White House Stonewalls on Rove Scandal

posted by David Corn on 07/11/2005 @ 9:06pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (167)

Subscribe Now

I advise all students of political speech to read the transcript of the press briefing conducted by White House press secretary Scott McClellan today. It was a smorgasbord of stonewalling. He entered the White House press room at 1:00 p.m., his eyes darting about, and started off by reading a statement from President Bush on the tenth anniversary of the massacre at Srebrenica. Then the subject changed. Rather abruptly. Reporter after reporter asked McClellan about Karl Rove and the news--broken by Michael Isikoff of Newsweek--of a July 11, 2003, e-mail written by Time's Matt Cooper that noted that Cooper had spoken to Rove on "double super secret background" and that Rove had told him that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's "wife...apparently works at the agency on wmd issues." The e-mail is proof that Rove leaked to a reporter information revealing the CIA employment of Valerie Plame (a k a Valerie Wilson).

This puts Rove and the White House in a pickle. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, says that Rove did not mention Valerie Wilson's name to Cooper. But this is a rather thin defense. (I explain why here, and I also note why George W. Bush, if he takes his own rhetoric seriously, has no choice but to dismiss Rove.) But legal and criminal difficulties aside, the e-mail is undeniable evidence that Rove leaked national security information to a journalist to discredit a critic (Joseph Wilson). How does that square with White House policy as it has been previously stated? Well, it doesn't. And the journalists in the White House press room knew that. Many had a list of previous McClellan statements at the ready. I was there, and I had a list, too. Here are some of the past White House statements I had collected.

On September 29, 2003, Scott McClellan said of the leak (which first appeared in a Bob Novak column on July 14, 2003):

That is not the way this White House operates. The President expects everyone in his Administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing.

Asked then about the allegation Rove had been involved in the leak, he said,

Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion.... It is simply not true.... And I have spoken with Karl Rove.

He also said that the White House would not stand for such conduct:

If anyone in this Administration was involved in [the leak], they would no longer be in this Administration..

On October 1, 2003, McClellan reiterated the White House position:

The president certainly doesn't condone the leaking.

And he said of Rove:

I made it very clear that he didn't condone that kind of activity and was not involved in that kind of activity.

On October 7, McClellan noted that prior to previously telling the press that Rove and two other White House aides--National Security Council staffer Elliott Abrams and Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby--were not involved in the leak, he had spoken to each of the three and determined they had not been part of the Plame/CIA leak:

I had no doubt of that...but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.

How could McClellan defend such a record? His strategy was clear: don't even try. When the reporters began firing Rove-related queries at him, he refused to answer any of them. The first query came from Terrence Hunt of Associated Press: Does Bush stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in the Plame/CIA leak? McClellan replied that "while the [leak] investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it." Hunt tried again: "Excuse me, but I wasn't actually talking about any investigation. But in June 2004, the president said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak.... And I just wanted to know, is that still his position?"

McClellan would not say: "We're not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation." He claimed that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had "expressed a preference to us" that the White House not comment on the matter. (I later called Fitzgerald's office and asked it to confirm whether Fitzgerald had made such a request. A spokeswoman for Fitzgerald said he would not have any comment regarding any part of the investigation. "Not even to back up what the White House said?" I asked. "No," she replied.)

Next up in the press room was John Roberts of CBS News. He asked if McClellan was contradicting himself since he had freely discussed the matter in the fall of 2003 when he claimed it was "ridiculous" to believe Rove had been involved in the leak. McClellan said, "I appreciate the question." (That was clearly not the truth.) He went on: "I remember very well what we previously said, and at some point would be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete."

NBC's David Gregory then piped up: "Did Karl Rove commit a crime?" Again, McClellan went to Index Card No. 1: "This is a question relating to an ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to that investigation." Did McClellan stand by his previous statements? No answer. A frustrated (justifiably) Gregory noted, "Scott, I mean, just--I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?" McClellan: "There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time."

That was for sure. Other reporters took similar swings at McClellan. He just stood there, counting the minutes, perhaps silently trying to convince himself that he was in his happy place and that he was not being beaten into a pulp. One reporter asked when Fitzgerald had requested the Bush White House not to talk about the investigation. McClellan said the request came in the fall of 2003. A-ha, one reporter said; Bush spoke about the leak investigation in June 2004 and renewed his pledge to fire anyone involved. Had Bush violated the White House policy against speaking about the probe? "You have my response," McClellan said. Of course, the reporter did not.

Carl Cameron of Fox News asked if Bush continues "to have confidence in Mr. Rove?" McClellan wouldn't even touch this down-the-middle pitch: "Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this." And when another reporter asked McClellan to describe the importance of Rove to the Bush Administration, he replied, "Do you have questions on another topic?"

******

Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent postings on Rove and the Plame/CIA leak, Blair's poodle problem and other in-the-news subjects.

*******

By the time my turn came, I realized I was not going to be able to cause any crack in the wall. But I had to try, and I attempted to slightly redefine the issue. I noted,

There's a difference between commenting publicly on an action and taking action in response to it. Newsweek put out a story, an e-mail saying that Karl Rove passed national security information on to a reporter that outed a CIA officer. Now, are you saying that the President is not taking any action in response to that? Because I presume that the prosecutor did not ask you not to take action, and that if he did, you still would not necessarily abide by that; that the President is free to respond to news reports, regardless of whether there's an investigation or not. So are you saying that he's not going to do anything about this until the investigation is fully over and done with?

In other words, how about forgetting the crime and focusing on the leak? He responded,

Well, I think the President has previously spoken to this. This continues to be an ongoing criminal investigation. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. And we're just not going to have more to say on it until that investigation is complete.

But Bush has not said what he intends to do about Rove now that there is public evidence that Rove leaked information on Valerie Wilson. (And if Bush wants to get to the bottom of this, shouldn't he just whistle Rove into his office and ask, "Karl, what gives?") So I pushed on:

But you acknowledge that he is free, as President of the United States, to take whatever action he wants to in response to a credible report that a member of his staff leaked information? He is free to take action if he wants to?

But there would be no such acknowledging. McClellan said,

Again, you're asking questions relating to an ongoing investigation, and I think I've responded to it.

He hadn't. But then why should my question receive special treatment this day?

Other Rove-related questions were hurled at him. He refused to touch a single one. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post took a stab as well:

Scott, I think you're [being] barraged[d] today in part because we--it is now clear that twenty-one months ago, you were up at this podium saying something that we now know to be demonstratively false. Now, are you concerned that in not setting the record straight today that this could undermine the credibility of the other things you say from the podium?

McClellan showed no such concern:

Again, I'm going to be happy to talk about this at the appropriate time. Dana, you all--you and everybody in this room, or most people in this room, I should say, know me very well and they know the type of person that I am. And I'm confident in our relationship that we have. But I will be glad to talk about this at the appropriate time, and that's once the investigation is complete.

Everybody in the room--and out of it--should review McClellan's exchange with the reporters to see how he and this White House do business. After what transpired, no reporter should take McClellan's word at face value (if they ever did). Moreover, the larger issue is not his--and Bush's--credibility but the wrongdoing committed by a senior White House official and the apparent lack of a response from the White House. (And remember, Bob Novak's column outing Valerie Wilson as a CIA officer cited two unnamed senior Bush Administration officials.) The White House is adopting a familiar media strategy: say nothing, don't fuel the story, wait for it to pass--and ignore the substance of the issue. Bush aides must be hoping that the media lose interest and are not provided any further reasons to headline this story. They are probably also hoping that the Democrats fail to create the sort of political storm that would compel journalists to continue to give the Rove scandal prominent play. Maybe their stonewall will hold. And what's the alternative? Tell the obvious truth and admit that Bush's most important adviser committed an act that Bush has said warrants dismissal? But what's the percentage in that? With McClellan providing no answers related to the Rove scandal, the question is whether the White House's we-can't-comment stance will allow it to dodge yet another troubling and inconvenient reality.

