NationStates Jolt Archive

http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-07-11T220330Z_01_N11512522_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-LEAK-DC.XML

Well apparently they said they would fire anyone involved so i think it's not only the decent thing to do but the Bush Administration evil-meter will go down several notches.

Other Democrats urged Bush to sideline Rove by suspending his access to classified information and said the deputy White House chief of staff should "clear the air" by answering questions from Congress. Another lawmaker said the intentional disclosure of a covert agent's identity amounted to an "act of treason."

Certainly is an act of treason. If he blew the cover of a CIA agent, which is a federal crime, he must go, and be prosecuted.

Question. Is there any proof that Rove knew she was undercover?

Question. Is there any proof that Rove knew she was undercover?

Would you go to the press to out someone who wasn't undercover?

How would he not know she was undercover? What possible reason would there be for exposing her cover? It seems apparent he committed a federal crime.

Certainly is an act of treason. If he blew the cover of a CIA agent, which is a federal crime, he must go, and be prosecuted.

I think someone showed pretty conclusively in another thread that it isn't treason but not being a lawyer and having a horrible memory, that's all I can tell ya :p

It doesn't matter. He blew her cover, it's pretty conclusive. What more needs to be said, besides sentencing?

where's the option that says "kill the evil bastard"? :mp5: :mp5:

How would he not know she was undercover? What possible reason would there be for exposing her cover? It seems apparent he committed a federal crime.
Because, in the interview he said she was a cia agent, not all of which are by any means undercover, working on a nuclear arms commitee, or whatever it was she was working on. I am unsure of CIA policy and whether it would announce the status of it's agents to all and sundry in the whitehouse. It is quite possible that Rove did not know she held undercover status.

It doesn't matter. He blew her cover, it's pretty conclusive. What more needs to be said, besides sentencing?


It's conclusive that the cover was blown but is it conclusive that Rove was definitely involved?

I just got off the phone with Karl Rove, who said your wife was fair game."
-- MSNBC host Chris Matthews, in a phone call to Ambassador Joseph Wilson after the exposure of Wilson's wife as an undercover CIA operative.

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.

Er, yeah. I think Rove knew. Its just whether or not he can get out of this one. Rove's pretty good at getting out of things.

Er, yeah. I think Rove knew. Its just whether or not he can get out of this one. Rove's pretty good at getting out of things.
Not really, as he obviously knew the two things that Cooper could easily use to deduce that Plame was undercover. All Cooper needed to figure it out was her name, with the name of her husband as a bonus. He looks her up, finds out that her purported occupation has nothing to do with the CIA, puts 2 and 2 together and figures Plame for an undercover agent.

Not really, as he obviously knew the two things that Cooper could easily use to deduce that Plame was undercover. All Cooper needed to figure it out was her name, with the name of her husband as a bonus. He looks her up, finds out that her purported occupation has nothing to do with the CIA, puts 2 and 2 together and figures Plame for an undercover agent.

I see what you're saying now. I deleted the quote that didn't make sense to your argument.

There's also this from Wikipedia:

On 6 July 2005, Cooper agreed to testify, thus avoiding being held in contempt of court and sent to jail. Cooper said "I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions for not testifying," but told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance at court he had received "in somewhat dramatic fashion" a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep his source's identity secret. For some observers this called into question the allegations against Rove, who had signed a waiver months before permitting reporters to testify about their conversations with him (see above paragraph). [35] Cooper, however, stated in court that he did not previously accept a general waiver to journalists signed by his source (whom he did not identify by name), because he had made a personal pledge of confidentiality to his source. Citing a "person who has been officially briefed on the case," The New York Times identified Rove as the individual in question,[36] a fact later confirmed by Rove's own lawyer.[37] According to one of Cooper's lawyers, Cooper has previously testified before the grand jury regarding conversations with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr., chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, after having received Libby's specific permission to testify.[38]

IF Rove is involved, fire him.

well, rice is secretary of state, wolfowitz is head of the world bank and tenet was awarded the congressional medal of freedom, so i assume nothing will happen to rove. in a perfect world, he'd be charged...

There's also this from Wikipedia:

On 6 July 2005, Cooper agreed to testify, thus avoiding being held in contempt of court and sent to jail. Cooper said "I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions for not testifying," but told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance at court he had received "in somewhat dramatic fashion" a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep his source's identity secret. For some observers this called into question the allegations against Rove, who had signed a waiver months before permitting reporters to testify about their conversations with him (see above paragraph). [35] Cooper, however, stated in court that he did not previously accept a general waiver to journalists signed by his source (whom he did not identify by name), because he had made a personal pledge of confidentiality to his source. Citing a "person who has been officially briefed on the case," The New York Times identified Rove as the individual in question,[36] a fact later confirmed by Rove's own lawyer.[37] According to one of Cooper's lawyers, Cooper has previously testified before the grand jury regarding conversations with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr., chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, after having received Libby's specific permission to testify.[38]

Certainly is an act of treason. If he blew the cover of a CIA agent, which is a federal crime, he must go, and be prosecuted.

It IS a federal crime, but it is not treason.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-rove11.html

"Newsweek says that while the e-mail shows that Rove talked to Cooper about the couple, the e-mail doesn't suggest that Rove revealed Plame's name or CIA status."

Seems like he's ok by this statement.

Where's the "watch him get perp-walked out of the White House in cuffs" option?

Seriously, though, much as I would like to see the above happen, it won't. My prediction is that this will get tied up in court past the 2006 election and Bush will pardon him and a bunch of others in the administration before he leaves office, probably after the '08 election, since even if some of them are convicted, they'll be appealing until the cows come home. I'd like to see justice served on these people, but I have no real hope that it will actually happen, especially on Rove--he knows where the bodies are buried (and you can decide if I mean that literally or figuratively).

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-rove11.html

"Newsweek says that while the e-mail shows that Rove talked to Cooper about the couple, the e-mail doesn't suggest that Rove revealed Plame's name or CIA status."

Seems like he's ok by this statement.
It also depends on Cooper's testimony.

The way McClellan stonewalled today tells me that some people in the White House are shitting themselves over this. Two years ago, when Plame was outed, McClellan was talking big in his denials that anyone in the White House was involved. Today, it was nothing but "we're not commenting on an ongoing investigation," which sounds reasonable enough until you factor in that when McClellan made his original denials, an investigation was already well underway. Today, McClellan wouldn't even answer a question as to whether or not he'd consulted a personal attorney.

There is a shitstorm in the White House, folks, a veritable shitstorm.

Rove is a pigsucker and should be shot for treason! I believe hes guilty. I can look at his ugly mug and see it. :eek: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

Rove is a pigsucker and should be shot for treason! I believe hes guilty. I can look at his ugly mug and see it. :eek: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

I believe in you. I believe you can see the guilt in men's facial features. I will kill for you. Or at least, I would kick someone in the shins for you.
How 'bout it? Let's go kick Rove in the shin.

It IS a federal crime, but it is not treason.

How was it treason for that reporter to publish the name, and no reveal his source, but not for Rove to leak the name in the first palce? If that's really the way the law works, this country's in more trouble than I even thought.

How was it treason for that reporter to publish the name, and no reveal his source, but not for Rove to leak the name in the first palce? If that's really the way the law works, this country's in more trouble than I even thought.
The crime that was committed does not fall under the very restrictive definition of treason--that's why it's not truly treason. It is, however, a serious violation of federal to out an undercover agent, whether by naming, in this case, her or providing enough clues as to her identity that she could be outed.

