Oh Jon Stewart, will you marry me?

mms://a386.v99506.c9950.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/386/9950/v001/comedystor.download.akamai.com/9951/dailyshow/headlines/10085_headline.wmv

mms://a386.v99506.c9950.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/386/9950/v001/comedystor.download.akamai.com/9951/dailyshow/stewart/jon_10085.wmv

(Should be playable through winamp or anything else that supports mms.)

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X http://oliverwillis.com/vid/gibson-plame.mov

That is fucking pathetic.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Last edited by Renegade on Jul-14-2005 at 03:21

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo 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.

Ignore facts? Well when you finally present some, Q5, I'll be happy to address them. Until then, why "speculate" that they are the arm of the GOP? I'll prove it to you plain and simple. Remember those RNC talking points that I showed a page ago from Raw Story? Here, let's start comparing those points to the WSJ Op-Ed.:

1st RNC Talking Point:
"Once Again, Democrats Are Engaging In Blatant Partisan Attacks."

1st Paragraph of WSJ op/ed:

quote:

"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."

2nd RNC Talking Point:
"Karl Rove Discouraged A Reporter From Writing A False Story Based On A False Premise."

2nd Paragraph of WSJ op/ed:

quote:

"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."

Need I go further? Here, have another:

3rd RNC Talking Point:
"The False Premise Was Joe Wilson's Allegation That The Vice President Sent Him To Niger"

2nd Paragraph, 2nd sentence of WSJ op/ed:

quote:

"He [Rove] is 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."

Neat, huh? I mean, Jesus fucking Christ, they just took the fucking RNC talking points practically verbatum and fucking pasted it on their editorial. Right down the fucking list point by point. Jesus!

Can you understand now why I find it so fucking difficult to see any credibility in the WSJ editorial board at all? They are, in fact, the worst of fucking GOP hacks, and this is a wonderful example you just brought to show it.

Many thanks!

(disclaimer: I cannot take credit for the above. It goes to fellow DKos blogger mrCurmudgeon: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/13/112920/701)

And this still changes nothing. The fact remains that the White House has for 2 fucking years now repeatedly stated that Karl Rove had nothing to do with it. Bush is on record stating he will fire anyone who's involved with the leak. The emails Cooper received clearly demonstrate Rove's DIRECT involvement. That leaves only two possible answers:

1. Rove lied to the President of the U.S. about his involvement, and thus should be fired and prosecuted to the full extent of the law

2. The President LIED to the nation about Rove's involvement.

Pick one.

quote:

he's not stupid.

Nor do I think you are either, but I do think you're being a bit intellectually lazy here.

quote:

he knows what's really goin on, but just won't admit it.

Admit what?

quote:

it's entirely too much fun for him having Rove in the sights of the moonbat left's BB gun.

I freely admit it. This is fun as shit to me!

quote:

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.

You should read the actual emails yourself, rather than hear a paraphrase from someone else.

___________________
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 Q5echo and then Cooper does this. * * *

You can do better than that, Q5.

Cooper "burned" Rove? That's fucking laughable at best. Well I've got two tests on Friday to study for, so I'll just refer you to this blogger for a reply to that silly notion:

quote:

TALKING POINT: Matt Cooper of Time magazine "burned" Rove. FACT: Rove's lawyer, who made the above fake claim, himself has been expounding again and again about how Rove gave complete waivers to all his journalist contacts to testify. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/12/173649/452

Here, actually here's a list of refutations from those bullshit GOP talking points passed out. Links to each refutation are provided on the source link at the bottom:

quote:

