thanks basso It's been a wild week and believe it or not it's been fun. Hope you have a great weekend too. And I too will lay off Rove untill Fitzgerald has something to say. Peace
MSNBC excerpts. Clinton's only flaw was that he didn't delegate all of his lies to Vernon Jordan and spend more time at Mickey Ds.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8600106/ I still don't get it, why did the 2003 State of the Union include: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."" again, when there was little evidence to indicate otherwise? To review the facts: 1) WMD was the primary rationale for war, the primary message to the American public 2) So far, no significant WMDs have been found in Iraq, although in a world with inifinite possibilities, it could have been transported, destroyed, lost, or have vanished into thin air. 3) Joseph Wilson, for whatever reason (e.g. ego, anger, sense of justice, being a prankster), decided to go public against the administration and their claim of the yellowcake connection between Niger and Iraq 4) Valerie Plame's name was published by Novak's column, breaking her identity as an undercover agent 5)Someone(s) in the White House leaked the name to reporters - how was her identity leaked? a) State Department;s memo / internal source and/or investigation into Wilson b) Information from reporters (Novak?)5) Rove's part in everything: a) Mistakenly (whether intentional or not) told Cooper that "Wilson's wife in the CIA authorized" his trip to Africa, when she agreed with the trip, not authorized it My Questions: Does it matter where Rove got the information from (whether it is from another reporter or whether he dug it up himself)? He and the administration specifically leaked Valerie Plame's identity to multiple reporters to discredit J. Wilson's claim that the White House's usage of the Africa-Iraq connection was incorrect. Does it matter that Rove learned the information somewhere else? Legally, it does matter, but from a voter's point of view who was sold on the fact that the Iraq war was: a) Fought because Saddam Hussein was a madman with current supplies of dangerous WMDs b) Fought because while never never directly said but definitely insinuated, Iraq was somehow connected to 9-11, both reasons to be on fairly shaky evidence after 2 years since engagement --- does it matter? I don't think it should matter, because if the fact remains that the current administration still attempted to discredit an opponent because his outspoken criticisms (from first hand research) contradicts the rationale and lack of evidence for the current Iraq war. But with the rule of law, hopefully, more things will come into light.
More fuel for the fire; Rove was indeed the first source for Cooper. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=2&u=/nm/20050717/pl_nm/bush_leak_dc Rove was first source on CIA agent -Time reporter WASHINGTON (Reuters) - White House political aide Karl Rove was the first person to tell a Time magazine reporter that the wife of a prominent critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy was a CIA agent, the reporter said in an article on Sunday. Time correspondent Matthew Cooper said he told a grand jury last week that Rove told him the woman worked at the "agency," or CIA, on weapons of mass destruction issues, and ended the call by saying "I've already said too much." The leak of the agent's identity has sparked a criminal probe, and several Democrats have urged President Bush to fire or sideline Rove, Bush's top political adviser. Cooper wrote that Rove did not disclose the woman's name, Valerie Plame, but told him in July 2003 that information would be declassified that would cast doubt on the credibility of her husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson. "Don't get too far out on Wilson," Cooper quoted Rove as saying. Cooper said he had also discussed Wilson and his wife with a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney. Wilson took a CIA-funded trip in 2002 to investigate a charge that Iraq tried to buy nuclear materials in Africa, and later accused the Bush administration of exaggerating the Iraqi weapons threat in its case for war. "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," Cooper wrote in Time's current edition. "When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know. Is any of this a crime? Beats me," Cooper wrote. He said he was uncertain what Rove meant by commenting he had already said too much. COURT ORDER Cooper testified about Rove to avoid going to jail. New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for refusing to testify. It is against the law for a government official to knowingly expose a covert CIA agent. Columnist Robert Novak revealed Plame's identity in July 2003, citing two administration officials, shortly after Wilson published an opinion piece in the New York Times that accused the administration of twisting intelligence on Iraq. Wilson wrote that in Niger he could not substantiate allegations Iraq had tried to buy nuclear materials, as the White House asserted even after the mission. Cooper also reported on Plame's identity, citing Novak's column and administration officials. Wilson accuses the Bush administration of retaliation in his wife's exposure; Rove's lawyer said the aide had done nothing wrong and was not an investigation target. Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, on NBC's "Meet the Press," called criticisms of Rove "partisan smears." Bush has said he would fire any leaker in the case, but said last week he would withhold judgment on Rove's role. Cooper wrote he had previously told the grand jury he had also discussed Wilson and his wife with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff. He said he asked Libby about Wilson's wife playing a role in the Niger trip, and Libby replied, "Yeah, I've heard that too." Rove used similar language in a conversation with Novak, according to media reports. Wilson had written that he took the trip in response to questions raised by Cheney, but he told CBS's "Face the Nation" he had not meant to imply Cheney sent him. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said in October 2003 that Rove, Libby and another official had assured him they were uninvolved in the leak. Cooper said he viewed Rove's comments on Wilson as an attack on his credibility. "I thought it was disparaging toward Wilson. I thought it was sort of guiding," he said on CNN's "Reliable Sources."
