So let me get this straight. You libs want to use speculation about a non-story to take down Rove why? Because he has thoroughly dismantled what is left of your political party for several elections in a row? Ah, yes. Now I see.
Do they offer remedial reading at Rice? sev·er·al Audio pronunciation of "several" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (svr-l, svrl) adj. 1. Being of a number more than two or three but not many: several miles away.
Karl Rove named as a source of Plame leak http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Karl_Rove_named_as_a_source_of_Plame_leak What's the punishment for Treason these days?
This might be a slight derailment, but I didn't want to start a new thread. If anyone objects I will put it into another thread. Remember that one of the things about the whole Niger incident was that the Whitehouse used a forged document as part of the evidence. The whitehouse claims that they didn't realize it was forged. I don't have any real proof that they did so let us assume that they had no idea it was forged. The question remains, and is almost never even asked... Who did forge that document? Who would have a motive to forge a document that Iraq was buying uranium from Niger at a time when an administration was trying to build support for invading Iraq? a. Challabi, and other Iraqi exhiles b. The whitehouse c. Tony Blair's administration d. The Pentagon That is about all I can think of who would have a motive. Of those my guess would be Challabi or other exhiles, but it is only a guess. I am mostly disturbed not even by who wrote the forgery, but why no media outlet even bothered to concern themselves with who would have done it. It seems like it was never even looked into. How did the forgery come to be in the hands of the whitehouse in the first place?
Please allow me to introduce myself I’m a man of wealth and taste I’ve been around for a long, long year Stole many a man’s soul and faith And I was ’round when jesus christ Had his moment of doubt and pain Made damn sure that pilate Washed his hands and sealed his fate Pleased to meet you Hope you guess my name But what’s puzzling you Is the nature of my game I stuck around st. petersburg When I saw it was a time for a change Killed the czar and his ministers Anastasia screamed in vain I rode a tank Held a general’s rank When the blitzkrieg raged And the bodies stank Pleased to meet you Hope you guess my name, oh yeah Ah, what’s puzzling you Is the nature of my game, oh yeah I watched with glee While your kings and queens Fought for ten decades For the gods they made I shouted out, Who killed the kennedys? When after all It was you and me Let me please introduce myself I’m a man of wealth and taste And I laid traps for troubadours Who get killed before they reached bombay Pleased to meet you Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah But what’s puzzling you Is the nature of my game, oh yeah, get down, baby Pleased to meet you Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah But what’s confusing you Is just the nature of my game Just as every cop is a criminal And all the sinners saints As heads is tails Just call me lucifer ’cause I’m in need of some restraint So if you meet me Have some courtesy Have some sympathy, and some taste Use all your well-learned politesse Or I’ll lay your soul to waste, um yeah Pleased to meet you Hope you guessed my name, um yeah But what’s puzzling you Is the nature of my game, um mean it, get down Woo, who Oh yeah, get on down Oh yeah Oh yeah! Tell me baby, what’s my name Tell me honey, can ya guess my name Tell me baby, what’s my name I tell you one time, you’re to blame Ooo, who Ooo, who Ooo, who Ooo, who, who Ooo, who, who Ooo, who, who Ooo, who, who Oh, yeah What’s me name Tell me, baby, what’s my name Tell me, sweetie, what’s my name Ooo, who, who Ooo, who, who Ooo, who, who Ooo, who, who Ooo, who, who Ooo, who, who Ooo, who, who Oh, yeah
I consider myself to be a Republican with Anarchist leanings, so I qualify as a Democrat to Republicans, and a Republican to Democrats. That having been said, I think the general concensus is that Rove is the force behind the "dirty tricks" and boldfaced lying that made this last campaign so ugly, and the patern started way back with Alan Dixon in 1970. (Google "Carl Rove Alan Dixon". All of the links are anti-Rove, but I have yet to see any sort of denial anywhere of the facts as presented therein.) Furthermore, though I'm sure you'll argue differently, I see concern about Rove's "non-issue" to be much more relevant than Clinton's series of "non-issues" with which he was hounded. Clintons faults were faults of personal weakness and inability to avoid personal temptation. Roves faults are all faults of malice and vindictiveness, and all in various ways have been personal gain without regard to the best interests of the electorate or the country. I think it would be safe to say that, like a lifetime achievment Oscar, Clinton was hounded because of the type of person he was, more than any specific act. Well, now the chicken has come home to roost, and the people who decided it was appropriate to unleash the dogs on Clinton will get a taste of their own medicine, in a grand act of cosmic balance. As such, I see no reason that the people persecuting Rove should feel petty or vindictive. I've never seen anybody express regret for catching Al Capone on tax evasion. IMHO, what the Carl Rove school of politics has unleashed on the nation, while not the degree of crime commited by Capone, is potentialy more damaging to the delicate system of balances which are fundimental to our nation's political system, in that he has introduced tactics which are designed to overtly subvert the concept of an informed electorate making rational judgements.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/ Matt Cooper's Source What Karl Rove told Time magazine's reporter. By Michael Isikoff Newsweek July 18 issue - It was 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003, and Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. "Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation ..." Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, "please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]" and suggested another reporter check with the CIA. Last week, after Time turned over that e-mail, among other notes and e-mails, Cooper agreed to testify before a grand jury in the Valerie Plame case. Explaining that he had obtained last-minute "personal consent" from his source, Cooper was able to avoid a jail sentence for contempt of court. Another reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, refused to identify her source and chose to go to jail instead. For two years, a federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been investigating the leak of Plame's identity as an undercover CIA agent. The leak was first reported by columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. Novak apparently made some arrangement with the prosecutor, but Fitzgerald continued to press other reporters for their sources, possibly to show a pattern (to prove intent) or to make a perjury case. (It is illegal to knowingly identify an undercover CIA officer.) Rove's words on the Plame case have always been carefully chosen. "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," Rove told CNN last year when asked if he had anything to do with the Plame leak. Rove has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. But last week, his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Rove did—and that Rove was the secret source who, at the request of both Cooper's lawyer and the prosecutor, gave Cooper permission to testify. The controversy arose when Wilson wrote an op-ed column in The New York Times saying that he had been sent by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate charges that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from the African country of Niger. Wilson said he had found no evidence to support the claim. Wilson's column was an early attack on the evidence used by the Bush administration to justify going to war in Iraq. The White House wished to discredit Wilson and his attacks. The question for the prosecutor is whether someone in the administration, in an effort to undermine Wilson's credibility, intentionally revealed the covert identity of his wife. In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson's criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine's corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger ... " Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative. Nonetheless, it is significant that Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak's column appeared; in other words, before Plame's identity had been published. Fitzgerald has been looking for evidence that Rove spoke to other reporters as well. "Karl Rove has shared with Fitzgerald all the information he has about any potentially relevant contacts he has had with any reporters, including Matt Cooper," Luskin told NEWSWEEK. A source close to Rove, who declined to be identified because he did not wish to run afoul of the prosecutor or government investigators, added that there was "absolutely no inconsistency" between Cooper's e-mail and what Rove has testified to during his three grand-jury appearances in the case. "A fair reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame's identity, but was an effort to discourage Time from publishing things that turned out to be false," the source said, referring to claims in circulation at the time that Cheney and high-level CIA officials arranged for Wilson's trip to Africa. Fitzgerald is known as a tenacious, thorough prosecutor. He refused to comment, and it is not clear whether he is pursuing evidence that will result in indictments, or just tying up loose ends in a messy case. But the Cooper e-mail offers one new clue to the mystery of what Fitzgerald is probing—and provides a glimpse of what was unfolding at the highest levels as the administration defended a part of its case for going to war in Iraq.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/david-corn/explosive-new-rove-revela_3933.html UPDATE: The Newsweek story I described below is out. Reporter Michael Isikoff has obtained a copy of an email that Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper sent his bureau chief, Michael Duffy, on July 11, 2003--three days before conservative columnist Bob Novak first published the leak that outed CIA officer Valerie Wilson/Plame. In that email, Cooper wrote that he had spoken to Rove on "double super secret background" and that Rove had told him that Joseph Wilson's "wife...apparently works at the agency on wmd issues." "Agency" means CIA. Read the full Newsweek piece here, and read the item below for why it is so important. Time to get ready for the Karl Rove frog-march? I don't usually blog on Saturday evenings. But I've received information too good not to share immediately. It was only yesterday that I was bemoaning the probability that -- after a week of apparent Rove-related revelations--it might be a while before any more news emerged about the Plame/CIA leak. Yet tonight I received this as-solid-as-it-gets tip: on Sunday Newsweek is posting a story that nails Rove. The newsmagazine has obtained documentary evidence that Rove was indeed a key source for Time magazine's Matt Cooper and that Rove--prior to the publication of the Bob Novak column that first publicly disclosed Valerie Wilson/Plame as a CIA official -- told Cooper that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife apparently worked at the CIA and was involved in Joseph Wilson's now-controversial trip to Niger. To be clear, this new evidence does not necessarily mean slammer-time for Rove. Under the relevant law, it's only a crime for a government official to identify a covert intelligence official if the government official knows the intelligence officer is under cover, and