TALKING POINT: Valerie Plame (Joseph Wilson's wife) was not covert. FACT: She was. TALKING POINT: Karl Rove did not leak Valerie Plame's name. FACT: Please. Her name was not the secret, her identity was (which is the issue here) and he leaked that. (also see here and here). TALKING POINT: Karl Rove was "not the leaker". FACT: Rove's attorney's statement and Cooper's email shows this claim is false. Rove did leak Plame's identity. (Whether or not this is found to be prosecutable is another matter). P.S. It's not like this is the first time Rove has been in the spotlight for leaking secrets. TALKING POINT: Karl Rove has never lied about his role in this matter. FACT: Yes, he has. TALKING POINT: The White House has never lied or misled people about its role in this matter. FACT: False. TALKING POINT: Karl Rove never knew that Valerie Plame was covert. FACT: Really? Then why not state this on the record, something Rove's attorney refuses to do. TALKING POINT: Matt Cooper of Time magazine "burned" Rove. FACT: Rove's lawyer, who made the above fake claim, himself has been expounding again and again about how Rove gave complete waivers to all his journalist contacts to testify. TALKING POINT: Bob Novak used the word "operative" by accident and his sources did not say she was one. FACT: This is false, after-the-fact spin from Novak. TALKING POINT: Rove "was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story" based on Joe Wilson's "false premise" (that DCI Tenet or VP Cheney authorized his trip) FACT: False. Moreover, Joe Wilson did not make such a claim before Rove exposed Valerie Plame's identity. TALKING POINT: The Senate Intelligence Committee said that Valerie Plame was the one who set up Joe Wilson's trip. FACT: False and false. (Also see here). (In fact, there is no consensus view that Valerie Plame even suggested that Wilson be sent on the trip.) TALKING POINT: The White House/GOP cannot comment on questions regarding Rove or his role because of the ongoing investigation. FACT: False. A completely bogus claim considering that they are talking behind the scenes or issuing false/misleading press releases (also see here and here) spreading fakery about Wilson. (Not to mntion, they felt free to comment self-servingly about the whole matter until the Rove story broke.) TALKING POINT: Karl Rove is not a target of Fitzgerald's investigation. FACT: He is a subject of the investigation. TALKING POINT: The Butler Report etc. vindicated Bush's "uranium in Africa" State of the Union claim FACT: False. The Butler Report was intended to exonerate Tony Blair and George Bush to prevent them from facing criminal charges. For obvious reasons, it excluded reams of information about Bush's claim that showed that the White House lied through it's teeth in defending Bush's claim. (Indeed, as the link shows, people from the NSA, CIA etc. themselves stated that the SOTU claim did not have a sound backing.) TALKING POINT: This is all just a partisan attack by Democrats (or Joseph Wilson) FACT: False. The GOP leadership has a habit of minimizing numerous acts of treason from individuals inside the Bush administration over the last several years, by smearing truth-tellers. This is just the latest episode among many. In private, even Republicans admit that this kind of nonsense would have resulted in Congressional hearings "in a second", if the President had been a Democrat. Not to mention the hypocrisy of Rove himself. TALKING POINT: Even if Karl Rove leaked Valerie Plame's identity, it's no big deal and deserves a medal. FACT: The GOP's Ed Gillespie and George Bush disagreed (with an emphasis on 'd'). In fact, if it's so not a big deal, why all this intrigue about what the White House can or cannot comment on? Just tell the truth then rather than hiding behind reporters and smears of people who had nothing to do with the expose. (As for medals, it probably deserves a medal in prison, to define the "role model" for fellow prisoners at Gitmo - while eating rice pilaf in the process). TALKING POINT: There was no legal crime committed with the Plame expose. FACT: False and false. So much for offering "a stiff dose of truth" instead of "more lectures, and legalisms, and carefully worded denials". TALKING POINT: Joseph Wilson supported John Kerry. FACT: So? He also supported Republicans in the past (before they turned on him and his wife, treasonously) and was recognized by George Bush Sr. for his bravery against Saddam Hussein in Iraq - where he was ambassador before Gulf War I. TALKING POINT: President Bush is committed to upholding the honor and dignity of his office. FACT: For the umpteenth time, false, false and false. http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004870.php

I really have to say, the GOP is much better on offense, because they are pretty fucking pathetic on defense. Perhaps it's because their best defense is ad hominem attacks and smear campaigns, which of course their lead man on this is none other than Rove himself - the one being investigated. The irony is just so thick.....

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

you can see a more definitive analysis here

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/...playVideo=16223

Last edited by igottaknow on Jul-14-2005 at 14:22

quote:

Despite hearing the same thing from Scott McClellan several days running, the press descended their hordes on the Cabinet Room yesterday to ask President Bush about the Karl Rove saga. With Rove sitting behind him, Bush said: "This is a serious investigation. I will be more than happy to comment on this matter once this investigation is complete. I also will not prejudge the investigation based on media reports." So, once again, the media has gotten nowhere. There was, of course, more Karl Rove coverage on the tube this morning. One CNN reporter referred to Rove and "his role in outing a covert CIA agent." Hold on a moment. Either I've missed something here, or someone is assuming facts not in evidence. So ... just to straighten me out, would someone somewhere please tell me who has said that Valerie Plame was a undercover CIA agent ... other, that is, than the media and her husband Joe Wilson? Look ... I know that the media says that Plame was an undercover CIA agent .. but this is the same media that wants Rove's head on a stake. The official line seems to be she had a desk job at the CIA at the time all of this happened. There were many people in Washington, including reporters, who knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken states that to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the field sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may have already been outed over a decade ago....by Aldrich Ames, the turncoat spying for the Soviets back in 1994. She was brought back to the states and given a desk job at the CIA. Apparently she also came and went in public. So even if Rove had named her, he wouldn't have broken the law. But the special prosecutor says Rove isn't the target. Dead end for the Democrats on that one. And by the way, there's still nobody that knows who the New York Times' Judith Miller is protecting by sitting in prison. Wouldn't it be nice if the Democrats and the media would worry as much about government over-spending and winning in Iraq as they do about trying to claim a trophy kill in the White House?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Hold on a moment. Either I've missed something here, or someone is assuming facts not in evidence. So ... just to straighten me out, would someone somewhere please tell me who has said that Valerie Plame was a undercover CIA agent ... other, that is, than the media and her husband Joe Wilson? Look ... I know that the media says that Plame was an undercover CIA agent .. but this is the same media that wants Rove's head on a stake. The official line seems to be she had a desk job at the CIA at the time all of this happened. There were many people in Washington, including reporters, who knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken states that to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the field sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may have already been outed over a decade ago....by Aldrich Ames, the turncoat spying for the Soviets back in 1994. She was brought back to the states and given a desk job at the CIA. Apparently she also came and went in public. So even if Rove had named her, he wouldn't have broken the law. But the special prosecutor says Rove isn't the target. Dead end for the Democrats on that one.

