1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Was Karl Rove the source of the Plame leak. . .

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by KingCheetah, Jul 2, 2005.

  1. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,800
    Likes Received:
    41,241
    What did Nixon hope to gain by breaking into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate Hotel? It made absolutely no sense. None. Nada. He had that election so won that it resembled one of those affairs in Soviet Eastern Europe, it was such a slam dunk.

    Sometimes, people do things that have no logic and make no sense. For some perspective in regards to the noise we've been hearing from the White House, and other places, here is a brief description and the reaction from the Nixon White House. Some may notice a striking resemblance to affairs happening today.



    On June 17th 1972, Frank Wills, a security guard working at the office complex of the Watergate Hotel, Washington, D.C., noticed a piece of tape on the door between the basement stairwell and the parking garage. It was holding the door unlocked, so Wills removed it, assuming the cleaning crew had put it there. Later, he returned and discovered that the tape had been replaced. Wills then contacted the D.C. police.

    After the police came, five men — Bernard Barker, Virgilio González, Eugenio Martínez, James W. McCord, Jr. and Frank Sturgis — were discovered and arrested for breaking into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. The men had broken into the same office three weeks earlier as well, and had returned intending to fix wiretaps that were not working and, according to some, to photograph documents.

    The need to break into the office for a second time was just the highlight of a number of mistakes made by the burglars. Another, the telephone number of E. Howard Hunt in McCord's notebook, proved costly to them — and the White House — when found by the police. Hunt had previously worked for the White House, while McCord was officially employed as Chief of Security at the Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP), later commonly referred to as CREEP. This quickly suggested that there was a link between the burglars and someone close to the President. However, Nixon press secretary Ron Ziegler dismissed the affair as a "third-rate burglary". Though the burglary occurred at a sensitive time, with a looming presidential campaign, most Americans initially believed that no President with Nixon's advantage in the polls would be so foolhardy or unethical as to risk association with such an affair.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal


    I remember it well. The apathy of Americans, brought about by the "ridiculous" idea that the Nixon White House could be so demonstratively stupid, was something I fought literally until I went into the voting booth to vote for Senator George McGovern. My own father, a JFK Democrat, had decided to cross party lines and vote against McGovern, a war hero in WWII, who had erroneously been painted as some sort of wacko leftist Commie sympathizer by the Nixon campaign. Until I pulled aside the curtain, I said, again and again, in different ways, hoping to make him change his mind, "Dad, Nixon's a crook! You're making a mistake!" Later, when the dust settled, he told me, "Son, I made a mistake. You were right. Nixon was a crook and a shame upon America. I'm sorry I didn't listen to you." Words like that were more precious than gold, coming from my father. I don't think he voted for a Republican again. Fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice, shame on me. He wasn't fooled again.



    Keep D&D Civil.
     
  2. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,428
    Likes Received:
    9,326
    I still cherish my invitation to the '72 inaugural... Actually Deck, it's stuff like this, along with the Big Lie that Bush Lied that makes it so hard to take democratic criticisms seriously. you do your cause no favors by wadding through the fever swamps, no matter what you think might be quacking out there in the dark.
     
  3. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,800
    Likes Received:
    41,241
    That's cool that you were able to go. It must have been quite an experience for a 14 year old. That's the age of my son. I don't know what the hell that other gibberish is, however. You see what you want to see. Continue with your delusions. It saddens me.



    Keep D&D Civil.
     
  4. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471

    Didn't get to go to that. But my dad (who was in the Air Force and worked at Andrews Air Force base at the time) pulled me out of school to watch Nixon get on his helicopter. I was 12 at the time.


    [​IMG]
     
  5. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,428
    Likes Received:
    9,326
    actually i didn't go. i did some grunt work in our local office for kit bond's governor's race (missouri), and somehow got on a list. still, it's kinda nice to have.

    the other "gibberish" referrs to the continual outlandish comparisons that have been leveled at Bush. Hitler, Pol Pot, Nixon, the list goes on and on. this kind of stuff i typically associate with the michael moore wing og the democratic party, although dean himself has indulged in it. i thought, based on the preponderance of your earlier posts, that you were more reasonable. feel free to correct me if that's a misconception.

    the point is, bush is not faultless, but by continuing to level the most baseless of charges, you make it difficult to have a rational discussion about his presidency. certainly i've contributed to that dynamic, but i'm trying to be better. i'd welcome your help.
     
  6. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,689
    Likes Received:
    16,226
    Hitler and Pol Pot are now on the same level as Nixon? Wow.
     
  7. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,814
    Likes Received:
    20,475
    I would venture a guess that most people wouldn't nominate you for the judge on what is reasonable and not reasonable on political discussions. Not that there is anything wrong with that, I doubt anyone would nominate me either. But I try and hold back passing those judgements on others.