this documentary evidence, I'm told, does not address this particular point. But this new evidence does show that Rove -- despite his lawyers claim that Rove "did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA" -- did reveal to Cooper in a deep-background conversation that Wilson's wife was in the CIA. No wonder special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald pursued Cooper so fiercely. And Fitzgerald must have been delighted when Time magazine -- over Cooper's objection--surrendered Cooper's emails and notes, which, according to a previous Newsweek posting by Michael Isikoff, named Rove as Cooper's source. In court on Wednesday, Fitzgerald said that following his receipt of Cooper's emails and notes "it is clear to us we need [Cooper's] testimony perhaps more so than in the past." This was a clue that Fitzgerald had scored big when he obtained the Cooper material. This new evidence could place Rove in serious political, if not legal, jeopardy (or, at least it should). If what I am told is true, this is proof that the Bush White House was using any information it could gather on Joseph Wilson -- even classified information related to national security -- to pursue a vendetta against Wilson, a White House critic. Even if it turns out Rove did not break the law regarding the naming of intelligence officials, this new disclosure could prove Rove guilty of leaking a national security secret to a reporter for political ends. What would George W. Bush do about that? On September 27, 2003 -- after the news broke that the Justice Department, responding to a request from the CIA, was investigating the Plame/CIA leak -- White House press secretary Scott McClellan said of the Plame/CIA leak, "That is not the way this White House operates, and no one would be authorized to do such a thing." He also declared that the allegation that Rove was involved in this leak was "a ridiculous suggestion, and it is simply not true." Days later, Bush issued a straightforward statement about the Plame/CIA leak: There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. If there's leaks out of my administration, I want to know who it is, and if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of. Perhaps Bush won't have to "take care of" Rove if this new evidence does not lead to a prosecutable violation of the law. But Bush also called on any government official with knowledge of the leak to "come forward and speak out." Has Rove done so? No. So it seems he violated a presidential command. Would Bush be obliged to fire him for insubordination? And there's another key point to consider: whether Rove told the truth when he testified to Fitzgerald's grand jury. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, has acknowledged that Rove appeared before the grand jury, and Luskin has said that Rove did speak to Cooper prior to the publication of the Novak column. But what did Rove tell Fitzgerald and the grand jury about this conversation with Cooper? And -- here's the big question -- does Rove's account jibe with the new documentary evidence that Newsweek is scheduled to disclose? If it does not, Fitzgerald would have a good start on a perjury charge against Rove. At a public meeting in the summer of 2003, Joseph Wilson, responding to a question about the leak, quipped that it would be interesting "to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." He then had to pull back from that comment and concede he had no evidence to support his hunch that Rove was one of the leakers. (By the way, Novak cited two unnamed Bush administration officials when he published the Plame/CIA leak.) With Newsweek's latest article, we may be getting closer to frog-marching time. ****** By the way, for other recent pieces I've written on the Plame/CIA leak case, please check out my own blog at www.davidcorn.com.
and he left out one other pertinent point- revealing Plame's identity (which was not done here) had to be done with the intent to damage national security. So what was your point again?
Once again Basso, you seem only to be concerned with one of the felonies broken. There is also the espionage act.
As always basso you have enlightened the bbs with your thoughtful and completely unbiased thoughts on a significant issue that in one way or another concerns us all. Have these ‘win at all costs’ liberals even considered for a second that it might be the left-leaning night janitor Carl Rove that was the true source of these leaks?
not sure if this entire WaPo article has been posted before, but in the interest of saving bandwidth, i'm just pulling out one interesting nugget: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/05/AR2005070500788.html -- Fitzgerald may learn more details from Cooper's notes. Sources close to the investigation say there is evidence in some instances that some reporters may have told government officials -- not the other way around -- that Wilson was married to Plame, a CIA employee.
I read the statute in question and did not see this particular point. The only point of contention I see is whether Rove knew that Plame was undercover and more specifically, if it can be PROVEN that Rove had said knowledge. Rove may not be convicted of anything at all and honestly I wouldn't expect any more than a perjury charge to be leveled against him given the politics involved. Still, there is now evidence that Rove was speaking to reporters before Novak's column about Plame and actually stated flat out that Plame was in the CIA. That is a large step towards proving that Rove did indeed disclose the identity of an undercover CIA agent, a serious felony. My hope is that they get to the bottom of what happened and if a crime was committed, someone should suffer the consequences. Unfortunately, I don't see this as possible since if Rove IS convicted, I would certainly expect GWB to pardon him.
That may be true in some instances. However if there is only one instance where that isn't true, that is all it would take.