Look very closely at how carefully Rove has parsed his statements on this subject--last year, he told a reporter, "I didn't leak her name," which may be true so far as it goes. According to one of the emails Newsweek printed today, Rove apparently told Cooper that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent who worked on WMD. If that's not tantamount to outing an undercover agent, then what is?

As far as I'm concerned its treason all around. They jeapordized the life of one of our protectors, therefore they undermined our national security. All over some petty inter-departmental politics. And I've never liked Bob Novak either.
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

^read my heading^

How was it treason for that reporter to publish the name, and no reveal his source, but not for Rove to leak the name in the first palce? If that's really the way the law works, this country's in more trouble than I even thought.

Easy. Because the reporter must be a goddamned liberal, and they are traitors anyway. So she commits treason just by blinking. But Rove, as a conservative, can do no wrong. So, IF he did do this, he won't get into any trouble, because thems good ol' boys gots to stick tugither.
I think that the fat fuck likes to pretend he is powerful and just shot his mouth off to impress someone. No, I really don't. I do not know the context, because I really don't care.

Apologies if you have seen this before but its great.


http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2895

I think mr Rove has a few more questions to answer ;)

He probably had his orders...

He probably had his orders...

Thats no excuse. Always question illegal orders.

I think I will call this one: The Great Ham Scandal, because Rove is a pig

I would personally take it a step further, not only should he be fired, he should be indicted. He committed treason. This whole dance that he and the White House are doing about "Maybe he didn't even know he was giving out top secret info" is bull... 1) If he didn't know that, he's a complete idiot and should not be in the position he now holds. Not to mention we all know Karl Rove is the brains behind Bush, so this theory is highly doubtful that he didn't know. 2) Lets for argument sake say he didn't know. Any lawyer will tell you that ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.

So no matter how you slice it, Karl Rove is a criminal and should be treated as such!

How was it treason for that reporter to publish the name, and no reveal his source, but not for Rove to leak the name in the first palce? If that's really the way the law works, this country's in more trouble than I even thought.

That wasn't treason either. That was contempt of court. Treason is a word people like to throw around to make their opponents seem worse than they really are. In reality, however, treason is a very restrictive term that only applies to certain crimes committed under very specific circumstances.

I would personally take it a step further, not only should he be fired, he should be indicted. He committed treason. This whole dance that he and the White House are doing about "Maybe he didn't even know he was giving out top secret info" is bull... 1) If he didn't know that, he's a complete idiot and should not be in the position he now holds. Not to mention we all know Karl Rove is the brains behind Bush, so this theory is highly doubtful that he didn't know. 2) Lets for argument sake say he didn't know. Any lawyer will tell you that ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.

So no matter how you slice it, Karl Rove is a criminal and should be treated as such!


I guess we can just throw out the whole foundation of the US legal system, you know that whole "Innocent until proven guilty" thing. ;)

BTW did you know that Rove, Chaney, and even Haliburton were the basis for Satan in the bible?

If that "secret agent" was so concerned about her "cover", she really didn't do a good job at hiding her id. You know that whole Vanity Fair photo thing, and her hubby's website. Her husband is an ass-clown anyway.

mr rove should be arrested and given a fair trial for this very serious charge. firing him should be the least of his problems.

I guess we can just throw out the whole foundation of the US legal system, you know that whole "Innocent until proven guilty" thing. ;)

Haven't you heard? Some conservative judges are trying to do away with those "silly laws that hold up our legal system". People like Ted Poe want to do away with the whole "innocent until proven guilty" factor.

I guess we can just throw out the whole foundation of the US legal system, you know that whole "Innocent until proven guilty" thing. ;)

He's been named by very credible sources, even has said it was him but didn't know it was top secret. But sure, I'll wait to see how just the legal system turns out to be. ;)

mr rove should be arrested and given a fair trial for this very serious charge. firing him should be the least of his problems.

I can't see him getting a fair trial in America

Haven't you heard? Some conservative judges are trying to do away with those "silly laws that hold up our legal system". People like Ted Poe want to do away with the whole "innocent until proven guilty" factor.

Have you heard that certain liberal judges like to spinal pith cute little puppies? Seriously, regardless of people's opinions, we still are "innocent til proven guilty", unless of course you get investigated by the IRS.

I can't see him getting a fair trial in America

Neither can I. Then again, I can say the same for everyone who gets put on trial in this "great" country.

I can't see him getting a fair trial in America

That's if the bastard ever see's the inside of a court room. I mean can you just imagine if they had caught the Clinton administration doing this? Kenneth Star would be still orgasmic. (no pun intended)..lol

Have you heard that certain liberal judges like to spinal pith cute little puppies? Seriously, regardless of people's opinions, we still are "innocent til proven guilty", unless of course you get investigated by the IRS.

Wow, what a comeback. You post something of absolutely no relevance, because you know what I said is true. Ted Poe even aired commercials about his stance on the issue (in Texas, anyway). 'Tis true, what you say about the IRS, though.

*shudder*

He's been named by very credible sources, even has said it was him but didn't know it was top secret. But sure, I'll wait to see how just the legal system turns out to be. ;)

"Credible" sources is a silly statement on your part. Why has the NY Times refused to let their reporter sit in jail instead of revealing her source? What are they hiding? If Rove were guilty, why would he have allowed Cooper to reveal him as the source?

That's if the bastard ever see's the inside of a court room. I mean can you just imagine if they had caught the Clinton administration doing this? Kenneth Star would be still orgasmic. (no pun intended)..lol

Yeah, they'd've assembled a mob outside the White House at first light.

Yeah, they'd've assembled a mob outside the White House at first light.

You just have to love Bush and Clinton, they are truely teflon men. Nothing sticks to any of them. I would love to have that power, could come in mighty handy. :)

Seriously, the government has so many secrets, the public deserves to know SOME of them! Who cares if a CIA operatives name is leaked? Just give him a desk job and DON'T send him on an undercover operation! Besides, its not going to hurt the U.S.A., because sadly enough, its the strongest country in the world!

You just have to love Bush and Clinton, they are truely teflon men. Nothing sticks to any of them. I would love to have that power, could come in mighty handy. :)

I don't like either of them --- Especially Bush (though I do respect Clinton to a certain extent).

And why would anyone in their right mind give power to somebody who uses the name "Halliburton"?

Neither can I. Then again, I can say the same for everyone who gets put on trial in this "great" country.

I don't know your system that well but it seems that if your famous your not guilty.

I don't know your system that well but it seems that if your famous your not guilty.

That's true, for the most part, as such famous people often have the money to get a "magic" lawyer.

The way it goes in Texas, though, is "you're guilty until proven innocent". So many wrongful imprisonments and executions... And, one of the main reasons for this is the HPD (Houston Police Department) Crime Lab's tampering with evidence. It's not known if they're being paid to do this, but they often throw out evidence, mix DNA results, and fudge paperwork to get innocent people put in prison (and sometimes executed).

I don't know your system that well but it seems that if your famous your not guilty.

How true, it seems all famous people in this country can get away with anything, even murder. But Roove isnt that famous, so for all i know, he might get the needle for leaking an operatives name. You wonder why i hate america?

I don't know your system that well but it seems that if your famous your not guilty.


That's the understatement of the year.

And why would anyone in their right mind give power to somebody who uses the name "Halliburton"?

Why, is "Haliburton" the devil incarnate?

Why, is "Haliburton" the devil incarnate?

No, but they're not very respectable, considering they've been given billions to contract the "rebuilding" of Iraq...

...If you know what I mean *coughcough*Cheney*coughcough*.

No, but they're not very respectable, considering they've been given billions to contract the "rebuilding" of Iraq...

...If you know what I mean *coughcough*Cheney*coughcough*.