David Horowitz wrote an excellent article regarding this story; The Witch-Hunt of Karl Rove and the war at home. Posted by David Horowitz @ Saturday 16 July 2005, 3:30 pm So now we know a lot of the facts. In the midst of a war, a rogue CIA employee named Valerie Plame set out to sabotage the President’s war policy — a policy ratified by both political parties and both houses of Congress. To do this she sent her husband on a mission to Niger to discredit the President’s statement that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium there — in other words to discredit a justification for the war in which Americans were continuing to die. Forget for a moment the treasonous nature of an action designed to undermine a duly arrived at war policy and to destroy the credibility of the commander-in-chief while this nation’s soldiers were in harm’s way. The mere act of sending a relative on a mission like this was illegal under existing statutes for someone in Plame’s position. Her husband, Joseph Wilson, went off to Niger, did no investigation and came back and lied about what he had allegedly discovered. The bi-partisan 9/11 commission concluded that Wilson’s claims were false – a year and half after the damage the Plame-Wilson team intended was already done. The Plame-Wilson lie was designed to make the President look like a liar and the nation’s democratically and legally arrived at war policy a fraud. This came right at the climax of anti-war primary campaign of Howard Dean in July 2003, just three months after the fall of Baghdad and when the terrorist counter-attack had already begun. Immediately the Democratic Party leadership jumped on the President calling him a liar and a fraud using the 16 words in the January 2003 State of the Union address about Niger as evidence. These 16 words were perfectly true than (as now) yet that didn’t stop Democrats from using the Plame-Wilson lies to undermine the authority of the commander-in-chief in the eyes of the American people and before the entire world. No psychological warfare campaign ever conducted by an enemy against the United States has been as effetive as this one. It emboldened our terrorist enemies, and sowed distrust in Europe and throughout the world about American policies, continued for more than six months with of course the megaphone provided by the NY Times and other Bush-hating and America bashing media institutions. Joseph Wilson threw fuel on the fire by falsely claiming that Vice President Cheney had sent him and not his treacherous anti-Bush wife in her attempt to protect Saddam Hussein and his monster regime. NDavid Corn of the Saddam- and terrorist-sympathizing Nation and other journalists in the opposition press jumped on the story and projected the treacherous activities of Wilson and Plame onto the Bush Administration which was still trying to carry on an anti-terrorist war in the Middle East. Corn was the first to suggest that outing Plame as a rogue CIA employee was itself treason and certainly against the law. It was not. Plame is not a cover CIA operative and besides and all its Democrat friends in Congress opposed the law protecting CIA agents and protected and even lionized the rogue CIA agent Philip Agee whose leaks of the names of covert CIA agents had gotten one agent killed and was responsible for the enactment of the law. The Nation also has been in the forefront of the fawners at the feet of liar Joseph Wilson giving him a dinner and award for his treachery. (Working against your own government in time of war, while in the employ of your government is by definition treachery.) In other words The Nation is entirely consistent: it will protect those CIA agents (Agee, Plame) who are enemies of the United States or its policies, and and only those agents. Democrats will of course mentally dissociate themselves from acts of conscious treachery. And many of them have reason to do so. Unlike the Nation radicals, they are not rooting for our enemies to win. On the other hand, over and over in this war they have shown that they are prepared to win elections even at the cost of American defeats in the war on terror — which as we can easily caculate may cost 100,000 American lives at a blow. Or as the President once put it to Tom Daschle, they are a party who will put their partisan interests above the security of 300 million Americans. In a synchronity that all honest liberals should pay attention to, an appeals court has found that no torture or illegality took place at Guantanamo and that the legal campaign led by communist supporter Michael Ratner in behalf of the Guantanamo terrorists is based on an even bigger lie than the Plame-Wilson sabotage. In this assault on the war on terror from behind our lines the Democratic Party is also a willing and essential accomplice. It’s time for the Democrats to stop their sabotage of the war on terror. It’s time for them to put away the witch-hunt against Karl Rove and Homeland Security, and to begin finally to think about defending this country instead of its internal enemies.