*******************

IT REMAINS RELEVANT, ALAS. SO DON'T FORGET ABOUT DAVID CORN'S BOOK, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers). A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER! An UPDATED and EXPANDED EDITION is AVAILABLE in PAPERBACK. The Washington Post says, "This is a fierce polemic, but it is based on an immense amount of research.... [I]t does present a serious case for the president's partisans to answer.... Readers can hardly avoid drawing...troubling conclusions from Corn's painstaking indictment." The Los Angeles Times says, "David Corn's The Lies of George W. Bush is as hard-hitting an attack as has been leveled against the current president. He compares what Bush said with the known facts of a given situation and ends up making a persuasive case." The Library Journal says, "Corn chronicles to devastating effect the lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations.... Corn has painstakingly unearthed a bill of particulars against the president that is as damaging as it is thorough." And GEORGE W. BUSH SAYS, "I'd like to tell you I've read [ The Lies of George W. Bush], but that'd be a lie."

For more information and a sample, go to www.davidcorn.com. And see his WEBLOG there..

Comments (167)

This stood out in particular in a stellar piece chock-full of stand-out bits:

-- One reporter asked when Fitzgerald had requested the Bush White House not to talk about the investigation. McClellan said the request came in the fall of 2003. A-ha, one reporter said; Bush spoke about the leak investigation in June 2004 and renewed his pledge to fire anyone involved. Had Bush violated the White House policy against speaking about the probe? "You have my response," McClellan said. Of course, the reporter did not. --

It's not enough that this administration so blatantly lies, but lies so blatantly and uncreatively. (I know, I know, Bushies, it's not lying over sex but just blowing the cover of a CIA operative working on stopping the spread of WMD, but bear with me, huh?) And McClellan has always been pathetic at this job. Ari Fleischer may be a sleaze, but at least he was fairly adept at spewing BS with some dexterity and grace. McClellan is like an unprepared understudy in a high-school drama production who's been forced to take over for the lead actor and doesn't know his lines.

Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/11/2005 @ 9:30pm
Well, it seems we have two opposing forces acting in the psyche of Mr. McClellan--credibility and deniability. While it was easy for White House or administration staff to deny any involvement of a White House staff person in the outing of Valerie _____ and easier still apparently to convince the press secretary, Mr. McClellan could tell himself that he had some credibility. Now that information has come out that contradicts what he was allegedly told in private and accepted as truth, his credibility is at question. And I don't even mean with the press corps, but within himself, I would think.

Or maybe he's just saving it for his memoirs.

FYnEstKind

Posted by FYnEstKind at 07/11/2005 @ 9:39pm
Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/11/2005 @ 9:45pm
Zero,

What "distraction" will they come up with? Who knows. If memory serves, that baseless duct-tape Homeland Security alert was issued right after the American press FINALLY started to report on Bush & Co's uranium claim being bullcrap-bogus (even though a foreign liberal publication had reported on it 2 months prior; gotta love that "liberal" U.S. media!). With something like this, I don't know. Maybe that Canada and France are in cahoots with al Qaeda. I know this may seem palpably foolish, but going by the idiotic things spewed by this administration, I wouldn't bet so much as a shiny new dime that they 100% wouldn't.

Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/11/2005 @ 9:59pm
One more thing to consider:

Are Bush & Co. REALLY that worried about this? Well, LEGALLY, yeah, as far as Rove possibly getting indicted. But POLITICALLY? I don't think so. Think about it. This is an administration that knowingly lied about the main rationale for a full-fledged, unnecessary war that's killed and maimed several thousands of our troops and killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, yet the majority of the American voting public didn't seem to care too much in Nov. '04. So what's exposing a CIA operative's cover by comparison? Not much, I'd say. As I've averred before: deficit-contributing tax cuts and bigoted policy agendas buy a hell of a lot of consciences -- that is, if they actually existed in toe-the-line Bushies to be bought in the first place.

Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/11/2005 @ 10:12pm
I'd say the chances of the mainstream media actually putting Bush under scrutiny under any circumstances is about as slim as Rove getting indicted.

Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/11/2005 @ 10:22pm
Zero... it was Terry Moran (ABC News) that made the bad spot comment.

The obvious way to deal with this is to absolutely hammer away at George Bush the next time he gets in front of a microphone and every time afterward until he talks or fires Rove. If you thought it was fun to see Scott squirm while trying to maintain plausible deniability, then what will happen when somebody asks W why it is that he's OK with Judith Miller sitting in a jail cell while his administration continues to lie and obfuscate in an attempt to cover an as yet undetermined number of asses.

Posted by whatever at 07/11/2005 @ 10:39pm
I also think they made a huge miscalculation that journalists would be complacent that one of their own went to jail to protect a source, when it is now clear that the source(s) may have broken the law themselves, cynically used reporters to spread propaganda and disseminate truth, and at the very least 'outed' a long standing operation that was gathering intelligence on real WMD threats. The arrogance and hipocrasy here is amazing, this won't just go away by them ignoring it since they have ultimately done more damage to their credibility than Joe Wilson ever could.

Posted by whatever at 07/11/2005 @ 10:46pm
Put this age-old question to Mr. McClellan or Mr. Bush, next time one or both are in front of the microphone:

"What is The Truth?"

Not the subjective truth, or the opinion, or the spin, or the interpretation, or the testimony (will Mr. McClellan be called to testify before the Grand Jury?), or the submission of facts in the cause of national security, or the "sexed-up" version, or whatever, but The Truth.

As it is written in a translation of First Esdras I read a long time ago: "Great is truth and stronger than all things."

FYnEstKind

Posted by FYnEstKind at 07/11/2005 @ 10:47pm
FRANKGRITS: Damn, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Posted by Chuck at 07/11/2005 @ 11:22pm
Several times during today's briefing McClellan looked absolutely petrified. And rightfully so!

I have to give David Gregory credit for standing firm with his questions but it was to no avail. Stoolie McClellan wasn't talking. It would of been interesting if someone had posed this question: Scott, could you give us a timetable as to when the mendacity will end?

Did anyone see Larry King tonight? His guest was reporter Bob Woodward. He was promoting his new book. Woodward commented on the Valerie Plame leak by again stating he doesn't believe a crime was committed and that he also believes it may have been an accident that someone in the administration had released her name. An accident? Come on Bob! It was revenge! It's about what Joseph C. Wilson didn't find in Africa! And no way was this administration about to tolerate such malevolent behavior!

Posted by Munich at 07/11/2005 @ 11:46pm
The issue is one thing and one thing only.

Rove, presumably, did not have clearance to know Plame's identity. Neither did Novak. SOMEONE with clearance released Plame's identity to someone who was not cleared to know it. THAT person is going to jail. Is it Cheney? Libby? Card? Bush?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by spudrph at 07/11/2005 @ 11:46pm
SPUDRPH:

What about Ari Fleischer? Would he of had the clearance? He too had the ability to repeat a lie even after it's been shown to be false.

Like McClellan said: "If anyone in this Administration was involved in [the leak], they would no longer be in this Administration."

After two and a half years as the chief mouthpiece of the White House, Fleischer is no longer! I believe he's now on the lecture circuit?

Just a thought.

Posted by Munich at 07/12/2005 @ 12:04am
Today's press conference is eerily reminiscent of the Watergate era. Consider this excerpt from a Nixon press conference, dated June 22, 1972. (With thanks to billmon.org for digging through the annals:

QUESTION: Mr. O'Brien has said that the people who bugged [Democratic Party] headquarters had a direct link to the White House. Have you had any sort of investigation to determine whether this is true?

NIXON: Mr. Ziegler and also Mr. Mitchell, speaking for the campaign committee, have responded to questions on this in great detail. They have stated my position and have also stated the facts accurately. This kind of activity, as Mr. Ziegler has indicated, has no place whatsoever in our electoral process . . . And, as Mr. Zeigler has stated, the White House has had no involvement whatever in this particular incident.