Oh no!! :eek:

Everyone knows, but is too afraid to say, that america invaded Iraq for the oil and to expand its territory. Personnaly, i dont have anything against that. If i was president, I'd say "CANADA HAS MASSED NUKES!" just so that i could invade canada, take it over, and increase my, I MEAN, americas wealth.

That's true, for the most part, as such famous people often have the money to get a "magic" lawyer.

The way it goes in Texas, though, is "you're guilty until proven innocent". So many wrongful imprisonments and executions... And, one of the main reasons for this is the HPD (Houston Police Department) Crime Lab's tampering with evidence. It's not known if they're being paid to do this, but they often throw out evidence, mix DNA results, and fudge paperwork to get innocent people put in prison (and sometimes executed).

Thats some scary stuff. and when you have been sentenced I'm assuming the rate of overturns isn't high ?

How true, it seems all famous people in this country can get away with anything, even murder. But Roove isnt that famous, so for all i know, he might get the needle for leaking an operatives name. You wonder why i hate america?

Ahhh but Rove has Mr Bush and his wonderful presidential pardon. You know what you should do. Throw him in Gitmo bay for four years then try him ;)

Thats some scary stuff. and when you have been sentenced I'm assuming the rate of overturns isn't high ?

98% of defendants in Harris County (Houston area) are found guilty. 0% of those convicted have ever gotten an appeal.

Ahhh but Rove has Mr Bush and his wonderful presidential pardon. You know what you should do. Throw him in Gitmo bay for four years then try him ;)

After that, they should throw him back for some more "fun". See how he likes it, eh?

Ahh Gitomo bay, the great scandal of the 21st century. I watched something on the history channel last night that talked about that. Apparently its perfectly fine for the government to do that. So i suppose if i join the government, i can just say those bodies in my basement were interrigation victims... j/k, or AM I? anyways it is apparently OK for the government to torture prisoners for information

98% of defendants in Harris County (Houston area) are found guilty. 0% of those convicted have ever gotten an appeal.

Now thats some real scary stuff. No offence Texans but I think I might pass on visiting that particular state

After that, they should throw him back for some more "fun". See how he likes it, eh?


Could you throw me in there too? I need a vacation, and I heard that Cuba is lovely, esp this time of the year.

98% of defendants in Harris County (Houston area) are found guilty. 0% of those convicted have ever gotten an appeal.
mmmmm, Texas justice

Now thats some real scary stuff. No offence Texans but I think I might pass on visiting that particular state

C'mon now, they do give you a "fair" trial before they hang you!

C'mon now, they do give you a "fair" trial before they hang you!

I'm sure they would its just the result I wouldn't be happy about

Now thats some real scary stuff. No offence Texans but I think I might pass on visiting that particular state

The entire state isn't this way. It's just the Houston area, all the way to Humble (about 70-ish miles from Houston, where the state prison is). The rest of the state, as far as court cases go, is fine.

I have to agree with most of "Big Haliburtons" comments. I do however find the definition of, "Undercover", in this case to be interesting. Apparently an "Undercover" CIA agent commutes to Langley on a regular basis?

The entire state isn't this way. It's just the Houston area, all the way to Humble (about 70-ish miles from Houston, where the state prison is). The rest of the state, as far as court cases go, is fine.

Yes, as far as court cases go. NEVER NEVER GO TO THE SOUTHERN BORDER OF TEXAS!!!!! Im not kidding, so many new illegal immigrants commming in from mexico, bring a gun otherwise thier gonna mug you for your clothing!

Yes, as far as court cases go. NEVER NEVER GO TO THE SOUTHERN BORDER OF TEXAS!!!!! Im not kidding, so many new illegal immigrants commming in from mexico, bring a gun otherwise thier gonna mug you for your clothing!

100% Grade-AA Bullshit, if I ever saw it.

I lived in the Rio Grande Valley for a few years, and the Mexican immigrants there are some of the nicest people you'll ever meet. In fact, I don't remember there being any murder reports when I lived down there (1990-1991, 1997-1998).

There is no story here, just press pandamonium and political hacking.

100% Grade-AA Bullshit, if I ever saw it.

I lived in the Rio Grande Valley for a few years, and the Mexican immigrants there are some of the nicest people you'll ever meet. In fact, I don't remember there being any murder reports when I lived down there (1990-1991, 1997-1998).

Well apparently my friend and his wife and kids were walking along the border fence, (BTW, im talking about ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, not people who have enough money to actually BUY a green card), four mexicans came out of a hole they were apparently digging, and mugged them for thier clothes!

Who cares if a CIA operatives name is leaked? Just give him a desk job and DON'T send him on an undercover operation!

Who cares? Gee, I wonder who might care! Lets see, maybe every single person Valerie Plame ever came into contact with as an acting CIA agent, while pretending to be something else? Yeah, they might care. Sure, just give her a desk job, that might protect her, but what about all the contacts she has made around the world? Think their governments will just give them a desk job? Come on, use your head here please.

Well apparently my friend and his wife and kids were walking along the border fence, (BTW, im talking about ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, not people who have enough money to actually BUY a green card), four mexicans came out of a hole they were apparently digging, and mugged them for thier clothes!

And that means everyone there is like that? Ugh.

What is it with people like you, anyway?

There is no story here, just press pandamonium and political hacking.

we really have gotten quite off topic, havent we?

I have to agree with most of "Big Haliburtons" comments. I do however find the definition of, "Undercover", in this case to be interesting. Apparently an "Undercover" CIA agent commutes to Langley on a regular basis?


See, my biggest problem with this whole thing is Plames' husband, Joe Wilson. He by all accounts is a liar and a loser. Something smells awfully fishy about this whole thing.

It is funny that certain folks are trying to make this one stick. Anything to get at Bush I reckon.

Well apparently my friend and his wife and kids were walking along the border fence, (BTW, im talking about ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, not people who have enough money to actually BUY a green card), four mexicans came out of a hole they were apparently digging, and mugged them for thier clothes!

And that means everyone there is like that? Ugh.

What is it with people like you, anyway? Oh, and making the term "illegal immigrant" sound like some form of pure evil is a great way to get me to think you're a good person. Yeeeeeah. :rolleyes:

Who cares? Gee, I wonder who might care! Lets see, maybe every single person Valerie Plame ever came into contact with as an acting CIA agent, while pretending to be something else? Yeah, they might care. Sure, just give her a desk job, that might protect her, but what about all the contacts she has made around the world? Think their governments will just give them a desk job? Come on, use your head here please.

HOW CAN THE GOVERNMENTS FIND OUT THEY WERE PLAMES CONTACTS?!?!?!?! BTW, i am actually not using my head here, im just putting down what comes into my subconcious, not my concious.

See, my biggest problem with this whole thing is Plames' husband, Joe Wilson. He by all accounts is a liar and a loser. Something smells awfully fishy about this whole thing.

Wilson is a liar? Do tell what you base this brilliant conclusion on? Your inside knowledge of the workings of the CIA? :rolleyes:

The only thing that smells bad here is how vindictive the White House is if you don't agree with them or don't back up their many, many lies.

And that means everyone there is like that? Ugh.

What is it with people like you, anyway? Oh, and making the term "illegal immigrant" sound like some form of pure evil is a great way to get me to think you're a good person. Yeeeeeah. :rolleyes:

Illegal Mexican immigrants are not all bad. 95% of them are honest, hardworking folks. The ones who I get to do my yard work are decent, family men. Infact, I've had supper with them and their families.

And that means everyone there is like that? Ugh.

