called Rove
David Johnston, Richard W. Stevenson, New York Times

Friday, July 15, 2005


Washington -- Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified an undercover CIA officer, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said Thursday.

Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the CIA officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the source said.

After hearing Novak's account, the source said, Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."

The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Novak, the source said.

Six days later, Novak's syndicated column reported that two senior administration officials had told him that Wilson's "wife had suggested sending him" to Africa. That column was the first instance in which Valerie Wilson was publicly identified as a CIA operative. The column provoked angry demands for an investigation into who disclosed her name to Novak.

The Justice Department appointed Patrick Fitzgerald, a top federal prosecutor in Chicago, to lead the inquiry. Rove said in an interview last year that he did not know the CIA officer's name and did not leak it.

The person who provided the information about Rove's conversation with Novak declined to be identified, citing requests by Fitzgerald that no one discuss the case. The person discussed the matter in the belief that Rove was truthful in saying he did not disclose Valerie Wilson's identity.

On Oct. 1, 2003, Novak wrote another column in which he described calling two officials. The first source, who is unknown, was described by Novak as "no partisan gunslinger" who provided the outlines of the story. The second, confirming source, Novak wrote, responded, "Oh, you know about it."

That second source was Rove, the person briefed on the matter said, although Rove's account to investigators about what he told Novak was slightly different. Rove recalled telling Novak: "I heard that, too."

Asked by investigators how he knew enough to leave Novak with the impression that his information was accurate, Rove said he heard portions of the story from other journalists, but had not heard Wilson's name.

Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer, said Thursday, "Any pertinent information has been provided to the prosecutor." Luskin has previously said that prosecutors have advised Rove that he is not a target in the case, which means he is not likely to be charged with a crime.

Novak declined to discuss the matter Thursday.

The conversation between Novak and Rove seemed almost certain to intensify the question about whether one of President Bush's closest political advisers played a role in what appeared to be an effort to undermine Joseph Wilson's credibility after he challenged the veracity of a key point in Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech, alleging that Saddam Hussein had sought nuclear fuel in Africa.

The conversation with Novak took place three days before Rove spoke with Matthew Cooper, a Time magazine reporter, whose e-mail message about their conversation reignited the issue. In the message, whose contents were reported by Newsweek this week, Cooper told his editors that Rove had talked about Valerie Wilson, although not by name.

As the political debate about Rove grows more heated, Fitzgerald is in what he has said are the final stages of his investigation into whether anyone at the White House violated a criminal statute that, under certain circumstances, makes it a crime for a government official to disclose the names of covert operatives like Wilson.

The law requires that the official knowingly identify an officer serving in a covert position. The person who has been briefed on the matter said Rove knew neither Wilson's name nor that she was a covert officer. White House officials may argue that Rove's conversation with Novak did not amount to leaking the name of the agent. But to Bush's critics -- including the Democrats who have called for Rove's resignation -- that is splitting hairs, and Rove in effect confirmed her identity, even if he did not name her.

[Nickdfresh]

Currnet speculation is that ROVE could get sent up for perjury.

[LoungeMachine]

A
The Real Problems with Plamegate


by James M. MacDougall

There has been much speculation in recent days about the involvement of Karl Rove and others in the disclosure of the identity of a covert CIA operative. The chatter back and forth from opposing political perspectives raises some very debatable points as well as a lot of useless noise. Unfortunately most of this obscures the real issue at the heart of the matter, the national security of the United States and the safety of the American public.

Whether or not the legal definition of section 421, title 50, of the United States Code [i] covers Mr. Rove's actions will be debated in the months or years to come. However, this discussion obscures the debate we should be having in this country, how have these actions undermined our national security and our ability to protect our citizens. Where covert cover is never perfect, having it spread all over the front page surely cannot help our cause.

Whether these actions are legally treasonous or not is a question for the U.S. judiciary system. The fact that these actions severely damage our ability to protect the citizens of this nation is the central fact, and one that deserves every American's immediate attention.

Let's take a look at the legacy handed down by the actions of Mr. Rove and others in this administration.

1) Disclosure of the identity of a covert agent of the CIA.

Whatever the background of this act is, it is irrelevant to the central fact that these actions brought about the public knowledge that Valerie Plame [or Mrs. Wilson if you like] was an undercover operations officer for the CIA, more specifically a NOC, that's a non-official cover officer. In layman's terms that means she agreed to operate overseas without the security of a diplomatic passport.[ii] This meant if she was caught she could be executed. It also made her association with the CIA much harder to figure out.

This "outing" started a chain reaction that thundered through the community of foreign intelligence agencies and actors, which severely compromised the agency's ability to protect this nation. Within hours of this information becoming public, agencies and actors around the world would reconstruct her movements and history, thus endangering other agency secrets. This coupled with the disclosure of Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan[iii], an al-Qaeda informant that Pakistani intelligence was using to provide information on his contacts in the organization, provide a disturbing habit of "outing" persons for suspect reasons.

Because of this trend foreign agents are less likely to cooperate with U.S. agencies for fear of being exposed for little reason. The fact that this action possibly destroyed years of CIA operations in the field of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, especially into the hands of rogue states and non-state actors,[iv] should in itself be enough to condemn these actions, but unfortunately the damage did not stop there.

2) This leak caused the exposure of a CIA front company.

In a subsequent interview on CNN, journalist Robert Novak also exposed an agency operational company, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, in an effort to paint Plame as a partisan.[v] This expanded the damage exponentially. Now, not only could external actors connect any doings of Mrs. Wilson to the CIA, they could also connect Brewster-Jennings & Associates and anyone who had connections to them, as possible agency assets.

The extent of this damage may never be publicly known as it usurps some of the most sensitive areas of the agency's investigations in the illegal transfer of WDM technology and information. It has been said that Brewster-Jennings & Associates was not much of a cover, but then it was not supposed to be. It was just a holding company for overseas officers while they were in the United States.

Vince Cannistraro, the CIA's former counterterrorism chief, said that when operating undercover outside the United States, Plame would have had a real job with a more legitimate company. The Boston company "is not an indicator of what she did overseas,"[vi]. There is a reason that sources and methods are protected so vigorously by our security services, once exposed those sources and methods are no longer of much use. The association of Valerie Plame and Brewster-Jennings & Associates with the CIA makes the connection of dots between these and other valuable agency assets that much easier and laid bare both sources and methods.

3) These actions severely damaged this country's ability to stop a WMD terrorist attack in this country.

It takes years to set up covert avenues of information into such sensitive areas. The work of thousands goes into the establishment of intelligence covers and the gradual infiltration of agencies associated with the proliferation of WMD secrets and abilities into the hands of those that would do this nation and the world harm. A portion of this work was swept away in days by the information provided by Mr. Rove and others in this administration for what as best could be summarized as a minor political objective, at worst, just retribution and intimidation of those who dared speak in opposition to the administration's ambitions.

In these days of national threat, I find these actions even more inexcusable. Porter Goss stated in his speech on Global Intelligence Challenges before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in February of 2005 that "It may be only a matter of time before al-Qa'ida or another group attempts to use chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons (CBRN)."[vii]

Seeing as this is such a high priority issue in the national defense circles, it begs the question why any information that could be damaging to this effort was made public at all.

The realizations that it is "only a matter of time" before groups use WMD on this nation or our allies, spotlights even more the dastardly nature of the actions of participants in this administration. The fact that any information that would hinder the deterrence of these groups from obtaining the material and knowledge needed to complete their goal of a WMD attack in this country would be released, for any reason whatsoever, seems completely outrageous and indefensible. The fact that it happened and Karl Rove is involved is irrefutable; all that remains to be determined is the motive and who are the other participants.

A priority of this administration is the global war on terror[viii]; this should include the defense of this nation from attack, especially from WMD. That being said, how can we trust an administration that would defend personnel and actions that have undermined that very function? Whether this action was perpetrated through spite or stupidity, how can we leave those that made theses decisions in charge of our national security? This is only one more incident to highlight in the litany of irresponsible actions of this administration. It would seem that none in Washington have any idea whatsoever on how to win this war we find ourselves in.

This leaves the only question to be asked, "Are we to wait for the smoking gun of their incompetence to be a mushroom cloud over a U.S. city, or are we going to protect our nation from those who abdicate their responsibility to do so?"

* * *

Notes:

[i] US Code: Title 50, Subchapter iv—protection of certain national security information http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_15_20_IV.html

[ii] The Big Lie About Valerie Plame, Larry Johnson, Jul 13, 2005 http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340

[iii] Captured Qaeda Figure Led Way To Information Behind Warning, NY Times, August 2, 2004,

[iv] Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, a Buzzflash interview, April 30, 2004
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/04/int04023.html

[v] Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm, Washington Post, October 4, 2003 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A40012-2003Oct3&notFound=true

[vi] Apparent CIA front didn't offer much cover, Boston Globe, October 10, 2003
http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2003/10/10/apparent_cia_front_didnt_offer_much_cover/

[vii] Testimony of Director of Central Intelligence, Porter J. Goss, Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 16 February 2005 (as prepared for delivery) http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2004/Goss_testimony_02162005.html

[viii] "First and foremost, the Global War on Terror will remain a priority of the administration." Quote from Secretary of State Colin Powell briefing reporters November 8, 2004 en route to Mexico City, Mexico, to attend the 21st meeting of the U.S.-Mexico Binational Commission
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2004&m=November&x=20041109161559aawajuk0.3802606&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html

James M. MacDougall

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Currnet speculation is that ROVE could get sent up for perjury.

Good.

Novak and He can be Cellmates.

From what I understand, KKKarl would like to be the "bottom bunkmate";)


NOVAK SHOULD HANG


:cool:

[DrMaddVibe]

Keep dreaming!

No foul, no crime...moveon.org fuckos!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Keep dreaming!

No foul, no crime...moveon.org fuckos!

No crime fucko? Uh...well, this is why BUSH's presidency is in the shitter. It means nothing when he has fawning enablers.

This from a guy that though an intern administered blowjob was the most evil thing on the planet.

[DrMaddVibe]

Go make up some more shit idiot!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Go make up some more shit idiot!

Go bury your head in your local GOP party chairman's ass tool.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe

No foul, no crime...moveon.org fuckos!

You're such a fucking idiot.

Seriously.

Brain dead moron:rolleyes:

[BigBadBrian]

Who are they going to try to pin a crime on next? :rolleyes:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Who are they going to try to pin a crime on next? :rolleyes:

Just have an intern blow him for impeachment proceedings.:rolleyes:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Who are they going to try to pin a crime on next? :rolleyes:

You;)

[thome]

All Bush has to do is declare Marshal Law towards the end of his
Presidency( Due to a well staged terr attack).Like the bombing
in london you all think he designed and he will have a third term. you cant unseat
a presiding Pres while Marshall Law activated.

spooky huh.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Who are they going to try to pin a crime on next? :rolleyes:

Which "they" ??

The CIA, which approached the Justice Dept. about filing a criminal complaint in the matter of the OUTING a cover CIA operative?

Or John Ashcroft, who had to recuse himself because he knew too much?

Or special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald?

Or the Grand Jury, which Novak told it was ROVE, who fingered Plame [pun intended] ?

Or ROVE, who told the Grand Jury NOVAK fingered Plame [ pun disgusting] ?

Or The Chimp, who said the leaker would be "dealt with" ?


Just which "they" are you speaking of, B ???

:cool:

[Warham]

It's not that Clinton got a blowjob. It's the fact that he committed perjury, and lied through his fucking teeth until he couldn't hide it anymore.

You guys want to send Rove up the river for perjury and throw away the keys. Why wasn't Clinton sent up the river for the same thing?? One answer...he's a Democrat and a hero to most of you liberals here!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
It's not that Clinton got a blowjob. It's the fact that he committed perjury, and lied through his fucking teeth until he couldn't hide it anymore.


No, he didn't, technically. It depends on what "your definition of is is.";)


You guys want to send Rove up the river for perjury and throw away the keys. Why wasn't Clinton sent up the river for the same thing?? One answer...he's a Democrat and a hero to most of you liberals here!

Because, technically he wasn't a perjurer, and blow-jobs are legal while outing undercover intelligence officers is highly felonious.

[Warham]

Well, Rove might not have brought up Plame's name, so technically he's not guilty of anything either.

If Clinton didn't commit perjury, why was he disbarred from practicing law in the United States?

[Warham]

I read this on a lefty blog:

'we must demand life imprisonment or execution for Karl Rove in compliance with what the law says should be the punishment for such a crime.'

Think the Democrats are foaming at the mouth over this one or what? To the point that revenge for their OWN incompetence is causing them to lose all reason.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Well, Rove might not have brought up Plame's name, so technically he's not guilty of anything either.

If Clinton didn't commit perjury, why was he disbarred from practicing law in the United States?

May not have...You're correct, he may not have, but he also may have as well. He certainly deserves a day in court and all. Yet the preliminary evidence points to the fact that he may have tried to cover his tracks, something federal independent counsels historically have a problem with.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Warham
It's not that Clinton got a blowjob. It's the fact that he committed perjury, and lied through his fucking teeth until he couldn't hide it anymore.

You guys want to send Rove up the river for perjury and throw away the keys. Why wasn't Clinton sent up the river for the same thing?? One answer...he's a Democrat and a hero to most of you liberals here!

I gotta agree with you on this.
Perjury IS Perjury, no matter what party engages in it.

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, no playing favorites, period.

But Karl Rove still acted in an unethical fashion in my opinion because to me it looks like he was only trying to slam Wilson for attacking a Bush speech.

And these are the types of games we can all do without.

He should either quit or be fired, I don't care which one.

[thome]

Originally posted by Warham
I read this on a lefty blog:

'we must demand life imprisonment or execution for Karl Rove in compliance with what the law says should be the punishment for such a crime.'

Think the Democrats are foaming at the mouth over this one or what? To the point that revenge for their OWN incompetence is causing them to lose all reason.

Typical fashion of these tools( not much Left of their party) instead
of trying to rebuild what used to be a noble institution the dems
do Nothing anymore except try to destroy the Republicans.Point
fingers grasp at straws Everything except to look at themselves as the problem and reassess their
Failures

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by Warham
It's not that Clinton got a blowjob. It's the fact that he committed perjury, and lied through his fucking teeth until he couldn't hide it anymore.

You guys want to send Rove up the river for perjury and throw away the keys. Why wasn't Clinton sent up the river for the same thing?? One answer...he's a Democrat and a hero to most of you liberals here!

Nevermind the fact that they forgot all about Sandy "The Destroyer" Berger!

You want to put someone in some cross-hairs...there's a PRIME target!

[FORD]

Originally posted by Cathedral
I gotta agree with you on this.
Perjury IS Perjury, no matter what party engages in it.

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, no playing favorites, period.

But Karl Rove still acted in an unethical fashion in my opinion because to me it looks like he was only trying to slam Wilson for attacking a Bush speech.

And these are the types of games we can all do without.

He should either quit or be fired, I don't care which one.

Rove is not guilty of only perjury, but also treason. His personal vendetta against Joe Wilson not only destroyed Valerie Plame's cover, and career as a NOC (non offiical cover) with the CIA, but also (through the further incompetence of Robert Novak) compromised the entire unit of the CIA that plame worked with by exposing Brewster Jennings Inc. as a fake company used as a front for the CIA.

It's known that WMD's is the area that these agents were working in. Suppose they were on the trail of terrorists who DID actually have access to weapons of mass destruction, and those weapons were later used against the United States? Or the UK possibly.

Karl Rove would then also be guilty of mass murder.

If he isn't already.....

[DrMaddVibe]

For talking to Bob Novak?

Gimmie a break.

That assclown had his wife outed on his personal website long before this!

[BigBadBrian]

Sandy Berger is going to be shot at dawn.

:gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Sandy Berger is going to be shot at dawn.