Only if you call getting the facts completely wrong to be "excellent". This is the first sentence of the article, and has been discredited too many times to count from everyone in the know. Someone decided getting the story right was not important in writing an article.
Actually, this is worst than I thought. In 2 sentences, he got so much wrong - it's like he just made all this up. 1. Plame didn't send her husband anywhere. 2. The purpose of the mission was to investigate the British claims, not to discredit. 3. The President's statement that he was supposedly sent to discredit hadn't even been made at the time of the mission. 4. Americans weren't continuing to die in a war, because this all happened long, long before the war started, and before Bush even publicly began discussing going into Iraq. What the hell is he writing about?
1. As the CIA has stated, she was consulted when they were selecting a person but was not in any decision-making position. He was - by far - the most qualified person for the job based on his experience with the region and the issues involved, so the CIA made that decision. 2. Motive? I told you - they got information and they sent him to verify it and determine if it was credible. That's the job of the CIA - to get intelligence on things. 4. No - read what he said again. Here it is: To do this she sent her husband on a mission to Niger to discredit the President’s statement that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium there — in other words to discredit a justification for the war in which Americans were continuing to die. He clearly states that she sent him on a mission to discredit a justification for a war in which Americans <B>were</B> dying. She didn't send him on the mission. It wasn't to discredit anything. The justification for the war wasn't made until nearly a year later, and no Americans were dying in it at any point. 4 lies in one sentence that lays out the entire basis for the article. How exactly is this an "excellent" article?
David Horowitz hasn't written anything excellent in his life, and he isn't starting here. Plame was most certainly not a rogue agent, and nobody in the CIA has ever insinuated she was. Horowitz is an ass to suggest that someone faithfully serving their nation in the sensitive area of WMD is a rogue agent. CIA sources are on record saying the following. 1. Plame did NOT have authority send anyone to Niger on that mission. 2. That it was not Plame's decision to send Wilson. Next point that Horowitz was wrong about. Both parties did not ratify the war in Iraq. The President himself told congress that it was a vote to KEEP THE PEACE. Yet another lie or error by Horowitz who either hasn't read or is just lying about what the 9/11 comission concluded. Nowhere in there does it say that Wilson was lying. Yet another point that Horowitz just made up is that it 'emboldened terrorists.' That hasn't been shown anywhere. Wilson told the truth, and the truth shall set us free, not kill us. It also didn't sow distrust amongst our European allies. What sowed the distrust was that whitehouse used a FORGED document in its effort to bolster its wrong claim that Iraq had a nuclear problem. Not that fact that Wilson uncovered no threat from a Iraq/Niger yellow cake deal. Next Horowitz falsely claims Plame wasn't undercover. Her status was NOC. That is a matter of record. There is no way to argue that. The CIA has the official status. Horowitz, Novak, and anyone else can claim she wasn't, but we have the official status. His article has already been shown wrong or false on so many counts, he is batting zero in any factual assumptions, and what isn't fact in there is partisan attacks, based on his incorrect or made up facts. Finally, even if Wilson lied through his teeth about every single thing, it doesn't change the fact that Rove and others confirmed or leaked the identity of a classified NOC CIA operative.
Rove and Libby both passed sensitive information about Plame to the media; I wonder if Bush and Cheney gave them the go ahead?
