again, this is an ongoing investigation. i will not get sucked in to Opus's speculation because that is just what it is so far. Opus went so far as to say that the WaPost was biased in quoting the '03 intel committee report that clearly states their findings. i mean, WTF? it's futile. i'm not gonna spoonfeed shit to him or anyone here for that matter.

the facts that are out there are out there for anyone to interpret. why would i bang my head against a Opus's brickwall of partisaned speculation? i said my peace. and nooooo, Opus hasn't used party rhetoric has he, occ? give ME a f^%$#in break!

BTW if anyone has lied so far, it's already been proven that Wilson has.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo BTW if anyone has lied so far, it's already been proven that Wilson has.

So have your neo-con/conservative Godfathers like Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney ABOUT REASON FOR GOING TO WAR.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

Just to be consistent Bush should promote Rove. Anything less would be a sign of weakness:

For those who make mistakes but do Bush's bidding:
Tenet (slam dunk) -> Metal of Freedom
Condi (ignoring PDB) -> promoted to Secretary of State
Rumsfeld (abu ghraib + not enuff troops) -> Kept his Job

For those who dissent:
Powell (quietly voice his opposition to Iraq war) -> let go
Richard Clarke (raised 9/11 warnings) -> demoted and let go
General Chenseki (critical of number of troops) -> let go
Sen Wilson (no wmd africa connection) -> cia info leak on wife

An interesting "talking point"...

quote:

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. But neither Judith Miller nor the New York Times is rolling over. Couldn't the Times release Miller's notes just as easily as Time did Cooper's? Of course. But they won't. And Judith Miller is sitting in prison. Why? Who are they protecting? It couldn't possibly be Rove. Because if it were, the Times would roll on him in a second. How could they resist the chance to pile on against their nemesis, George W. Bush? That's the real story here...and the mainstream media is missing it. It's not Rove, it's who Judith Miller is protecting. Could it be somebody else in the Bush White House? Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, has come up. Could it be Joseph Wilson? Valerie Plame herself? We'll probably know soon enough. And don't forget a likely possibility: that the prosecutor will wrap things up and nobody will be indicted. Can you imagine the rage of the left then?

Miller is obviously not protecting Rove as the source, so forgive me for saying that something appears a bit fishy.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo 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.

Still waiting on you to refute any points I made.

Oops, here's one:

quote:

Opus went so far as to say that the WaPost was biased in quoting the '03 intel committee report that clearly states their findings. i mean, WTF? it's futile. i'm not gonna spoonfeed shit to him or anyone here for that matter.

Sir, I read the Senate Intelligence Report when I had some free time a while back. I read it in full, and I even gave you the link to do the same. I know EXACTLY what the WaPost article was quoting - it was the opinion of the GOP Committee Senators and NOT, I repeat NOT the shared opinion by the Democratic Senators on the Committee (Rockefeller, Durbin, and the other guy who's not coming to mind right now). I suggest you read the report yourself and find out, rather than attempt a silly ad hominem attack on me.

quote:

the facts that are out there are out there for anyone to interpret.

Which I have done in full. I'm sorry if the facts tend to favor my argument or any Liberal argument in support of Wilson's case, but that's simply where they lie. I highly suggest you take a little time and research them yourself, rather than rely solely on the GOP talking points.

quote:

why would i bang my head against a Opus's brickwall of partisaned speculation? i said my peace. and nooooo, Opus hasn't used party rhetoric has he, occ? give ME a f^%$#in break!

I make no secret where my biases lie, but I'm more than happy to continue discussing any particular point involving this affair if you are, and we'll see where exactly the pieces fall. If they fall in your GOP corner, so be it. If they fall in mine, be prepared to admit as such. As it stands I have supported my case for the pieces to fall in favor of Wilson and NOT in favor of Rove and the GOP. Please make the case for that, if you will.

quote:

BTW if anyone has lied so far, it's already been proven that Wilson has.

I'm glad it's because you say so. Any support for that assertion?

___________________
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 Shakka An interesting "talking point"... Miller is obviously not protecting Rove as the source, so forgive me for saying that something appears a bit fishy.

This is a truly speculative point, and we may never know. But let's also keep in mind that Novak's column said "Two senior administration officials", not one. So there's clearly much more ground to fill here than just Rove, if Novak is even being truthful to begin with.

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

Ive been listening to this news since last week on NPR about the rumours. It's been heating up for a while now.. but oh WoW to the the 1st president to ever have the lowest approval rating after been re-elected. At least this is IMPORTANT news, not a waste of time like it did for a stained dress.

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

G'head, Opus, tear it apart.