:gulp:

Why, did he 'out' a CIA agent for political revenge?

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Why, did he 'out' a CIA agent for political revenge?

Political tit-for-tat.

You don't recall what he did?

[DrMaddVibe]

According to the Teller of Absolute Truth...

http://www.politicsoftruth.com/editorials/SJMN.html

It wasn't Rove.

That's from the guy himself! So who has it wrong? The guy that had it happen to him personally or you assclowns for pointing fingers without a shred of proof?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Political tit-for-tat.

You don't recall what he did?

I recall something about classified documents, but it didn't involve anyone else and he was tried for it...

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine


Just which "they" are you speaking of, B ???



http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/108136.jpg

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
For talking to Bob Novak?

Gimmie a break.

That assclown had his wife outed on his personal website long before this!

Yeah, that's why there's a special prosecutor, a Grand Jury, and the pResident promising to fire the leaker:rolleyes:


fuckwad

:cool:

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/108136.jpg

So does that include all the Republicans who voted not to send armor to the troops? :confused:

[Warham]

No, it just involves Democrats like Kennedy and Dick Durbin.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
No, it just involves Democrats like Kennedy and Dick Durbin.

Why? did they send troops to die in a war based on counter-productive ignorance and lies?

[Warham]

Bush hasn't damaged morale like Dick 'I must compare Americans to Nazis to get face time' Durbin.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Bush hasn't damaged morale like Dick 'I must compare Americans to Nazis to get face time' Durbin.

Really? How do you know this? I hear a lot of soldiers are pissed about stop loss, and are disheartend by the overall failure to stem attacks in IRAQ.

[Warham]

Yeah, and I heard alot of troops were disturbed by Durbin's comments via e-mail, as relayed by a general recently.

With the liberal press in this country not relaying anything positive in their news of Iraq (and there are positive things going on over there), is it any wonder?

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
So does that include all the Republicans who voted not to send armor to the troops? :confused:

Produce that list.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Bush hasn't damaged morale

Not even I believe you're THIS stupid:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Produce that list.

Paying for Humvee Armor

Senate agreed to an amendment to change the Emergency Supplemental to provide an additional $213 million in funding to produce armored Humvees. Here's how the vote broke down:

YEAs ---61
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Talent (R-MO)
Thune (R-SD)
Wyden (D-OR)




NAYs ---39
Allard (R-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thomas (R-WY)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)



HERE YOU ARE, BRI...LOOK AT ALL OF THE [R] VOTING NO

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine

NAYs ---39


Sununu (R-NH)





Including Warpig's own Senator:rolleyes:

[Warham]

I want to see the actual admendment, to see WHY they voted no. This isn't just about giving them armor for their humvees.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by FORD
So does that include all the Republicans who voted not to send armor to the troops? :confused:

Yes it does..............

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I want to see the actual admendment, to see WHY they voted no. This isn't just about giving them armor for their humvees.

It is when you flame KERRY for "not supporting the troops...voted against it before he voted for it...blah blah." Did you ever see "WHY" Kerry voted no (due to the stupid partisan amendments that essentially used US troops as human shields).

What an incredible double standard you guys have.

[Warham]

There's no double standard. Show me that one too.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Warham
I want to see the actual admendment, to see WHY they voted no. This isn't just about giving them armor for their humvees.

The Hummvee's (a large number of them at least) are armored less than 1 mile from where i am sitting right now, and they are being shipped out by the truckload daily.

Personally, I don't care what political reason a NO vote was cast, The troops deserve it, need it, and should have gotten it by a unanimus vote.

If there was any garbage added to the vote besides armor, those who played politics are answerable to every American Soldier on the planet.

Fuck the party lines, and fuck those who said No...........

I'll shoot some pics today of the place. it's the same place the Limo Kennedy was shot in was armored in the 60's.
I just got my new camera yesterday and need to experiment with it to get the feel for this digital shit.

But it was free, a $500 bonus from my boss........... :)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
There's no double standard. Show me that one too.

There is one, you just completely contradicted every Republican talking point regarding the infamous Kerry vote on additional funding for the troops when BUSH's glorious liberation and oil war went to shit.

In a nut shell; you're sort of saying "Democrats bad when vote against troop funding, Republicans good because they have good reason to vote against troop funding."

[Warham]

I'm all for humvees too, but really, why did so many Republicans vote no when they are behind Bush on this war? I wanted to see the actual amendment to see what it says, because I smell something.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
There is one, you just completely contradicted every Republican talking point regarding the infamous Kerry vote on additional funding for the troops when BUSH's glorious liberation and oil war went to shit.

In a nut shell; you're sort of saying "Democrats bad when vote against troop funding, Republicans good because they have good reason to vote against troop funding."

Well, gee, if I contradicted a talking point, maybe I am a free thinker!

Can you imagine?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Well, gee, if I contradicted a talking point, maybe I am a free thinker!

Can you imagine?

That's the point...you've never once strayed from a Republican talking point.

[Warham]

What's the date that this vote was taken?

I'm looking through the Senate voting records now.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Warham
I'm all for humvees too, but really, why did so many Republicans vote no when they are behind Bush on this war? I wanted to see the actual amendment to see what it says, because I smell something.

I recognize that smell too, It was called Political Posturing.
And if anyone by either side decided to put fluff in the works, they, as i said before, are answerable to the troops.

[Warham]

The date was 4-21-2005.

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2005

Includes: - $213 million for Army procurement of Up-Armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (UAHMMWVs)

AK Jr Senator
Lisa A. Murkowski Republican Y
AK Sr Senator
Ted Stevens Republican Y
AL Jr Senator
Jefferson B. 'Jeff' Sessions Republican Y
AL Sr Senator
Richard C. Shelby Republican Y
AR Sr Senator
Blanche L. Lincoln Democrat Y
AR Jr Senator
Mark Pryor Democrat Y
AZ Sr Senator
John S. McCain Republican Y
AZ Jr Senator
Jon Kyl Republican Y
CA Sr Senator
Dianne Feinstein Democrat Y
CA Jr Senator
Barbara Boxer Democrat Y
CO Jr Senator
Ken Salazar Democrat Y
CO Sr Senator
Wayne A. Allard Republican Y
CT Jr Senator
Joseph I. Lieberman Democrat Y
CT Sr Senator
Christopher J. Dodd Democrat Y
DE Sr Senator
Joseph R. Biden Democrat Y
DE Jr Senator
Thomas Richard Carper Democrat Y
FL Sr Senator
Bill Nelson Democrat Y
FL Jr Senator
Mel Martinez Republican Y
GA Sr Senator
C. Saxby Chambliss Republican Y
GA Jr Senator
John H. 'Johnny' Isakson Republican Y
HI Sr Senator
Daniel K. Inouye Democrat NV
HI Jr Senator
Daniel Kahikina Akaka Democrat Y
IA Jr Senator
Thomas 'Tom' Harkin Democrat Y
IA Sr Senator
Charles E. 'Chuck' Grassley Republican Y
ID Jr Senator
Michael D. 'Mike' Crapo Republican Y
ID Sr Senator
Larry E. Craig Republican Y
IL Jr Senator
Barack H. Obama Democrat Y
IL Sr Senator
Richard J. 'Dick' Durbin Democrat Y
IN Jr Senator
Evan Bayh Democrat Y
IN Sr Senator
Richard G. Lugar Republican Y
KS Sr Senator
Samuel D. 'Sam' Brownback Republican Y
KS Jr Senator
Pat Roberts Republican Y
KY Jr Senator
Jim Bunning Republican Y
KY Sr Senator
Mitch McConnell Republican Y
LA Sr Senator
Mary L. Landrieu Democrat Y
LA Jr Senator
David B. Vitter Republican Y
MA Jr Senator
John Forbes Kerry Democrat Y
MA Sr Senator
Edward M. 'Ted' Kennedy Democrat Y
MD Jr Senator
Barbara A. Mikulski Democrat Y
MD Sr Senator
Paul S. Sarbanes Democrat Y
ME Sr Senator
Olympia J. Snowe Republican Y
ME Jr Senator
Susan M. Collins Republican Y
MI Sr Senator
Carl Levin Democrat Y
MI Jr Senator
Debbie Ann Stabenow Democrat Y
MN Sr Senator
Mark Dayton Democrat/Farmer/Labor Y
MN Jr Senator
Norm Coleman Republican Y
MO Jr Senator
James M. 'Jim' Talent Republican Y
MO Sr Senator
Christopher S. 'Kit' Bond Republican Y
MS Sr Senator
Thad Cochran Republican Y
MS Jr Senator
Trent Lott Republican Y
MT Sr Senator
Max S. Baucus Democrat Y
MT Jr Senator
Conrad R. Burns Republican Y
NC Jr Senator
Richard M. Burr Republican Y
NC Sr Senator
Elizabeth H. Dole Republican Y
ND Sr Senator
Gaylord Kent 'Kent' Conrad Democrat Y
ND Jr Senator
Byron L. Dorgan Democrat-NPL Y
NE Jr Senator
E. Benjamin 'Ben' Nelson Democrat Y
NE Sr Senator
Charles T. 'Chuck' Hagel Republican Y
NH Jr Senator
John E. Sununu Republican Y
NH Sr Senator
Judd A. Gregg Republican Y
NJ Sr Senator
Jon Stevens Corzine Democrat Y
NJ Jr Senator
Frank R. Lautenberg Democrat Y
NM Jr Senator
Jeff Bingaman Democrat Y
NM Sr Senator
Pete V. Domenici Republican Y
NV Sr Senator
Harry M. Reid Democrat Y
NV Jr Senator
John Eric Ensign Republican Y
NY Sr Senator
Charles E. Schumer Democrat Y
NY Jr Senator
Hillary Rodham Clinton Democrat Y
OH Jr Senator
George V. Voinovich Republican Y
OH Sr Senator
Michael 'Mike' DeWine Republican Y
OK Jr Senator
Thomas Allen 'Tom' Coburn Republican Y
OK Sr Senator
James M. 'Jim' Inhofe Republican Y
OR Sr Senator
Ron Wyden Democrat Y
OR Jr Senator
Gordon Harold Smith Republican Y
PA Jr Senator
Richard J. 'Rick' Santorum Republican Y
PA Sr Senator
Arlen Specter Republican Y
RI Sr Senator
John F. 'Jack' Reed Democrat Y
RI Jr Senator
Lincoln D. Chafee Republican Y
SC Jr Senator
Jim W. DeMint Republican Y
SC Sr Senator
Lindsey O. Graham Republican Y
SD Sr Senator
Tim P. Johnson Democrat Y
SD Jr Senator
John R. Thune Republican Y
TN Sr Senator
William H. 'Bill' Frist Republican Y
TN Jr Senator
Lamar Alexander Republican Y
TX Sr Senator
Kay Bailey Hutchison Republican Y
TX Jr Senator
John Cornyn Republican Y
UT Jr Senator
Robert F. Bennett Republican Y
UT Sr Senator
Orrin Grant Hatch Republican Y
VA Sr Senator
John W. Warner Republican Y
VA Jr Senator
George Felix Allen Republican Y
VT Sr Senator
Patrick J. Leahy Democrat Y
VT Jr Senator
James Merrill 'Jim' Jeffords Independent Y
WA Jr Senator
Maria Cantwell Democrat Y
WA Sr Senator
Patty Murray Democrat Y
WI Sr Senator
Herbert H. 'Herb' Kohl Democrat Y
WI Jr Senator
Russell D. Feingold Democrat Y
WV Jr Senator
John D. 'Jay' Rockefeller Democrat Y
WV Sr Senator
Robert C. Byrd Democrat Y
WY Jr Senator
Michael B. Enzi Republican Y
WY Sr Senator
Craig Thomas Republican Y

[Warham]

Gee, could it be that Lounge's information was false?

I thought so.

Here's the official link, right to Kerry's vote...

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=3508&can_id=S0421103

[Cathedral]

You know, Warham. I don't want to go toe to toe with you on these issues. but just the fact that there was ever a question to send the troops what they needed in the first place is enough to make me question the Administration.

If it wer me and i was Prez, not one soldier would have set foot on that sand without full body armor or vehicles that were equipped to the hilt to protect them.

I can't play politics with these issues like they are in Washington because i could care fucking less about our politicians while our troops are getting shot at and blown up.

It really makes my head spin how both parties seem to just fuck everything up at every corner.
if it isn't one side, it's the other trying to gain a political advantage, and that insults our troops....That's wrong no matter who we support.

[Warham]

Doesn't matter, Cat. The point is mute. Every Republican voted yes on that appropriations bill...which is why I smelled something.

[Warham]

Another link:

http://appropriations.senate.gov/hearmarkups/04-20-0505SuppFloorVote.htm

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Warham
Doesn't matter, Cat. The point is mute. Every Republican voted yes on that appropriations bill...which is why I smelled something.

Agreed

But i'm still pissed that the equipment wasn't ready and waiting for deployment.
It was just a matter of luck that the resistance wasn't that strong from the start or their would be a lot more losses than there are.

And any loss is too much.

[Warham]

Now that I can agree with you on.

They should have the best of everything!

[thome]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Agreed

But i'm still pissed that the equipment wasn't ready and waiting for deployment.
It was just a matter of luck that the resistance wasn't that strong from the start or their would be a lot more losses than there are.

And any loss is too much.

All procurements for the military are voted on.This vehicle again
IS NOT A TANK not meant to be one .Get off this .Its not worth
discussing
Ok every thing is worth discussing im sorry.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :o

[Cathedral]

And we agree on much more than that, Warham.
I still have a conservative heart, just no adequate representation at the moment.

If the entire political arena wasn't such a clusterfuck, we all wouldn't be butting heads so much.

[Cathedral]

I know it isn't a Tank, thome, (though it drinks gas like one)
But they should be equipped to the hilt with everything available before the keys are handed to a soldier.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
What's the date that this vote was taken?

I'm looking through the Senate voting records now.

Vote on what? This Administration has other priorities obviously.

Troops put thorny questions to Rumsfeld
Defense chief speaks to Iraq-bound soldiers in Kuwait

Thursday, December 9, 2004 Posted: 4:37 AM EST (0937 GMT)

(CNN) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld faced tough questioning Wednesday from troops about to be deployed to Iraq.

Soldiers at Camp Buehring, a staging area in the Kuwait desert, peppered Rumsfeld with queries about the standard of equipment they would be using and about the Pentagon's "stop-loss" policy, which prevents troops from leaving the military service even if they are eligible to retire or quit.

One soldier, identified by The Associated Press as Army Spc. Thomas Wilson of the 278th Regimental Combat Team, a Tennessee National Guard outfit, asked Rumsfeld why more military combat vehicles were not reinforced for battle conditions.

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked.

The question prompted cheers from some of the approximately 2,300 troops assembled in the large hangar to hear Rumsfeld deliver a pep talk at what the Pentagon called a town hall meeting.

Rumsfeld said armored military vehicles have been brought to the region "from all over the world, from where they're not needed to a place they're needed."

In Washington, Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita said about 450 armored Humvees are being produced each month. This is up from August 2003 when only 15 per month were made.

That's about the time commanders in Iraq started asking for them because of the increased use of roadside bombs by insurgents.

"It's essentially a matter of physics, not a matter of money," Rumsfeld said. "It's a matter of production and the capability of doing it."

In April, the Pentagon said it was spending $400 million to replace the Army's thin-skinned Humvees in Iraq with the so-called "uparmored" reinforced versions.

"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want," Rumsfeld said.

He added, "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank, and it can [still] be blown up."

Rumsfeld's response to the question drew quick criticism from one Democratic legislator.

Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut said he sent a letter to Rumsfeld asking whether the military met a self-imposed July 31 deadline to fully armor the troops.

"I understand how you may be forced into a situation earlier than you'd like where you might not have everything you want, but it's now going into the third year," Dodd said.