As far as the matter is now concerned, it is under investigation, as it should be, by the proper legal authorities, by the District of Columbia police and by the FBI. I will not comment on those matters, particularly since possible criminal charges are involved.

Posted by get 'em, jim at 07/12/2005 @ 12:10am
what pisses me off most about this whole situation is that Rove and anyone else who is high up enough that is involved in this is going to get off scott-free. like david mentioned, they will continue to stonewall the media until some other hollywood star is put on trial and everyone will forget about this. they'll stonewall until the investigation ends (if it ever does), and then they will deny any wrongdoing. same shit, same administration.

Posted by simonak at 07/12/2005 @ 01:09am
Where does Porter Goss stand on all this? Although it was before his tenure began, it is now his agent that was compromised. Could we imagine a scenario where Goss informs the president and national security advisor, Stephen Hadley, via memo, prior to the next CIA briefing, that Goss does not want Karl Rove present in the room (if he ever is present), that based on what Goss now knows, he cannot in good conscience or responsibility to the Agency provide classified information to one who is suspected of betraying such information to the public, that yes, the matter is not yet formally resolved, but the CIA has every right to act on probabilities, and indeed does so everyday in its normal operations, and finally, that the president has the right to do with the information what he wishes after the briefing is over.

Thank you Mr. President for your consideration in this matter.

Porter J. Goss Director, Central Intelligence

GERALD RELLICK grellick@flash.net Orange, CA

Posted by grellick at 07/12/2005 @ 01:09am
My personal favorite line from this blog is from Kevin Collins:

"...Are Bush & Co. REALLY that worried about this? Well, LEGALLY, yeah, as far as Rove possibly getting indicted. But POLITICALLY? I don't think so. Think about it. This is an administration that knowingly lied about the main rationale for a full-fledged, unnecessary war that's killed and maimed several thousands of our troops and killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, yet the majority of the American voting public didn't seem to care too much in Nov. '04. So what's exposing a CIA operative's cover by comparison? Not much, I'd say."

I've always been mystified by this phenomena. How much consumate failure can our nation witness, and still somehow not notice?

And yes, Frank. I do miss JZ, et.al..

Blink

Posted by Blinky at 07/12/2005 @ 01:36am
Oh yeah. I meant phenomenon. :-)

Posted by Blinky at 07/12/2005 @ 01:39am
Does anybody know when Dick Cheney's "visit" to CIA headquarters occurred in the context of the Plame outing timetable? How would Rove come to know such a high level secret about Wilson? Does he keep a Hooveresque folder on all officials connected with the Bush administration? Can such a juicy piece of shit ever be subpoenaed?

Posted by parulis at 07/12/2005 @ 01:51am
Well, while we're all speculating, where were Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and others during July 2003? In a "Mother Jones" article, "The Lie Factory," the assemblying of an unofficial group within the administration that provided spin on intelligence was detailed. One quote:

"The purpose of the unnamed intelligence unit, often described as a Pentagon 'cell,' was to scour reports from the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and other agencies to find nuggets of information linking Iraq, Al Qaeda, terrorism, and the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In a controversial press briefing in October 2002, a year after Wurmser's unit was established, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged that a primary purpose of the unit was to cull factoids, which were then used to disparage, undermine, and contradict the CIA's reporting, which was far more cautious and nuanced than Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith wanted."

Later on, the writers, Robert Dreyfuss and Jason Vest, note, "That the White House and the Pentagon put enormous pressure on the CIA to go along with its version of events has been widely reported, highlighted by visits to CIA headquarters by Vice President Cheney and Lewis Libby, his chief of staff. Led by Perle, the neocons seethed with contempt for the CIA. The CIA's analysis, said Perle, 'isn't worth the paper it's printed on.'"

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_405.html

Posted by FYnEstKind at 07/12/2005 @ 06:23am
I love this story.

Lets see, Joe Wilson manipulates his way onto a supposed CIA mission at the request of his wife and finds some evidence that the CIA actually determines ADDS credibility to the claim that Iraq was seeking to improve trade relations with Niger, which everyone---including the President of Niger--knows means that Saddam was looking to get yellow-cake uranium.

Then, knowing he can grab a cheap shot at the limelight, Joe Wilson tries to help get his buddy John Kerry into the White House by writing a well-crafted lie-ridden Op-Ed piece for the NY Times entitled "What I Didn't Find in Africa" slamming the Bush administration for what he incorrectly interpreted as his thinking that he disproved any Niger-Saddam relation....

In a very careful attempt to put the story in its proper and more truthful context, Karl Rove mentioned very relevant and important facts to Time magazine with special care as to not reveal anything secret and not break any law.

YET look at how the left drool over this!!! Touche my friends---you guys really pulled this off----you set it up so that not only do you get to shout lies from atop the NY Times Editorial page----but in order to tell the truth you're able to get the GOP's top political aide thrown in jail---for doing exactly what he has to do---TELL THE TRUTH!!!!

Good job guys on the left. I hope you're proud----I couldn't have contrived a better trap if I thought about it for years and years!!!!

Check mate---you guys win.

Too bad theres no precedent for top aides to the White House going before the media and telling lies----oh right there is from 6 years ago.

...I'd just like to add that I don't want to make light of the very serious issue underlying this story and that is the outing of a covert CIA agent.

Not only do I want to state how serious that allegation is, I want to say how this whole thing has so clearly hurt the CIA agent we now know as Valerie Plame.

I know this has devastated her, as anyone can plainly see from her photospread in Esquire Magazine. (Or was it Vanity Fair?)

Posted by fastEddieo at 07/12/2005 @ 07:24am
Jeepers,creepers! How the *$@* is Bush going to fire himself? Resigning would be ideal but we all know his ego won't allow it.

A first in the history of our great nation, a president firing himself.

Silly, yes but that's what it boils down to.

Posted by uglyduck at 07/12/2005 @ 10:36am
If I were a betting sort, I'd start a pool and say that Rove will be gone within a week. It's not the criminal investigation that had McClellan's tongue tied yesterday, but the incriminating evidence that has been leaked. As long as McClellan could proclaim Rove's innocence with no solid facts in public to controvert such a statement, he could comment; had he said anything like that yesterday, he would have been laughed out the room. And, of course, he couldn't (and shouldn't) say "Well, people, he's guilty as sin."

Thus, when McClellan says he won't comment, he really means he has no defense of Rove to offer.

In the next few days, Rove will make one of those hand-wringing announcements about how he is sadly and reluctantly resigning because he has become a distraction for Mr. Bush and his many fine accomplishments, how he has been proud to serve in this administration, etc.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/12/2005 @ 10:47am
No I am not ashamed of the what is going on. I have a clear and strategic head that understands what they are doing. I thought this is the group that stands by innocent until proven guilty? My bad!

If you have not figured out yet, they are going to wait to see how much information they have and what charges they will bring up. If you are listening to balanced news, the word on the street is that the original charges you all are drooling over may not even be what Fitzgerald is going after. Apparently it may be brushed over to get something else, which is still concealed.

And please start paying attention to what cooper is saying. he said he received a call from his source...this morning he said he never talked to the source. People, don't get caught up in the game of symantics! Roves lawyer talked to Coopers lawyer...there was communication between the two parties. Cooper is trying to save face.

You also have to understand that there still is a Federal Criminal Investigation going on and lawyers probably advised everyone on the Bush Administration to keep quiet. But that is strategy and you people don;t get it.

Now to make no comment like, "we will assist the prosectutor with all we can to help the investigation" I think is needed. But would you turn on a person that you have known for 30 years? And why would this CIA agent take pictures in Vanity fair if she was covert. And why was she photographed numerous times at white house functions. Rumors are circulating that she was not covert undercover at that time in her career and that may be the twist in the case. She was working at Langly were the administration duty is done. And did you also know that Wilson was not told by the White House or anyone in Congress or the Senate to go to Nigeria...it was his wife that told him to do it with no permission. So, basically, she may be up on criminal charges herself for going outside CIA protocol.