    I don't think Bush is a Hitler or a Pol Pot by any stretch of the imagination. It is silly to compare him. There are specific actions or tactics that might be similar to but to really compare Bush with that group is ridiculous.

    However, most of the charges leveled at Bush such as the fact that he lied, have been backed up with evidence. It is fine to counter the evidence, or refute it, or discuss it, and I think all of that is rational for a debate. I think it makes good debate. And I understand being bothered by seeing what you feel are baseless charges leveled at someone. If you wish you can start a thread of all the charges that you feel were leveled without any support, and those opposed to Bush can either provide evidence to be debated, or you show them to be exactly that, baseless charges. I think it would be a great idea. You can toss out those charges you feel to baseless in any thread, and if I read it, I promise I will try and answer them with as much valid support as I can find. If I can't find any I will admit that the charge can't be backed up.

    I am pleased to hear that you are trying to help with rational discussions. I couldn't be more ecstatic. I wish this board would have a dozen more Bush supporters all eager and willing to discuss the issues in a rational way.

    Best of luck, and let me know if you start a thread so we can discuss/dispell any charges you feel to be baseless.
     
  8. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
    We're missing another very important point here.

    Why would Woodward do this? Why would he not tell or write about this two years ago? He could have changed a national election. He could have had another watergate.

    IMHO the reason could be that he has become rich, lazy and dare I say it? republican. He's writing books about the administration, has basically unfettered access to the administration. He's been on TV the last two years poo pooing the Fitzgerald investigation knowing what he knew!

    I hope Fitzgerald grilled the hell out of him and if it shows that he was protecting the administration, when his PROFESSION requires that he say or write what he knows?!

    It's criminal I tell ya!
     
  9. KingCheetah

    KingCheetah Atomic Playboy
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    59,079
    Likes Received:
    52,748
    Yeah, this is very odd to me as well -- why go out of your way to blow off the investigation when you have intimate knowledge of what is going on?

    Hmmm...

    This little adventure just keeps on giving.
     
  10. gifford1967

    gifford1967 Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    4,655

    Basso's contribution to rational discussion on the BBS is starting threads like this-

    Batman, your buddy McCain says you're lying
     
  11. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,800
    Likes Received:
    41,241
    I'll reply with most of a post I made to Svpernaut in another thread, but first I'd like to express my puzzlement at how you characterize me. I've never seen Moore's movie about Bush. I've never looked at MoveOn's website. I didn't vote for Dean in the primary. I didn't vote him in to be head of the Democratic Party, nor would I have done so. You keep asking me to address the "substance" of the discussion. In my opinion, I have done that time and again. Apparently, because it disagrees with your views, you choose to look at it from a lens of your own making.

    At any rate, this is where I'm at...

    Look, I liked the movie Patton myself. I've seen it about 6 times. George C. Scott was incredible in the role. Iraq is not WWII. It isn't a movie. It didn't, sadly, have a leader like Patton prior to the invasion, or we would never have gone in with half the troops we should have, or disbanded the Iraqi military, a shocking, grossly stupid decision you can lay with the man you support, the fellow where the buck stops, the guy responsible, George W. Bush. Patton, as you will recall, was for keeping the German military together and going straight at the Soviet Union. He would never have condoned tossing away the one remaining force for stability in Iraq, the military.

    Think about it. Your guy made one mistake after another. He replaced those who fought to go in with a much, much larger force, pre-invasion. He didn't send in several more divisions early on, after the invasion, when it might have made a difference. I could go on. Your guy blew it, and we are paying the price for his incompetence today.

    I don't get it. I respect you for being passionate about your beliefs, but I just don't get it. I won't get into the religious aspect of any of this, because I am agnostic. I will say this, however... one doesn't need to be religious, or have religion, to know that torture is wrong, that invading a sovereign nation that wasn't a clear and present danger to our country was wrong, that misleading the nation into going into that war was wrong. That to keep incompetent advisors, and to promote them, when they have failed you and the nation is wrong. That, and so much more. And the worst thing that people could do today is to keep quiet about the failures of this President. Bush and his party need to be punished where it hurts, at the polling booths across America. To sit back and say nothing at a time like this is the act of a coward, in my opinion, or the act of someone divorced from reality. If ever the people of this country needed to shout to the rooftops the gross incompetence and abject failures of a President and his Administration, it is now. Bush and his party have failed our country. Voting them out of power at the earliest opportunity is the best thing we could do for our armed forces, and it is the America system of punishing politicians who have led us down the path of ruination and despair.



    Keep D&D Civil.
     
  12. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,428
    Likes Received:
    9,326
    well, there it is then. and the nixon comparison? that was just hyperbole?
     