The Judith Miller issue is a sideshow that cannot be commented on because we simply know zilch about it. As for this comment above, whether or not Plame was a covert CIA agent, the above refutations answer that nicely:

quote:

TALKING POINT: Valerie Plame (Joseph Wilson's wife) was not covert. FACT: She was. (More here). Links: http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340 http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004866.php http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ar...3_10/002318.php http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/12/235811/128

To summon:

from DKOS:

quote:

Common sense tells me that 2 years into the investigation, the Plame prosecutor would have gathered enough facts to make such a determination. Seems a simple enough question. Heck, to me 2 hours seems sufficient. Served overseas? Check. In the last five years? Well, the CIA would know that one hopes. And the CIA referred the case to Justice. My application of common sense tells me that the answer is probably yes. Not enough? How about this: quote: The CIA declined to discuss Plame's intelligence work, but an agency official disputed suggestions that she was a mere analyst whose public exposure would have little consequence. "If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral," the CIA official said, insisting on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation. Don't know about Bob, but the CIA official makes sense to me

So if it's good enough for the CIA to believe she was covert, why the fuck is it not good enough for you Rove apologists out there? Why do you hate the CIA so much?

And let's look at the news reports, including Novak's description:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ar...3_10/002318.php

And how about an ex-CIA man himself who happened to be in Plame's class? Interesting words:

quote:

Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card. A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed. The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her. Larry Johnson http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340

So in a word: bullshit.

Now as to whether or not Rove gave out Plame's name, again I turn to Eriposte's refutations:

quote:

TALKING POINT: Karl Rove did not leak Valerie Plame's name. FACT: Please. Her name was not the secret, her identity was (which is the issue here) and he leaked that. (also see here and here). http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004870.php

Think about this logically - who the fuck cares what her NAME is - the law referring to outing covert government agents isn't about names - it's about OUTING THEIR OCCUPATIONS as covert agents. Sure people in Washington knew that Wilson had a wife, and her name was Valerie Plame. But did they know she was a covert agent that had secret fronts set up around the world in order to gather intelligence on WMD proliferation?

Please, please, PLEASE show me one fucking bit of evidence from any source, dear Rove apologists other than post-facto unsupported assertions that you knew what her ACTUAL job was prior to Rove and Novak outing her in July of '03. I have yet to see any.

So again, the crime is not knowing her name - that's a straw man. The crime is effectively outing her as a CIA covert operative, and THEN tying the name to her occupation.

And yet this still changes nothing about this one simple fact: For two years now Rove and this Administration have denied all day and night that Rove any any involvement with revealing Wilson's wife to the press. Yet the recent emails from Rove to Cooper completely contradict this. So when will this Administration for once fucking own up to their fuck-ups?


P.S. - All the above, of course, is not necessarily directed towards you, Shakka - but rather more towards your source given. Just for clarification.....

___________________
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 quote: Despite hearing the same thing from Scott McClellan several days running, the press descended their hordes on the Cabinet Room yesterday to ask President Bush about the Karl Rove saga. With Rove sitting behind him, Bush said: "This is a serious investigation. I will be more than happy to comment on this matter once this investigation is complete. I also will not prejudge the investigation based on media reports." So, once again, the media has gotten nowhere. There was, of course, more Karl Rove coverage on the tube this morning. One CNN reporter referred to Rove and "his role in outing a covert CIA agent." Hold on a moment. Either I've missed something here, or someone is assuming facts not in evidence. So ... just to straighten me out, would someone somewhere please tell me who has said that Valerie Plame was a undercover CIA agent ... other, that is, than the media and her husband Joe Wilson? Look ... I know that the media says that Plame was an undercover CIA agent .. but this is the same media that wants Rove's head on a stake. The official line seems to be she had a desk job at the CIA at the time all of this happened. There were many people in Washington, including reporters, who knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken states that to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the field sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may have already been outed over a decade ago....by Aldrich Ames, the turncoat spying for the Soviets back in 1994. She was brought back to the states and given a desk job at the CIA. Apparently she also came and went in public. So even if Rove had named her, he wouldn't have broken the law. But the special prosecutor says Rove isn't the target. Dead end for the Democrats on that one. And by the way, there's still nobody that knows who the New York Times' Judith Miller is protecting by sitting in prison. Wouldn't it be nice if the Democrats and the media would worry as much about government over-spending and winning in Iraq as they do about trying to claim a trophy kill in the White House?