What is it with people like you, anyway? Oh, and making the term "illegal immigrant" sound like some form of pure evil is a great way to get me to think you're a good person. Yeeeeeah. :rolleyes:

I personnaly dont think im a good person at all! i am guilty of all seven sins christians say are deadly to the soul, etc. etc. im not trying to sound like a good person, and illegal immigrants are really just trying to survive, so i dont consider them evil

I can't see him getting a fair trial in America
in what way do you think he wouldnt receive a fair trial?

Wilson is a liar? Do tell what you base this brilliant conclusion on? Your inside knowledge of the workings of the CIA? :rolleyes:

The only thing that smells bad here is how vindictive the White House is if you don't agree with them or don't back up their many, many lies.

*hands Steph a cookie --- not just any cookie. the kind with the huge chunks of chocolate, mixed with the smaller bits and morsels*

Illegal Mexican immigrants are not all bad. 95% of them are honest, hardworking folks. The ones who I get to do my yard work are decent, family men. Infact, I've had supper with them and their families.

Any respect I might've had for you just flew right out the window.

Well apparently my friend and his wife and kids were walking along the border fence, (BTW, im talking about ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, not people who have enough money to actually BUY a green card), four mexicans came out of a hole they were apparently digging, and mugged them for thier clothes!
damn Mexicans...why don't we just nuke 'em all :rolleyes: How about you become part of the Minuteman Project in Southern Arizona? You can shoot as many brownies as you want! :rolleyes: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

*hands Steph a cookie --- not just any cookie. the kind with the huge chunks of chocolate, mixed with the smaller bits and morsels*

wtf?

*hands Steph a cookie --- not just any cookie. the kind with the huge chunks of chocolate, mixed with the smaller bits and morsels*

Whooo, why thank you. Yummy too! :cool:

Any respect I might've had for you just flew right out the window.

lol, dont blame him, i must agree, illegal mexican immigrants ARE GREAT cheap labor, you can pay them minimum wage and they wont complain! infact, 80% of the workers at my factory were illegal immigrants who i got green card so they could work at my factory for minimum wage! (im the "big guy" at my factory, saying i run the place)

lol, dont blame him, i must agree, illegal mexican immigrants ARE GREAT cheap labor, you can pay them minimum wage and they wont complain! infact, 80% of the workers at my factory were illegal immigrants who i got green card so they could work at my factory for minimum wage! (im the "big guy" at my factory, saying i run the place)

...

Wilson is a liar? Do tell what you base this brilliant conclusion on? Your inside knowledge of the workings of the CIA? :rolleyes:

The only thing that smells bad here is how vindictive the White House is if you don't agree with them or don't back up their many, many lies.

Well, he lied about being ordered by the White House to go to Africa to check on this yellowcake business. He was not sent there by the White House. Thus he is discredited in my eyes.

As per the bolded section: The White House got the independent prosecuter to investigate this in the first place. The WH and the press secretary are not allowed to talk about this as they are under a sort of gag order. As to their "many, many lies", well this is politics and every administration has had "many, many lies". I'm sure your precious Canada is completely honest to it's citizens. ;)

...

Potaria, are you mexican? because thats the only reason i can see to why your getting so pissed at me, and the fact that im having great fun with pissing you off.

Potaria, are you mexican? because thats the only reason i can see to why your getting so pissed at me, and the fact that im having great fun with pissing you off.

No, I'm very, very Irish and chalky-white.

Pissed off? No. I am, however, displeased.

No, I'm very, very Irish and chalky-white.

Pissed off? No. I am, however, displeased.

well then, shall i make an insult towards irish people for you?

Well, he lied about being ordered by the White House to go to Africa to check on this yellowcake business. He was not sent there by the White House. Thus he is discredited in my eyes.

No, the CIA sent him to prove the trumped up charges made against Saddam. You're so right, I'm sure the White House had no interest in that at all. I mean it's not like Bush & co were trying to go to war with Saddam on anything they could find. I mean it's not like the CIA director reports to the White House daily or anything. That's not what happened at all...oh wait.. I'm sure Wilson didn't even go to the meetings. Sheesh, give us a break!

Any respect I might've had for you just flew right out the window.


Why? You don't know me, or how I do things. I pay my 2 guys $10 an hour each, and they usually work close to 40 hours a week. They get cash and a place to sleep while they are here during the week. Do you know just how far $400 a week in US cash will go in Mexico?

Potaria, are you mexican? because thats the only reason i can see to why your getting so pissed at me, and the fact that im having great fun with pissing you off.

What the hell does this have to do with Karl Rove anyway? Do try to stay on topic. Thank you.

Why? You don't know me, or how I do things. I pay my 2 guys $10 an hour each, and they usually work close to 40 hours a week. They get cash and a place to sleep while they are here during the week. Do you know just how far $400 a week in US cash will go in Mexico?

$400 a week for two mexicans? are you rich or something?

What the hell does this have to do with Karl Rove anyway? Do try to stay on topic. Thank you.

like i said in one of my earlier quotes, we all are incredibly off topic.

Why? You don't know me, or how I do things. I pay my 2 guys $10 an hour each, and they usually work close to 40 hours a week. They get cash and a place to sleep while they are here during the week. Do you know just how far $400 a week in US cash will go in Mexico?

Ah, so you're not one of the asshats who pays them $3 an hour (that's an average rate around here for Mexican yardworkers...). Good on your part!

About Rove: If he's found guilty? Hmm... How about punishing him to the full extent of the law? He'd do that to anyone else, so let's see how he likes it.

We're At Our 100th Reply On This Topic! Lets Celebrate Everyone!

this topic seems to dying, so i bid you all adiou, and potario, i am racist, and, IRISH PEOPLE SUCK!

No, the CIA sent him to prove the trumped up charges made against Saddam. You're so right, I'm sure the White House had no interest in that at all. I mean it's not like Bush & co were trying to go to war with Saddam on anything they could find. I mean it's not like the CIA director reports to the White House daily or anything. That's not what happened at all...oh wait.. I'm sure Wilson didn't even go to the meetings. Sheesh, give us a break!

That's where you are incorrect. Wilson has said publicly, his wife, did not recommend him for the Niger investigation. Wilson could only offer a non sequitur and a lame denial:

Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday, saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."

One of the most stunning revelations contained in the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the CIA is that virtually everything Joseph Wilson has said about his trip to Niger, and the report that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger, is a lie.

First, contrary to what Wilson has said publicly, his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, did recommend him for the Niger investigation:

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.
Confronted yesterday with the Senate report, Wilson could only offer a non sequitur and a lame denial:

Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday, saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."
Further, the Senate report indicates that Plame and Wilson, from the beginning, had an absurdly biased view of the subject Wilson was supposed to be investigating: "The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, 'there's this crazy report' about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq."

As has been widely reported, Wilson conducted a half-baked investigation into the uanium report. But here is the most astonishing fact uncovered by the Senate Intelligence Committee: in his book and in countless interviews and op-ed pieces over the past year, Wilson has been lying about the contents of his own report to the CIA!:

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."
"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.

Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."

According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.


So: what Wilson actually told the CIA, contrary to his own oft-repeated claims, is that he was told by the former mining minister of Niger that in 1998, Iraq had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium from that country, and that Iraq's overture was renewed the following year. What Wilson reported to the CIA was exactly the same as what President Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address: there was evidence that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa.

Recall Wilson's famous op-ed in the New York Times, published on July 6, 2003, which ignited the whole firestorm over the famous "sixteen words" in Bush's State of the Union speech. In that op-ed, Wilson identified himself as the formerly-unnamed person who had gone to Niger to investigate rumors of a possible uranium deal between Iraq and Niger. Here are the key words in Wilson's article:

[I]n January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa. The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.
It was this flat-out lie about what Wilson learned in Niger, and what he reported to the CIA upon his return, that fueled the "sixteen words" controversy and led to the publication of Wilson's best-selling account, titled, ironically, The Politics of Truth.