  13. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,814
    Likes Received:
    20,475
    So if I understand correctly you feel that Deckard's charges that Bush and his administration have lead us down a path of dispair and damaged our nation are baseless or over the top rhetoric?

    Since this is the feeling shared by a lot folks who oppose this president, I will try and explain the rationale as best I can.

    First - For someone to feel this way and have this kind of reaction there has to have been a deep love America prior to this.

    Second - I don't think anyone would argue that our nation stood for human rights and campaigning for human rights, and not taking excuses from dictators who abused human rights.

    Third - For the most part, in wars the U.S. has stood for defending allies, or itself. We have not been the agressor seizing territory when we weren't at risk.

    Fourth - America was founded on principles of freedom of speech. People who disagreed could still be American, but have different ideas of how things should be run. This very freedom is one of the top things that America great.

    Bush has destroyed or severely eroded all of these things.

    1. People who love the United States and these things about it will be upset seeing those principles destroyed.

    2. We may have occasionally been guilty of torture, but it was never a good thing, and it was never sanctioned by the govt. Now we have a president who despite soaring deficits and spending never once use his veto power. The one issue on which he is now threatening to use his veto power is a provision that cements the idea that we don't use torture. We have an administration that wants to sanction torture by a nation that should be a beacon of progressive human rights, and freedom. That upsets people who value the principles we have always stood for.

    3. Iraq did not pose a threat to the U.S. at the time of invasion. We saw how easily we defeated Iraq at a time when there army was twice the size it was this invasion. And at that time he actually had WMD's. Iraq was defeated easily. Furthermore there other things such as inspectors and deals for verification on the table. Those were working, but by not using all other options and starting a war, America lost its place as a champion defender in the world, and became an agressor. For people who loved America's role as a defender this was troubling.

    4. When people are upset by these things the administration doesn't address their concerns and try to civilly work out a solution, they attack their critics claiming that they are actually helping our nations enemies and somehow have animosity towards the troops serving our country. They arrest people who wear t-shirts that they don't like at political gatherings, they deride and attack people in their own administration who didn't like the very things I mentioned above. They have gone out of their way to silence critics. For those of us that loved the idea that we are all free to express our different views, and believed that exercising our freedoms made us stronger, and not weaker, this was troubling.

    There are a whole other list of issues that was hard to take for people who loved America and were proud of it. We lost credibility, we weren't seen advocators of enviromental protection but as enemies to protecting the environment, etc. We were proud of our place in the world, and what the U.S. stood for. Watching that be stripped away makes people upset.

    You may believe that all the actions of the administration doesn't have the effects I mentioned, or that even if it does it isn't bad for America, and there is room for disagreement. But I do believe that Deckard's comments weren't baseless or over the top hyperbole.
     
  14. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,800
    Likes Received:
    41,241
    FB made a much longer reply than I had intended (thanks, FB!), so I'll make this short. Why do you say my comparison with Nixon is "hyperbole?" I think the comparison, at this point, is very apt. It may turn out that the Libby indictment is as far as this goes. I don't think that is the case, but it's certainly possibe. However, if the Plame Affair drags other members and former members of the Administration into a legal morass due in part because of a cover-up, then the situation's very similar. The early denial that there is nothing to it, the lying to cover up the fact that there was, and the subsequent indictment of those involved in both the original act, and in the cover-up.

    How is that "hyperbole?" It's, in my opinion, reasonable speculation. As for the part of my previous post that was bolded, some of us keep being accused of somehow harming the troops by speaking out against the actions of the Administration. I find that ludicrous, and strongly believe that the Administration and the Republican Congress should pay a price at the polling booths across this country, come election day, for their record. By keeping silent, in my opinion, Bush, his Administration, and the Republican Congress are being rewarded for what I consider to be gross incompetence. That's not how our system works, and the troops in the field should be as aware of that as anyone else in the country.

    We're not going to sit around like meek little dormice while the most partisan Administration and Congress in my memory accuses those who disagree with them of being partisan and "playing the blame game." If you think that is what the opposition should do, then you have somehow misplaced your understanding of our system, with all due respect.

    And dammit, hurry up and find it! ;)



    Keep D&D Civil.
     
  15. dragonsnake

    dragonsnake Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    1
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051118...NCWrw0b.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

    Fitzgerald sees new grand jury proceedings By Adam Entous
    22 minutes ago



    Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said in court filings that the ongoing CIA leak investigation will involve proceedings before a new grand jury, a possible sign he could seek new charges in the case.

    In filings obtained by Reuters on Friday, Fitzgerald said "the investigation is continuing" and that "the investigation will involve proceedings before a different grand jury than the grand jury which returned the indictment" against Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

    Fitzgerald did not elaborate in the document. For two years he has been investigating the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. The grand jury that indicted Libby expired after the charges were filed late last month.

    President George W. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, was not indicted along with Libby. But lawyers involved in the case said Rove remained under investigation and may still be charged.