Plame doesn’t have some simple desk job. If she were an analyst it wouldn’t be an issue. Instead she worked at the CIA’s Directorate of Operations whereby it’s not out of the question that she has been working on cases outside of the country sometime in the past 5 years. Furthermore it seems like the CIA was indeed intent on keeping her identity secret (a key provision of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act):

quote:

"If she were only an analyst, not an operative, we would not have filed a crimes report" with the Justice Department, a senior intelligence official said. http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLI.../30/wilson.cia/

and:

quote:

The case is, however, not yet closed, at least not the criminal case. To have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the exposer must be authorised to see classified information, must know the officer is undercover, and must know that the CIA is taking “affirmative measures” to conceal the operative’s identity. Mr Cooper’s e-mail does not make clear Mr Rove knew Ms Plame was undercover. However, the CIA did seem to be taking “affirmative measures” to protect her identity. The agency has since kept her from publishing an article clarifying what happened, saying it could damage their work. http://www.economist.com/agenda/dis...tory_id=4173001

Even if Rove is not guilty of criminal charges stemming from this one particular act, it’s still may ethically warrant a dismissal, and at the very least losing security clearance, because this whole affair has definitely ruined any future undercover career Plame may have. Not to mention the fact that outing a senior CIA official is not the smartest thing to do (might I remind you all of Aimal Khan Kasi, the Pakistani terrorist who murdered two CIA employees in McLean, VA in 1993).

Anyway, even if Rove doesn’t go to jail over this crime specifically, it looks like someone in this administration may go to jail for perjury or conspiracy to obstruct justice …

quote:

Legal experts said the evidence that has emerged in recent days -- including confirmation that Rove and Cooper spoke about Plame's role at the CIA as a way of knocking down a damaging story about the administration's Iraq policy -- does not by itself necessarily indicate a crime was committed. Even so, White House officials acknowledged privately that they are concerned that the investigation will lead to an indictment of someone in the administration later this year. . . . Several people familiar with the investigation said they expect Fitzgerald to indict, or at least force a plea agreement with, at least one individual for leaking Plame's name to conservative columnist Robert D. Novak in July 2003. Randall D. Eliason, former public corruption chief at the U.S. Attorney's Office here, said Fitzgerald likely has evidence of serious wrongdoing, or he would not have gone this far. "Right now, it's more political damage than legal damage" for the White House, Eliason said. "But it's reasonable to speculate he wouldn't go to the Supreme Court on reporters' privilege unless he had something pretty serious. You don't subpoena reporters and throw them in jail lightly. Fitzgerald is not some type of bomb-thrower." An official could face perjury charges for misleading the special counsel while testifying under oath. If so, this would become a familiar case of Washington officials getting in trouble for a coverup rather than the original misdeed. "If you look at past scandals, people are most often indicted for making false statements to federal investigators or false statements to the grand jury," said Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor and criminal lawyer. "Even a brief conversation can become an obstruction charge." Fitzgerald could have evidence, for instance, that Rove or other officials encouraged someone to tell a coverup story to explain their conversations about Plame, which could lead to a charge of conspiracy to obstruct justice. But legal experts noted these cases are often difficult to prove. Finally, there could be evidence of the crime that Fitzgerald first set out to investigate, a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Under a very detailed list of conditions, if Rove or other government officials revealed the identity of Plame to the media while knowing she was a covert agent, they could face felony charges and up to 10 years in prison if convicted. Victoria Toensing, who helped write the act, has said there is likely no such evidence in this case, because the statute was designed to have a high standard and requires proof of intent to harm national security. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5071302343.html

___________________
Retro ...

Forgive me, Opus, but if you're going to cite your left-wing blogs, then anything from the right-wingers is fair game as well. And that includes your girlfriend, Coulter and WND. Of course, I'm sure you've already read them.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...c20050713.shtml

quote:

Mission Implausible Ann Coulter (back to web version) | email to a friend Recommend to a friend July 13, 2005 Karl Rove was right. The real story about Joseph C. Wilson IV was not that Bush lied about Saddam seeking uranium in Africa; the story was Clown Wilson and his paper-pusher wife, Valerie Plame. By foisting their fantasies of themselves on the country, these two have instigated a massive criminal investigation, the result of which is: The only person who has demonstrably lied and possibly broken the law is Joseph Wilson. So the obvious solution is to fire Karl Rove. Clown Wilson thrust himself on the nation in July 2003 when he wrote an op-ed for the New York Times claiming Bush had lied in his State of the Union address. He said Bush was referring to Wilson's own "report" when Bush said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." $30,821 11:14AM Thursday But that is not what Wilson says he found! Thus, his column had the laughably hubristic title, "What I Didn't Find in Africa." (Once I couldn't find my car for hours after a Dead show. I call the experience: "What I Didn't Find in San Francisco.") Driven by that weird obsession liberals have of pretending they are Republicans in order to attack Republicans, Wilson implied he had been sent to Niger by Vice President Dick Cheney. Among copious other references to Cheney in the op-ed, Wilson said that CIA "officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story" that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy uranium from Niger, "so they could provide a response to the vice president's office." Soon Clown Wilson was going around claiming: "The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked, and that response was based upon my trip out there." Dick Cheney responded by saying: "I don't know Joe Wilson. I've never met Joe Wilson. I don't know who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back." Clown Wilson's allegation that Cheney had received his (unwritten) "report" was widely repeated as fact by, among others, the New York Times. In a huffy editorial, the Times suggested there had been a "willful effort" by the Bush administration to slander the great and honorable statesman Saddam Hussein. As evidence, the Times cited Bush's claims about Saddam seeking uranium from Niger, which, the Times said, had been "pretty well discredited" – which, according to my copy of "The New York Times Stylebook" means "unequivocally corroborated" – "by Joseph Wilson 4th, a former American diplomat, after he was dispatched to Niger by the CIA to look into the issue." So liberals were allowed to puff up Wilson's "report" by claiming Wilson was sent "by the CIA." But – in the traditional liberal definition of "criminal" – Republicans were not allowed to respond by pointing out Wilson was sent to Niger by his wife, not by the CIA and certainly not by Dick Cheney. So important was Wilson's fact-finding mission to Niger that he wasn't paid and he produced no written report. It actually buttressed the case that Saddam had tried to buy uranium from Niger, though Wilson was too stupid to realize it. His conclusion is contradicted by the extensive findings of the British government. (I'm not sure, but I think that's what Bush may have been referring to when he said, "the British government.") One could write a book about what Joe Wilson doesn't know about Africa. In fact, I'm pretty sure someone did: Joe Wilson. About a year later, a bipartisan Senate committee heard testimony from a CIA official that it was Wilson's wife who had "offered up" Wilson for the Niger trip. The committee also discovered a Feb. 12, 2002, memo from Wilson's wife gushing that 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." Wilson's response to the production of his wife's memo was: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me." Wilson's report was a hoax. His government bureaucrat wife wanted to get him out of the house, so she sent him on a taxpayer-funded government boondoggle. That was the information Karl Rove was trying to convey to the media by telling them, as described in the notes of Time reporter Matt Cooper: "big warning"! Don't "get too far out on Wilson." Democrats believe that because Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, the White House should not have been allowed to mention that it was she who sent him to Niger. But meanwhile, Clown Wilson was free to puff up his apocryphal credentials by implying he had been sent to Niger on an important mission for the vice president by the CIA. Despite the colloquialism being used on TV to describe the relevant criminal offense, the law does not criminalize "revealing the name" of a covert operative. If it did, every introduction of an operative at a cocktail party or a neighborhood picnic would constitute a felony. "Revealing the name of" is shorthand to describe what the law does criminalize: Intentionally revealing a covert operative as a covert operative, knowing it will blow the operative's cover. Rove had simply said Wilson went to Niger because of his wife, not his skill, expertise or common sense. It was the clown himself who outed his wife as an alleged "covert" agent by saying he was not recommended by his wife, and thus the White House must have been retaliating against him by mentioning his wife. Wilson intentionally blew his wife's "cover" in order to lie about how he ended up going to Niger. Far from a serious fact-finding mission, it was a "Take Your Daughters to Work Day" gone bad. Maybe liberals shouldn't have been so insistent about that special prosecutor.

..Democrat leaders and editorialists accusing Karl Rove of treason for referring to CIA agent Valerie Plame in an off-the-record interview are ignorant of the law, according to the Washington attorney who spearheaded the legislation at the center of the controversy.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=45266

quote:

Drafter of intel statute: Rove accusers ignorant Lawyer who wrote law to protect agents says Plame charge doesn't meet standard Valerie Plame appeared in Vanity Fair magazine with her husband Joseph Wilson in January 2004 Democrat leaders and editorialists accusing Karl Rove of treason for referring to CIA agent Valerie Plame in an off-the-record interview are ignorant of the law, according to the Washington attorney who spearheaded the legislation at the center of the controversy. Plame's circumstances don't meet several of the criteria spelled out in a 1982 statute designed not only to protect the identity of intelligence agents but to maintain the media's ability to hold government accountable, Victoria Toensing told WorldNetDaily. Toensing – who drafted the legislation in her role as chief counsel for the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence – says the Beltway frenzy surrounding Plame's alleged "outing" as a covert agent is a story arising out of the capital's "silly season." "The hurricane season started early and so did the August silly stories," Toensing said. "What is it that qualifies as a story here?" Democrat leaders are accusing Rove of exposing Plame's identity as an act of retribution against her husband Joe Wilson, who returned from a CIA assignment to Niger with a report disputing the administration's suspicion that Iraq wanted to acquire uranium from the African nation. Toensing, now a private attorney in Washington, says Plame most likely was not a covert agent when Rove referred to her in a 2003 interview with Time magazine's Matt Cooper. The federal code says the agent must have operated outside the United States within the previous five years. But Plame gave up her role as a covert agent nine years before the Rove interview, according to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. Kristof said the CIA brought Plame back to Washington in 1994 because the agency suspected her undercover security had been compromised by turncoat spy Aldrich Ames. Moreover, asserts Toensing, for the law to be violated, Rove would have had to intentionally reveal Plame's identity with the knowledge that he was disclosing a covert agent. Toensing believes Rove's waiver allowing reporters testifying before the grand jury to reveal him as a source – signed more than 18 months ago – shows the Bush strategist did not believe he was violating the law. Rove, according to Cooper's notes, apparently was trying to warn the reporter not to give credence to Wilson's investigation, because he had no expertise in nuclear weapons and was sent to Africa on the recommendation of his wife. Wilson had claimed he was sent by Vice President Cheney. Another element necessary for applying the law is that the government had to be taking affirmative measures to conceal the agent's identity. Toensing says that on the contrary, the CIA gave Plame a desk job in which she publicly went to and from work, allowed her spouse to do a mission in Africa without signing a confidentiality agreement and didn't object to his writing an op-ed piece in the New York Times about his trip. Columnist Robert Novak, who first published Plame's name, also apparently didn't think it was a big deal, Toensing said, or he would have put it in the first paragraph. Novak's aim was to expose the incompetence of the CIA, she argued. "These are the kinds of stories we wanted to still be put out there when we passed the law," she said. "We only wanted to stop the methodical exposing of CIA personnel for the purpose of assassination."