You see people, reading your conspiracy blogs and hate blogs. It is one reason why the Dems are staying relatively quiet on the issue. There is more to the story...

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 12:22pm
Let me clear myself before you all go off on me...if he is found guilty or looks to be guilty, Bush needs to fire him.

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 12:24pm
Frank, if she is putting herself in the public light, then she is compromising herself! If all Rove said was the she worked for the CIA and told she was the one who told Wilson to go to Nigeria without anyone else in the Bush Administration knowing it, then what crime has been done. Did he specifically state SHE IS UNDEROVER? If he did, then he should fry, if not, then he is free. Or was this a trap by Rove knowing the overzealous media will try to pin it on him and it would backfire because he covered himself legally before talking to the press. The liberals and the media are the biggest suckers. All the media cares about is a juicy story so they can sell advertisements. They don't care about the truth. I still think the gal from the NY Times never had a contact and she wrote the story on her own.

Can you imagine that Frank, Carl Rove is on stand and tells everything about his covnersation with Cooper... then the question, "Did you talk with the NY Times?"...NO!

What will that do. Will The Nation start a blog on that story? Highly doubt it!!!

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 1:19pm
Clinton lied under oath.

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 1:19pm
Innocent until proven guilty!

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 1:46pm
Just using liberal advise from 10 years ago...

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 1:47pm
Dan:

Rove clearly identified Plame. Regardless of whether he knew Plame was covert, he could easily have found out and exercising reasonable diligence probably should have determined whether she was covert before identifying her to the media. Bush has publicly stated that he would not tolerate leakers, and that anyone in his administration involved in the leak would be fired. He has no choice but to fire Rove and anybody else involved in identifying Plame. He already "looks guilty" of leaking the information, regardless of whether he is convicted for a crime. An honest administration should have no room for dirty tricks like this.

Efforts to disparage either Plame or Wilson are misguided and irrelevant. Regardless of whether the Niger story was true, and regardless of whether Plame has since made herself public, Rove "looks guilty" and should be discharged.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/12/2005 @ 2:05pm
good show Dancall! Conservatives are not at all embarassed nor hiding in this matter. Unlike most on the left (not all), we do want to get at the truth. A good place to start would be the Senate Report which shows that a) Wilson lied about his findings and his wife's role b) that there was a consensus of intel groups that believed that Saddam was trying to restart his nuclear program

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html [url]

"Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address."

There is also developing information that Wilson's wife was not undercover at the time but was an analyst.

I think that the truth as Dancall has stated is that the real investigation has taken a direction that may surprise many. Why do you think that Rove would give Cooper permission to share his source unless he was confident that he would not be subject to criminal prosecution...Just common sense!!!

Posted by love liberty at 07/12/2005 @ 2:22pm
I love people who think they are intellectually superior to anyone who disagrees with them. Intellectual snobery is worse than Radical Muslims running around doing their thing.

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 2:26pm
Nat, If you are a citizen you can go to Langley and maybe run into someone like Plume. There are regular citizens that work for the CIA. If all he said was that she worked there, then there is no hard proof that he disclosed that she was covert. Again, if he is proven to say that she was covert, then he should fry. I am not defending Rove. What I am saying is that the media is a bunch of power hungry corporation that needs to sell stories.

So to your point on leaking, if I walk into the CIA and tell a reporter that Plume worked for the CIA, am I guilty because I knowingly knew she worked for the CIA? That means that no one can say who works for a government agency, which is like the KGB or the German SS. People like Zero will have you believe that we are like the KGB or SS, but lets talk logic and how the LEGAL interperation sees the case. Not intellectual liberalism running the court systems into the ground because they don;t agree with the administration. If he is guilty by the terms of the legal system, then he is gone and will go to jail. You see, if I bring up Clinton saying he did not have sex with Monica, was he lying? and remember before you answer that, he was under oath when he said it. Just offering a balanced counter in a emotional debate.

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 2:34pm
Scott McClellan was asked yesterday:

QUESTION: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?

To which Mr. McClellan replied:

Back in that time period.

I take it that "Back in that time period" refers to the Fall of 2003.

I am surprised that nobody asked the obvious follow-up questions about who the request to stop commenting had originated from (presumably Fitzgerald), whether the request was made orally or in writing, and whether there was any way of independently verifying that the request had in fact been made and was not just a fiction that Mr. McClellan had conveniently invented.

Such invention of convenient fiction would surely be in keeping with this administration's history of what Mr. McClellan's boss disarmingly described as disassembling.

Would Mr. Korn please ask Scott McClellan in the next press conference to elaborate on the nature of the communications he received that were responsible for his steadfast refusal to answer questions yesterday, and whether there would happen to be some sort of documentary evidence, such as a letter from Fitzgerald?

Thank you

Posted by ewanhermon at 07/12/2005 @ 2:36pm
Dan,

-- You also have to understand that there still is a Federal Criminal Investigation going on and lawyers probably advised everyone on the Bush Administration to keep quiet. But that is strategy and you people don;t get it. --

Well, apparently YOU don't get it, because you're using the same lame-o defense that McClellan did: averring that the White House can't talk about the investigation when they in fact had no problem talking about the investigation in June 2004, which is AFTER the fall of '03 when, according to McLellan, Fitzgerald requested the administration not talk about the investigation. They're only being tight-lipped now because someone higher-up in their administration is temporarily in the hot seat.

But I'm not terribly confident that Rove will be charged. After all, as Mr. Corn pointed out in another piece, if Rove is that reporter's source, and the source gave the reporter permission to reveal their source, then Rove wouldn't have granted that permission if it would cause him any harm in any way. He may be a super-sleaze, but he's not stupid by a longshot.

Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/12/2005 @ 2:39pm
Kevin, what did McClellan say in June 04 and fall of 03... I heard they said they will make sure the person is taken care of. But if Plume was a analyst and not a operative, what did he do wrong, Kevin? Or do you want to address the point that Love made and what really went down with Plume, Wilson and the report?

Maybe Rove was exposing a CIA Analyst that broke protocol and knew that telling the press about it they would go crazy getting the liberal groups drooling?

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 2:45pm
Kevin, you are right, he is a sleaze, but brilliant! The dems need someone like him.

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 2:47pm
Response to FrankGritts

Relying on Mark Crispen Miller (The Bush Dyslexicon), one might suppose that one endeavor in which Bush is entitled to have confidence in himself is political strategy. He won't like losing Rove, but keeping Rove on in an official capacity is too much a liability for him.

Having said that, I've often observed that Bush, more than any other leader any industrial democracy has ever had, resembles Plato's description of a tyrant (see The Republic, Book 8). There is no oath or bond so sacred that he will allow it to stand between him and his passion for power. Whether Rove remains in his job or not will largely depend on how Bush believes Rove fits into that paradigm. If Bush truly sees Rove as indispensable to his own power, you may be right.

Response to DanCall

DanCall asks:

I thought this is the group that stands by innocent until proven guilty?

and then says:

[I]f he is found guilty or looks to be guilty, Bush needs to fire him.

As Mr. Corn points out in his other piece dated yesterday [thenation.com], one does not have to assume Rove is guilty of a crime to judge him unfit to remain in his present position. The facts that are emerging are that Rove, for purely political purposes, identified Ms. Plame, if not by name than by a denoting phrase unique to her (Joseph Wilson's wife), as a CIA operative to about half a dozen reporters and in so doing compromised national security. What laws he violated, if any, depend on other facts peculiar to this case to be determined first by the grand jury and then, if they think Rove has anything for which he should answer, by a jury of Rove's peers in open court.