One can only conclude that Joseph Wilson has perpetrated one of the most astonishing hoaxes in American history. But here is what I really don't get: didn't the administration have access to all of this information about Wilson's report? And if so, why didn't they use it when Wilson was dominating the news cycle with his lies?


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007135.php

BTW it is believed that Ames blew Plames cover over ten years ago when he gave those names to the Russians.

That's where you are incorrect. Wilson has said publicly, his wife, did not recommend him for the Niger investigation. Wilson could only offer a non sequitur and a lame denial:

Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday, saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."

One of the most stunning revelations contained in the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the CIA is that virtually everything Joseph Wilson has said about his trip to Niger, and the report that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger, is a lie.

First, contrary to what Wilson has said publicly, his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, did recommend him for the Niger investigation:

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.
Confronted yesterday with the Senate report, Wilson could only offer a non sequitur and a lame denial:

Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday, saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."
Further, the Senate report indicates that Plame and Wilson, from the beginning, had an absurdly biased view of the subject Wilson was supposed to be investigating: "The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, 'there's this crazy report' about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq."

As has been widely reported, Wilson conducted a half-baked investigation into the uanium report. But here is the most astonishing fact uncovered by the Senate Intelligence Committee: in his book and in countless interviews and op-ed pieces over the past year, Wilson has been lying about the contents of his own report to the CIA!:

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."
"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.

Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."

According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.


So: what Wilson actually told the CIA, contrary to his own oft-repeated claims, is that he was told by the former mining minister of Niger that in 1998, Iraq had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium from that country, and that Iraq's overture was renewed the following year. What Wilson reported to the CIA was exactly the same as what President Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address: there was evidence that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa.

Recall Wilson's famous op-ed in the New York Times, published on July 6, 2003, which ignited the whole firestorm over the famous "sixteen words" in Bush's State of the Union speech. In that op-ed, Wilson identified himself as the formerly-unnamed person who had gone to Niger to investigate rumors of a possible uranium deal between Iraq and Niger. Here are the key words in Wilson's article:

[I]n January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa. The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.
It was this flat-out lie about what Wilson learned in Niger, and what he reported to the CIA upon his return, that fueled the "sixteen words" controversy and led to the publication of Wilson's best-selling account, titled, ironically, The Politics of Truth.

One can only conclude that Joseph Wilson has perpetrated one of the most astonishing hoaxes in American history. But here is what I really don't get: didn't the administration have access to all of this information about Wilson's report? And if so, why didn't they use it when Wilson was dominating the news cycle with his lies?


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007135.php

BTW it is believed that Ames blew Plames cover over ten years ago when he gave those names to the Russians.

I actually read through the whole thing, DAMN BITCH THATS A HUGE MESSAGE!

$400 a week for two mexicans? are you rich or something?

Just lucky! :p

Seriously, I am lucky to live in such a great nation as the US.

whoo, source is a blog.. I'm impressed.. NOT!

whoo, source is a blog.. I'm impressed.. NOT!

As opposed to your sources? Enjoy your cookie, maybe you should get your hubby to help you out, again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson

Is that source a little better? Wilson is of questionable credibility.

As opposed to your sources? Enjoy your cookie, maybe you should get your hubby to help you out, again?

I don't source blogs, I source credible news agencies! (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/interviews/wilson.html)

I don't source blogs, I source credible news agencies! (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/interviews/wilson.html)

My source is just as trustworthy as an interview with Wilson on PBS. Try again.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005375

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/337paflu.asp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle

http://slate.msn.com/id/2103795

Are any of these credible in regards to his credibility?

I think Rove should be nominated to the Supreme Court, then all of you folks could really hate him. :rolleyes:

My source is just as trustworthy as an interview with Wilson on PBS. Try again.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005375

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/337paflu.asp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle

http://slate.msn.com/id/2103795

Are any of these credible in regards to his credibility?

Opinion pieces are not "sources" they're "opinion"

The only real "news" story there was the Washington Post, while a conservative paper, I believe it's as credible as an American paper can be. However even that article doesn't make it real clear of anything, other than it would appear the only thing that is clear is that they are confused. Certainly doesn't say Wilson is a liar.

I think Rove should be nominated to the Supreme Court, then all of you folks could really hate him. :rolleyes:

Hahaha, now that is funny, given he's not even a judge and on the verge of being indicted..lol :p

Anyone else watch Scott McClellan during the press briefing yesterday? Looked like someone shit in his cereal, to steal a phrase from Kevin Smith. He kept giving the same answer over and over--we don't comment on ongoing investigations--even when the press, in a rare moment of aggression, called bullshit on him.

Big Haliburton, all the rest of the noobs on this thread (who I suspect are puppets of one type or another), you can save it. Rove is going down, and if there's any justice, he'll spend some time in jail for what he's done. Rove's actions don't meet the legal definition of treason, but they were most certainly in violation of federal law, and he ought to rot for it.

If that "secret agent" was so concerned about her "cover", she really didn't do a good job at hiding her id. You know that whole Vanity Fair photo thing, and her hubby's website. Her husband is an ass-clown anyway.

There used to be a hilarious guy in my unit that said 'ass-clown' alot.

Thats no excuse. Always question illegal orders.
Hey, on my watch, just being part of that clique should be enough to land you in jail...
What I am saying is that you could probably go looking for the one who gave the orders (Cheney maybe?) and sniff around there, rather than once again blame the middle man.

Hey, on my watch, just being part of that clique should be enough to land you in jail...
What I am saying is that you could probably go looking for the one who gave the orders (Cheney maybe?) and sniff around there, rather than once again blame the middle man.
I'm betting that Rove is the guy who gave the orders--it fits his M.O. as a dirty tricks political operative. He's always been shameless in the past--why should this be any different?

Because, in the interview he said she was a cia agent, not all of which are by any means undercover, working on a nuclear arms commitee, or whatever it was she was working on. I am unsure of CIA policy and whether it would announce the status of it's agents to all and sundry in the whitehouse. It is quite possible that Rove did not know she held undercover status.
Your talents are whining away here - try hooking up with Fox or Clear Channel where this kind of thinking/opinionating/apologetic behaviour stands as rational thought. Really, do yourself a favour.

FUN FACT: they go to the same *church*!!!! FLORT! :)

I don't know your system that well but it seems that if your famous your not guilty.


Unless you're a famous woman. Then you are automatically guilty. martha Stewart

My source is just as trustworthy as an interview with Wilson on PBS. Try again.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005375

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/337paflu.asp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle

http://slate.msn.com/id/2103795

Are any of these credible in regards to his credibility?
Sounds the same as our dipf*ck Rep. Don Young, when asked about global warming and decisions he may or may not have been a part of to contribute .... "My opinion is as valid as any scientist's."
...except that he doesn't have an inkling of a degree in any scientific measure whatsoever and hasn't actually reviewed most of the material involved, nor worked with anyone in the field long enough to have included any joint-venture understanding of the subject to be regarded as experienced in the matter.
:rolleyes:

http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-07-11T220330Z_01_N11512522_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-LEAK-DC.XML
I'm probably not the only one ....
Maybe a little tweak to the options here .... there isn't a visceral enough choice. Methinks something along the lines of Fargo ....
something about a tree shredder.

Hey, on my watch, just being part of that clique should be enough to land you in jail...
What I am saying is that you could probably go looking for the one who gave the orders (Cheney maybe?) and sniff around there, rather than once again blame the middle man.