As far as Occ's comments on criminal vs. ethical--that may be a different story, but I believe that there has to intent when you're talking about ethics as the gray area tends to be much larger.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo ...not the left wing press.

Oh yea, the left wing press. Let me refer to Maddox.

Liberal media: Whiny, bitching, cry-baby conservatives love to prattle on and on about the "liberal media." To be fair, except for FOX News (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, Neil Cavuto, Steve Doocy, E.D. Hill, Brian Kilmeade, Brit Hume), Clear Channel, Laura Ingraham, Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Newsmax, G. Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, The New York Post, Sinclair Broadcast Group (WLOS13, Fox 45, WTTO21, WB49, KGAN, WICD, WICS, WCHS, WVAH, WTAT, WSTR, WSYX, WTTE, WKEF, WRGT, KDSM, WSMH, WXLV, WURN, KVWB, KFBT, WDKY, WMSN, WVTV, WEAR, WZTV, KOTH, WYZZ, WPGH, WGME, WLFL, WRLH, WUHF, KABB, WGGB, WSYT, WTTA), David Horowitz, Rupert Murdoch, PAX, and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, they're right.

___________________

Klaus Wunderbaum vs Der Dritte Raum - Pump My Body Bopp (YHR Mix / Ricky Ryan Edit)
Kraftwerk - Numbers (Live Version) Vs 2 Bad Mice - Bombscare
Jon Gurd - Lemon Sherbert

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Forgive me, Opus, but if you're going to cite your left-wing blogs, then anything from the right-wingers is fair game as well. And that includes your girlfriend, Coulter and WND. Of course, I'm sure you've already read them. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...c20050713.shtml ..Democrat leaders and editorialists accusing Karl Rove of treason for referring to CIA agent Valerie Plame in an off-the-record interview are ignorant of the law, according to the Washington attorney who spearheaded the legislation at the center of the controversy. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=45266

How'd I know you'd throw in Coulter, Shakka? Damnit, you're killing me! I promise to address both posts in full on Saturday after my exams on Friday, but on initial glance it seems once again both are referring DIRECTLY from the GOP talking points. It really is amazing to watch the Right Wing Noise Machine in motion. For example, ala Coulter:

quote:

But that is not what Wilson says he found! Thus, his column had the laughably hubristic title, "What I Didn't Find in Africa." (Once I couldn't find my car for hours after a Dead show. I call the experience: "What I Didn't Find in San Francisco.")

Wait, before I say something on the talking points - what the fuck is Anorexic Anne talking about here? Bush stated that British intelligence had evidence that Saddam bought yellow-cake. Wilson was sent to check it out - and found just as the IAEA did that the evidence supporting that claim was on bogus papers. So what's her fucking point?

quote:

So liberals were allowed to puff up Wilson's "report" by claiming Wilson was sent "by the CIA." But – in the traditional liberal definition of "criminal" – Republicans were not allowed to respond by pointing out Wilson was sent to Niger by his wife, not by the CIA and certainly not by Dick Cheney.

Which, of course is in direct line to GOP talking point:

quote:

Wilson Falsely Claimed That It Was Vice President Cheney Who Sent Him To Niger, But The Vice President Has Said He Never Met Him And Didn’t Know Who Sent Him: Wilson Says He Traveled To Niger At CIA Request To Help Provide Response To Vice President’s Office. “In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report. … The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office.” (Joseph C. Wilson, Op-Ed, “What I Didn’t Find In Africa,” The New York Times, 7/6/03) Joe Wilson: “What They Did, What The Office Of The Vice President Did, And, In Fact, I Believe Now From Mr. Libby’s Statement, It Was Probably The Vice President Himself ...” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 8/3/03) Vice President Cheney: “I Don’t Know Joe Wilson. I’ve Never Met Joe Wilson. … And Joe Wilson - I Don’t [Know] Who Sent Joe Wilson. He Never Submitted A Report That I Ever Saw When He Came Back.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/14/03) CIA Director George Tenet: “In An Effort To Inquire About Certain Reports Involving Niger, CIA’s Counter-Proliferation Experts, On Their Own Initiative, Asked An Individual With Ties To The Region To Make A Visit To See What He Could Learn.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release, 7/11/03) Tenet: “Because This Report, In Our View, Did Not Resolve Whether Iraq Was Or Was Not Seeking Uranium From Abroad, It Was Given A Normal And Wide Distribution, But We Did Not Brief It To The President, Vice-President Or Other Senior Administration Officials.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release, 7/11/03) http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=5620