However, we seem to know enough to make a judgment on whether Rove should remain in his present job or not without making a judgment as to whether he should do a stretch in Leavenworth. He needs to be fired whether is actually violated any laws or not.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/12/2005 @ 3:01pm
Dan: You seem to have failed to appreciate my argument (this is not to say you are stupid). If you read the comment, it does not make a legal argument but instead a clear policy decision Bush must make. I addressed your "legal" argument in earlier posts, but that's beside the point.

Rove knew she worked at CIA and before disclosing her identity to the media should have at least determined whether she was covert, because there are Langley agents that work in covert capacity. Regardless of whether Rove knew Plame was covert, he made a grave mistake which endangered national security by identifying her in the media. Rove confirmed her identity, and thus "leaked" that information to the media. Bush said leakers would not be tolerated and must be expelled from the administration. Therefore, Bush has no plausible reason not to fire Rove. And, like I said in the above post, he already "looks guilty" of leaking the information, regardless of whether he is convicted for a crime. An honest administration should have no room for dirty tricks like this.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/12/2005 @ 3:05pm
Dan: I addressed the legal argument under "Why Bush has to fire Rove"

Here's what I said:

As the law stands, Rove could easily be indicted for a crime and possibly convicted. If the Newsweek story is true, then it is clear that Rove identified Plame as a CIA agent. Whether or not he knew she was undercover is the only relevant barrier to Rove's conviction. If he was aware that she was undercover as a "desk" agent at CIA then he should be convicted. He will obviously argue that he was unaware of her status, and his emails give that story an air of credibility. However, given his position in the administration and his obvious ability to determine whether she was undercover, it may be circumstantially shown that he violated the statute.

If he were indicted, that would be disastrous for the administration. The prosecutor would likely present evidence of his dastardly deeds throughout his prior work on Bush 1's campaign, Bush 2's Texas campaign, and both of Bush's presidential campaigns. If a bright light is shown on his tactics, the credibility of the administration will fall off a precipice.

I as a liberal am hoping he gets indicted. It's about time after his endless destructive shenanigans which have hurt America.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/12/2005 @ 3:07pm
I reread the above 03 up top...that does not say anything that Rove leaked information on a covert CIA agent. They said if the person did, then yes, he will be gone. Now can we all agree that McClellan knows either way he is going to get beaten up by the press, so it is easier not to say anything until ALL THE FACTS COME OUT.

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 3:08pm
Plame = covert CIA agent Rove = leaked info on Plame therefore: Rove = leaked info on covert CIA agent

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/12/2005 @ 3:15pm
Nat, maybe we live on two different planets and why you are not seeing my point. Was Plame a covert CIA agent at the time or a CIA analyst and was out of her role as a covert op. Why did she send her husband to Nigeria without anyone knowing about it? Arew you going to address Love's point? It is symantics. it is the same as "I did not have sex with that woman", but no one wants to touch that one. Do you agree or not?

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 3:16pm
Plame=CIA Analyst does not = covert CIA agent, therefore Rove is CLEARED

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 3:18pm
Berger= Stuffing classifed documents that outlined terror responses that could hurt Clinton image down his and destroys them. Court=we know you are guilty, but a $10K fine and 2 years not having top secret clearance.

Is that Justice Nat?

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 3:21pm
Zero, she had pictrues taken with Bush at a party. Colin Powell refered to her because he said he saw her at the CIA and thought she was part of their Admin team.

was she a retired covert agent? was she not? Is that stonewalling if she was not a covert agent? Did Plame use her CIA status to send her husband on a trip without permission againts policy? Was his findings altered. Why don;t we get to see what he found? If we are going after Rove, then we have to get after why she sent Wilson on a trip that was not approved! Get it?

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 3:25pm
there is not a smoking gun, it is a red hot cannon!

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 3:26pm
Dan: I give up. You are unconvinceable. I still hope Rove's indicted for his crimes and fired for his misdeeds.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/12/2005 @ 3:26pm
Nat, uncoviencable? Show me where Rove told anyone that she was COVERT? Do I think he did it on purpose, hell yes. But your arguments are flawed. It needs to be a logical argument in court. Was she or was she not a covert op, Nat? What is coming out today is that she retired from that job, was a desk analyst, which is not a crime to reveal this information.

The question is on her. Did she react and go to the press blamming the administration because she sent he husband on a unauthorized trip, or was she a covert op and the CIA acknoweledged that and they came out and wants Roves head on a platter. When those questions are answered, we will all find the truth. But this bickering of what you believe without having all the facts that the prosecutor has is a waste of time. Stop the hatred against Bush and wait for the facts. If this blows over with the prosector saying he has nothing because he has nothing, that means it is a cover up, right?

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 3:34pm
Zero, thank you for making my point about intellectual snobery. Because I do not agree with you and then pose questions against your ideas, I am right wing blah blah blah.

If you actually take the time to read what I am saying, maybe you would realize that I agree with some of the stuff you are saying but you are so nosed up that you only repsond to people who agree with you. If you can answer some of the questions I posed to Nat, I would like to see your eloquent response to see if it actually has any relevant substance instead of hatred for people you do not agree with.

If you can list the facts of the case and not what he hear, please do so. I am very curious to see them. And then I leave this site and will let you reign as the blogging intellect without anyone challenging your righteous view points.

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 3:56pm
again (and with thanks to Dancall), stop the hysterical attacks and conspiracy theories and let the justice system do it's job. Two key points that many like Nattie and Zero seem to want to ignore:

1. Since you all think that Rove is this diabolical political genius (political genius maybe, diabolical not even), he must instead be a genuine idiot to have given Matt Cooper permission to identify him if there was any chance that he could be prosecuted (and he has testified to the Grand Jury).

2. You keep ignoring that fact that Valerie Plame may not have truly been a covert agent as Dancall and myself keep pointing out.

Facts are so inconvenient when you are on a witch hunt. If the Fed Prosecutor comes out with something entirely different as his conclusion you will probably say that this is just another Bush coverup when you have been cheering this prosecutor on throughout the process.

Posted by love liberty at 07/12/2005 @ 4:05pm
The Bush administration said it would fire anyone involved in the outing of Valerie Plame. Rove was involved.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/12/2005 @ 4:28pm
Each time the Bush administration is caught with their tally whackers in the wringer, I watch my country respond with lukewarm notice. Each time, my family and friends wonder just what it will take for even mere indignation to arise, much less justified outrage. Each event is more unbelievable than the last. The Bush administration is the winner-take-all in memory of the history of the United States of America.

FACT: Rove placed a peace officer in jeopardy of life and limb. Not only did he directly and capriciously endanger Ms. Plame, but her entire family, and many other agents at the CIA who continue to do their very best in order to follow the mandates leveled by a grotesque parody of administrators. Say what you like about Janet Reno and the travesty of Waco. Yet even Ms. Reno held herself directly accountable for a situation that was deemed unforgivable.

FACT: For perspective's sake, let's remember George I, who, after hearing the NRA refer to police officers and federal agents as "jack-booted thugs", immediately withdrew his membership from the NRA. He did so swiftly and firmly. Why? Bush, Sr., had formerly been head of the CIA.

FACT: Every day, hundreds of thousands of peace officers are on the beat, separating battling husbands and wives, and picking up the shattered casualties of this domestic battlefield (America's children). They write traffic tickets to a cross section of their communities, a great many of whom claim moral outrage at the fact that they must schedule an appointment before a judge. They accept callouts for homicides, ugly suicides and elder abuse cases where blood and feces mix upon a fetid mattress that hasn't been cleaned in weeks or months. They unearth the bodies of throwaway and runaway kids. They investigate bank robberies, computer hackers, crackers, hate crimes and arsons in their own neighborhoods and around this country and the world. Of course even Park Rangers and Fish and Game wardens have sat through hours of arduous training updates in how to identify terrorists and disrupt their cells. This is despite the sad fact that their ranks have shriveled under and administration which is doing everything possible to deny Americans the hefty decrease in violent crimes since President Clinton federally funded an additional 100,000 law enforcement officers during the late 1990's.