Initial war estimates said U.S. forces might need as many as 800 heavily armored vehicles in Iraq, but current estimates call for as many as 6,000, said retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd, a CNN military analyst.

"The command over there basically distributes the armored vehicles to those they think that need them the most," Shepperd said. "Everybody would like to have one, but there's simply not enough in theater right now."

Maj. Gen. Gary Speer, deputy commanding general of U.S. forces in Kuwait, told the AP that as far as he knows vehicles going to Iraq from Kuwait's Camp Buehring have at least "Level 3" armor.

These vehicles would have locally fabricated armor for side panels, but not necessarily bulletproof windows or protection against blasts through floorboards, according to the AP.

Speer said he wasn't aware of anyone looking through landfills for scrap metal and glass, the AP reported.

Maj. Gen. Gus L. Hargett, adjutant general, or commander, of the Tennessee National Guard, disputed Speer's comments.

"I know that members of his staff were aware and assisted the 278th in obtaining these materials," Hargett said in a news release.

About 19,000 armored Humvees are in the Central Command's area of operations, which includes Iraq and Afghanistan, Di Rita said. That is about 2,000 short of what commanders have requested, he said.

Di Rita pointed out it is Pentagon policy that troops driving Humvees into Iraq drive only armored vehicles. Unarmored Humvees are transported into the country on flatbed trucks and used only inside compounds and other relatively safe areas, he said.

The Army has about $1.2 billion in its budget for armored Humvees and armor kits, Di Rita said.

Another soldier asked Rumsfeld about the stop-loss order. Critics of the policy have called it a "backdoor draft." A group of soldiers filed a lawsuit this week challenging the policy.

"My husband and myself both joined a volunteer Army," said the woman, who identified herself as a staff sergeant in a logistics unit from Fort Bragg, North Carolina. "Currently, I'm serving under the stop-loss. I would like to know how much longer you foresee the military using this program."

Rumsfeld said the policy "is something you prefer not to have to use in a perfect world."

"It's based on unit cohesion," Rumsfeld said. "The principle is that -- in the event there is something that requires a unit to be involved in, and people are in a personal situation where their time was ending -- they put a stop-loss on it so cohesion is maintained."

He did not specify how long the stop-loss order would continue.

"It's basically a sound principle. It's nothing new; it's been well understood" by soldiers, Rumsfeld said. "My guess is it will continue to be used as little as possible, but that it will continue to be used."

About 7,000 U.S. soldiers have been affected by the stop-loss order, Army officials said.

www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/08/rumsfeld.troops/

CNN's Mike Mount contributed to this report.

Copyright 2004 CNN. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report.

[LoungeMachine]

read it yourself

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00108

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Well, gee, if I contradicted a talking point, maybe I am a free thinker!

Can you imagine?

No.

You've never seen a Repuke talking point you didn't love:rolleyes:

[thome]

Originally posted by Cathedral
I know it isn't a Tank, thome, (though it drinks gas like one)
But they should be equipped to the hilt with everything available before the keys are handed to a soldier.


Thats what a tank is for this is to replace the JEEP why dont you all
go back to the jeep and try to make it invulnerable to all types
of arms OOOO THEN ITS A TANK.G..D. Its meant to move sm amts of troops fast.Im pissed .you all pontificate on dumbSH#T .
Post what you want i know what it IS.

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
No.

You've never seen a Repuke talking point you didn't love:rolleyes:

Sure, I have.

You and Nick just aren't paying attention.

Tsk tsk, it's a requirement in this forum, my good man.

[Cathedral]

Those answers didn't make me feel any better, and i'm sitting here in Ohio.
You can't talk to the troops in the same manner as you would the press.
They see right through that shit because their lives depend on that.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Warham
Gee, could it be that Lounge's information was false?

I thought so.

Here's the official link, right to Kerry's vote...

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=3508&can_id=S0421103

Indeed.

To be sure, what really would payoff in Iraq is an armored vehicle especially designed for urban/desert patrol. The Humvee is a replacement for the jeep. Armoring a Humvee is a stopgap measure at best. Hopefully Lockheed Martin or some other defense contractor has a new vehicle under study. And FORD feels the military-industrial complex is unnecessary. :rolleyes:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Indeed.

To be sure, what really would payoff in Iraq is an armored vehicle especially designed for urban/desert patrol. The Humvee is a replacement for the jeep. Armoring a Humvee is a stopgap measure at best. Hopefully Lockheed Martin or some other defense contractor has a new vehicle under study. And FORD feels the military-industrial complex is unnecessary. :rolleyes:

So we spend billions to counter a threat which costs at most a few thousend dollars to make (IED's) if that? That makes a lot of sense. That money could have gone towards homeland defense.:rolleyes:

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by thome
Thats what a tank is for this is to replace the JEEP why dont you all
go back to the jeep and try to make it invulnerable to all types
of arms OOOO THEN ITS A TANK.G..D. Its meant to move sm amts of troops fast.Im pissed .you all pontificate on dumbSH#T .
Post what you want i know what it IS.

Calm down, breathe in, then out.

I'm not following your point.
Anyone can see that a Hummer isn't a Tank, but it's not a Jeep either.
And if you are saying that they should have Tanks as opposed to the Hummer, well, Tanks get blown up too, bro.

You need to listen to the stories of some survivors of attacked armored Hummvee's and you'll understand that the armor can stop and RPG from killing those inside it.

A tank is not appropriate in this kind of warfare and would be far more prone to breakdown in the sand.

But still, i don't understand what your point is.
Are you saying they need tanks and not Hummers?

Please explain...........

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Indeed.

To be sure, what really would payoff in Iraq is an armored vehicle especially designed for urban/desert patrol. The Humvee is a replacement for the jeep. Armoring a Humvee is a stopgap measure at best. Hopefully Lockheed Martin or some other defense contractor has a new vehicle under study. And FORD feels the military-industrial complex is unnecessary. :rolleyes:

Is there something better than the Hummvee we can send them right now?
I'm all for whatever the troops need, but as far as i know, The Hummvee (with armor) is the best option right now.
Safer than a jeep, more reliable than a tank in those conditions.

I'm losing some people on this issue because i'm not clear on what other options are available that people want deployed.

[thome]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Indeed.

To be sure, what really would payoff in Iraq is an armored vehicle especially designed for urban/desert patrol. The Humvee is a replacement for the jeep. Armoring a Humvee is a stopgap measure at best. Hopefully Lockheed Martin or some other defense contractor has a new vehicle under study. And FORD feels the military-industrial complex is unnecessary. :rolleyes:

Thats the Bradley What happend there i dont know.

I know its like rolling around in a big weird coffin.

[bobgnote]

See what happened to Lynndie and Charlie? That nekkid photo session was all about the armor issue, so that the media needed to see the prisoners-in-suits issue parallel to the use of not just dug-up stuff, but also old flak vests, to stuff in Humvee door panels.

Charlie Grainer got 10 years. He did what he did to bring up the GW photo show at first inauguration, so he brought this on, to show whatup with armor, and he got HAMMERED.

[Nickdfresh]

After reading successive posts by THOME and BOBGNOTE, I really, really need a beer right now.

[Cathedral]

Naaaaa, forget the beer, go straight for the hard shit.

I'd just like it if i could understand what the hell people are saying before they blow a gasket on me.

Oh well...............

[thome]

The humvee is to transport troops not to repel a RPG
a RPG would lay waste to a tank if place in certain areas

The humvee has windows can you dig my thoughts.
it was armored fine and will always be armored fine.

The debate is ANTI BUSH BULLSH#T made up by no not dik bags
to discredit BUSH and our mititary.

Its a non.

If our boys want to make battle field adjustments they need to
do so .

WE move fast put anouther 1000 pds on the HV and everybody dies.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Naaaaa, forget the beer, go straight for the hard shit.

I'd just like it if i could understand what the hell people are saying before they blow a gasket on me.

Oh well...............

If I read a whole thread of their shit, I'd need heroin.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Cathedral
[B]Is there something better than the Hummvee we can send them right now?
I'm all for whatever the troops need, but as far as i know, The Hummvee (with armor) is the best option right now.


You are correct. Technically, however, Humvees weren't designed to lug all that extra weight (armor) along for the ride. Maybe extra-heavy duty power plants are another option?

[thome]

Cat leme tellya somethin silly:If one of our soldiers welded a 25ft
solid steel spike on a humvee to keep people away.and it worked

the press would blame Bush for not having a big enough POLE
on the HV.

Its a battle field adjustment they are made every day the press hyped
it out our army is the finest equipped in the WORLD.

Live fire testing is how you improve youself its normal

I get agitated not at you.. just the discusion that makes it BUSH and
his presidency to blame for things they DONT DO.

[thome]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
If I read a whole thread of their shit, I'd need heroin.

I need hekrion just looking at that fag in your Avatar. :D :D :D :D :D :D

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by thome
Cat leme tellya somethin silly:If one of our soldiers welded a 25ft
solid steel spike on a humvee to keep people away.and it worked

the press would blame Bush for not having a big enough POLE
on the HV.

Its a battle field adjustment they are made every day the press hyped
it out our army is the finest equipped in the WORLD.

Live fire testing is how you improve youself its normal

I get agitated not at you.. just the discusion that makes it BUSH and
his presidency to blame for things they DONT DO.

Well, my argument isn't about bashing Bush, I just want the best for our troops in battle.
And since we waged the war I think they could have been a bit better prepared than they were.
Pointing out the obvious isn't about blame to me, all i care about is the safety of the troops. and when they discover that they need something, they should get it right fucking now, or ASAFP.

I have a hard time believing that Gulf War I didn't teach us anything about doing battle in that sand box.

And all partisan issues aside, having to wait for votes, so they can wait longer after that fact to get what they need should be dealt with a bit more quickly.
And that isn't the fault of Bush, it is the fault of the Government as a whole.

The bottom line to me is this, we knew where we were sending them, we controlled the clock, and funds should have been readied prior to the war for these kinds of field contingencies.

Oh, and if the new Hummvee's being built with armor now aren't already getting a larger power plant to make up for the weight gain, something is wrong there.

But i do have a question.
Why isn't body armor issued to soldiers along with their uniforms?
It should be a package deal, especially if the prospect of war is anticipated. The fact that soldiers families had to buy them and send them to them is troubling to me, very troubling.

All that said, adapting is one of the great strengths our military possesses.

The media can go suck a dildo for all i care.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
You are correct. Technically, however, Humvees weren't designed to lug all that extra weight (armor) along for the ride. Maybe extra-heavy duty power plants are another option?

Given what the clock says, this should have already been done, the suspensions beefed up too.

But i 100% agree with you.

Look folks, this isn't about arguing politics to me.
It is about solving the problems that exist and doing that faster than it is getting done now.
Soldiers die while we go through the steps to solve the problems.

Bush is the President, so it's up to him and his Administration to equip the troops adequately.

We have midnight sessions to get things passed for a brain dead woman, but the soldiers have to wait for business hours?

That's a governmental issue, not a party issue.

[LoungeMachine]

White House in panic over spy scandal

Bush is on the rack over a revelation that his close aide Karl Rove exposed a CIA agent

Paul Harris in Washington
Sunday July 17, 2005
The Observer

It was a question the White House press corps once believed unthinkable. Has President George W Bush lost confidence in his political guru, Karl Rove? If simply posing the question was a surprise last week, the answer - or, more accurately, the lack of one - was an even greater shock.
When Bush faced reporters at the White House last Wednesday, he dodged questions on Rove. Seated as ever, just behind his President, Rove himself was tight-lipped and pale. The Rove-Bush partnership has changed the face of American politics, propelling Bush from Texas to the White House. Not for nothing is Rove known as 'boy genius' to Republican friends and 'Bush's brain' to Democrat enemies. Now that is under threat.

The so-called 'Valerie Plame affair' has the Bush administration in a panic. An investigation into whether White House officials deliberately blew the cover of a CIA agent in an attempt to hit out at a critic of the Iraq war has Rove firmly in its sights.

The scandal has all the classic ingredients: an unmasked CIA agent - who just happens to be a glamorous blonde - and a tough-minded independent investigator. There are secret sources, leaked emails and even a reporter thrown in jail. The official White House spokesman, the normally unflappable Scott McClellan, has been caught making a grossly misleading statement. Newspapers are devoting page after page to the twists and turns of the case.

It is starting to have a familiar ring. Ronald Reagan had Iran-Contra. Bill Clinton had Monica Lewinsky. Does Bush have Plamegate? 'Bad things just happen in second terms,' said Larry Haas, a former Clinton aide. 'The Bush administration looks to the American people that it has lied.'

It all began two years ago with a column from conservative journalist Bob Novak at a time of intense debate over statements by Joseph Wilson, a former diplomat who had researched claims for the CIA that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Niger. Wilson publicly accused the Bush administration of using the 'Niger issue' as part of a false justi fication for invading Iraq. Novak's column, citing two administration sources, said Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked at the CIA. Such a leak could have had two aims. First, it would punish the Wilsons by blowing her cover and thus jeopardising her career. Second, it would warn others doing CIA work not to speak out publicly against the White House.

'It actually worked. It was aimed at stopping the bleeding after Wilson spoke out and no one else did,' said Mel Goodman, a former top CIA analyst now at the Center for International Policy.

But it was also illegal. Deliberately exposing the identity of an undercover CIA agent is a serious crime. Whoever had spoken to Novak could face up to 10 years in jail. Not only was her career ended, but national security had been harmed. 'To out a CIA operative for political reasons is just unbelievable. This hurts the intelligence community which is supposed to be protecting us. I hope Rove rots in hell,' said Larry Johnson, a former CIA agent who is a former colleague of Plame's.

Bush reacted to the controversy by naming Patrick Fitzgerald as a special counsel to investigate the leaks. That temporarily defused the issue and allowed the 2004 election to be fought without the Plame affair overshadowing it. But instead, as Fitzgerald held secret hearings, the Plame affair became a ticking time bomb. So determined was Fitzgerald to build up an accurate picture of what happened that his inquiries have even led to the jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who was briefed on Plame's identity by a source but did not write a story about the affair.

But bit by bit a clearer picture has emerged and Rove has been caught in the act. A leaked email last week from Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper said Rove told Cooper that 'Wilson's wife' worked at the CIA before Novak's column appeared. It is also believed that Novak has also told Fitzgerald that one of his two sources was Rove.

That has put Bush in an awkward position. He has previously promised to fire anyone revealed to be involved in the Plame leak, though the White House is now refusing to repeat that statement. McClellan is an even worse spot. He once told reporters that it was 'totally ridiculous' to suggest Rove had been involved.

Rove's only way out is a legal one. The law is clear that to be guilty one must knowingly expose the agent. It is possible Rove did not know Plame was undercover. The other issue is technical. Rove appeared not to refer to Plame by her name in conversation with Cooper, calling her only 'Wilson's wife'. With Novak it appears to be the journalist who asked about Plame's job - which Rove then confirmed - rather than the other way round.

If the legal case against Rove has holes in it, the political case is more damning. For the first time in years the Democrats can exploit a scandal that is easy to understand. While the details are confusing, the narrative is simple: the White House exposed a CIA agent working to protect America. 'People are angry. The press corps is angry. The Democrats just have to keep feeding the beast,' said Haas.

Rove has one huge advantage: Bush's loyalty. Few other presidents have been as loyal as Bush to top officials. And Rove has been with Bush since the beginning. 'If there's no evidence of illegality, I think he'll survive,' said Haas.