Hmm.. good point.

I'm probably not the only one ....
Maybe a little tweak to the options here .... there isn't a visceral enough choice. Methinks something along the lines of Fargo ....
something about a tree shredder.
followed by an eternity in the deepest pits of hell

There is no story here, just press pandamonium and political hacking.
Perhaps you have a different idea of what the word "story" means ... care to enlighten us knaves?

followed by an eternity in the deepest pits of hell
....as long as he doesn't hang in a truly desperate suburb of he*doublehockeysticks*, since that kind of despair causes any f*cking idiot to follow someone with savvy and/or charisma - not to look at him, but he sure seems to have the right wing on his side .... i guess that says something.
*sigh*
BTW - Clock's Butt, Oklahoma? Where's that?

wtf?
You might consider hanging around a bit longer, you might get some of the draftier posts and the ones that are clearly requiring more conscious concentration .... methinks you posted something indicating a less-than-singular perspective in such regard.
*hands you a cookie that pales in comparison to the first one*

well then, shall i make an insult towards irish people for you?
*gets out the popcorn, notes Ritlina in the guestbook*

....as long as he doesn't hang in a truly desperate suburb of he*doublehockeysticks*, since that kind of despair causes any f*cking idiot to follow someone with savvy and/or charisma - not to look at him, but he sure seems to have the right wing on his side .... i guess that says something.
*sigh*
BTW - Clock's Butt, Oklahoma? Where's that?
lol, where'd you get Oklahoma from?

Anyone else watch Scott McClellan during the press briefing yesterday? Looked like someone shit in his cereal, to steal a phrase from Kevin Smith. He kept giving the same answer over and over--we don't comment on ongoing investigations--even when the press, in a rare moment of aggression, called bullshit on him.

Big Haliburton, all the rest of the noobs on this thread (who I suspect are puppets of one type or another), you can save it. Rove is going down, and if there's any justice, he'll spend some time in jail for what he's done. Rove's actions don't meet the legal definition of treason, but they were most certainly in violation of federal law, and he ought to rot for it.

They've been ordered not to comment on an ongoing investigation. What part of that don't you get? Remember how Clintons' peeps wouldn't comment on his many ongoing investigations?


As per the bolded: I'm glad you are personally involved in the investigation. Maybe you can get some of that anger out of yourself. It really is unhealthy.

Here ya go Nazz, I'm sure you'll try to discredit the info in this post, but try to read it anyway. ;)

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/2/22/120736.shtml

Ex-Prosecutor: Plame Leak Not Illegal

The former prosecutor who helped draft the law that Democrats say was violated when someone in the Bush administration leaked a CIA worker's name to columnist Robert Novak now says that no laws were broken in the case.

Writing with First Amendment lawyer Bruce Sanford in the Washington Post recently, former Assistant Deputy Attorney General Victoria Toensing explained that she helped draft the law in question, the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Says Toensing, "The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct."
For Plame's outing to have been illegal, the one-time deputy AG says, "her status as undercover must be classified." Also, Plame "must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years."

Since in neither case does Plame qualify, Toensing says: "There is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as 'covert.'"

The law also requires that the celebrated non-spy's outing take place by someone who knew the government had taken "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the U.S., a prospect Toensing says is unlikely.

Other signs that no laws were broken include the fact that after Plame was outted, the CIA's general counsel took no steps to prosecute Novak, as has been done to other reporters under similar circumstances.

Neither did then-CIA Director George Tenet or his deputy pick up the phone to tell Novak that the publication of her name would threaten national security and her safety, as is also routinely done when the CIA is serious about prohibiting publication.

In fact, the myth that laws were violated in the Plame case began to unravel in October 2003, in a column by New York Times scribe Nicholas Kristof, who explained that Valerie Plame had abandoned her covert role a full nine years before.

"The C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given [Plame's] name [along with those of other spies] to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons."

Kristof also noted that Plame had begun making the transition to CIA "management" even before she was outted, explaining that "she was moving away from 'noc' – which means non-official cover ... to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without having 'C.I.A.' stamped on her forehead."

Noted the Timesman: "All in all, I think the Democrats are engaging in hyperbole when they describe the White House as having put [Plame's] life in danger and destroyed her career; her days skulking along the back alleys of cities like Beirut and Algiers were already mostly over."

So why – with a special prosecutor now threatening to toss Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller in jail if they don't give up their sources in the Plame case – aren't their lawyers invoking the "no laws were broken" defense?

Explains the National Review's Rich Lowry: The Miller-Cooper defense hasn't made this argument because it would be too embarrassing to admit that the Bush administration's "crime of the century" wasn't really a crime at all, especially after a year and a half of media chest-beating to the contrary.

"It was just a Washington flap played for all it was worth by the same news organizations now about to watch their employees go to prison over it," says Lowry.

"That's the truth that the media will go to any length to avoid."

They've been ordered not to comment on an ongoing investigation. What part of that don't you get? Remember how Clintons' peeps wouldn't comment on his many ongoing investigations?
First of all, the fact that there was an ongoing investigation didn't stop McClellan from claiming innocence for all involved in 2003, so it's a bit late to bring that excuse out, especially since we'd have to assume that the party line hasn't changed. If they were innocent in '03, then they ought to be innocent now, right?

Unless someone lied to the grand jury or to federal agents, in which there's a whole new set of charges--perjury, lying to an investigator, obstruction of justice, etc. I suspect that there's more at play here than just the outing of an undercover agent.

As to Toensing's argument in the post above, there's a couple of problems with it. First, if Plame hadn't been NOC, then the CIA wouldn't have referred the complaint to the Justice department. It's that simple. In CIA's judgment, Plame was covert--otherwise, this investigation never starts. Secondly, if this was as simple as Toensing makes it out to be, then Fitzgerald would have wrapped it up a long time ago.

And as to Toensing, well, she helped draft the law during the Reagan administration, which would mean, well, she could be just the teeniest bit partisan on this issue.

As to my anger, thanks for the concern. I tend to get a little huffy when the White House blows the cover of a CIA operative for political gain, but then again, I'm a patriotic American. So tell me again why you're not concerned about this? Do you hate America or something?

As to my anger, thanks for the concern. I tend to get a little huffy when the White House blows the cover of a CIA operative for political gain, but then again, I'm a patriotic American. So tell me again why you're not concerned about this? Do you hate America or something?

You are a patriot? hahaha, please it hurts when I laugh. I love America more then you ever could.

She was not a covert CIA operative. Can't you understand that fact? She was not assigned to covert operations since Ames was busted and the CIA thought she may have been outed. Wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to have a potentially compromised agent working in the field, would it?

BTW I thought you libs hated the CIA alot, now you come to it's defence? Nice! Whatever stupid ways that you can try to get to the President, right?
"It's not about the evidence, it's the seriousness of the charges that warrants an investigation!"

First of all, the fact that there was an ongoing investigation didn't stop McClellan from claiming innocence for all involved in 2003, so it's a bit late to bring that excuse out, especially since we'd have to assume that the party line hasn't changed. If they were innocent in '03, then they ought to be innocent now, right?



They were not under the gag order back in 03 that they are today.

You are a patriot? hahaha, please it hurts when I laugh. I love America more then you ever could.

This sort of stuck out for me.. I, of course don't know any of you in real life, but it would seem to me that "The Nazz" loves America more than you do "Big Haliburton" my reasoning is because of what America was founded on.. and The Nazz seems way closer to that ideal than you do. The Nazz appears to grasp and understand what you apparently are having a hard time with. Just a simple observation...

You are a patriot? hahaha, please it hurts when I laugh. I love America more then you ever could.