FACT: As a retired peace officer, and married to an active beat cop of 27 years, I AM OUTRAGED. The overwhelming majority of peace officers chose the profession because the blue line grows thinner and frailer with each passing season, and they agreed to shoulder the burden of keeping our society from consuming itself. They desperately want to "make a difference". To them, it matters not whether that means babysitting a couple of 9th grade petty thieves at the local mall for 6 hours so that the requisite papers can be pushed across the desk of a supervisor and prosecutor, or maintaining an uncomfortable body position during an all-day hostage standoff, or promising an elderly alcoholic resident that this time they will permanently scare away the snakes and spiders. All too often, this alternately heart-pounding, heart-wringing, brain-numbing assignment is interrupted only by the worst field trip in life: to gather, shoulder to shoulder, at the death of a brother or sister killed for reasons, nay, excuses that leave this blue extended family at a loss. Maybe this sibling lost their in a traffic collision during the pursuit of a felon. Perhaps during an ambush. And sometimes it is, as in the case of Special Agent Enrique Camarena, because an opponent of truth (a member of a drug cartel which Camarena had infiltrated) revealed his identity. I beg to illustrate the difference between the sad fate of Agent Camarena and the disclosure of agent Plame's "outing". True, Camarena was murdered and Plame is, thankfully, alive and well. Camarena had been monitoring a multi-billion dollar drug cartel. This group of criminals was suspected to have involved high-ranking members of the Mexican army, police, and government. Camarena was boldly kidnapped off of the street as he was walking to lunch with his wife. His remains were found about a month later. Following the murder of Enrique "Kiki" Camarena, our government, with an "at-all-costs" demeanor, pursued those responsible for Camarena's murder. At that time, the Mexican government was uncooperative in the extraditions of its residents. In its quest for justice, agents of the FBI arranged for one of the murder suspects to be "professionally" kidnapped in Mexico and forcibly returned to the US for trial. Evidence determined that Agent Camarena was tortured before being stabbed to death. Enrique Camarena left behind a wife and two sons. So it is not difficult to conjure a similar scenario for Ms. Plame, her husband or any of her colleagues. And it is shameful, despicable and sad, that this scenario is personally approved by the "top cop" in the nation, our Commander in Chief, President Bush. Americans can choose to channel-surf away to something less distracting, like While You Were Out. How sadly ironic – While You Were Out, Your Country Sold Out Hundreds of Years of Freedom, Justice and Truth. © 2005 Diana Riehm

Posted by diner88 at 07/12/2005 @ 4:42pm
Then if those were the exact words and the word "outing" was used with Valerie Plame then he should be gone.

If he said they would fire anyone involved in the outing of a CIA covert operative, then he is clear.

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 4:43pm
If Rove did give Cooper the green light it would suggest that Rove indeed assumes that nothing illegal was done on his part. But at least he must have anticipated a big media splash around the news of him being involved in the outing of a Valerie Plame, covert of not. I thought that was odd. But then a report in yesterday's NYT that Cooper did not get the permission from Rove to out his source. So what does this mean? Rove testified in front of a grand jury three times and was probably asked about his role in the case. If he has nothing to hide he would have mentioned the Cooper story. And if he did he could have relieved Cooper from his pledge. But he didn't. So either he was not truthful to the grand jury or he told it all (or most of it) but was aware how explosive this could be for him and Bush if it comes out. It indeed doesn't make a lot of sense for a guy like Rove to miscalculate in such a way and let Cooper of the hook.

Posted by nugo at 07/12/2005 @ 4:52pm
From a NYTimes article posted yesterday:

Mr. McClellan and Mr. Bush have both made clear that leaking Ms. Plame's identity would be considered a firing offense by the White House. Mr. Bush was asked about... whether he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked the officer's name. "Yes," he replied, on June 10, 2004.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/12/2005 @ 5:02pm
Diner88, while I agree with most of what you are saying and feel your heart renching stories I am a bit confused how Bush had anything to do with Kiki. I did research on him and that occured in 1985 in Mexico after exposing a massive drug cartel.

I think that trying to connect Plame with kiki is a bit of a stretch because Plame has pictures taken with vanity fair magazine and has been recalled my numerous Bush staff members as working at the CIA. If Ms Plame was worried about her ID, then why did she pose for an internally distributed magazine and has had pictures taken at hop nobbing events at the white house?

If she was in a covert op and this was a leak, no doubt, Rove should hang from a tree.

To all: I hate to say it, but the CIA employees are not all covert and most are regulat citizens. That information can be public and if she falls into that category, there is nothing that carl rove did was wrong. So, why don;t we wait for the facts to come out and save all of us a lot of heart ache.

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 5:05pm
"Diner88"

Sorry but your list of facts...not (except that I have no doubt you are a retired peace officer and thank you for your service).

Nonfact: It is not a fact that Karl Rove placed a peace officer in jeopardy. At the very least please take notice of the debate on this page and throughout the country...that is what we are trying to determine and so far (and for the justice system also), we have not determined that to be a fact...

Nonfact2: sorry, but it has no relevance. Besides, you're not going to get any of us conservatives to put any rigorous defense of George I who we didn't really care for anyways (other than Gulf 1).

Fact3: Here you are mostly correct although I think you misstated your intended thought. The president is indeed trying to deny criminals any increase in violent crime in America. But your last point is ridiculous and a carryover of Clinton mythology. He never added 100,000 more cops to the street. There was temporary additional funding earmarked for that purpose. Less than 50,000 additional officers were added and the legislation was meant only as a incentive until and when local governments would come up with funding to establish sufficient levels of forces..It was never meant (although liberals always like permanent tax increases and government funding programs) to be in place permanently...

Fact4: I am sure you are outraged but that is a political response and not negligence or criminality on the part of the president ----again back to the intial "fact".

Posted by love liberty at 07/12/2005 @ 5:06pm
Mr. Bush's statement concerning the leak, Ocotber 2, 2003:

There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. If there's leaks out of my administration, I want to know who it is, and if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.

If one's point of view about the Bush regime is as jaded as mine, then one would suppose "will be taken care of" means "will be pardoned before the case even comes to trial."

Now that I've gotten that dig in, let me just try to impress on Dan that the semantics are irrelevant. The disclosure of Ms. Plame undermined her work, which was vital to national security. Mr. Rove took no care that his disclosure of her would undermine any important national security operation. For this, he should be fired, regardless of whether any laws were broken. If Mr. Bush wishes to continue to informally consult Mr. Rove on political matters, that's his business.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/12/2005 @ 5:09pm
Frank, I will get the book, but Clinton was under oath when he lied. That is a breach of the BAR! lying about anything is criminal. I don;t think it was a big deal, but that is a double standard and how to you justify what is important?

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 5:09pm
Who cares if Plame was covert? Bush said he'd fire anyone who revealed her identity. Rove plainly did just that.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/12/2005 @ 5:10pm
Nat, don;t forget the NY times has one of their staffers sitting in jail...if she had connections with Rove, then why isn;t she saying anything? Principal...doubt it. It doesn;t make sense.

I think there is a big cover up...Rove is guilty to the fact of public opinion, but may be innocent in the court of law. I think that Plame and Wilson with the Nigeria report may have something more that is being hidden and I think that the NY Times made up thier "leak".. A lot there, but this is just not a simple rove did it and lets leave it alone!

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 5:12pm
Did Bush say that? Or did McClellan? and did they specifically mention Plames name in that exhange of words?

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 5:13pm
Jack, thank you, and you make a very good and logical point.

But this statement could be read in defense of what I am saying: There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. If there's leaks out of my administration, I want to know who it is, and if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.

Violated the law...that is what we are trying to figure out and what we all don;t have, the facts of the case that Fitzgerald is out for.