[thome]

Cat you seem to be a level headed person .I believe body armor is
issued im not shure probably to officers but any troop can buy it on
post So its up to the individual i believe not shure.Its is standerd issue
for front line troops but maybe not the mechanics behind the lines,
again its available to everyone.Its heavy hot im shure thay may take
it off but they may be ordered to keep it on .I just dont know I still
think most people are making UP for the ones that came before.Fix
What my father f-d up so everyday they fix adjust and adapt.The
GIs were fixing of the humvees if you remember they were welding
extra steel on the doors in the motor pools with OK from thier superiors.THATS how the story BROKE in the fisrt place a reporter saw
them adapting to the environment It all got weird from that. they were
fixing the problem before it was reported.JUst dont believe that our
military is not behind our boys 100% anything else is a LIE.And remember it took us a year to get set up over there before we went into get saddam. Its a long way to get things to the field sadly just
like in your and my life THINGS take TIME.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Well, my argument isn't about bashing Bush, I just want the best for our troops in battle.
And since we waged the war I think they could have been a bit better prepared than they were.
Pointing out the obvious isn't about blame to me, all i care about is the safety of the troops. and when they discover that they need something, they should get it right fucking now, or ASAFP.

I have a hard time believing that Gulf War I didn't teach us anything about doing battle in that sand box.

And all partisan issues aside, having to wait for votes, so they can wait longer after that fact to get what they need should be dealt with a bit more quickly.
And that isn't the fault of Bush, it is the fault of the Government as a whole.

The bottom line to me is this, we knew where we were sending them, we controlled the clock, and funds should have been readied prior to the war for these kinds of field contingencies.

Oh, and if the new Hummvee's being built with armor now aren't already getting a larger power plant to make up for the weight gain, something is wrong there.

But i do have a question.
Why isn't body armor issued to soldiers along with their uniforms?
It should be a package deal, especially if the prospect of war is anticipated. The fact that soldiers families had to buy them and send them to them is troubling to me, very troubling.

All that said, adapting is one of the great strengths our military possesses.

The media can go suck a dildo for all i care.

Body armor works!

Sniper Video (mms://wm.gannett.speedera.net/wm.gannett/atpco/071505sniper.wmv)

[thome]

Creepy vid .Wonder what they are saying?

[thome]

Dont bother I know what they are saying

Death to Thome Death to Thome Allah be praised

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by thome
Creepy vid .Wonder what they are saying?

They're thanking God because they shot the American soldier. But God wasn't with them and the US soldier survived with no wounds. He then helped shoot up the Iraqi snipers, and then gave on the surviving one first aid. Pretty fucked up, eh?

[Cathedral]

That is a creepy video, Thank God that soldier was Ok.

I know body armor won't protect them 100% of the time, but it sure saved that guy, didn't it?

And then he helps one oft he guys who just tried to kill him....And we're the great Satan?

They're twisted fucks, man........nuff said..............

[Nickdfresh]

Paper withholds leak-based articles
By Robert D. McFadden The New York Times

MONDAY, JULY 11, 2005
The editor of The Cleveland Plain Dealer has announced that the newspaper, acting on the advice of its lawyers, is withholding publication of two major investigative articles because they were based on illegally leaked documents and could lead to penalties against the paper and the jailing of reporters.

The editor, Doug Clifton, said that lawyers for The Plain Dealer had concluded that the newspaper, Ohio's largest daily, would probably be found culpable if the authorities were to investigate the leaks and that reporters might be forced to identify confidential sources to a grand jury or go to jail.

"Basically, we have come by material leaked to us that would be problematical for the person who leaked it," Clifton said in a telephone interview. "The material was under seal or something along those lines."

In an earlier interview with the trade journal Editor & Publisher, which published an article on its Web site Friday, Clifton said that lawyers for The Plain Dealer and its owner, Newhouse Newspapers, had strongly recommended against publication of the two articles.

"They've said, this is a super, super high-risk endeavor and you would, you know, you'd lose," Clifton told Editor & Publisher. "The reporters say, 'Well, we're willing to go to jail,' and I'm willing to go to jail if it gets laid on me, but the newspaper isn't willing to go to jail."

Clifton likened the situation to the cases of Judith Miller, an investigative reporter for The New York Times, who was sent to jail by a federal judge last week for refusing to divulge the identity of a confidential source, and of Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, who was spared jail after his source released him from a promise of confidentiality.

Miller and Cooper had been held in civil contempt last year for not cooperating with a prosecutor's inquiry into the illegal disclosure of the identity of a covert operative for the CIA. The Supreme Court refused to hear the reporters' appeals on June 27.

If anything, Clifton said, The Plain Dealer's potential legal problem with the leaked documents was "even more pointed" than the cases of Miller and Cooper. "These are documents that someone had and should not have released to anyone else," he said. If an investigation were pursued, the newspaper, its reporters and their sources could all face court penalties for unauthorized disclosures.

Clifton declined to provide any details about the two investigative articles being withheld, but he characterized them as "profoundly important," adding, "They would have been of significant interest to the public." Asked if they might be published at some later date, he said, "Not in the short term."

Clifton noted that he had first disclosed his newspaper's decision to withhold publication of the two articles in a column he wrote for The Plain Dealer on June 30 in defense of journalists like Miller and Cooper who refuse to name confidential sources.

"Take away a reporter's ability to protect a tipster's anonymity and you deny the public vital information," Clifton wrote. Miller concluded his column by telling readers that The Plain Dealer was itself obliged to withhold articles based on illegal disclosures for fear of the legal consequences.

"As I write this, two stories of profound importance languish in our hands," Clifton wrote. "The public would be well served to know them, but both are based on documents leaked to us by people who would face deep trouble for having leaked them. Publishing the stories would almost certainly lead to a leak investigation and the ultimate choice: talk or go to jail. Because talking isn't an option and jail is too high a price to pay, these two stories will go untold for now. How many more are out there?"


The editor of The Cleveland Plain Dealer has announced that the newspaper, acting on the advice of its lawyers, is withholding publication of two major investigative articles because they were based on illegally leaked documents and could lead to penalties against the paper and the jailing of reporters.

The editor, Doug Clifton, said that lawyers for The Plain Dealer had concluded that the newspaper, Ohio's largest daily, would probably be found culpable if the authorities were to investigate the leaks and that reporters might be forced to identify confidential sources to a grand jury or go to jail.

"Basically, we have come by material leaked to us that would be problematical for the person who leaked it," Clifton said in a telephone interview. "The material was under seal or something along those lines."

In an earlier interview with the trade journal Editor & Publisher, which published an article on its Web site Friday, Clifton said that lawyers for The Plain Dealer and its owner, Newhouse Newspapers, had strongly recommended against publication of the two articles.

"They've said, this is a super, super high-risk endeavor and you would, you know, you'd lose," Clifton told Editor & Publisher. "The reporters say, 'Well, we're willing to go to jail,' and I'm willing to go to jail if it gets laid on me, but the newspaper isn't willing to go to jail."

Clifton likened the situation to the cases of Judith Miller, an investigative reporter for The New York Times, who was sent to jail by a federal judge last week for refusing to divulge the identity of a confidential source, and of Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, who was spared jail after his source released him from a promise of confidentiality.

Miller and Cooper had been held in civil contempt last year for not cooperating with a prosecutor's inquiry into the illegal disclosure of the identity of a covert operative for the CIA. The Supreme Court refused to hear the reporters' appeals on June 27.

If anything, Clifton said, The Plain Dealer's potential legal problem with the leaked documents was "even more pointed" than the cases of Miller and Cooper. "These are documents that someone had and should not have released to anyone else," he said. If an investigation were pursued, the newspaper, its reporters and their sources could all face court penalties for unauthorized disclosures.

Clifton declined to provide any details about the two investigative articles being withheld, but he characterized them as "profoundly important," adding, "They would have been of significant interest to the public." Asked if they might be published at some later date, he said, "Not in the short term."

Clifton noted that he had first disclosed his newspaper's decision to withhold publication of the two articles in a column he wrote for The Plain Dealer on June 30 in defense of journalists like Miller and Cooper who refuse to name confidential sources.

"Take away a reporter's ability to protect a tipster's anonymity and you deny the public vital information," Clifton wrote. Miller concluded his column by telling readers that The Plain Dealer was itself obliged to withhold articles based on illegal disclosures for fear of the legal consequences.

"As I write this, two stories of profound importance languish in our hands," Clifton wrote. "The public would be well served to know them, but both are based on documents leaked to us by people who would face deep trouble for having leaked them. Publishing the stories would almost certainly lead to a leak investigation and the ultimate choice: talk or go to jail. Because talking isn't an option and jail is too high a price to pay, these two stories will go untold for now. How many more are out there?"


The editor of The Cleveland Plain Dealer has announced that the newspaper, acting on the advice of its lawyers, is withholding publication of two major investigative articles because they were based on illegally leaked documents and could lead to penalties against the paper and the jailing of reporters.

The editor, Doug Clifton, said that lawyers for The Plain Dealer had concluded that the newspaper, Ohio's largest daily, would probably be found culpable if the authorities were to investigate the leaks and that reporters might be forced to identify confidential sources to a grand jury or go to jail.

"Basically, we have come by material leaked to us that would be problematical for the person who leaked it," Clifton said in a telephone interview. "The material was under seal or something along those lines."

In an earlier interview with the trade journal Editor & Publisher, which published an article on its Web site Friday, Clifton said that lawyers for The Plain Dealer and its owner, Newhouse Newspapers, had strongly recommended against publication of the two articles.

"They've said, this is a super, super high-risk endeavor and you would, you know, you'd lose," Clifton told Editor & Publisher. "The reporters say, 'Well, we're willing to go to jail,' and I'm willing to go to jail if it gets laid on me, but the newspaper isn't willing to go to jail."

Clifton likened the situation to the cases of Judith Miller, an investigative reporter for The New York Times, who was sent to jail by a federal judge last week for refusing to divulge the identity of a confidential source, and of Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, who was spared jail after his source released him from a promise of confidentiality.

Miller and Cooper had been held in civil contempt last year for not cooperating with a prosecutor's inquiry into the illegal disclosure of the identity of a covert operative for the CIA. The Supreme Court refused to hear the reporters' appeals on June 27.

If anything, Clifton said, The Plain Dealer's potential legal problem with the leaked documents was "even more pointed" than the cases of Miller and Cooper. "These are documents that someone had and should not have released to anyone else," he said. If an investigation were pursued, the newspaper, its reporters and their sources could all face court penalties for unauthorized disclosures.

Clifton declined to provide any details about the two investigative articles being withheld, but he characterized them as "profoundly important," adding, "They would have been of significant interest to the public." Asked if they might be published at some later date, he said, "Not in the short term."

Clifton noted that he had first disclosed his newspaper's decision to withhold publication of the two articles in a column he wrote for The Plain Dealer on June 30 in defense of journalists like Miller and Cooper who refuse to name confidential sources.

"Take away a reporter's ability to protect a tipster's anonymity and you deny the public vital information," Clifton wrote. Miller concluded his column by telling readers that The Plain Dealer was itself obliged to withhold articles based on illegal disclosures for fear of the legal consequences.

"As I write this, two stories of profound importance languish in our hands," Clifton wrote. "The public would be well served to know them, but both are based on documents leaked to us by people who would face deep trouble for having leaked them. Publishing the stories would almost certainly lead to a leak investigation and the ultimate choice: talk or go to jail. Because talking isn't an option and jail is too high a price to pay, these two stories will go untold for now. How many more are out there?"


The editor of The Cleveland Plain Dealer has announced that the newspaper, acting on the advice of its lawyers, is withholding publication of two major investigative articles because they were based on illegally leaked documents and could lead to penalties against the paper and the jailing of reporters.

The editor, Doug Clifton, said that lawyers for The Plain Dealer had concluded that the newspaper, Ohio's largest daily, would probably be found culpable if the authorities were to investigate the leaks and that reporters might be forced to identify confidential sources to a grand jury or go to jail.

"Basically, we have come by material leaked to us that would be problematical for the person who leaked it," Clifton said in a telephone interview. "The material was under seal or something along those lines."

In an earlier interview with the trade journal Editor & Publisher, which published an article on its Web site Friday, Clifton said that lawyers for The Plain Dealer and its owner, Newhouse Newspapers, had strongly recommended against publication of the two articles.

"They've said, this is a super, super high-risk endeavor and you would, you know, you'd lose," Clifton told Editor & Publisher. "The reporters say, 'Well, we're willing to go to jail,' and I'm willing to go to jail if it gets laid on me, but the newspaper isn't willing to go to jail."

Clifton likened the situation to the cases of Judith Miller, an investigative reporter for The New York Times, who was sent to jail by a federal judge last week for refusing to divulge the ident


Miller and Cooper had been held in civil contempt last year for not cooperating with a prosecutor's inquiry into the illegal disclosure of the identity of a covert operative for the CIA. The Supreme Court refused to hear the reporters' appeals on June 27.

If anything, Clifton said, The Plain Dealer's potential legal problem with the leaked documents was "even more pointed" than the cases of Miller and Cooper. "These are documents that someone had and should not have released to anyone else," he said. If an investigation were pursued, the newspaper, its reporters and their sources could all face court penalties for unauthorized disclosures.

Clifton declined to provide any details about the two investigative articles being withheld, but he characterized them as "profoundly important," adding, "They would have been of significant interest to the public." Asked if they might be published at some later date, he said, "Not in the short term."

Clifton noted that he had first disclosed his newspaper's decision to withhold publication of the two articles in a column he wrote for The Plain Dealer on June 30 in defense of journalists like Miller and Cooper who refuse to name confidential sources.

"Take away a reporter's ability to protect a tipster's anonymity and you deny the public vital information," Clifton wrote. Miller concluded his column by telling readers that The Plain Dealer was itself obliged to withhold articles based on illegal disclosures for fear of the legal consequences.

"As I write this, two stories of profound importance languish in our hands," Clifton wrote. "The public would be well served to know them, but both are based on documents leaked to us by people who would face deep trouble for having leaked them. Publishing the stories would almost certainly lead to a leak investigation and the ultimate choice: talk or go to jail. Because talking isn't an option and jail is too high a price to pay, these two stories will go untold for now. How many more are out there?"

Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/10/news/scribes.php)http://www.marlesreuth.de/buerg_goebbels_josef_nazi3_1897.jpg

[LoungeMachine]

Novak's diminishing rationale for secrecy

BY JONATHAN TURLEY

jturley@law.gwu.edu


Columnist Robert Novak has made a career for himself as a human flame-thrower for conservative causes. Yet, even Novak appears surprised at the mounting cost of his disclosure in 2003 of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

It was classic Novak: a hatchet job directed not at Plame, but at her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. The firestorm that erupted has consumed millions of dollars in investigation and litigation costs and has wreaked havoc with the career not just of Plame (who had to leave the CIA) but of two reporters who were hauled into court; one has been sent to jail.

Novak's original intention, it seems, was publicly to damage Wilson, who had embarrassed President Bush by showing that he relied on false information to justify the Iraq war. Although Novak admits that he was asked not to publish Plame's name by a CIA official, he insists that he did not realize that he might be putting her in danger.

Against a whistle-blower

It is a far cry from the first recorded fight over anonymous sources: In 1848, New York Herald reporter John Nugent refused to give up his source of a copy of the secret Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo that ended the Mexican-American War.

It goes without saying that Novak is no Nugent. After all, Nugent's source was a government official who disclosed the controversial elements of a secret treaty. (Many people still believe that the leaker was James Buchanan, the secretary of state and future president.) Conversely, Novak's piece was based on dirt received from anonymous government officials seeking to discredit a whistle-blower.

Novak insists that he was merely publishing a newsworthy tip from ''two senior administration officials;'' he suggests that it was important to point out that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent in order to explain why Wilson had been sent on a mission to Niger by the Bush administration. But whatever the value of this information, Novak could have ended it there. Instead, he chose to name Wilson's wife.

The disclosure of the name -- in addition to violating the law against disclosing the names of covert personnel -- served no apparent purpose beyond that of retaliation.

