quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i don't know man, there just doesn't seem much coherency towards Wilson's claim that someone in the administration wanted to deliberately embarass him by outing his wife when any intelligent insider would realize that eventually it they would be outed in a guaranteed grand jury investigation.

BS, and yes, you should know - because we've discussed this issue at length in the past:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...on+plame+senate

The issue that was brought up then was whether or not Valerie Plame recommended her husband for the trip. First off, why would that matter in the first place? So what? Does this change the primary fact that what Wilson and the IAEA found down in Africa were terribly forged documents and no yellow cake being bought? Horrible straw man.

But regardless, the CIA ITSELF acknowledged that Wilson's wife wasn't a part of the equation:

quote:

First conclusion: “The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador’s wife, a CIA employee.” That is not true. The conclusion is apparently based on one anodyne quote from a memo Valerie Plame, my wife sent to her superiors that says “my husband has good relations with 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.” There is no suggestion or recommendation in that statement that I be sent on the trip. Indeed it is little more than a recitation of my contacts and bona fides. The conclusion is reinforced by comments in the body of the report that a CPD reports officer stated the “the former ambassador’s wife ‘offered up his name’” (page 39) and a State Department Intelligence and Research officer that the “meeting was ‘apparently convened by [the former ambassador’s] wife who had the idea to dispatch him to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue.” In fact, Valerie was not in the meeting at which the subject of my trip was raised. Neither was the CPD Reports officer. After having escorted me into the room, she departed the meeting to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. It was at that meeting where the question of my traveling to Niger was broached with me for the first time and came only after a thorough discussion of what the participants did and did not know about the subject. My bona fides justifying the invitation to the meeting were the trip I had previously taken to Niger to look at other uranium related questions as well as 20 years living and working in Africa, and personal contacts throughout the Niger government. Neither the CPD reports officer nor the State analyst were in the chain of command to know who, or how, the decision was made. The interpretations attributed to them are not the full story. In fact, it is my understanding that the Reports Officer has a different conclusion about Valerie’s role than the one offered in the “additional comments”. I urge the committee to reinterview the officer and publicly publish his statement. It is unfortunate that the report failed to include the CIA’s position on this matter. If the staff had done so it would undoubtedly have been given the same evidence as provided to Newsday reporters Tim Phelps and Knut Royce in July, 2003. They reported on July 22 that: “A senior intelligence officer confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked ‘alongside’ the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger. “But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. ‘They (the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story) were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising,’ he said. ‘There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason,’ he said. ‘I can’t figure out what it could be.’ “We paid his (Wilson’s) airfare. But to go to Niger is not exactly a benefit. Most people you’d have to pay big bucks to go there,’ the senior intelligence official said. Wilson said. he was reimbursed only for expenses.” (Newsday article Columnist blows CIA Agent’s cover, dated July 22, 2003). In fact, on July 13 of this year, David Ensor, the CNN correspondent, did call the CIA for a statement of its position and reported that a senior CIA official confirmed my account that Valerie did not propose me for the trip: “’She did not propose me’, he [Wilson] said--others at the CIA did so. A senior CIA official said that is his understanding too.’”

There were other notions that were covered previously as well - such as whether Cheney received Wilson's report once he got back (give me a fucking break - he fucking sent Wilson down there, of course he received his report, along with the IAEA report too). And let's also keep in mind something here - what was the WaPost reporter quoting from? Was it the final word from the entire bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee? Or was it from the GOP partisan branch under "Additional Views"?

(take a wild guess)

Now go read Rockefeller, Durbin, and Levin's opinion on the matter pertaining to Wilson and the claims from the GOP hacks, and tell me whether or not the WaPost reporter should have clarified her source:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

And as I argued before, this does not change the fact that the following day after Wilson's editorial in the NYTimes, this Administration had to go back on it's assertion of those 16 words in the '03 SOTU address.