<b>Major 1. As the CIA has stated, she was consulted when they were selecting a person but was not in any decision-making position. He was - by far - the most qualified person for the job based on his experience with the region and the issues involved, so the CIA made that decision.</b> Why send a diplomat to do a spy's job? I'm sure there are actual CIA employees who are/were more qualified. Why not them? Why him? It was not Plame's decision but how do we calculate how tacit was her nomination of her husgand for the mission? <b>2. Motive? I told you - they got information and they sent him to verify it and determine if it was credible. That's the job of the CIA - to get intelligence on things.</b> They have intelligence officers for those sorts of things. Why use a diplomat? <b>4. No - read what he said again. Here it is: To do this she sent her husband on a mission to Niger to discredit the President’s statement that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium there — in other words to discredit a justification for the war in which Americans were continuing to die. He clearly states that she sent him on a mission to discredit a justification for a war in which Americans were dying. She didn't send him on the mission. It wasn't to discredit anything. The justification for the war wasn't made until nearly a year later, and no Americans were dying in it at any point. 4 lies in one sentence that lays out the entire basis for the article.</b> The "in other words" changes everything. It is poorly written indeed. I prefer my take on it to your insistence on it as another instance of lying. Take your pick. <b>How exactly is this an "excellent" article?</b> I copied it from another board. That was an introductory remark made by someone else which I didn't mean to include. I don't have a gauge on the article's excellence but I do like the trend!
It wasn't a secret spy mission of any sort. He was the former ambassador to that country - he knew all the players involved there, who to contact, etc. It was an investigative mission - asked for by Cheney, by the way. I'm not sure if you know much about the CIA, but this is pretty standard stuff. They don't send undercover agents to do all their work. There is nothing in this article that is even remotely accurate, except maybe the "By David Horowitz".
fair enough. I'm glad it wasn't your own words. The problem is that you have your take, but Horowitz says something else. Horowitz calling Plame a rogue agent is just insane. As far as why send Wilson, it might be because of his connections. He did the job, and history has shown us that he came to the correct conclusion. I don't see what the problem is. Wilson went found out that there was nothing going on between Niger and Iraq that was a threat to us. Once in Iraq we found that Saddam didn't have an ongoing nuke program, and Wilson was absolutely correct. Once again though, it is a sideshow to detract from the real issue. It is irrelevent what Wilson did or didn't do. Exposing Plame was wrong and isn't really a related issue to what Wilson did in Niger except as motivation that goes along with the whitehouses modus operendi.
Not everybody that works for the CIA works undercover. Here's an interesting article I found: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/na...=bal-nationworld-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true If Saddam had tried to buy yellow cake from Niger wouldn't it have been clandestine? Sounds like just the kind of job for someone who works in intelligence and not diplomacy to delve into. I find it odd and I don't understand why you don't.
Wasn't his conclusion that he "found no evidence?" History cannot prove that wrong or right. The White House may have bit back for sure. I don't see the crime. She was a desk jockey and had been for years.
You can call her a desk jockey. There are many others who work at headquartes who's status is still NOC. You don't know if they had planned to send her back in the field the week after Novak's column. That option was taken away from her. No matter what her current position was, she had an official status. That status was an NOC. To expose that is wrong. But not only Plame's cover was blown. The cover of her 'front' business was blown. That also provided a cover business for people who were in the field. That was all blown, and contacts who weren't just desk jockies were affected. Where she serves the country from is not the issue. She we act like an operative who's expertise is in WMD's isn't important because she was at hq? Would you go to an army base in the U.S. and tell them their job is ok to use for political revenge because they aren't currently on the frontlines in Iraq? Do you honestly think it is ok to take away resources(Valerie Plame) from the war on terror specially qualified in WMD all for a motive of political revenge simply because this resource does her work from Langley? As for Wilson he mentioned in his report that the official from Niger believed Iraq had sought to buy Uranium. He also investigated it and concluded that it wasn't a threat. Now that we've been in Iraq we see that is conclusion was correct. He accomplished his mission.
Dude, you really need to stop arguing these things until you have some kind of basic understanding of the CIA, how it works, what different people within the organization do, how they are classified, etc. You really have no understanding of what you're talking about at this point.
Excellent, excellent post. Has anyone thought about how remarkable it is that the closest advisor to the President, who is his assistant Chief of Staff, Rove, and the Chief of Staff of the Vice-President, Libby, were the sources for the Plame leaks? How unbelievable is that! We're supposed to believe that it's just an innocent occurance? Does anyone here still believe in the Tooth Fairy?? Keep D&D Civil!!