Facing government threats

Here's another difference between Novak and Nugent: Nugent allowed himself to be held in contempt rather than reveal his source. What Novak has done or failed to do as a journalist remains shielded in mystery because Novak refuses to talk. Traditionally, journalists publicly have explained their status and their position in such controversies -- as have various other reporters in the Plame affair. Knowing where Novak stands in this case would be important because the other journalists involved -- especially Judith Miller of The New York Times -- need to know his position so they can form a unified front against government threats.

Over the course of the investigation into the matter, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has gone after journalists such as Miller with a fury -- winning findings of contempt against them for refusing to give up their sources.

Yet, there has been a conspicuous absence of any similar effort against Novak. This has led to speculation that either Novak has been given special treatment by a Republican prosecutor, or he has revealed his sources, or his sources have revealed themselves to the prosecutors.

Last week, Novak appeared on CNN's Inside Politics to deflect growing criticism of his silence. ''If anyone thinks they're going to jail because of me, it's madness.'' This, of course, is technically true. Miller is in jail for her principled refusal to sacrifice her sources.

Attack on a civil servant

In the interview, Novak refused to answer even the most basic question, such as whether ''in general . . . you cooperated with investigators in the case.'' Novak insisted his lawyer had told him not to answer ''until this case is finished.'' His reliance on his lawyer's advice is a rather feeble and perplexing defense.

Yes, lawyers often prefer that their clients remain quiet under the theory that what you don't say can't be used against you. But Novak is not some button-man for the Gotti family. He is a self-described journalist who started a firestorm with a politically engineered attack piece on a civil servant for which another reporter has been sent to jail. Novak himself would never accept the ''my lawyer did it'' defense from a public figure.

Now incarcerated, Miller personifies the need for a federal shield law protecting journalists from such coercion -- similar to those laws passed in 49 states and the District of Columbia. As for Novak, he promises another blockbuster: Once he is no longer at risk, he will ''reveal all in a column.'' At least it should make interesting reading for Miller in her cellblock.

Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, has represented individuals asserting their journalistic privileges.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine



. As for Novak, he promises another blockbuster: Once he is no longer at risk, he will ''reveal all in a column.'' At least it should make interesting reading for Miller in her cellblock.



Novak, you are such a piece of shit.

A Neo-Con HACK, is all you are.:mad:

GO TO HELL

[thome]

Then the book with the rest of the real story. $

[LoungeMachine]

"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." - Harry Truman





Waxman: 11 Security Breaches in Plame Case


Factsheet published today cites multiple administration leaks


By: Rep. Henry Waxman
Published: July 22, 2005 at 14:25

The disclosure of the covert identity of Valerie Plame Wilson in a July 14, 2003, column by Robert Novak has triggered a criminal investigation and led to calls for congressional investigations. The Novak column, however, appears to be only one of multiple leaks of Ms. Wilson's identity. A new fact sheet released today by Rep. Waxman documents that there appear to be at least 11 separate instances in which Administration officials disclosed information about Ms. Wilson's identity and association with the CIA.

New Fact Sheet Details Multiple Administration Security Breaches Involving Valerie Plame Wilson

On July 14, 2003, columnist Robert Novak revealed that the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame Wilson, was a covert CIA agent. This disclosure of classified information has triggered a criminal investigation by a Special Counsel and led to calls for congressional investigations.

The Novak column, however, appears to be only one of multiple leaks of Ms. Wilson's identity. As this fact sheet documents, there appear to be at least 11 separate instances in which Administration officials disclosed information about Ms. Wilson's identity and association with the CIA.

Under Executive Order 12958, the White House is required to investigate any reports of security breaches and take "prompt corrective action," such as suspending the security clearances of those involved. Unlike prosecutions for criminal violations, which require "knowing" and "intentional" disclosures, the executive order covers a wider range of unauthorized breaches, including the "negligent" release of classified information. There is no evidence that the White House has complied with its obligation to investigate any of the 11 reported instances of security breaches relating to Ms. Wilson or to apply administrative sanctions to those involved.

The Disclosures of Valerie Wilson's Identity

1. The Disclosure by Karl Rove to Columnist Robert Novak
In a column dated July 14, 2003, Robert Novak first reported that Valerie Plame Wilson was "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."1 Mr. Novak cited "two senior administration officials" as his sources.2 According to multiple news reports, one of these two sources was Karl Rove, the Deputy White House Chief of Staff and the President's top political advisor.3 During a phone call on July 8, 2003, Mr. Rove confirmed for Mr. Novak that Ms. Wilson worked at the CIA. During this conversation, Mr. Novak referred to Ms. Wilson "by her maiden name, Valerie Plame," and said he had heard she was involved in "the circumstances in which her husband … traveled to Africa."4 Mr. Rove responded, "I heard that, too."5 Mr. Novak's name also appeared "on a White House call log as having telephoned Mr. Rove in the week before the publication of the July 2003 column."6

2. The Disclosure by a "Senior Administration Official" to Columnist Robert Novak
In addition to his communications with Mr. Rove, Mr. Novak learned about Ms. Wilson's identity through communications with a second "senior administration official."7 Mr. Novak's second source has not yet been publicly identified. Mr. Novak has stated, however, that the source provided him with Ms. Wilson's identity. As he stated: "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me."8 He added: "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."9

3. The Disclosure by Karl Rove to TIME Reporter Matt Cooper
During a phone call on July 11, 2003, Mr. Rove revealed to TIME reporter Matt Cooper that Ms. Wilson worked at the CIA on weapons of mass destruction.10 Mr. Cooper reported that this "was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife."11 Mr. Rove provided this information on "deep background," said that "things would be declassified soon," and stated, "I've already said too much."12

4. The Disclosure by Scooter Libby to TIME Reporter Matt Cooper
During a phone call on July 12, 2003, TIME reporter Matt Cooper asked the Vice President's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby "if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger." 13 Mr. Libby replied, "Yeah, I've heard that too," or words to that effect.14 Mr. Libby provided this information "on background."15

5. The Disclosure by an "Administration Official" to Washington Post Reporter Walter Pincus
On July 12, 2003, an "administration official" told Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus that "Wilson's trip to Niger was set up as a boondoggle by his CIA-employed wife."16 Mr. Pincus has not publicly identified his source, but has stated that it "was not Libby."17

6. The Disclosure by a "Top White House Official" to an Unidentified Reporter
In addition making disclosures to Mr. Novak, Mr. Cooper, and Mr. Pincus, White House officials may have had conversations about Ms. Wilson with three other reporters about Ms. Wilson's identity. According to the Washington Post, a "senior administration official" confirmed that "before Novak's column ran on July 14, 2003, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife."18 According to this official, "Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge."19 Press reports suggest that one of these unidentified reporters may be NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell.20

7. The Disclosure by a "Top White House Official" to an Unidentified Reporter
In addition making disclosures to Mr. Novak, Mr. Cooper, and Mr. Pincus, White House officials may have had conversations about Ms. Wilson with three other reporters about Ms. Wilson's identity. According to the Washington Post, a "senior administration official" confirmed that "before Novak's column ran on July 14, 2003, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife."21 According to this official, "Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge."22 Press reports suggest that one of these unidentified reporters may be NBC Meet the Press host Tim Russert.23

8. The Disclosure by a "Top White House Official" to an Unidentified Reporter
In addition making disclosures to Mr. Novak, Mr. Cooper, and Mr. Pincus, White House officials may have had conversations about Ms. Wilson with three other reporters about Ms. Wilson's identity. According to the Washington Post, a "senior administration official" confirmed that "before Novak's column ran on July 14, 2003, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife."24 According to this official, "Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge."25 Press reports suggest that one of these unidentified reporters may be MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews.26

9. The Disclosure by an Unidentified Source to Wall Street Journal Reporter David Cloud
On October 17, 2003, Wall Street Journal reporter David Cloud reported that an internal State Department memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel "details a meeting in early 2002 where CIA officer Valerie Plame and other intelligence officials gathered to brainstorm about how to verify reports that Iraq had sought uranium yellowcake from Niger."27 This "classified" document had "limited circulation," according to "two people familiar with the memo."28

10. The Disclosure by an Unidentified Source to James Guckert of Talon News
On October 28, 2003, Talon News posted on its website an interview with Ambassador Joseph Wilson in which the questioner asked: "An internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel details a meeting in early 2002 where your wife, a member of the agency or clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that you could be sent to investigate the reports. Do you dispute that?"29 Talon News is tied to a group called GOP USA30 and is operated by Texas Republican Robert Eberle.31 Its only reporter, James Guckert (also known as Jeff Gannon), resigned when it was revealed that he gained access to the White House using a false name after his press credentials were rejected by House and Senate press galleries.32 In a March 2004 interview with his own news service, Mr. Guckert stated that the classified document was "easily accessible."33 In a February 11, 2005, interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN, Mr. Guckert said the FBI interviewed him about "how I knew or received a copy of a confidential CIA memo," but he refused to answer FBI questions because of his status as a "journalist."34 A week later, Mr. Guckert changed his account, claiming he "was given no special information by the White House or by anybody else."35

11. The Disclosure by a "Senior Administration Official" to Washington Post Reporters Mike Allen and Dana Milbank
On December 26, 2003, Washington Post reporters Mike Allen and Dana Milbank reported on details about the classified State Department memo, writing that it was authored by "a State Department official who works for its Bureau of Intelligence and Research."36 The Post story was attributed to "a senior administration official who has seen" the memo.37 The Post also reported that the CIA was "angry about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets" and that the CIA "believes that people in the administration continue to release classified information to damage the figures at the center of the controversy, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his wife, Valerie Plame."38


NOTES
1 Robert Novak, The Mission to Niger, Chicago Sun-Times (July 14, 2003).
2 Id.
3 Rove Reportedly Held Phone Talk on CIA Officer, New York Times (July 15, 2005). See also Rove Confirmed Plame Indirectly, Lawyer Says, Washington Post (July 15, 2005).
4 Id.
5 Id.
6 Rove Confirmed Plame Indirectly, Lawyer Says, Washington Post (July 15, 2005).
7 Robert Novak, The Mission to Niger, Chicago Sun-Times (July 14, 2003).
8 Columnist Blows CIA Agent's Cover, Newsday (July 22, 2003).
9 Id.
10 Matt Cooper, What I Told the Grand Jury, TIME (July 25, 2005).
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 The When and How of Leak Being Probed, Washington Post (Nov. 26, 2004).
17 Id.
18 Bush Administration Is Focus of Inquiry; CIA Agent's Identity Was Leaked to Media, Washington Post (Sept. 28, 2003).
19 Id.
20 Secrets and Leaks, Newsweek (Oct. 13, 2003) (stating that she "heard in the White House that people were touting the Novak column and that that was the real story").
21 Bush Administration Is Focus of Inquiry; CIA Agent's Identity Was Leaked to Media, Washington Post (Sept. 28, 2003).
22 Id.
23 Reporter Held in Contempt in CIA Leak Case, Washington Post (Aug. 10, 2004) (describing a July 2003 telephone conversation between Mr. Russert and Mr. Libby).
24 Bush Administration Is Focus of Inquiry; CIA Agent's Identity Was Leaked to Media, Washington Post (Sept. 28, 2003).
25 Id.
26 Secrets and Leaks, Newsweek (Oct. 13, 2003) (reportedly stating to Mr. Wilson, "I just got off the phone with Karl Rove, who said your wife was fair game").
27 Memo May Aid Leak Probe, Wall Street Journal (Oct. 17, 2003).
28 Id.
29 Leaks Probe Is Gathering Momentum, Washington Post (Dec. 26, 2003). See also Senate Intel Report Discredits Wilson's Claims About Iraq, Niger, Talon News (July 13, 2004) (confirming that Talon reported on the memo in October 2003).
30 Leaks Probe Is Gathering Momentum, Washington Post (Dec. 26, 2003).
31 Democrats Want Investigation of Reporter Using Fake Name, New York Times (Feb. 11, 2005).
32 Id.
33 Id.
34 Rumsfeld Visits Iraq, CNN (Feb. 11, 2005).
35 Anderson Cooper 360, CNN (Feb. 18, 2005). See also Web Site Owner Says He Knew of Reporter's 2 Identities, New York Times (Feb. 20, 2005) (claiming that referring to the memo as though he had it was "merely an interview technique").
36 Leaks Probe Is Gathering Momentum, Washington Post (Dec. 26, 2003).
37 Id.
38 Id.

[DrMaddVibe]

David Limbaugh
Friday, July 22, 2005

Before President Bush's Supreme Court nomination of Judge John Roberts completely overshadows the misidentified Karl Rove scandal, I think we had better take a second look at the twisted direction this sad story has taken.

As far as Karl Rove's conduct in the Plame/Wilson affair, there is no scandal. He didn't come close to committing a crime, nor even an ethical infraction.

He didn't set out to expose a CIA operative, much less an undercover one. He was the recipient of a phone call in which he cautioned Time's Matt Cooper not to be taken in by the politically driven Joe Wilson, whose operative wife, Valerie Plame, had played a great role in securing Wilson's "fact-finding" trip to Niger.

Rove, who didn't even mention Plame's name, couldn't have known she was an undercover CIA agent – because she wasn't. He manifestly wasn't motivated to expose her for the purpose of punishing Wilson – because "exposing" her non-covert status couldn't possibly have damaged her.

But Rove did have a motive to share his information with Cooper: to warn him of the nepotistic connection between Plame and Wilson and to thus take Wilson's claims with a grain of salt.

Rove did nothing wrong. Indeed, he had an obligation to alert Cooper to Wilson's chicanery because, among other reasons, questions of our national security were involved. As the president's right-hand man, shouldn't we expect Rove to do his part to correct the record about a matter so serious: whether Saddam was trying to or did acquire uranium from Niger?

The media and Democrats seem to be saying that we can't let Rove off the hook just because he might not have technically violated the law. He must be fired or at the very least lose his security clearance because of his indiscretion.

But there was no indiscretion. Plame was not undercover and hadn't been. She had no secret status to protect. Neither she nor her husband – it appears – even treated her status as clandestine. Rove isn't getting off on a technicality. He did nothing wrong.

The fact that the allegations against Rove are so serious doesn't change that – and in no way taints his credibility – because the allegations are false.

"But there was a leak," cry the Democrats and the press. "President Bush has always said he had a zero-tolerance policy for leaks out of his administration. He must fire the evil Karl Rove."

Even conservative pundits seem to be falling for this ploy. But if there was nothing secret about Plame's status, if there was nothing to protect, there could have been no leak.

Rove talked about her position for the purpose of showing the nefarious link between her and her husband – and thus the dubiousness of Wilson's supposed findings. He "leaked" nothing. Why is simple English so difficult for people? You can't leak that which is already in the public domain.

But the cockeyed slant on this non-story is masking the real story here, which is not just that Joe Wilson was caught red-handed lying about his wife recommending him and the nature of his actual findings. The real story is the treachery of Wilson in distorting his findings for political purposes to the detriment of our national security.

According to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Wilson's findings did more to bolster than discredit the Brits' allegation that Saddam was trying to buy uranium from Niger. When he misrepresented those findings – while working to elect John Kerry – he consciously damaged our national security by tainting the historical record against America and her image. And what role, if any, did the CIA play in allowing itself to be manipulated for political purposes?

The fact that Democrats and the media are so desperate to bring down Karl Rove, the perceived primary mastermind behind their glorious loss of influence and power, respectively, apparently blinds them to their effective collusion with Wilson in his reckless conduct against this nation. And their non-stop bluster is apparently keeping the rest of us from focusing on it as well.

They are so determined to prove that President Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq they're obviously willing to use discredited sources and data to make their case.

Let's not move beyond this story without noting the robust irony it contains. The same people who routinely (and baselessly) accuse President Bush of having fraudulently played the national security card in furtherance of his agenda to remove Saddam are demanding Karl Rove be fired because he can't be trusted in a sensitive national security position.