And you think it's some wierd, wacky coincidence that less than 2 weeks, later, 6 different newsreporters were receiving tips from 2 Senior Administration officials on who Wilson's wife was and that she worked as a covert agent in the CIA, and that this Administration's bitch, Bob Novak immediately pressed this out?

quote:

unless the ultimate goal of this whole hullabaloo is to embarass the administration. i mean Wilson originally wanted to finger Cheney for gods sake!

This Administration does just fine embarrassing itself on its own. A lie can only hold for so long, sir. And I don't know about Cheney being fingered. The only person I heard was in Cheney's office - Scooter Libby. Regardless, someone had security clearance to know who Wilson's wife was, and broke the law in revealing her, let alone put our country at risk by exposing a covert CIA agent working on WMD proliferation.

quote:

Plame's cover was not that much of a cover to be blown in the first place.

I've heard this GOP talking point too, but have yet to see anything to support this assertion. Care to try?

quote:

this whole thing just reeks of Bush-hating rhetoric.

Can't help it if I can't stand our Administration lying through their fucking teeth, and finally albeit possibly get caught on it.

And let's keep in mind - this is no small lie. This was a primary reason for going to war in Iraq, remember?

quote:

but i guess we'll see when when the Feds eventually indict someone...not the left wing press.

You mean the Right-of-Center Press who's done nothing but suck up to this Administration since 9/11, don't you? Well gee, even they get a little pissed off once they feel they've been had. But I will concede this one point - I too will wait until an indictment, because there sure as hell won't be any Congressional hearings on the matter, will there?


To Josh,

Yeah, I should be studying - big ass tests on Friday. I need some serious distraction, though. This shit is booooring at school!

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Occ, you asked what the White House will do? Well so far, the stone walling continues, this time from Bush:

quote:

President Bush was asked today if he planned to fire Karl Rove, a senior aide at the center of an investigation over the unmasking of an undercover C.I.A. officer, and he offered only a stony silence in reply.... "Are you going to fire him?" the president was asked twice in a brief Oval Office appearance with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong of Singapore. Both times, the president ignored the questions. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/p...artner=homepage

And Scotty's mum as hell once again:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20050712-4.html

Russert on the Today Show:

quote:

Russert's best line: "As one Republican said to me last night, if this was a Democratic White House we'd have congressional hearings in a second." http://americablog.blogspot.com/200...s-it-uh-oh.html

And I have to say Melman and the RNC's response was a bit purplexing:

http://www.rnc.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=5619

Democratic party in the hands of the "Far Left"? Huh? And "discouraging" a reporter from writing a false story? Are you fucking kidding me, Ken? I'll let Hunter at DKos have that one:

quote:

Mehlman freely admits that Rove was talking to the reporter to "discourage" him from writing his story, a story which was very damaging to Bush, and which was admitted to be true by the White House on the 7th of July -- four days before Rove's conversation with Cooper. And to do that, Rove gave Cooper the information about Plame's CIA status. Is the outing of an undercover agent during a time of war acceptable to "discourage" a negative story acceptable, now? Is that the Republican position? Not that Rove didn't do it, but that it was OK to do it in the course of shaping news reports? If Rove was for a minute concerned with "discouraging" damaging stories in the press, you know what he could have done? Discouraged reporters from outing an undercover agent. Or at the very least, refused to talk about the status of undercover agents. He didn't. He made it a point -- he and apparently at least six other Bush administration officials -- to broadcast Plame's CIA status to reporters. That doesn't sound to me like someone working in the interests of American national security. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/12/15955/4131

As for the "far-left" quote, well damn, keep on talkin' Hunter:

quote:

As for the boilerplate of Mehlman's statement itself, which states "It's disappointing that once again, so many Democrat leaders are taking their political cues from the far-left, Moveon wing of the party" -- You know what, Ken? Fuck you. Personally. I can say that now, because your Vice President said so. Being anti-corruption is not "far-left". Or is it, now? Being anti-treason isn't "far-left". Or is it, now? Despite the RNC insistence that every exposure of Republican crime and corruption -- whether it be Rove, DeLay, Cunningham, or other Republican figures under active criminal investigation -- is a trick by the evil far-left MoveOn or other groups that have the audacity to support Democrats instead of Republicans, that simply isn't the case. It is a tired joke, at this point. It stopped even being insulting a few years ago, and now is simply recognized as the last refuge of a pack of scoundrels -- the talking point that acts as a few sentences of placeholder, in all Republican generated documents, until it can be edited out for some more credible defense against Republican amorality or corruption. You don't want corrupt Republicans to be exposed? Then condemn them. Expose them. Expell them. At some point, your party is going to have to treat government with the same seriousness that you treat campaigning, and not simply as a perpetual money trough for rewarding anyone who has given the correct amount of money to the party through Jack Abramoff, through Texans for a Republican Majority, or other spigots. And that, then, is the central lesson of the Republican reaction. Republicans -- whether partisan bloggers, conservative interest groups, or Republican Party leaders -- choose entirely to define the issue as parsing whether or not what Karl Rove did was strictly illegal. There should be a roughly higher standard, for Republicans, then the line between felony and not felony. At one point in time, the Republicans held the standard that there were moral, ethical, and patriotic lines that should not be crossed. Those notions have been completely discarded. According to the Republican leadership of Rove, DeLay, Reed, Abramoff, Santorum, Frist, Hastert, Mehlman, and President Bush himself, the only defining line in acceptable behavior is whether or not the government can put you in prison for doing it. And even then, we find numerous Republican officials treading the wrong side of that line. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/12/15955/4131

Exactly. And then good ol' Ken "I refuse to admit I'm straight" Mehlman on CNN today said something to this effect:

quote:

Mehlman: Has stated that he's not the leaker. ...I know he's fully cooperated with this investigation.... So unfortunate, Hillary, Kerry, Dean would follow the angry left... Looking at those emails what I saw was Karl Rove discouraging Matthew Cooper from filing a story that was wrong. Wolf: Is there any evidence Niger was sending enriched uranium to Iraq? Wolf: Were there meetings on what to do involving Joe Wilson, how to deal with this problem after he wrote that op ed? Mehlman: I don't recall those meetings occuring. Wolf: Were you called before a grand jury? Mehlman: I'm not going to comment. A political smear has occured. Wolf: Why can't you tell us if you were asked to testify? Mehlman: I don't think it's appropriate.... We know that Karl Rove said a year ago that any reporter he's talk to should cooperate with the prosecutor. Wolf: Did you give a waiver to any reporters you've talked to? Mehlman: I don't recall.... The issue here is that there's been full compliance by Karl Rove and the White House... Karl did not leak classified information, he did not leak the name of anybody. I'm not going to prejudge. I think it's unfortunate... partisan smear campaign. Wolf: (Plays tape of McClellan saying leaker would be fired.) Does that statement still hold? Have you had any conversations with the White House about Karl Rove? I'm not going to comment on a pending investigation.

So you won't comment on it, eh Ken? But you'll issue a fucking press release of your GOP talking points on the issue, right?

Fucking douchebag.

And finally, we have Rove's lawyer himself:

quote:

Luskin declined to say whether Rove knew that Plame was a covert agent, even if he did not know her name, which analysts said was a crucial factor in determining whether the law was broken. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...-home-headlines

Declined to say, huh? Boy, it's funny how the GOP immediately clammed up on this one, ain't it?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Hey Opus--can you find a video of that press conference? I'd almost have to see it to believe it after reading some of that! The video would be hilarious.

quote:

White House expresses confidence in top Bush aide Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:47 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House broke its silence and said on Tuesday that President Bush continued to have confidence in his top political adviser, Karl Rove, despite his involvement in a scandal over the leak of the identity of a CIA agent. http://today.reuters.com/news/newsA...USH-LEAK-DC.XML