    Earlier this week Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward disclosed that he testified under oath to Fitzgerald that a senior Bush administration official had casually told him in mid-June 2003 about CIA operative Valerie Plame's position at the agency.

    Fitzgerald's comments about bringing proceedings before a different grand jury were contained in court filings in which he backed off seeking a blanket order to keep all documents in the CIA leak case secret.
     
  16. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,800
    Likes Received:
    41,241
    And so it goes. The Administration has tried so hard to pretend that this is all behind them. I don't believe it is, by a long shot. We'll have to see what unfolds. Bush has approval numbers lower than Nixon's, at the same point in their second term. That's pretty astonishing, considering what was going on with Tricky Dick. The "perfect storm" continues to rage around the Bush Administration. The bad news from all directions seems never-ending.



    Keep D&D Civil.
     
  17. dragonsnake

    dragonsnake Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    1
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1880016,00.html
    Security adviser named as source in CIA scandal
    Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter

    THE mysterious source who gave America’s foremost journalist, Bob Woodward, a tip-off about the CIA agent at the centre of one of Washington’s biggest political storms was Stephen Hadley, the White House national security adviser, according to lawyers close to the investigation.
    Woodward, the Washington Post reporter who broke the Watergate scandal that forced President Richard Nixon out of office, has refused publicly to divulge the name of his informant without permission, which has thus far been withheld.



    The naming of CIA agent Valerie Plame as the wife of Joseph Wilson, the former US ambassador sent to Niger to investigate disputed claims that Saddam Hussein was trying to purchase uranium yellowcake for the manufacture of nuclear weapons, led to the indictment last month of Vice-President Dick Cheney’s top aide, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, for lying to a grand jury.

    It is an offence in America to reveal the identity of a covert agent, although doubts remain about Plame’s precise status.

    A spokeswoman for the National Security Council (NSC) denied that Hadley was the journalist’s source. However, in South Korea on Friday during an official visit with President George W Bush, Hadley dodged the question.

    “I’ve also seen press reports from White House officials saying that I am not one of his sources,” Hadley said with a smile. Asked if this was a yes or no he replied: “It is what it is.”

    A White House official said the national security adviser’s ambiguity was unintentional and repeated that Hadley was not Woodward’s source. But others close to the investigation insisted that he was.

    If so, according to Woodward’s timeline, he will have disclosed the information in mid-June 2003, roughly a week before Libby talked to other reporters on June 23. Supporters of Cheney’s disgraced aide are jubilant that this casts doubt on special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s contention that Libby was the first to spread the word about Plame.

    When Woodward realised this, he went back to his informant. “My source said he or she had no alternative but to go to the prosecutor. I said, ‘If you do, am I released?’ The source said yes, but only for the purpose of discussing it with Fitzgerald.” Woodward testified under oath to the special prosecutor last Monday.

    Woodward said the unnamed official told him about Plame in “an offhand, casual manner . . . almost gossip” and “I didn’t attach any importance to it”. He never wrote up the story.

    With more journalists in the loop than previously identified, it will be harder for Fitzgerald to prove Libby was deliberately lying when he said he first learnt of Plame from a journalist rather than the CIA.

    Two years ago, when Plame’s identity was first revealed, Hadley was Condoleezza Rice’s deputy at the NSC. He is also thought to have been a key source for two books by Woodward on the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

    Other potential suspects have been denying they are Woodward’s source. Cheney has come under suspicion, although sources close to the investigation claim he is not in the frame.

    Fitzgerald may want to interview Woodward’s informant and declared in court filings on Friday that proceedings would continue under a new grand jury. Supporters of Karl Rove, the top White House adviser known as “Bush’s brain”, also fear Fitzgerald may still be investigating him.

    Woodward declined to confirm or deny that Hadley had leaked him the information.

    It is familiar territory for the Washington Post journalist, who kept the name of Deep Throat, his Watergate informant, secret for more than three decades until Mark Felt, the former deputy director of the FBI, outed himself this year.

    Yet colleagues at the Washington Post have been criticising him on their internal message board. One accused Woodward of being the “800-pound elephant in the room”, adding: “I admire the hell out of Bob, but this looks awful.”
     
  18. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
  19. KingCheetah

    KingCheetah Atomic Playboy
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    59,079
    Likes Received:
    52,748
    Woodward said the unnamed official told him about Plame in “an offhand, casual manner . . . almost gossip” and “I didn’t attach any importance to it”.
    ______________

    I seriously doubt Woodward's claim that this news was relayed in any sort of sensational manner.
    ___

    Bush and Cheney told everyone in the administration to get the word out and destroy the careers Wilson and Plame.
     
  20. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    Do you have a source for this accusation or did you just leave off the "I think..."
     

Share This Page