But it is these people, in their shameless elevation of Joe Wilson – among other things – who are complicit in sacrificing our national security interests for their own political agenda.






This oughta get the liberals!

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe

This oughta get the liberals!

Not in the slightest:rolleyes:

We just consider the source, and take it for what it is.

Utter bullshit:cool:

[DrMaddVibe]

Ring the bell and the dog's respond.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Ring the bell and the dog's respond.

No need to bring your wife into this. :cool:

[DrMaddVibe]

Got nothing to do with her.

Ring ring, see them "sing"!

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Got nothing to do with her.



No shit, mensa :rolleyes:

For someone with JB in your avatar, you're seriously humor deficient


:cool:

[LoungeMachine]

Monday's WH Briefing: McClellan Faces the '12-Hour Gap'

By E&P Staff

Published: July 25, 2005 4:00 PM ET

NEW YORK Questions from reporters for Press Secretary Scott McClellan at today's White House press briefing ranged widely, from the Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court to continuing disputes with North Korea. Still, reporters kept returning to the Plame/CIA leak case, with several questions centering on an emerging angle now known as the "12-hour gap."

This is the length of time it took for then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales in 2003 to notify White House staffers not to "lose" any evidence relevant to the Plame probe after being notified by the Justice Department that a full investigation was about to begin. Gonzales only told one person -- Chief of Staff Andew Card -- right away. He revealed this, unexpectedly, on CBS's "Face the Nation" on Sunday.

Here is the related exchange from today's official transcript:

Q Do Karl Rove and Scooter Libby still have top secret clearance here, access to classified documents?

MR. McCLELLAN: You asked this question last week, and --

Q I did. And I'm asking again.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- the President has said what our answer is to these questions. We'll be glad to talk about all these issues once the investigation is complete.

Q Do they have a clearance?

MR. McCLELLAN: We'll be glad to talk about all the issues relating to the investigation once it's complete.

Q Why can't you talk about it now?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that question I addressed a couple weeks ago....

Q On the leak investigation, does President Bush feel that it was appropriate for there to be an 11 or 12-hour time gap from the time that Chief of Staff Andy Card was notified that an investigation was underway to the time that staff here at the White House, including him ...

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President has said that -- and the President directed the White House at the beginning of the investigation to cooperate fully with those overseeing the investigation. And that is exactly what we have done, and that's what we did in that context, as well. If you will recall, back on October 1st of 2003, these questions came up and I addressed it at that time. So you might want to go back and look at that discussion during that briefing.

Q But in the spirit of cooperation, and you had indicted (sic) on October 1, 2003, that the reason that the Justice Department was asked, is it okay to wait until the morning and the answer was that it was okay -- but in the spirit of cooperation, why did the notification not go out until 11 or 12 hours later?

MR. McCLELLAN: I talked about that in that briefing, and addressed all those questions at that time. And the President has made it clear that we should cooperate fully with the investigation. That's what we have done, that's what we continue to do.

***

Q Yes, Scott, can you assure us that Andrew Card did not speak to -- or did not tell the President or Karl Rove or Scooter Libby or anybody else about the Justice Department investigation?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, again, those questions came up back in October of 2003 and I addressed them at the time.

Q I know that none of you are speaking about this because it's an ongoing investigation. Can you explain why Alberto Gonzales would go on TV yesterday and do that, and talk about it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, what he said was already said from this podium back in October of 2003, and I don't think he got into commenting in any substantive way on the discussion. But the President has said that we will be glad to talk about this once the investigation has come to a conclusion, but not until then. And there have certainly been preferences expressed to the White House that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing.

Q Yes, thank you. There has been a lot of speculation concerning the meaning of the underlying statute and the grand jury investigation concerning Mr. Rove. The question is, have the legal counsel to the White House or White House staff reviewed the statute in sufficient specificity to determine whether a violation of that statute would, in effect, constitute treason?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that in terms of decisions regarding the investigation, those are matters for those overseeing the investigation to decide.





ding, dinjg, ding, ding

[Nickdfresh]

"What I Told the Grand Jury"
EXCLUSIVE Matthew Cooper reveals exactly what Karl Rove told him--and what the special counsel zeroed in on
By MATTHEW COOPER

Jul. 25, 2005
It was my first interview with the President, and I expected a simple "Hello" when I walked into the Oval Office last December. Instead, George W. Bush joked, "Cooper! I thought you'd be in jail by now." The leader of the free world, it seems, had been following my fight against a federal subpoena seeking my testimony in the case of the leaking of the name of a CIA officer. I thought it was funny and good-natured of the President, but the line reminded me that I was, very weirdly, in the Oval Office, out on bond from a prison sentence, awaiting appeal--in large part, for protecting the confidence of someone in the West Wing. "What can I say, Mr. President," I replied, smiling. "The wheels of justice grind slowly."

After a fight that went all the way to the Supreme Court, the wheels of justice have stopped grinding--for me, anyway. Last week I testified before the federal grand jury investigating the leak. I did so after I received a specific last-minute waiver from one of my sources, Karl Rove, the President's top political adviser, releasing me from any claim of confidentiality he might have about our conversations in July 2003. Under federal law grand jurors and prosecutors are sworn to secrecy but those who testify, like me, are under no such obligation, which is why I'm able to tell you what happened in the grand jury room. Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel, told me that he would prefer that I not discuss the matter, and I suspect he said the same thing to White House officials who are now treating his request as a command and refusing to comment on the case. I don't know if I can illuminate this confounding investigation, but I can at least explain my small part in it. Like the blindfolded man and the elephant, all I know is what seems to be in front of me.

So here's what happened last Wednesday.

Before going into the grand jury room at 9:30 a.m., my lawyers and I met briefly with Fitzgerald, a couple of his attorneys and the lead FBI agent in the case. It was, to say the least, unsettling sitting there in the federal courthouse in Washington with the man who, for months, had tried to get me to testify or he would put me in jail. Fitzgerald counseled me that he wanted me to answer completely but didn't want to force any answers on me or have me act as if I remembered things more clearly than I did. "If I show you a picture of your kindergarten teacher and it really refreshes your memory, say so," he said. "If it doesn't, don't say yes just because I show you a photo of you and her sitting together."

Grand juries are in the business of handing out indictments, and their docility is infamous. A grand jury, the old maxim goes, will indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor asks it of them. But I didn't get that sense from this group of grand jurors. They somewhat reflected the demographics of the District of Columbia. The majority were African American and were disproportionately women. Most sat in black vinyl chairs with little desks in rows that were slightly elevated, as if it were a shabby classroom at a rundown college. A kindly African-American forewoman swore me in, and when I had to leave the room to consult with my attorneys, I asked her permission to be excused, not the prosecutor's, as is the custom. These grand jurors did not seem the types to passively indict a ham sandwich. I would say one-third of my 2 1/2 hours of testimony was spent answering their questions, not the prosecutor's, although he posed them on their behalf. I began to take notes but then was told I had to stop, so I'm reliant on memory.

For my part, I sat at the end of an L-shaped table next to one of the prosecutor's lawyers, who handed me various documents to review while an overhead projector displayed the documents on a screen near me. Virtually all the questions centered on the week of July 6, 2003. I was new to covering the Bush White House, having been the deputy Washington bureau chief for TIME. As it happens, that week was a big one at the White House. On that Sunday, the New York Times had published former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's now infamous Op-Ed describing his mission to Niger to investigate whether Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium to make nuclear weapons. Wilson said he had found no evidence of that and was confounded as to why the President would claim otherwise in his 2003 State of the Union address. As a freshly minted White House correspondent, I told the grand jury, I was all over that story by midweek, especially because it emerged as a likely candidate for TIME's cover the following Monday.

The grand jurors wanted to know what was on my mind, and I told them. The White House had done something it hardly ever does: it admitted a mistake. Shortly after Wilson's piece appeared, the White House said that the African uranium claim, while probably still true, should not have been in the President's State of the Union address because it hadn't been proved well enough. That was big news as the media flocked to find out who had vetted the President's speech. But at the same time, I was interested in an ancillary question about why government officials, publicly and privately, seemed to be disparaging Wilson. It struck me, as I told the grand jury, as odd and unnecessary, especially after their saying the President's address should not have included the 16-word claim about Saddam and African uranium.

I told the grand jurors that I was curious about Wilson when I called Karl Rove on Friday, July 11. Rove was an obvious call for any White House correspondent, let alone someone trying to prove himself at a new beat. As I told the grand jury--which seemed very interested in my prior dealings with Rove--I don't think we had spoken more than a handful of times before that. I recalled that when I got the White House job a couple of weeks earlier, I left a message for him trying to introduce myself and announce my new posting.

As I told the grand jury--and we went over this in microscopic, excruciating detail, which may someday prove relevant--I recall calling Rove from my office at TIME magazine through the White House switchboard and being transferred to his office. I believe a woman answered the phone and said words to the effect that Rove wasn't there or was busy before going on vacation. But then, I recall, she said something like, "Hang on," and I was transferred to him. I recall saying something like, "I'm writing about Wilson," before he interjected. "Don't get too far out on Wilson," he told me. I started taking notes on my computer, and while an e-mail I sent moments after the call has been leaked, my notes have not been.

The grand jury asked about one of the more interesting lines in that e-mail, in which I refer to my conversation with Rove as being on "double super secret background," a line that's raised a few eyebrows ever since it leaked into the public domain. I told the grand jury that the phrase is not a journalistic term of art but a reference to the film Animal House, in which John Belushi's wild Delta House fraternity is placed on "double secret probation." ("Super" was my own addition.) In fact, I told the grand jury, Rove told me the conversation was on "deep background." I explained to the grand jury that I take the term to mean that I can use the material but not quote it, and that I must keep the identity of my source confidential.

Rove went on to say that Wilson had not been sent to Niger by the director of the CIA and, I believe from my subsequent e-mails--although it's not in my notes--that Rove added that Dick Cheney didn't send him either. Indeed, the next day the Vice President's chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, told me Cheney had not been responsible for Wilson's mission.

Much of my grand jury session revolved around my notes and my e-mails. (Those e-mails and notes were given to the special counsel when Time Inc., over my objections, complied with a court order.) Owing to my typing, some words were a jumble. For instance, I wrote "don't get too war out on Wilson," when I clearly meant "far out." There were some words in my notes that I could not account for--at one point they read, "...notable..." I didn't know if that was Rove's word or mine, and one grand juror asked if it might mean "not able," as in "Wilson was not an able person." I said that was possible, but I just didn't recall that. The notes, and my subsequent e-mails, go on to indicate that Rove told me material was going to be declassified in the coming days that would cast doubt on Wilson's mission and his findings.

As for Wilson's wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak's column or Googled her, I can't recall which. Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the "agency"--by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred that he obviously meant the CIA and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that she worked on "WMD" (the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction) issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife.

Rove never once indicated to me that she had any kind of covert status. I told the grand jury something else about my conversation with Rove. Although it's not reflected in my notes or subsequent e-mails, I have a distinct memory of Rove ending the call by saying, "I've already said too much." This could have meant he was worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting or something else. I don't know, but that sign-off has been in my memory for two years.

This was actually my second testimony for the special prosecutor. In August 2004, I gave limited testimony about my conversations with Scooter Libby. Libby had also given me a specific waiver, and I gave a deposition in the office of my attorney. I have never discussed that conversation until now. In that testimony, I recounted an on-the-record conversation with Libby that moved to background. On the record, he denied that Cheney knew about or played any role in the Wilson trip to Niger. On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, "Yeah, I've heard that too," or words to that effect. Like Rove, Libby never used Valerie Plame's name or indicated that her status was covert, and he never told me that he had heard about Plame from other reporters, as some press accounts have indicated.

Did Fitzgerald's questions give me a sense of where the investigation is heading? Perhaps. He asked me several different ways if Rove indicated how he had heard that Plame worked at the CIA. (He did not, I told the grand jury.) Maybe Fitzgerald is interested in whether Rove knew her CIA ties through a person or through a document.

A surprising line of questioning had to do with, of all things, welfare reform. The prosecutor asked if I had ever called Mr. Rove about the topic of welfare reform. Just the day before my grand jury testimony Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, had told journalists that when I telephoned Rove that July, it was about welfare reform and that I suddenly switched topics to the Wilson matter. After my grand jury appearance, I did go back and review my e-mails from that week, and it seems as if I was, at the beginning of the week, hoping to publish an article in TIME on lessons of the 1996 welfare-reform law, but the article got put aside, as often happens when news overtakes story plans. My welfare-reform story ran as a short item two months later, and I was asked about it extensively. To me this suggested that Rove may have testified that we had talked about welfare reform, and indeed earlier in the week, I may have left a message with his office asking if I could talk to him about welfare reform. But I can't find any record of talking about it with him on July 11, and I don't recall doing so.

So did Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the "agency" on "WMD"? Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know. Is any of this a crime? Beats me. At this point, I'm as curious as anyone else to see what Patrick Fitzgerald has.

Subscription Link (http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1083899,00.html)

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh




George W. Bush joked, I thought you'd be in jail by now."

What a coincidence.....

That's exactly what I would say to The Chimp


:cool:

[Warham]

Rove didn't leak her name. End of story.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham
Rove didn't leak her name. End of story.

Well, now that that's settled.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
"What I Told the Grand Jury"
EXCLUSIVE Matthew Cooper reveals exactly what Karl Rove told him--and what the special counsel zeroed in on
By MATTHEW COOPER

...

So did Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the "agency" on "WMD"? Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know. Is any of this a crime? Beats me. At this point, I'm as curious as anyone else to see what Patrick Fitzgerald has.

Subscription Link (http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1083899,00.html)


Originally posted by Warham
Rove didn't leak her name. End of story.

Wow, how quickly you exonerate ROVE...:rolleyes:

[Warham]

Hey, what was the whole issue when this story broke? What were they trying to pin on Rove?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Hey, what was the whole issue when this story broke? What were they trying to pin on Rove?

Did he out a CIA agent, and did he perjure himself...Try to keep up.

[Warham]

No...they wanted to know if he leaked her name. Period. There was no perjury charges or whether he outed somebody who's behind a desk at the CIA, unless it came from the DNC. It was all about whether he was out for blood and actually spilled her name out over the phone. It didn't happen according to Cooper. NOW it's about perjury and whether he outed a secret operative at the CIA. Apparently, she hadn't really don't anything secret in at least five years. The goalposts are moving daily. When that doesn't turn out to hold water, what's going to be the next charge?

[academic punk]

War -

The issue at hand right now - the one that matters most to me - is that for all this time the White House pretended that they knew nothing about this, that it had nothing to do with them.

Suddenly, thigs have reached a point where they are forced to concede "all right, so, yeah, we had...uh...everything to do with this."

That's unethical. They may have not been under oath, but a lie is a lie. The White JHouse should be put at a higher standard than any other institution in this vcountry, wouldn't you agree?

The lied. Now ask yourself, why would they lie? Because it seemed prudent? becaue they never dremaed that this would come back to haunt them? because initially the investigation was being handled by John Ashcroft? Because Albrerto Gonzales gave plenty of time before for document "misplacement" after receiving the call to keep all papers relevant to this?

You've been had. Whether you're Republican, Democrat, or independent, or even apathetic to politics, this should be no less than a source of disappointment to you.

[Warham]

I'm used to corruption out of the White House. At least since 1992. You might be surprised. I'm not.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham
I'm used to corruption out of the White House. At least since 1992.


I'll grant you that, though I disagree.

But how does that justify this??

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Rove didn't leak her name. End of story.

Rove lied to the Grand Jury

End of Rove:rolleyes:

Fucking dumbass kool-ade drinking twat

[Warham]

You liberals would just love it, but it's not gonna happen.