She was not a covert CIA operative. Can't you understand that fact? She was not assigned to covert operations since Ames was busted and the CIA thought she may have been outed. Wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to have a potentially compromised agent working in the field, would it?

BTW I thought you libs hated the CIA alot, now you come to it's defence? Nice! Whatever stupid ways that you can try to get to the President, right?
"It's not about the evidence, it's the seriousness of the charges that warrants an investigation!"
It's you who doesn't understand the facts of the case, so I'll explain them to you. Slowly.

CIA referred the case to the Department of Justice. Why? Because one of their covert agents had been outed. Did you get that? I'll write it again.

CIA told Justice that one of their covert agents had been outed.

Who's in a better position to know if an agent was covert than the CIA? Short answer--no one. Had Justice not believed CIA, or found the referral to be groundless, the current investigation would not be taking place.

So what can we glean from this? Plame was covert. No matter what your little Newsmax stories or Powerline bloggers try to tell you, it comes back to this--if Plame wasn't covert, then none of this happens.

Got it?

And I'm not going to get into a "I'm more patriotic than you" pissing contest. All I know is that no matter what party the president is, outing a CIA agent and sabotaging national security to make political points is not patriotic, and neither is defending it. Time to step up, bub--if you're a patriot, if you think national security is important, then you've got to condemn this. Defend Rove and you defend what is, to my mind, treason.

This sort of stuck out for me.. I, of course don't know any of you in real life, but it would seem to me that "The Nazz" loves America more than you do "Big Haliburton" my reasoning is because of what America was founded on.. and The Nazz seems way closer to that ideal than you do. The Nazz appears to grasp and understand what you apparently are having a hard time with. Just a simple observation...

What exactly was this nation founded on?

I'd like to hear that from a rabid anti-American like yourself.

*grabs a cookie*

Go ahead Steph--fuck him up. :D

What exactly was this nation founded on?

I'd like to hear that from a rabid anti-American like yourself.

1) I am not anti-American, I am anti-Bush administration. 50% of America agrees with me.

2) If you don't know what America was founded on, I'm not about to give you a history lesson.

It's you who doesn't understand the facts of the case, so I'll explain them to you. Slowly.

CIA referred the case to the Department of Justice. Why? Because one of their covert agents had been outed. Did you get that? I'll write it again.

CIA told Justice that one of their covert agents had been outed.

Who's in a better position to know if an agent was covert than the CIA? Short answer--no one. Had Justice not believed CIA, or found the referral to be groundless, the current investigation would not be taking place.

So what can we glean from this? Plame was covert. No matter what your little Newsmax stories or Powerline bloggers try to tell you, it comes back to this--if Plame wasn't covert, then none of this happens.

Got it?

And I'm not going to get into a "I'm more patriotic than you" pissing contest. All I know is that no matter what party the president is, outing a CIA agent and sabotaging national security to make political points is not patriotic, and neither is defending it. Time to step up, bub--if you're a patriot, if you think national security is important, then you've got to condemn this. Defend Rove and you defend what is, to my mind, treason.

You are totally off base. The CIA was pressured by her husband to try to get at the Bush administration. Who was the head of the CIA at the time? Tenet, who was a big, big fan of Clinton, and not exactly a friend of the WH. Pull the blinders off Nads.

If Rove was really guilty, then why would he give Cooper and Miller, PERMISSION to reveal what he spoke to them about? Can you answer that? Cooper revealed, Miller was not allowed too by HER bosses at the NYT. Why is the NYT letting her rot in jail. Rove gave her permission to disclose to the prosecuters anything he may have said to her. Me thinks, there was another source of the actual leak. Someone potentially embarassing to the Times and or the Democrats.

Besides the fact that Rove has not been charged with anything in a court of law, much less convicted, yet you have already convicted him? And you call yourself a patriot. Nice. Sort of forgot about that whole innocent until proven guilty thing, which is the cornerstone of our entire country. Not surprising from a lib like you, I'm sure you screamed that Clinton was guilty of everything he did or didn't do, and also when Sandy Burglar stole documents from the Nat'l Archieves. :rolleyes:

1) I am not anti-American, I am anti-Bush administration. 50% of America agrees with me.

2) If you don't know what America was founded on, I'm not about to give you a history lesson.


49%. Get it right.

The posts that you and your "well educated hubby" made leave no doubt just what you think about America.

I know what America was founded on. I just wanted to hear a Canadian socialist version of it, just for S & G's.

Big Haliburton, give it up while you still can. While granted I don't know either of you, it is obvious that "The Nazz" has probably forgotten more than you'll ever know. I don't say that as an insult, just read the dudes/dudette's? posts! It's rather obvious.

*grabs a cookie*

Go ahead Steph--fuck him up. :D


Yeah, over the internet. :rolleyes:

Yeah, over the internet. :rolleyes:

Oh, I don't know, even intelligence shows in text.. I will say no more.. I believe I've made my position quite clear.

A bigger question, is how did Rove know she was a CIA agent? who told him?

Really though, of course the opposite party will cry for his blood no matter if he was involved or not..doesnt matter...because hes a big fat juicy target for them....facts dont matter they will just get in the way..

Youre never going to know the truth about this story people. Its already been tainted politically as you can tell.

Sad thing in america today is that political people no longer do what is best for the country and will harm the country as much as they see fit if it would politically make the other side look bad.

This can easy be seen in the United States as Democrats actively undermine the war effort (Motto in a poltical science book: A typical democrat would rather lose a war then take orders from a non democrat, they are typicall arrogent and feel they are superior to any non-democrat) Obviously this motto has been proven true time and again, and republicans undermind investigations into some strange activies within. (motto: republicans tend to forget about the little people in their countries, they tend to be heavy pro-business even at the cost of the individual, they are weak in political attacking, and rarely can counter the constant bombardment)

Big Haliburton, give it up while you still can. While granted I don't know either of you, it is obvious that "The Nazz" has probably forgotten more than you'll ever know. I don't say that as an insult, just read the dudes/dudette's? posts! It's rather obvious.

Sorry, but I know a great deal more about actual gov't dealings then Nazz or you will ever know.

It's rather obvious that if you can't answer my questions, just condemn me as being ignorant. It always works here on NS.

Please answer the question: "What were the principles that the US of A founded on?" From someone so knowledgable of America, I figured it would be easy for a Canadian to answer.

Oh, I don't know, even intelligence shows in text.. I will say no more.. I believe I've made my position quite clear.

Intelligence does not show in text. Thanks for attempting to talk down to me.

I'm off to make obscene profits and maybe help cover up some WH misdeeds.

What exactly was this nation founded on?
A piece of paper, no more and no less.

And in another thread I had someone define Patriotism as "sometimes going against the government". The newspeak meaning was "supporting your government".
You seem to be going down the newspeak way, considering you're desperately looking for legal reasons why some guy shouldn't be punished, although he's obviously done something wrong.

You are totally off base. The CIA was pressured by her husband to try to get at the Bush administration. Who was the head of the CIA at the time? Tenet, who was a big, big fan of Clinton, and not exactly a friend of the WH. Pull the blinders off Nads.

If Rove was really guilty, then why would he give Cooper and Miller, PERMISSION to reveal what he spoke to them about? Can you answer that? Cooper revealed, Miller was not allowed too by HER bosses at the NYT. Why is the NYT letting her rot in jail. Rove gave her permission to disclose to the prosecuters anything he may have said to her. Me thinks, there was another source of the actual leak. Someone potentially embarassing to the Times and or the Democrats.