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 5:18pm
Frankgrits, I am hardly naive having worked in politics since 1960. But I find it hard to see why you are not an anarchist since you believe that those who are highly successful in politics must be diabolical. Therefore according to Webster, Repubs and Dems that are highly successful are like the devil and have to do with sorcery, having a fiendish cunning. Stop the boat, let's all get off if that is the case. As much as I disliked Clinton for his imoral life and dishonor of the office of President, I would never consider him or his aides diabolical.

Don't get me wrong, I have seen plenty of corruption on all sides, but this is more about our debate on type and size of government. Both sides are expert in walking the thin line that separates lawful vs unlawful.

Posted by love liberty at 07/12/2005 @ 5:18pm
Has anyone heard or seen any response from the CIA?

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 5:20pm
Maybe I should rephrase it:

As LL pointed out it would be unwise for Rove to allow Cooper to reveal his source because of the consequences for him and Bush in the light of previous statement of non-involvement etc. Therefore he did not -as reported by the NYT yesterday- do such a thing. Ergo he's not an idiot and still diabolical.

Posted by nugo at 07/12/2005 @ 5:30pm
Its funny that Dan can stand behind the principal that the President should parse words in determining whether he should act morally. The President proclaimed that he would discharge anyone involved in this outing of a CIA agent. He was clearly referring to the Plame incident. Rove was a source who identified Plame. Yet Dan still doesn't think Rove should be discharged. He's waiting for "all the evidence to come out." That's what the administration claims to be doing too... Maybe what they really want to do is deflect media attention. Its the same tactic he used when people asked to see the facts behind the justification for war, he told us to just wait and everything would become clear. But the only clarification we got was that the facts weren't strong enough to produce the truth.

Maybe he shouldn't be fired if you read the presidents promises in the same crabbed way that Bush "meant" when he used his justifications for war in Iraq. Like "WMD related program activities".

Dan says: But this statement could be read in defense of what I am saying: There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. If there's leaks out of my administration, I want to know who it is, and if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.

Talk about a strained reading! Who cares whether this was illegal? It was wrong and stupid, and bad for America.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/12/2005 @ 5:31pm
What Color is a Conservative by JC Watts...addressing the idea that he is being labled as an Uncle Tom by Democrates while he defends his rights by having conservative values and ideals.

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 5:36pm
Nat, I am addressing the legal standpoint. It is relevant because if you don't get it right, everyone walks. How many times do I have to say I believe that Rove purposely leaked the information. What I am addressing is that if we are trying to take the high road and follow our legal system we need to get the facts straight and stop running around with our heads cut of saying: "Talk about a strained reading! Who cares whether this was illegal? It was wrong and stupid, and bad for America."

That is going right into their trap, Nat. To beat these guys, you have to beat them at their game. That game is come back with LOGIC and FACTS. You have not provided me with one logical argument with substantial facts....all conspiracy theory and not addressing the fact that his defese lawyer will have a field day with the prosectutor in the court of law if he used your emotional reponse.

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 5:41pm
And Nat, Sadam did own and fianced a Chemical plant in Sudan that was being used for chemical weapons that was active in the late 90s. CIA reports, Clinton Administration and FBI acknowledged it. They have soil samples that showed that the chemicals are the same as used in Chemical weapons. Clinton was going to bomb the site but was advised not to because it would create a "dirty bomb"

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 5:45pm
Dan, the legal standpoint is irrelevant. What is important is the public impression of the Bush administration. If Rove's contact with Cooper was innocent then it could have been revealed much earlier.The fact that it was hidden from the public for so long and now you don't get a response from the White House after all the "straight" talk is a guilty verdict for the publlic regardless was else will be revealed (or not). And rightly so.

Posted by nugo at 07/12/2005 @ 5:50pm
Frank, That looks like a good book, I will get it. What is crazy is how Clinton slipped into the office. I think even the Dems were surprised. They did have the help of Ross Perot who is/was a bitter enemy of the Bush Family. That is why I think it is funny that the Dems tried to keep Ralph Nadar out of the election, but it was OK that Perot help Clinton get into office.

Ralph Nadar got screwed! He has the best ideas, but has no personality and no big money to support him. That is the crime in America!!!

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 5:50pm
Nugo, again, I agree, but that holds no weight in the court room. Where it will hurt him is the polls and he doesn;t care because he is a two term president. If this all came out before the election (his standing tough like his comments state) Rove would have been let go immediately!

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 5:52pm
As Dancall and myself have been trying to explain previously, it is better to have the facts than an opinion when it comes to lynching someone. The following article (sorry, but no link as I hope you actually read the information) provides as good a summary of the events and the fact that Karl Rove gave a waiver (written by the Fed Prosecutor in this case) back in 2003 to the journalists. Please note also that Rove is not likely to be charged as indicated by the Proscutor. I look forward to seeing your responses if you can stay with the facts and not your hatred of Bush and we conservatives. Article by Bryon York in today's National Review.

July 12, 2005, 4:26 p.m. 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.

Posted by love liberty at 07/12/2005 @ 5:58pm
Dan, I disagree. I think our (actually: "your" since I'm not American) president is out for a spot in the history books. The question is will the verdict be good or bad (it'll be bad I predict anyhow). So he has a lot to loose. And do not forget all the interest group essentially puting their chips on this presidency because it's now or never for them (at least for a long time). So public opion is crucial.

Posted by nugo at 07/12/2005 @ 5:59pm
The republcians would be going CRAZY! I just think it is tame riht now because of the NY Times writer...there just seems to be something wrong with that. that is the only thing that I can;t put my finger on. We all know that Rove purposely did what he did for a reason. I also don;t think he thought it would get all this attention. I think he was really angry that Plame sent Wilson off to Nigeria without anyone knowing about it. I think it was calculated by covering himself, but a knee jerk response to get back at Plame.

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 6:01pm
Dan: the legal argument is made clear in my 3:07 post. It included logic and facts. Please refrain from calling me illogical without good reason. Furthermore, it is the prosecution rather than the defense that would have a field day in court. Circumstantial evidence from many previous scandals involving Rove tends to indicate that he purposefully outed Plame. That circumstantial evidence, if made public, would destroy the administration's credibility.

You said you were trying to rely on the legal system. Why let the Republicans control the debate in this way? Especially when Rove did something which the President said he would fire him for? Shouldn't the Democrats just hammer the President at every turn for failing to have the courage and honesty to root out evil in his own administration?

My question was, after Bush said that anyone who was involved in the Plame thing should be fired, shouldn't he fire Rove? The answer is yes, and he has no way around it. That is logical, and based on facts. Bush is trapped.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/12/2005 @ 6:01pm
Nugo, no doubt. But the Democrates do not have a solid leader. Actually, there is no one that is a good candidate on both sides. I think the best solution is a John McCain and Joe Liberman ticket. Both are moderates, somewhat conservative on family issues, but progressive on issues for woman, which is what the fight over the Supreme court is all about...abortion!

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 6:04pm
Dan: he has much more to lose than popularity. If he loses the public battle for legitimacy and fairness, then virtually all of his proposals become DOA. The Republican majority is threatened with the taint of scandal. He becomes a president in name only, and loses all the power he has corruptly grabbed in the past 6 years.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/12/2005 @ 6:04pm
Yes, Nat, Bush is trapped, which is why he is not making a move. And you better check your facts on your 3:07 statement...it is illegal to expose a covert operative, not a CIA Analyst because CIA Analysts are on TV and in the public all the time.

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 6:07pm
LL, here's the link to yesterday's NYT article regarding Cooper's source release: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/politics/11time.html?

I admit that it doesn't put Cooper in a good light. It doesn't obsolve Rove either, though. I wonder what would have happened if Rove would not have signed a "general waiver" his layed is talking about. By not doing so Rove might have admitted something so maybe there wa no toher way but to sign. But this is speculation only...