And while your party wastes away attacking Bush, Rove and anybody else in this administration for another three years, the GOP will be all set to take the next election. ;)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
No...they wanted to know if he leaked her name. Period.

He leaked her identity apparently...


There was no perjury charges...

No, not yet. But he did make several claims regarding his culpability. BTW, what is your definition of "sex" hypowit? ;)


...or whether he outed somebody who's behind a desk at the CIA,...

Oh, so it was for the almighty ROVE to decide which CIA agents were more important than others? What spin and shit is this?!:rolleyes: Who the fuck is KARL ROVE to declassify CIA identities?


...unless it came from the DNC. It was all about whether he was out for blood and actually spilled her name out over the phone. It didn't happen according to Cooper.

He provided all but her her name. So what is your definition of "sex" again hypowit? :)


NOW it's about perjury and whether he outed a secret operative at the CIA.

He did apparently...


Apparently, she hadn't really don't anything secret in at least five years.

What do you mean, she had access to classified material on a daily basis...Oh boy:rolleyes:...


The goalposts are moving daily. When that doesn't turn out to hold water, what's going to be the next charge?

Yes I know, BUSH keeps moving them to protect his lil' TURD BLOSSOM. But you approve don't you...;) C'mon WAR, just say it, "ROVE is above the law! It's all about partisan battles with those Liberals that dissented over the IRAQ War no matter what!" You know you want too.:)

[Warham]

Bush has always said he would fire somebody who broke the law, but NOT until the investigation is complete. Apparently, Democrats are willing to be the judge, jury and executioner before the findings come out. That is typical of liberals though.

[DrMaddVibe]

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 10:12 a.m. EDT

Bill Clinton Pardoned Nat'l. Security Leaker

No wonder 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has been silent as a churchmouse about Karl Rove while her Democratic colleagues call for his prosecution for leaking classified information about CIA employee Valerie Plame.

Turns out - in the only case in U.S. history of a person successfully prosecuted for leaking classified information to the press - Hillary's husband pardoned the guilty party.

On January 20, 2001, President Clinton pardoned Samuel Loring Morison, a civilian analyst with the Office of Naval Intelligence. In 1984, Morison had been convicted of providing classified satellite photos of an under-construction Soviet nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to Britain's Jane's Defence Weekly.

He received a two-year jail sentence.

In pardoning Morison, Clinton dismissed the advice of the CIA.

"We said we were obviously opposed - it was a vigorous 'Hell, no,'" one senior intelligence official told the Washington Post at the time. "We think ... giving pardons to people who are convicted of doing that sends the wrong signal to people who are currently entrusted with classified information."

Morison is the only person ever successfully prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act, the law invoked by Democrats who want to nail Rove after it became clear that he didn't violate the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

But it's going to be difficult for Dems to feign national security outrage over Plame's outing when the husband of their party's presidential front-runner let an actual convicted leaker off the hook.

Last week, when Sen. John Kerry called for Mr. Rove to be fired, with Hillary standing by his side, she nodded silently. When reporters asked her what she thought of the alleged Rove outrage, she offered only, "I'm nodding."

No doubt while remembering her husband's pardon of Mr. Morison.

[LoungeMachine]

Talk to us in October, Warpig.

The Grand Jury will hand down Scooter and KKKarl's indictments by then

Meanwhile, you're just a pathetic neo-con shitbag hack who defends this piece of shit administration while wacking off to images of Clinton getting the hummer you think you deserve, but never get.

Fuck, how I hate everything you stand for. You seriously disgust me.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham
Bush has always said he would fire somebody who broke the law, but NOT until the investigation is complete. Apparently, Democrats are willing to be the judge, jury and executioner before the findings come out. That is typical of liberals though.

Warham -

If you or I - or anyone - got in a similar situation at our places of employment, I guarantee we would be "on leave" until the investigation was complete.

Think about it in terms of cops who are investigated for intimidation or for wrongfully shooting their weapon: until the investigation is complete, they are on - at best - desk duty (and more often than not, leave without pay).

Come on, you can't possibly sit here saying this shit for real. Do you support a principle or a person? Does integrity come in second place to Karl Rove's version of "what is the definition of "is"? for you???

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Bush has always said he would fire somebody who broke the law, but NOT until the investigation is complete. Apparently, Democrats are willing to be the judge, jury and executioner before the findings come out. That is typical of liberals though.

NO! He said he would "fire anybody that revealed CIA agent identities."

--AND THEN--

BUSH said he would "fire anybody that broke the law..."

http://www.teamestrogen.com/images/products/BE-FLIP-NAV_xlg.jpg

[academic punk]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Tuesday, July 26, 2005 10:12 a.m. EDT

Bill Clinton Pardoned Nat'l. Security Leaker

No wonder 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has been silent as a churchmouse about Karl Rove while her Democratic colleagues call for his prosecution for leaking classified information about CIA employee Valerie Plame.

Turns out - in the only case in U.S. history of a person successfully prosecuted for leaking classified information to the press - Hillary's husband pardoned the guilty party.

On January 20, 2001, President Clinton pardoned Samuel Loring Morison, a civilian analyst with the Office of Naval Intelligence. In 1984, Morison had been convicted of providing classified satellite photos of an under-construction Soviet nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to Britain's Jane's Defence Weekly.

He received a two-year jail sentence.

In pardoning Morison, Clinton dismissed the advice of the CIA.

"We said we were obviously opposed - it was a vigorous 'Hell, no,'" one senior intelligence official told the Washington Post at the time. "We think ... giving pardons to people who are convicted of doing that sends the wrong signal to people who are currently entrusted with classified information."

Morison is the only person ever successfully prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act, the law invoked by Democrats who want to nail Rove after it became clear that he didn't violate the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

But it's going to be difficult for Dems to feign national security outrage over Plame's outing when the husband of their party's presidential front-runner let an actual convicted leaker off the hook.

Last week, when Sen. John Kerry called for Mr. Rove to be fired, with Hillary standing by his side, she nodded silently. When reporters asked her what she thought of the alleged Rove outrage, she offered only, "I'm nodding."

No doubt while remembering her husband's pardon of Mr. Morison.


So, again, two wrongs make a right?

I'm not sitting here defending Clinton's wrongs (and I would like to read a non-partisan angle at that article, as well). why do you two only have "Yeah, but look what that other guy did" as a defense???

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Tuesday, July 26, 2005 10:12 a.m. EDT

Bill Clinton Pardoned Nat'l. Security Leaker
...

Thanks for the typical partisan "but CLINTON did this" bullshit...

And this has to do with the PLAME scandel how?

[DrMaddVibe]

Figure it out by yourself!

[academic punk]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Figure it out by yourself!

Nick -

The above is code for "I have no fucking clue, but when faced with a tough situation, I like to sling mud".

[Warham]

It's a scandal that the evil Karl Rove started.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by academic punk
Nick -

The above is code for "I have no fucking clue, but when faced with a tough situation, I like to sling mud".

Kind of, it's more like, "you Democrats have gotten away with shit in the past...":rolleyes:

But it fails to reckon that the guy mentioned never broke protocol and potentially endangered a US secret agent, (Even PLAME's CIA classmates never even knew her real name, did you guys know that?)

It proves my point! "KARL ROVE is one of ours, so what he did was okay." Well fuck all of you cunts and the white Christian stallion you rode in on! He's a professional defamer, and he did it to the best Republican of them all: John McCAIN! Did we forget about "Thou shalt not lie?" Evil fuckers!

[Warham]

John McCain's the best Republican of them all? When did that press release come out?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
John McCain's the best Republican of them all? When did that press release come out?

Oh, I forgot! He doesn't make phoney, contradictory statements regarding God and religion.

Forgive me...

[Warham]

When did religion get into this conversation?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
When did religion get into this conversation?

Who's the finest Republican WAR?

[Warham]

I'm still wondering when religion entered this conversation. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I'm still wondering when religion entered this conversation. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.


Politics is inseperable to you WAR...


I'm still wondering as to who you think the finest Republican would be?

[Warham]

I can separate them just fine.

I was just wondering why they were brought up in this thread.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I can separate them just fine.

I was just wondering why they were brought up in this thread.

Fair enough question, here's the answer...

You've stated in the past that McCain would never get past the religious right in a Presidential Primary...Am I incorrect?

[Warham]

I think McCain's a moderate. Too moderate to get Christian voters to pull the handle for him. It's just a fact. He's voted with the Dems too many times in the past. Nobody has to attack him for people to see his voting record.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I think McCain's a moderate. Too moderate to get Christian voters to pull the handle for him. It's just a fact. He's voted with the Dems too many times in the past. Nobody has to attack him for people to see his voting record.

I though a lot of "good Christians" wouldn't vote for him because he has "a black child."

[Warham]

Who equates Christians with racists?

[Guitar Shark]

McCain has a black child? How did that get past me?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
McCain has a black child? How did that get past me?

adopted

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Who equates Christians with racists?


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I thought a lot of "good Christians" wouldn't vote for him because he has "a black child."

These guys (http://www.twelvearyannations.com/) would...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
McCain has a black child? How did that get past me?

He adopted a daughter from Bangladesh I believe.

[Guitar Shark]

That won't sit well with some wings of the party, I agree.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
That won't sit well with some wings of the party, I agree.

Rumor is that's how he lost the South Carolina primary in 2000. BCE operatives were calling voters and implying that McCain had a black child out of wedlock. (As opposed to a brown child via adoption)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
That won't sit well with some wings of the party, I agree.

**Edit**

FORD got it:

Here's my original post on the subject for the good counselor's background:

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=381504#post381504

[academic punk]

McCain has a black child???!!?? MY GOD!!!

next you'll be telling me that Joseph Lieberman is a Jew!!!

[Guitar Shark]

Be nice AP. ;)

[Warham]

Joseph Lieberman, a Democrat I'd actual consider voting for. He's too level-headed to actually get anywhere in the primaries.

[FORD]

Originally posted by academic punk


next you'll be telling me that Joseph Lieberman is a Jew!!!

The same republican phone operatives probably cost Gore some votes in the South in 2000 for that very reason.

Which is ironic, because Joe doesn't disagree with Southern Right Wingers very often.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Warham
Joseph Lieberman, a Democrat I'd actual consider voting for. He's too level-headed to actually get anywhere in the primaries.

Ain't that the truth, I would have loved him being the candidate in '04.
I would have actually had trouble NOT voting for the guy.

But in 2000?
Gore couldn't get out of Washington fast enough for me.
He was just a dumber John Kerry, but Kerry has combat experience.

I think i am leaning more towards my Conservative roots at this point, I just wish i had confidence in our Conservative President, lol.

But, i find it difficult to find much about the Republicans of today that are all that conservative anymore.

Both party's are rolling full bore towards socialism in my opinion.
They both just take different roads to hell.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Joseph Lieberman, a Democrat

All evidence to the contrary :rolleyes:

[worldbefree]

The plot thickens..

July 28, 2005
Case of C.I.A. Officer's Leaked Identity Takes New Turn
By DOUGLAS JEHL

WASHINGTON, July 26 - In the same week in July 2003 in which Bush administration officials told a syndicated columnist and a Time magazine reporter that a C.I.A. officer had initiated her husband's mission to Niger, an administration official provided a Washington Post reporter with a similar account.

The first two episodes, involving the columnist Robert D. Novak and the reporter Matthew Cooper, have become the subjects of intense scrutiny in recent weeks. But little attention has been paid to what The Post reporter, Walter Pincus, has recently described as a separate exchange on July 12, 2003.

In that exchange, Mr. Pincus says, "an administration official, who was talking to me confidentially about a matter involving alleged Iraqi nuclear activities, veered off the precise matter we were discussing and told me that the White House had not paid attention" to the trip to Niger by Joseph C. Wilson IV "because it was a boondoggle arranged by his wife, an analyst with the agency who was working on weapons of mass destruction."

Mr. Wilson traveled to Niger in 2002 at the request of the C.I.A. to look into reports about Iraqi efforts to buy nuclear materials. He later accused the administration of twisting intelligence about the nuclear ambitions of Iraq, prompting an angry response from the White House.

Mr. Pincus did not write about the exchange with the administration official until October 2003, and The Washington Post itself has since reported little about it. The newspaper's most recent story was a 737-word account last Sept. 16, in which the newspaper reported that Mr. Pincus had testified the previous day about the matter, but only after his confidential source had first "revealed his or her identity" to Mr. Fitzgerald, the special counsel conducting the C.I.A. leak inquiry.

Mr. Pincus has not identified his source to the public. But a review of Mr. Pincus's own accounts and those of other people with detailed knowledge of the case strongly suggest that his source was neither Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, nor I. Lewis Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, and was in fact a third administration official whose identity has not yet been publicly disclosed.

Mr. Pincus's most recent account, in the current issue of Nieman Reports, a journal of the Nieman Foundation, makes clear that his source had volunteered the information to him, something that people close to both Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have said they did not do in their conversations with reporters.

Mr. Pincus has said he will not identify his source until the source does so. But his account and those provided by other reporters sought out by Mr. Fitzgerald in connection with the case provide a fresh window into the cast of individuals other than Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby who discussed Ms. Wilson with reporters.

In addition to Mr. Pincus, the reporters known to have been pursued by the special prosecutor include Mr. Novak, whose column of July 14, 2003, was the first to identify Ms. Wilson, by her maiden name, Valerie Plame; Mr. Cooper, who testified before a grand jury on the matter earlier this month; Tim Russert, the Washington bureau chief of NBC News, and who was interviewed by the prosecutor last year; Glenn Kessler, a diplomatic reporter for The Post, who was also interviewed last year, and Judith Miller of The New York Times, who is now in jail for refusing to testify about the matter. It is not known whether Mr. Novak has testified or been interviewed on the matter.

Both Mr. Pincus, who covers intelligence matters for The Post, and Mr. Russert have continued to report on the investigation after being interviewed by Mr. Fitzgerald about their conversations with government officials.

Mr. Pincus wrote in the Nieman Reports article that he had agreed to answer questions from Mr. Fitzgerald last fall about his July 12, 2003, conversation only after "it turned out that my source, whom I still cannot identify publicly, had in fact disclosed to the prosecutor that he was my source, and he talked to the prosecutor about our conversation."

In identifying Ms. Wilson and her role, Mr. Novak attributed that account to two senior Bush administration officials. One of those officials was Mr. Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff, according to people close to Mr. Rove, who have said he merely confirmed information that Mr. Novak already had.

But the identity of Mr. Novak's original source, whom he has described as "no partisan gunslinger," remains unknown.

Mr. Cooper of Time magazine, who wrote about the matter several days after Mr. Novak's column appeared, has written and said publicly that he told a grand jury that Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove were among his sources. But Mr. Cooper has also said that there may have been others.

Ms. Miller never wrote a story about the matter. She has refused to testify in response to a court order directing her to testify in response to a subpoena from Mr. Fitzgerald seeking her testimony about a conversation with a specified government official between June 6, 2003, and June 13, 2003.

During that period, Ms. Miller was working primarily from the Washington bureau of The Times, reporting to Jill Abramson, who was the Washington bureau chief at the time, and was assigned to report for an article published July 20, 2003, about Iraq and the hunt for unconventional weapons, according to Ms. Abramson, who is now managing editor of The Times.

In e-mail messages this week, Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, and George Freeman, an assistant general counsel of the newspaper, declined to address written questions about whether Ms. Miller was assigned to report about Mr. Wilson's trip, whether she tried to write a story about it, or whether she ever told editors or colleagues at the newspaper that she had obtained information about the role played by Ms. Wilson.

The four reporters known to have been interviewed by Mr. Fitzgerald or to have appeared before the grand jury have said that they did so after receiving explicit permission from their sources, most notably Mr. Libby, who was the subject of the interviews involving Mr. Russert, Mr. Kessler, Mr. Pincus and Mr. Cooper. They have declined to elaborate on their statements, citing Mr. Fitzgerald's request that they and others not speak publicly about the matter.