Besides the fact that Rove has not been charged with anything in a court of law, much less convicted, yet you have already convicted him? And you call yourself a patriot. Nice. Sort of forgot about that whole innocent until proven guilty thing, which is the cornerstone of our entire country. Not surprising from a lib like you, I'm sure you screamed that Clinton was guilty of everything he did or didn't do, and also when Sandy Burglar stole documents from the Nat'l Archieves. :rolleyes:The same Tenet who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Oh ho. Never mind--I had hoped that reason might be a part of any discussion with you. I see that hope was ill-founded. Go have fun playing uber-patriot, little man.

Here's the opinion of Greg Palast just in case you enjoy his point of view.

MR. ROVE AND THE ACCESS OF EVIL (http://www.gregpalast.com)
Tell Us Your "Source," Judy

Not published in The New York Times
Tuesday, July 12, 2005

By Greg Palast

The only thing more evil, small-minded and treacherous than the Bush
Administration's jailing Judith Miller for a crime the Bush
Administration committed, is Judith Miller covering up her Bush Administration
"source."

Judy, Karl Rove ain't no "source." A confidential source -- and I've
worked with many -- is an insider ready to put himself on the line to
blow the whistle on an official lie or hidden danger. I would protect a
source's name with my life and fortune as would any journalist who's not
a craven jerk (the Managing Editor of Time Magazine comes to mind).

But the weasel who whispered "Valerie Plame" in Miller's ear was no
source. Whether it was Karl Rove or some other Rove-tron inside the Bush
regime (and no one outside Bush's band would have had this information),
this was an official using his official info to commit a crime for the
sole purpose of punishing a REAL whistleblower, Joseph Wilson, Plame's
husband, for questioning our President's mythological premise for war
in Iraq.

New York Times reporter Miller and her paper would rather she go to
prison for four months than identify their "source." Why?

Part of her oddball defense is that The Times never ran the story about
Wilson's wife. They get no points for that. The Times SHOULD have run
the story with the headline: BUSH OPERATIVE COMMITS FELONY TO PUNISH
WHISTLEBLOWER. The lead paragraph should have been, "Today, Mr. K--- R---
[or other slime ball as appropriate] attempted to plant sensitive
intelligence information on The New York Times, a felony offense, in an
attempt to harm former Ambassador Joseph Wilson who challenged the
President's claim regarding Iraq's nuclear program."

A Karl Rove or Rove-like creature peddling a back-door smear doesn't
make him a source. Miller's real crime is not concealing a source, but
burying the story. A reporter should never, ever give notes to a grand
jury, but this information is something The Times owes the PUBLIC, not
the prosecutors.

Why didn't The Times run this story? Why not now? Who are they covering
for and why?

Maybe the problem for The Times is that this is the same "source" that
used Miller to promote, as fact, her ersatz report before the invasion
of Iraq that Saddam truly had nukes and bugs and chemicals he could
launch at Los Angeles. That "source" too needs publication, Judy.

Every rule has an exception. My mama always told me to "compliment the
chef" at dinner. But that doesn't apply when the chef pees in your
soup. Likewise, there's an exception to the rule of source protection. When
officialdom uses "you-can't-use-my- name" to cover a lie, the official
is not a source, but a disinformation propagandist -- and Miller and
The Times have been all too willing to play Izvestia to the Bush's
Kremlinesque prevarications.

And that is what Miller is protecting: the evil called "access."

The great poison in the corpus of American journalism is the lust for
tidbits of supposedly "inside" information which is more often than not
inside misinformation parading as hot news.

And thus we have Miller sucking on the steaming sewage pipe of White
House lies about Iraq and spitting it out in the pages of The Times as
"investigative reporting," for which The Times has apologized. Likewise,
we had the embarrassment of Bob Woodward's special access to the Oval
Office after the September 11 attacks when Woodward reported the
exclusive news that the President was a flawless commander in chief in the war
on terror -- for which Woodward has yet to apologize.

While reporting from the Potemkin village of decision-making set up for
him at the White House, Woodward missed the real story that, in the
words of the Downing Street memo, our leaders were losing track of Osama
while they spent their time "fixing the intelligence" on Iraq. Even if
Woodward learned of it, would he have reported it at the risk of losing
his access to evil?

As Karl Rove chuckles and Judy does time, we are left to ask, What are
Miller and The New York Times doing: protecting the name of a source or
covering up their conduit to the Bush gang's machinery of deception?

One can only be sympathetic to Miller for choosing jail over bending to
the power of the State. But as T.S. Eliot said,

"The last temptation is the greatest treason,
To do the right deed for the wrong reason."

1) I am not anti-American, I am anti-Bush administration. 50% of America agrees with me.

Actually, that number could only be verified as about 30%, seeing as 40% of eligible voters did not vote in the last election.

Actually, that number could only be verified as about 30%, seeing as 40% of eligible voters did not vote in the last election.
Could make the same argument about the percentage of the country that supports Bush, then. The way I feel about it is that if you're too apathetic to vote, then neither side can claim you as a supporter. Ergo, Stephistan's 50% claim is about right. Of course, if you want to bring in opinion polls for a closer look at the current situation, her number would go up a touch, but based strictly on the last election, a number closer to 48 or 49% would be more accurate.

Not only should Rove be tried for Treason, but fired on the spot, as Bush promised whoever was the leak would be.

Except for the fact that Rove is the reason Georgie is in office, and theres no way that Bush will allow Rove to face justice.

You know what Bush's nickname for Rove is?

"Turd Blossom"

Because its his job to make shit come out smelling like roses.

I wish I were making this up.

Do some reading on what Rove has done and his kind of morals and ethics...or lack thereof I should say.

I know I'm getting into something that a rational person shouldn't -- a pat-ourselves-on-the-back session with liberal, Bush-haters, but here goes, anyway.

This is all a bunch of nonsense about Rove. So far, there's nothing new. Rove came clean about what he said a long time ago, testified to a grand jury and has been told by the special prosecutor that he's not a target. If he's not a target then that would mean that the prosecutor does not believe that Rove committed a crime. Time magazine has confirmed that Rove was one of reporter Matthew Cooper's sources on a piece he wrote identifying Valerie Plame as working for the CIA. This has been translated by the Democrats and the media into a story whereby Karl Rove "outed" a CIA undercover agent.

Here's something for you to think about ... assuming, of course, that you aren't so deeply entrenched in the liberal mentality that the idea of actually thinking about something is out of the question. Where do we get the idea that Valerie Plane was an undercover agent for the CIA when Rove had his conversation with Time Magazine Reporter Matthew Cooper? From Bush critic Joe Wilson and from the media, that's where. At no time has there been any confirmation that Plame was covert. If she wasn't covert, there is no crime.

Did Rove cross a line...screw up...make a mistake? You can make that case. His motive was to prevent Cooper from reporting false facts in a Time Magazine story about Joe Wilson. The fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever that Rove broke any law. For right now there is also no way Bush is going to give the left the satisfaction of firing him. Right now, this is the #1 issue for the Democrats.

Don't forget, sitting in prison right now, protecting her source, is Judith Miller of the New York Times. She, along with Matthew Cooper and Robert Novak, also wrote about Valerie Plame. Novak has apparently cut some sort of sweetheart deal with the special prosecutor. Miller is refusing to name her source to the special prosecutor. So she's sitting in the hoosegow.

But why is she in jail? It's been disclosed that Rove signed a statement giving anyone permission to speak about any contact he had over the Plame affair. Matthew Cooper of Time cited that assurance when he finally rolled over and agreed to testify, avoiding jail. It was also made easier when his employer released his e-mail contacts with Rove. So there was no more source to protect.

Who is she protecting?

Let's inject a bit of humour here:
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tt/2005/tt050713.gif