So far so good, right? Well if Mehlman actually quoted Wilson in FULL, rather than cherry pick his quotes (anyone see a similarity between creationists and this current GOP? I digress), he'd have posted this:

quote:

BLITZER: Is that true? WILSON: Well, look, it's absolutely true that neither the vice president nor Dr. Rice nor even George Tenet knew that I was traveling to Niger. What they did, what the office of the vice president did, and, in fact, I believe now from Mr. Libby's statement, it was probably the vice president himself... BLITZER: Scooter Libby is the chief of staff for the vice president. WILSON: Scooter Libby. They asked essentially that we follow up on this report -- that the agency follow up on the report. So it was a question that went to the CIA briefer from the Office of the Vice President. The CIA, at the operational level, made a determination that the best way to answer this serious question was to send somebody out there who knew something about both the uranium business and those Niger officials that were in office at the time these reported documents were executed. BLITZER: Is that true? WILSON: Well, look, it's absolutely true that neither the vice president nor Dr. Rice nor even George Tenet knew that I was traveling to Niger. What they did, what the office of the vice president did, and, in fact, I believe now from Mr. Libby's statement, it was probably the vice president himself... BLITZER: Scooter Libby is the chief of staff for the vice president. WILSON: Scooter Libby. They asked essentially that we follow up on this report -- that the agency follow up on the report. So it was a question that went to the CIA briefer from the Office of the Vice President. The CIA, at the operational level, made a determination that the best way to answer this serious question was to send somebody out there who knew something about both the uranium business and those Niger officials that were in office at the time these reported documents were executed. BLITZER: Is that true? WILSON: Well, look, it's absolutely true that neither the vice president nor Dr. Rice nor even George Tenet knew that I was traveling to Niger. What they did, what the office of the vice president did, and, in fact, I believe now from Mr. Libby's statement, it was probably the vice president himself... BLITZER: Scooter Libby is the chief of staff for the vice president. WILSON: Scooter Libby. They asked essentially that we follow up on this report -- that the agency follow up on the report. So it was a question that went to the CIA briefer from the Office of the Vice President. The CIA, at the operational level, made a determination that the best way to answer this serious question was to send somebody out there who knew something about both the uranium business and those Niger officials that were in office at the time these reported documents were executed. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI...8/03/le.00.html

So is the fucking office of the Vice President good enough? Or should Cheney and/or Libby broadcasted IN PUBLIC their desire to send Wilson to check out the British claim? Would that have ONLY cut the mustard, dear Annie? And you're gonna fucking sit there and tell me that the VP didn't receive the response back from Wilson? Well not only did they not receive that response, I guess they didn't receive IAEA's investigation as well, right?

quote:

though Wilson was too stupid to realize it. His conclusion is contradicted by the extensive findings of the British government. (I'm not sure, but I think that's what Bush may have been referring to when he said, "the British government.") One could write a book about what Joe Wilson doesn't know about Africa. In fact, I'm pretty sure someone did: Joe Wilson.

What a douchebag. I'll skip her inane last statement for a moment and ask exactly what fucking "extensive findings of the British government" Annie's talking about here. She does fucking realize that those papers the British intelligence relied on were proven bogus, right? And that our own government and Administration admitted as such, right? Jesus fucking Christ she's pathetic.

quote:

About a year later, a bipartisan Senate committee heard testimony from a CIA official that it was Wilson's wife who had "offered up" Wilson for the Niger trip. The committee also discovered a Feb. 12, 2002, memo from Wilson's wife gushing that 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." Wilson's response to the production of his wife's memo was: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me." Wilson's report was a hoax. His government bureaucrat wife wanted to get him out of the house, so she sent him on a taxpayer-funded government boondoggle.

Sounding familiar yet? Need I say more to refute this? As the refutation said earlier:

quote:

TALKING POINT: The Senate Intelligence Committee said that Valerie Plame was the one who set up Joe Wilson's trip. FACT: False and false. (Also see here). (In fact, there is no consensus view that Valerie Plame even suggested that Wilson be sent on the trip.)

So it WASN'T a bipartisan view from the SIC, but a GOP smear instead (which anyone can read the report on their own). Second, I've discussed it earlier - if the CIA members themselves state that Plame wasn't involved in setting up the trip, why is the fucking GOP trying to claim otherwise?

And perhaps even more importantly - regardless of who set what up, so fucking what? Does that discredit Wilson's findings? Does that discredit the fact that the White House took back those 16 words IMMEDIATELY after Wilson posted his first NYTimes editorial in July 2003?

Still waiting for an answer to that one.

quote:

Wilson's report was a hoax. His government bureaucrat wife wanted to get him out of the house, so she sent him on a taxpayer-funded government boondoggle.