Here ya go, Shakka. Yesterday's Press conference:

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Scotty_Rove.wmv

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Scotty_Rove.mov

Today's Press Conference, note Terry Moran's grilling:

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Sc...le_RNC_Rove.wmv

-------------------

More stuff to show:

Rove being fired by Bush Sr. when he was President for leaking information to Novak. Coincidence?:

quote:

Rove fired from Bush Sr's '92 campaign over leak to Novak. Karl Rove was fired from the 1992 re-election campaign of Bush Sr. for allegedly leaking a negative story about Bush loyalist/fundraiser Robert Mosbacher to Novak. Novak's piece described a meeting organized by then-Senator Phil Gramm at which Mosbacher was relieved of his duties as state campaign manager because "the president's re-election effort in Texas has been a bust." Rove was fired after Mosbacher fingered him as Novak's source. Rove was the "only one with a motive to leak": Mosbacher says: "I said Rove is the only one with a motive to leak this. We let him go." The motive in question? Mosbacher had given Rove only a quarter of the $1 million spent on direct mail contracts for the 92 campaign; Rove, who in 1988 had the entire direct mail contract, therefore had an axe to grind with Mosbacher. Novak's column stated: "Also attending the session was political consultant Karl Rove, who had been shoved aside by Mosbacher." Mosbacher still says Rove did it: Although Novak and Rove continue to deny Rove was the source of the leak, Mosbacher recently stated "I still believe he did it." (Sources: "Karl and Bob: a leaky history," Houston Chronicle, Nov. 7, 2003, ; "Genius," Texas Monthly, March 2003, p. 82; "Why Are These Men Laughing," Esquire, January 2003) http://www.bustbob.com/view.asp?ID=5

And just in case you're wondering how the GOP will counterattack, well read their Talking Points released today and obtained by Raw Story to find out:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Exclu...iscre_0712.html

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Yikes! Look at the networks swarm for the kill! He put up an adobe wall. Looks like we gots ourselves an old fashioned scandal. Think you can get the impeachment before his term's up?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Yikes! Look at the networks swarm for the kill! He put up an adobe wall. Looks like we gots ourselves an old fashioned scandal. Think you can get the impeachment before his term's up?

Oh hell no! You know how hard it is to pin it up all the way to the top? Christ, you had an eyewitness with Lewinsky, and they still couldn't impeach Clinton for lying under oath!

That's not to say that Bush and/or Cheney didn't know, because I firmly believe that (I think deep down most Conservatives would concede it too, though not publicly). But pinning the tail on the donkey is another ballgame altogether, and that's likely damn-near impossible. Unless you get someone like Rove or Novak or some other very high-up official tattle-telling on Bush/Cheney, which of course ain't gonna happen. Regardless, if Rove gets indicted by the prosecution, this is sure gonna sting Bush pretty damn bad.

And speaking of Novak, just caught this possibility on another blog. Pretty damn interesting - Novak might be implicated:

quote:

The intrepid reporter Murray Waas has an exclusive: Bob Novak has cooperated with Valerie Plame investigators and they may not believe him: quote: Also of interest to investigators have been a series of telephone contacts between Novak and Rove, and other White House officials, in the days just after press reports first disclosed the existence of a federal criminal investigation as to who leaked Plame's identity. Investigators have been concerned that Novak and his sources might have conceived or co-ordinated a cover story to disguise the nature of their conversations. That concern was a reason-- although only one of many-- that led prosecutors to press for the testimony of Cooper and Miller, sources said. Lending credence to those suspicions was that a U.S. government official questioned by investigators said Novak specifically asked him whether Plame had some covert status with the CIA. The official told investigators that Novak appeared uncertain whether she was undercover or not. That account, on one hand, might lend credence to the claims by Rove and other Bush administration officials that they did not know Plame was a covert CIA officer. Conversely, however, the fact that Novak asked the question in the first place appeared to indicate that he might have indeed been told Plame was a covert operative, and was seeking confirmation of that fact. http://talkleft.com/new_archives/011459.html

Getting damn interesting.