Link

quote:

Karl Rove, Whistleblower July 13, 2005; Page A14 Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying for Karl Rove's head over his role in exposing a case of CIA nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. On the contrary, we'd say the White House political guru deserves a prize -- perhaps the next iteration of the "Truth-Telling" award that The Nation magazine bestowed upon Mr. Wilson before the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed him as a fraud. For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real "whistleblower" in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He's the one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility. He's the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove. Media chants aside, there's no evidence that Mr. Rove broke any laws in telling reporters that Ms. Plame may have played a role in her husband's selection for a 2002 mission to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking uranium ore in Niger. To be prosecuted under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Mr. Rove would had to have deliberately and maliciously exposed Ms. Plame knowing that she was an undercover agent and using information he'd obtained in an official capacity. But it appears Mr. Rove didn't even know Ms. Plame's name and had only heard about her work at Langley from other journalists. [Karl Rove] On the "no underlying crime" point, moreover, no less than the New York Times and Washington Post now agree. So do the 36 major news organizations that filed a legal brief in March aimed at keeping Mr. Cooper and the New York Times's Judith Miller out of jail. "While an investigation of the leak was justified, it is far from clear -- at least on the public record -- that a crime took place," the Post noted the other day. Granted the media have come a bit late to this understanding, and then only to protect their own, but the logic of their argument is that Mr. Rove did nothing wrong either. The same can't be said for Mr. Wilson, who first "outed" himself as a CIA consultant in a melodramatic New York Times op-ed in July 2003. At the time he claimed to have thoroughly debunked the Iraq-Niger yellowcake uranium connection that President Bush had mentioned in his now famous "16 words" on the subject in that year's State of the Union address. Mr. Wilson also vehemently denied it when columnist Robert Novak first reported that his wife had played a role in selecting him for the Niger mission. He promptly signed up as adviser to the Kerry campaign and was feted almost everywhere in the media, including repeat appearances on NBC's "Meet the Press" and a photo spread (with Valerie) in Vanity Fair. But his day in the political sun was short-lived. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report last July cited the note that Ms. Plame had sent recommending her husband for the Niger mission. "Interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD [Counterproliferation Division] employee, suggested his name for the trip," said the report. The same bipartisan report also pointed out that the forged documents Mr. Wilson claimed to have discredited hadn't even entered intelligence channels until eight months after his trip. And it said the CIA interpreted the information he provided in his debrief as mildly supportive of the suspicion that Iraq had been seeking uranium in Niger. About the same time, another inquiry headed by Britain's Lord Butler delivered its own verdict on the 16 words: "We conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded." In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know. If there's any scandal at all here, it is that this entire episode has been allowed to waste so much government time and media attention, not to mention inspire a "special counsel" probe. The Bush administration is also guilty on this count, since it went along with the appointment of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in an election year in order to punt the issue down the road. But now Mr. Fitzgerald has become an unguided missile, holding reporters in contempt for not disclosing their sources even as it becomes clearer all the time that no underlying crime was at issue. As for the press corps, rather than calling for Mr. Rove to be fired, they ought to be grateful to him for telling the truth.

it's editorial from the Wall Street Journal. way too easy. all he has to do is ignore the facts and speculate that they are an arm of the GOP.

he's not stupid. he knows what's really goin on, but just won't admit it. it's entirely too much fun for him having Rove in the sights of the moonbat left's BB gun.

i think Hugh Hewitt has summarized this debacle best.
Cooper calls Rove: "Hey, so whats going on with this Wilson rumor going to Niger?"

Rove: "Oh man, don't go down that road. It's a weak lead. Contrary to his claim, Cheney didn't send him, his wife offered him up. She works at the CIA."

i can't remember the rest but it was funny.

and then Cooper does this.

quote:

Lawyer: Cooper “Burned” Karl Rove Rove’s attorney talks to NRO. The lawyer for top White House adviser Karl Rove says that Time reporter Matthew Cooper "burned" Rove after a conversation between the two men concerning former ambassador Joseph Wilson's fact-finding mission to Niger and the role Wilson's wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, played in arranging that trip. Nevertheless, attorney Robert Luskin says Rove long ago gave his permission for all reporters, including Cooper, to tell prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald about their conversations with Rove. In an interview with National Review Online, Luskin compared the contents of a July 11, 2003, internal Time e-mail written by Cooper with the wording of a story Cooper co-wrote a few days later. "By any definition, he burned Karl Rove," Luskin said of Cooper. "If you read what Karl said to him and read how Cooper characterizes it in the article, he really spins it in a pretty ugly fashion to make it seem like people in the White House were affirmatively reaching out to reporters to try to get them to them to report negative information about Plame." First the e-mail. According to a report in Newsweek, Cooper's e-mail to Time Washington bureau chief Michael Duffy said, "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation..." Cooper said that Rove had warned him away from getting "too far out on Wilson," and then passed on Rove's statement that neither Vice President Dick Cheney nor CIA Director George Tenet had picked Wilson for the trip; "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip." Finally — all of this is according to the Newsweek report — Cooper's e-mail said that "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly that there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger..." A few days after sending the e-mail, Cooper co-wrote an article headlined "A War on Wilson?" that appeared on Time's website. The story began, "Has the Bush administration declared war on a former ambassador who conducted a fact-finding mission to probe possible Iraqi interest in African uranium? Perhaps." The story continued: Some government officials have noted to Time in interviews (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein's government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore, sometimes referred to as yellow cake, which is used to build nuclear devices. Plame's role in Wilson's assignment was later confirmed by a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation. Luskin told NRO that the circumstances of Rove's conversation with Cooper undercut Time's suggestion of a White House "war on Wilson." According to Luskin, Cooper originally called Rove — not the other way around — and said he was working on a story on welfare reform. After some conversation about that issue, Luskin said, Cooper changed the subject to the weapons of mass destruction issue, and that was when the two had the brief talk that became the subject of so much legal wrangling. According to Luskin, the fact that Rove did not call Cooper; that the original purpose of the call, as Cooper told Rove, was welfare reform; that only after Cooper brought the WMD issue up did Rove discuss Wilson — all are "indications that this was not a calculated effort by the White House to get this story out." "Look at the Cooper e-mail," Luskin continues. "Karl speaks to him on double super secret background...I don't think that you can read that e-mail and conclude that what Karl was trying to do was to get Cooper to publish the name of Wilson's wife." Nor, says Luskin, was Rove trying to "out" a covert CIA agent or "smear" her husband. "What Karl was trying to do, in a very short conversation initiated by Cooper on another subject, was to warn Time away from publishing things that were going to be established as false." Luskin points out that on the evening of July 11, 2003, just hours after the Rove-Cooper conversation, then-CIA Director George Tenet released a statement that undermined some of Wilson's public assertions about his report. "Karl knew that that [Tenet] statement was in gestation," says Luskin. "I think a fair reading of the e-mail was that he was trying to warn Cooper off from going out on a limb on [Wilson's] allegations." Luskin also shed light on the waiver that Rove signed releasing Cooper from any confidentiality agreement about the conversation. Luskin says Rove originally signed a waiver in December 2003 or in January 2004 (Luskin did not remember the exact date). The waiver, Luskin continues, was written by the office of special prosecutor Fitzgerald, and Rove signed it without making any changes — with the understanding that it applied to anyone with whom he had discussed the Wilson/Plame matter. "It was everyone's expectation that the waiver would be as broad as it could be," Luskin says. Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller have expressed concerns that such waivers (top Cheney aide Lewis Libby also signed one) might have been coerced and thus might not have represented Rove's true feelings. Yet from the end of 2003 or beginning of 2004, until last Wednesday, Luskin says, Rove had no idea that there might be any problem with the waiver. It was not until that Wednesday, the day Cooper was to appear in court, that that changed. "Cooper's lawyer called us and said, "Can you confirm that the waiver encompasses Cooper?" Luskin recalls. "I was amazed. He's a lawyer. It's not rocket science. [The waiver] says 'any person.' It's that broad. So I said, 'Look, I understand that you want reassurances. If Fitzgerald would like Karl to provide you with some other assurances, we will.'" Luskin says he got in touch with the prosecutor — "Rule number one is cooperate with Fitzgerald, and there is no rule number two," Luskin says — and asked what to do. According to Luskin, Fitzgerald said to go ahead, and Luskin called Cooper's lawyer back. "I said that I can reaffirm that the waiver that Karl signed applied to any conversations that Karl and Cooper had," Luskin says. After that — which represented no change from the situation that had existed for 18 months — Cooper made a dramatic public announcement and agreed to testify. A few other notes: Luskin declined to say how Rove knew that Plame "apparently" (to use Cooper's word) worked at the CIA. But Luskin told NRO that Rove is not hiding behind the defense that he did not identify Wilson's wife because he did not specifically use her name. Asked if that argument was too legalistic, Luskin said, "I agree with you. I think it's a detail." Luskin also addressed the question of whether Rove is a "subject" of the investigation. Luskin says Fitzgerald has told Rove he is not a "target" of the investigation, but, according to Luskin, Fitzgerald has also made it clear that virtually anyone whose conduct falls within the scope of the investigation, including Rove, is considered a "subject" of the probe. "'Target' is something we all understand, a very alarming term," Luskin says. On the other hand, Fitzgerald "has indicated to us that he takes a very broad view of what a subject is." Finally, Luskin conceded that Rove is legally free to publicly discuss his actions, including his grand-jury testimony. Rove has not spoken publicly, Luskin says, because Fitzgerald specifically asked him not to. — Byron York, NR's White House correspondent, is the author of the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.

* * *

http://oliverwillis.com/vid/gibson-plame.mov