Mr. Russert, Mr. Kessler and Mr. Pincus have indicated in statements released by their news organizations that their conversations with Mr. Libby were not about Ms. Wilson.

In his article in the Summer 2005 issue of Nieman Reports, Mr. Pincus wrote that he did not write about Ms. Wilson when he first heard the account "because I did not believe it true that she had arranged" Mr. Wilson's trip.

Mr. Pincus first disclosed the July 12, 2003, conversation with an administration official in an Oct. 12, 2003, article in The Washington Post, but did not mention in that article that he himself had been the recipient of the information. He wrote in Nieman Reports that he did not believe the person who spoke to him was committing a criminal act, but only practicing damage control by trying to get him to write about Mr. Wilson.

David Johnston and Richard W. Stevenson contributed reporting for this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/politics/28leak.html?ei=5088&en=0eca1936f541e166&ex=1280203200&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1122520575-UiA6bBeNkAeTLIw1j2twDA&pagewanted=print

[Sarge's Little Helper]

Rove is a pigfucker.

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
All evidence to the contrary :rolleyes:

Well, he's not the liberal kook that you'd vote for, so I can see why you'd say that.

[FORD]

http://b3ta.adennak.com/scott01.jpg

[Warham]

Democratic Self-Strangulation
By The Prowler
Published 7/27/2005 12:10:27 AM

KEEP ROVE ALIVE

Just how hijacked is the Democratic Party? Former CIA analyst and Joe Wilson advocate Larry Johnson was allowed to give the party's weekly national radio address. Some Democrats in both the House and Senate are wondering why the party continues to beat on the supposed Karl Rove scandal, despite the fact that there is no clear evidence the story is helping the party politically.

"I haven't seen a single, serious poll beyond the media's that attacking Rove helps us one bit with the voters," says a Democratic House member. "No one can show me numbers. This is all the fringe people like MoveOn and even Howard Dean. It's all about not getting past 2000 and 2004. And I really fear we're going to pay for it down the road."

He points to the energy bill wending its way out of both the Senate and House, as well as the USA PATRIOT Act renewal, and the highway bill as evidence that his party is losing sight of good political fights they should be waging, and instead are focusing on what amounts to minor scandals.

"My party is making a huge bet on something we really know nothing about," says the Democrat. "We don't know where this Plame thing is going to go, yet we're giving these people a huge platform. I'd rather be fighting for the issues that we know Americans care about: the environment, more of their tax dollars on national security and homeland defense. That stuff resonates at home."

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8505

[Warham]

Her Code Name Was 'Kerfuffle'
James Taranto

It's inevitable. Every time a Republican is in the White House, Democrats and the press go off in search of "another Watergate." Scandal, the Dems seem to think, is a quick fix for their political woes. And it's true that after George McGovern's landslide defeat in 1972, Watergate helped the Democrats stage a comeback. They made major gains in Congress in 1974 and won the White House in 1976. But that was it: The Republicans picked up congressional seats in 1978 and thoroughly trounced the Democrats in 1980.

Ginning up a scandal in the Bush administration was going to be particularly difficult, because there was no independent counsel statute. That law, a post-Watergate reform, provided for the appointment of prosecutors who had unlimited resources and a mandate to investigate a particular executive-branch official and those around him. Republicans had long complained of the excesses of such unconstrained investigations, and after Bill Clinton's experience with the Whitewater independent counsels, the Democrats came to see that they had a point. By bipartisan consensus, the independent counsel law expired in 2000.

But there is now a special prosecutor--a quasi-independent counsel--at work on one Bush "scandal." We first weighed in on the Valerie Plame kerfuffle on Sept. 29, 2003.

Here's the backstory: On July 6, 2003, a man by the name of Joseph Wilson published an op-ed piece in the New York Times. Wilson had been sent by the CIA to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein had sought to acquire uranium there. Wilson said he had found no evidence of this, and in his op-ed he concluded "that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

This created something of a media sensation, and on July 14, Robert Novak published a column explaining why Wilson had been chosen for the mission:

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

Wilson denied that Plame had anything to do with his getting the Niger gig, and he charged that Novak's sources had "outed" his wife as a covert agent in violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act as retaliation for his criticism and in order to "discourage others from coming forward" against the administration. The CIA asked the Justice Department to investigate the matter, and in late September the existence of this investigation became public.

This column was among the first to cast serious doubt on Wilson's allegation. On Oct. 6, 2003, we pointed out that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is a difficult law to break. First of all, the CIA agent in question must be "covert," which by the statute's definition means he must have been working overseas within five years of the disclosure. Plame was known to be working a desk job at CIA headquarters in July 2003; and since she became pregnant with twins in 1999 or early 2000, we surmised that if she had been working overseas during the requisite five-year period, it was most likely only at the very beginning. Further, as we noted:

In order for the alleged leakers to have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, they would have to have known that she was covert and that the government was "taking affirmative measures to conceal" her relationship to the CIA. Novak's statement that the CIA made only "a very weak request" that he not use her name suggests the absence of such "affirmative measures."

Nonetheless, the administration came under strong political pressure to appoint a special prosecutor, and it eventually succumbed. On Dec. 30, 2003, Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself from the investigation and appointed Chicago prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to take it over.

But Wilson's story fell apart. On July 12, 2004, we noted that a Senate Intelligence Committee report had discredited both of his key allegations. As the Washington Post reported:

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly. . . . The panel [also] found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts.

Then, on July 29, 2004, we noted a Wall Street Journal editorial reporting that Wilson had been quietly cast out of the Kerry campaign, which had been trumpeting his role as a foreign-policy adviser. The previous day, at an offsite event during the Democratic National Convention, Wilson railed against his critics, including The Wall Street Journal, which publishes this Web site, implying that the paper is part of a criminal conspiracy to obstruct the investigation. What's more, as the Journal editorial noted, "He began his talk by asking 'if it is OK if I harbor just a little bit of violence toward a certain journalist'--presumably a reference to Robert Novak."

Despite Wilson's disintegration, the special prosecutor's investigation ground on, and Fitzgerald sought to question various reporters who had covered the kerfuffle. Most of them reached agreements to testify, but two, Time's Matt Cooper and the New York Times' Judith Miller, held out and said they were willing to go to jail rather than reveal confidential sources.

Suddenly, the Times changed its tune. Its editorial page had beaten the drums loudly for a special prosecutor: "Mr. Fitzgerald is charged with finding out who violated federal law by giving the name of the undercover intelligence operative to Mr. Novak for publication in his column," the Times editorialized on Dec. 31, 2003, applauding the appointment of a special prosecutor. But on Feb. 28, 2005, as we noted, the Times argued:

Meanwhile, an even more basic issue has been raised in recent articles in The Washington Post and elsewhere: the real possibility that the disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity, while an abuse of power, may not have violated any law. Before any reporters are jailed, searching court review is needed to determine whether the facts indeed support a criminal prosecution under existing provisions of the law protecting the identities of covert operatives.

As we pointed out that day, Times columnists and op-eds had been even more reckless in asserting flatly that a felony had been committed.

Earlier this month, Cooper reached a last-minute agreement to avoid jail, but Miller, having exhausted her appeals, was held in contempt of court and is now behind bars. "Such an outcome might have been avoided," we wrote on Feb. 28, "if journalists--notably including the Times' editorialists and columnists--had treated Wilson's accusations with responsibility and skepticism in the first place."

The revelation this month that Karl Rove, now the White House's deputy chief of staff, was a Cooper source set off a frenzy of speculation among Angry Left fantasists, which eventually bubbled up to Democratic politicians and the mainstream media. Yet there is no publicly available evidence that Rove or anyone else violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or any other law, so on July 12 we engaged in little gentle mockery:

People who think in clichés keep asserting that "there's blood in the water," meaning Rove's. Those of us who have actually gone fishing know chum when we see it.

The special prosecutor's office has played its cards close to its chest, so any prediction as to how this will end would be pure speculation. As Bill Clinton can attest, sometimes prosecutors investigate alleged wrongdoing for years and find nothing worth bringing an indictment over. And as Martha Stewart can attest, an innocent person can become guilty by doing the wrong thing during a criminal investigation--so it's possible Fitzgerald will seek indictments for perjury or obstruction of justice, even if there is no underlying crime.

When it's all over, though, we hope that anti-Bush partisans in the press will think long and hard about whether it was all worth it.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006974

[ODShowtime]

When it's all over, though, we hope that anti-Bush partisans in the press will think long and hard about whether it was all worth it.

:rolleyes:

[Warham]

It's not worth it, but they are trying hard to make it so.

[Cathedral]

What yanks my gizzard is that there are more important issues to address than partisan attacks, by either party.

If any other Americans are experiencing an eye opener like i am, they're sick and tired of the scandles too.

It's going to hurt both parties, because they both currently suck and aren't doing what they were elected to do, which is represent the people as opposed to their own power grabbing agenda's.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
It's not worth it, but they are trying hard to make it so.

ROVE's a crook that put partisanship above national security. Fuck him!

[Warham]

Desperate, huh?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Desperate, huh?

For justice, I guess I'm desperate. But you could give a shit about that, right?

[Warham]

This isn't about justice. It's about partisan politics.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
This isn't about justice. It's about partisan politics.

You're kidding right?

Oh Jesus, check your CLINTON posts and get back to me...:rolleyes:

Let's check the perjury law...yup!;)

[FORD]

What does George HW "Poppy" Bush Sr. (http://www.michaelmoore.com/_images/splash/insidious_traitors.mov) have to say about Rove?

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You're kidding right?

Oh Jesus, check your CLINTON posts and get back to me...:rolleyes:

Let's check the perjury law...yup!;) '

You guys let Clinton get off on a technicality with his lack of knowledge of what sex constitutes. Why not Rove? Is this a two way street?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
'

You guys let Clinton get off on a technicality with his lack of knowledge of what sex constitutes. Why not Rove? Is this a two way street?

Technically it was STARR's lack of knowledge about sex (can't imagine why) that allowed CLINTON to actually not perjure himself.

This involves an Administration that was attacking it's enemies and breaking specific laws about revealing identities.

[Warham]

I refer to the article I posted above about that law:

'In order for the alleged leakers to have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, they would have to have known that she was covert and that the government was "taking affirmative measures to conceal" her relationship to the CIA. Novak's statement that the CIA made only "a very weak request" that he not use her name suggests the absence of such "affirmative measures."'

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I refer to the article I posted above about that law:

'In order for the alleged leakers to have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, they would have to have known that she was covert and that the government was "taking affirmative measures to conceal" her relationship to the CIA. Novak's statement that the CIA made only "a very weak request" that he not use her name suggests the absence of such "affirmative measures."'

Oh brother...:rolleyes:

[Warham]

I'm the only one keeping this thread alive. That proves something right there. ;)

[academic punk]

No, you're not keeping the thread alive...the ongoing investigation is...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove3aug03,1,6456237.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

Amazing how Fitzgerald's investigation is sufferring from less leaks than our Central Intelligence Agency, isn't it?

[academic punk]

And this...

(WARHAM< WARNING!!! THIS LINKS YOU TO THE WEBSITE OF THE ADVOCATE!!! ONE LOOK AND YOU MAY TURN INTO A FLAMING HOMOSEXUAL!!!) (kidding!)

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid19337.asp

Shock! A gay man working as the top aide to the top aide to the President! Oh my!!!

[Guitar Shark]

When is the last time anybody saw the Rove leak story on the news?

It's very sad how this issue has been swept under the carpet.

[LoungeMachine]

It's not being swept, counselor

The SP is just very good at not leaking [ironic, no?]

There WILL be GJ indictments forthcoming on Perjury and OOJ counts

Count on it.

[Warham]

Only in your wet dreams.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
It's not being swept, counselor

The SP is just very good at not leaking [ironic, no?]

There WILL be GJ indictments forthcoming on Perjury and OOJ counts

Count on it.

I have a feeling something ugly is about to happen (for ROVE), just looking at NOVAK's reaction when he walked off the CNN set yesterday...

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I have a feeling something ugly is about to happen (for ROVE), just looking at NOVAK's reaction when he walked off the CNN set yesterday...

I heard about that, but don't know what that's all about...what the hey?

[academic punk]

Hit the link...that is one creepy pic...

http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2005/08/05/cnn_suspends_novak_after_he_walks_off_set/

Robert Novak, whose revelation of a CIA officer's name in a 2003 column has sparked a federal probe, was suspended by CNN after he swore and walked off the set during a live taping of "Inside Politics."

CNN correspondent Ed Henry said afterward that he had been about to ask Novak about his role in the investigation of the leak of Valerie Plame's identity, which the columnist has repeatedly refused to comment on.

The incident occurred Thursday as Novak and Democratic operative James Carville were handicapping the Senate candidacy of former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris. Novak said the opposition of the Republican establishment in Florida might not be fatal for her.

"Let me just finish, James, please," Novak continued. "I know you hate to hear me, but you have to."

Carville, addressing the camera, said: "He's got to show these right wingers that he's got a backbone, you know. It's why The Wall Street Journal editorial page is watching you. Show 'em that you're tough."

"Well, I think that's bull---- and I hate that," Novak replied. "Just let it go."

As moderator Henry stepped in to ask Carville a question, Novak walked off the set.

A CNN spokeswoman, Edie Emery, called Novak's behavior "inexcusable and unacceptable." Novak apologized to CNN, and CNN was apologizing to viewers, she said.

"We've asked Mr. Novak to take some time off," she said.

A telephone message at Novak's office was not immediately returned Thursday.

Only two weeks ago, CNN executives defended their decision to keep Novak on the air during the investigation into the leak. Novak identified Plame in July 2003 as the wife of Bush administration critic and former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Wilson has said the leak of his wife's name was an attempt by the administration to discredit him. Two other reporters connected to the case openly fought the revelation of their sources, and Judith Miller of The New York Times has been jailed for refusing to cooperate with prosecutors.

Henry said Thursday that Novak had been told before the "Inside Politics" segment that he was going to be asked on air about the CIA case.

"I'm hoping that we will be able to ask him about that in the future," Henry said.

Novak has been a longtime contributor to CNN, taking the conservative point of view during the just-canceled "Crossfire" show.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
It's not being swept, counselor

The SP is just very good at not leaking [ironic, no?]

There WILL be GJ indictments forthcoming on Perjury and OOJ counts

Count on it.

At the very worst case scenario, can you say "Pardon?"

:gulp:

[academic punk]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
At the very worst case scenario, can you say "Pardon?"

:gulp:

If it reaches that level, there's no way Bush would be able to grant a pardon.

Far too public an affair, far too much public backlash (from his own supporters included)...it's the reason why Liddy will never get one.

Then again, what does Bush care? It's not he's going to run for public office ever again...

[NightProwler]

Why would you want to "pardon" an obvious criminal?

[Warham]

Liberals seem to think Bush is going to run in 2008. The RNC wouldn't have it any other way.

[LoungeMachine]

A pardon would be Warpig's "wet dream".......Literally

But I'd put nothing past these lowlife pieces of shit

[Warham]

We have to wait until the investigation is over before we behead Karl Rove, right Lounge?

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Warham
We have to wait until the investigation is over before we behead Karl Rove, right Lounge?


I've got a replica Samurai sword I got in my many travels.

I'll go sharpen it.

:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I've got a replica Samurai sword I got in my many travels.

I'll go sharpen it.

:gulp:


:D :D :D

[academic punk]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I've got a replica Samurai sword I got in my many travels.

I'll go sharpen it.

:gulp:

At the least, we could always shove it up Jesterstar's ass...

JesterStar...HE'S HUNGRY FOR THE COCK!!!

[academic punk]

For those of us who thought this issue died...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072602069.html

[Warham]

It has died.

Cindy Sheehan is now the Great White Hope for the press.