Does she have evidence that the taxpayers paid for this? Last I heard this was on Wilson's dime, not the CIAs, but I'm more than happy for her to correct me.

Then she goes on to say something along the talking point lines that she was not a covert CIA agent, and that no law was broken:

quote:

That was the information Karl Rove was trying to convey to the media by telling them, as described in the notes of Time reporter Matt Cooper: "big warning"! Don't "get too far out on Wilson." Democrats believe that because Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, the White House should not have been allowed to mention that it was she who sent him to Niger. But meanwhile, Clown Wilson was free to puff up his apocryphal credentials by implying he had been sent to Niger on an important mission for the vice president by the CIA. Despite the colloquialism being used on TV to describe the relevant criminal offense, the law does not criminalize "revealing the name" of a covert operative. If it did, every introduction of an operative at a cocktail party or a neighborhood picnic would constitute a felony. "Revealing the name of" is shorthand to describe what the law does criminalize: Intentionally revealing a covert operative as a covert operative, knowing it will blow the operative's cover. Rove had simply said Wilson went to Niger because of his wife, not his skill, expertise or common sense. It was the clown himself who outed his wife as an alleged "covert" agent by saying he was not recommended by his wife, and thus the White House must have been retaliating against him by mentioning his wife. Wilson intentionally blew his wife's "cover" in order to lie about how he ended up going to Niger. Far from a serious fact-finding mission, it was a "Take Your Daughters to Work Day" gone bad. Maybe liberals shouldn't have been so insistent about that special prosecutor.

Again, it's not the NAME of the person that's important - rather, it's their job as a covert agent, which your second post gets to.

Fucking Anne, give me a break! Same fucking GOP points with a bunch of slanderous, childish name-calling and baiting. Typical. Is she honestly your spokeswoman for your party?

quote:

Drafter of intel statute: Rove accusers ignorant Lawyer who wrote law to protect agents says Plame charge doesn't meet standard

Running low on time, but this is a complete straw man as well. It's equivalent to Roe saying that abortion should be illegal - it's wholly irrelevant what the drafter states - rather it's entirely up to the prosecutor and the judicial system for the interpretation, which I'm sure they will do to the fullest extent.

But as I said earlier, the evidence strongly suggests that a law was broken - otherwise why is this still a pursuing investigation for over 2 years? If no law was broken, this would be an open and shut case that would have ended a long time ago. Furthermore, as I quoted someone earlier:

quote:

The CIA declined to discuss Plame's intelligence work, but an agency official disputed suggestions that she was a mere analyst whose public exposure would have little consequence. "If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral," the CIA official said, insisting on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation.

Or how about Larry Johnson's words on the matter?:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340

Or even Novak himself? It's patently obvious that a law was broken. Now whether or not an appeals case will be filed afterwards is another matter, but there's no way in hell a special prosecutor would continue pursuing this matter UNLESS a law was broken. How could one state otherwise?

And for the last time, the claim that Rove was supposedly "warning" Cooper is complete utter bullshit spin:

quote:

TALKING POINT: Matt Cooper of Time magazine "burned" Rove. FACT: Rove's lawyer, who made the above fake claim, himself has been expounding again and again about how Rove gave complete waivers to all his journalist contacts to testify. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/12/173649/452

Moreover, did Rove really want to "warn"?:

quote:

“A senior administration official said that before Novak’s column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson’s wife… ‘Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge,’ the senior official said of the alleged leak.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer

That was shortly after the investigation began. Purely and simply for revenge. Read that over and over if you wish.

Fuck I'm gonna flunk tomorrow! I miss politics!

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

Don't stop studying on my account.

Out of curiousity, maybe you could tell me more about the Daily Kos site that you've become so fond of sourcing. I admittedly am not a reader of the site and don't really know what their agenda is. I scanned around briefly and didn't really see much citing of facts. Not that I want to debunk it as a decent source, I just don't know enough about it to call it an authoritative source. Could just be another Drudge Report for all I know.


Now go study your nuts off.

quote:

Originally posted by leavingharvard Oh yea, the left wing press. Let me refer to Maddox. Liberal media: Whiny, bitching, cry-baby conservatives love to prattle on and on about the "liberal media." To be fair, except for FOX News (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, Neil Cavuto, Steve Doocy, E.D. Hill, Brian Kilmeade, Brit Hume), Clear Channel, Laura Ingraham, Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Newsmax, G. Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, The New York Post, Sinclair Broadcast Group (WLOS13, Fox 45, WTTO21, WB49, KGAN, WICD, WICS, WCHS, WVAH, WTAT, WSTR, WSYX, WTTE, WKEF, WRGT, KDSM, WSMH, WXLV, WURN, KVWB, KFBT, WDKY, WMSN, WVTV, WEAR, WZTV, KOTH, WYZZ, WPGH, WGME, WLFL, WRLH, WUHF, KABB, WGGB, WSYT, WTTA), David Horowitz, Rupert Murdoch, PAX, and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, they're right.

is that it? WOW