And I won't discount the fact that Rove is one slippery sucker - always seemingly one step ahead of everyone else. So who knows how this will turn out...

Added in Edit: Almost seems like Presidential term limits should be limited to just one term. Every damn recent President gets burned in their second term.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Added in Edit: Almost seems like Presidential term limits should be limited to just one term. Every damn recent President gets burned in their second term.

i said it first!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 BS, and yes, you should know - because we've discussed this issue at length in the past: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...on+plame+senate The issue that was brought up then was whether or not Valerie Plame recommended her husband for the trip. First off, why would that matter in the first place? So what? Does this change the primary fact that what Wilson and the IAEA found down in Africa were terribly forged documents and no yellow cake being bought? Horrible straw man. But regardless, the CIA ITSELF acknowledged that Wilson's wife wasn't a part of the equation: There were other notions that were covered previously as well - such as whether Cheney received Wilson's report once he got back (give me a fucking break - he fucking sent Wilson down there, of course he received his report, along with the IAEA report too). And let's also keep in mind something here - what was the WaPost reporter quoting from? Was it the final word from the entire bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee? Or was it from the GOP partisan branch under "Additional Views"? (take a wild guess) Now go read Rockefeller, Durbin, and Levin's opinion on the matter pertaining to Wilson and the claims from the GOP hacks, and tell me whether or not the WaPost reporter should have clarified her source: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html And as I argued before, this does not change the fact that the following day after Wilson's editorial in the NYTimes, this Administration had to go back on it's assertion of those 16 words in the '03 SOTU address. And you think it's some wierd, wacky coincidence that less than 2 weeks, later, 6 different newsreporters were receiving tips from 2 Senior Administration officials on who Wilson's wife was and that she worked as a covert agent in the CIA, and that this Administration's bitch, Bob Novak immediately pressed this out? This Administration does just fine embarrassing itself on its own. A lie can only hold for so long, sir. And I don't know about Cheney being fingered. The only person I heard was in Cheney's office - Scooter Libby. Regardless, someone had security clearance to know who Wilson's wife was, and broke the law in revealing her, let alone put our country at risk by exposing a covert CIA agent working on WMD proliferation. I've heard this GOP talking point too, but have yet to see anything to support this assertion. Care to try? Can't help it if I can't stand our Administration lying through their fucking teeth, and finally albeit possibly get caught on it. And let's keep in mind - this is no small lie. This was a primary reason for going to war in Iraq, remember? You mean the Right-of-Center Press who's done nothing but suck up to this Administration since 9/11, don't you? Well gee, even they get a little pissed off once they feel they've been had. But I will concede this one point - I too will wait until an indictment, because there sure as hell won't be any Congressional hearings on the matter, will there? To Josh, Yeah, I should be studying - big ass tests on Friday. I need some serious distraction, though. This shit is booooring at school!

OH MY FUCKING GOD! you are out there dude. no one can rationalize with you foaming at the mouth and a rock hard dick for any little thing that can embarass the administration. wow!

admit it, your weak ass party has never and will never be able to outmanuever or out-stratigize Karl Rove, so what do guys do? try to cut him off at the knees at the first hint of blood. hint, mind you,
because no one yet has testified that he outed anyone. if he did. he'll pay one way or another.

but keep on speculating. you're good at it. just remember thats all you've done in this thread so far.

fun watching conservatives squirm. laughing @ Q5.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow fun watching conservatives squirm. laughing @ Q5.

give the guy a break, these boards are tremendously lopsided

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 give the guy a break, these boards are tremendously lopsided

sometimes i feel bad for conservatives because they have to defend bush's policy and actions that run counter to reality, facts, and truth. But I'll give his apologists their due for their tenacity, defending him no matter what. Bush could be Impeached and Q5 would dismiss it as some liberal witch hunt.