Posted by nugo at 07/12/2005 @ 6:19pm
This is pretty cool article that describes different levels of of the CIA. http://slate.msn.com/id/2089062/ What Plame falls into and what is illegal is what we need to find out. I guess what is interesting is that Rove used her maiden name, which if she was using her married name at the time, there is his ticket to jail.

But it would be interesting to see what level Plame was at during the time of the Leak.

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 6:21pm
Dan, anything but Bush would do it for me (that is pretty desperate).

Posted by nugo at 07/12/2005 @ 6:21pm
This is David Corn talking to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! today 7/12/05:

DAVID CORN: You know, it's an important point, and the Congressman knows this better than I do. Not everything that's wrong in Washington is a crime. And so the White House is going to hide behind, as Karl Rove's lawyers are hiding behind, the whole notion that he didn't technically commit a crime. But the bottom line was that we now know that he revealed national security information to a reporter while he was engaged in a political vendetta against a policy critic of the White House, Joe Wilson. And so either he knew what he was doing in revealing a covert officer or he was reckless and cavalier about the whole matter and put politics ahead of that. Either one should be, you know, a firing offense and, at the very least, he should be called to explain. The President, as McClellan said yesterday, keeps saying he wants to get to the bottom of it. He wants to get to the bottom of it. It is fairly easy to get to the bottom of it. Put Karl Rove in front of cameras, have him swear to tell the truth, and tell the truth. --

The line " not everything that's wrong in Washington is a crime" gets right to the point. Whether or not Rove broke any laws or whether or not Plame was a covert agent is mute. He used items that affect NATIONAL SECURITY. He must be fired. bottom line. end of argument.

Posted by question! at 07/12/2005 @ 6:23pm
BTW the congressman Mr. Corn refers to is Henry Waxman who is calling for an investigation into Rove and any other possible Whit House connection.

Posted by question! at 07/12/2005 @ 6:25pm
Frank, you scare me! that makes me want to cry! I will be voting lbertarian, thank you!

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 6:33pm
Posted by question! at 07/12/2005 @ 6:36pm
Some would say that Bush Sr is a four termer!:)

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 6:41pm
I think Nixon's gotten 3 terms so far...

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/12/2005 @ 6:43pm
Mr Corn, Any way you can clear up the angst about the CIA view on Rove and Plame or give us the legal understanding of what the right wing strategy of using semantics vs the left wing strategy of using emotional outcry, which may be valid, but not legally binding...thanks!

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 6:55pm
this is slightly interesting but too many of you ignore the facts..the prosecutor is not planning to indict Rove. The only ones charging anything are the left and the media (I'm sorry that's repetitive). The media because it's summer and news is slow; the left because they are the left.

At least we can all take comfort that you will have a new hot button subject in a month.

My '08 choice would be a ticket that includes Condi Rice or JC Watts

Posted by love liberty at 07/12/2005 @ 7:03pm
A few thoughts, mostly for DanCall

What Rove apparently leaked to reporters was that Ms. Plame was responsible for sending Wilson to Niger (not Nigeria; that's neighboring country) and that his report said something different than he reported in The New York Times.

I don't believe either of these allegations. It also seems that some on the right are now trying to assert that Ms. Plame was no one important whose exposure was of any significance, but this also seems unlikely.

The assignment was requested by Mr. Cheney's office. They had some information about Saddam attempting to purchase yellowcake from Niger that they wanted investigated. The truth about Ms. Plame appears to be that she was neither a low-level munchkin nor a top-level administrator at the CIA. Perhaps the reason Wilson was chosen for the assignment has less to do with the fact his wife worked in the agency than the following: Wilson was once acting ambassador to Iraq (1990-91); Wilson was once ambassador to Gabon (1993-95); Wilson is considered an expert in African uranium mining industries.

In short, Wilson was more than qualified for the assignment. It couldn't be regarded as a junket, because he took the assignment without pay.

Perhaps to their disappointment of whoever in Mr. Cheney's office requested the report, Ambassador Wilson came back reporting that the information was false. That didn't fit into the regime's program of fixing facts and intelligence around the pre-determined policy of invading Iraq.

As for the charge that Wilson's report was something different than he said in The Times, the fact is that what Wilson wrote in The Times has become accepted fact: that Saddam was not attempting to purchase yellowcake. Wilson's story is simply more credible than Rove's.

As for whether Ms. Plame was undercover, it might depend on what definition of undercover or covert is being used. What we can say is that if at that time one were to have asked Ms. Plame what she did for a living, she would have told one that she was an energy analyst for Brewster Jennings and Associates. As it turns out, Brewster Jennings is a not-very-well-disguised CIA front [boston.com].

Personally, I think Mr. Rove knew that he was exposing Ms. Plame, but that will be hard to prove in court. All Mr. Rove had to tell a few good reporters is that Joseph Wilson's wife works for the CIA tracking WMDs and then let them do the leg work. It wouldn't have been too difficult for a good reporter to find out that Ambassador Wilson was married to a lady named Valerie Plame, that she worked for Brewster Jennings and that Brewster Jennings was a CIA front. In this theory, Rove was hoping at least one of them would run with the story. Robert Novak did.

However, it also seems unlikely that Karl Rove, who is really little more than a glorified political hatchet man, would normally concern himself in his day-to-day duties with who's who in Langley or which diplomat is sent on a special assignment to Niger. Thus, it seems very likely that he was not acting alone in this caper.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/12/2005 @ 8:34pm
OK, breaking news...I listened to an interview with the woman who wrote the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 for Goldwater in 1982. She said that there is NO WAY Rove did anything wrong. She said that her understanding of what Plame role at the CIA was behind a desk and would not be considered under this law. She said that the law states that a covert operative is also not protected after five years leaving a covert role, meaning that if she was in a role in 1998, when her last overseas assignment was, then she would not be protected. She also said that the CIA takes this very seriously and the CIA would have made more an issue out of it. What she also, even laughed at, was the fact that her husband (hater of Bush) was selected to go to Niger to do the investigation on yellow cake. She said that no one in the CIA knew about it except for her and that Wilson was never made to sign a "non-disclosure". Meaning that he could go out to the newspapers and write a editorial in the New York Times, like he did. People, the CIA would not let him do that if he was on a legitimate assignment. So basically, what the writer of the law that all you people are bitching about is saying that Rove is innocent and that the Fraud may be on the hands of Wilson, Plame and the New York Times and that this is a politcal manuever by the Democrates.

So, why would a woman who worked to craft a law that protects the CIA agents come out and say Rove is innocent and this a political ploy by the Dems?

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 9:04pm
Jack, nice try about the Wilson report...it can be thrown out the window because if this was on the flip side, a conspiracy theory would say that is Plame had loyal ties to the Dems and didn;t like Bush, who else to send on an assignment to Niger than a known hater of Bush? He was a critic of Bush before he went on the trip, so do you think he may have overlooked a few things? Kinda like what the 9/11 commission came up with that the CIA and British Intel said that Sadams chemical plant in Sudan was making chemical weapons but a newspaper reporter went there and said it was clean. Who do you beleive??? It was apparent that Clinton beleived his CIA Intel because he didn;t bomb it like he wanted to.

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 9:10pm
Sorry to dampen your day. And Love, I would pull the ticket for Condi or JC any day! But they would have a tough time getting through the Dems because they are both "Uncle Toms" and are only puppets to "the man". Condi rocks and from what I am reading about her outside of the liberal papers coming out of Europe is that the Germans love her!!!

Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 9:15pm
Dancall, great info on the interview! This just backs up all the other info we are seeing that isn't slanted by Bush haters. All the real information is consistent that Rove did nothing wrong. I just watched as G Gordon Libby cooly and factually went through all the same info and then Bill Press on cue ignored the facts and wildly claimed that Rove put lives in jeopardy and should be marched off immediately to prison for treason (I guess libs no longer believe in innocent until proven guilty also).

I know your info won't satisfy the real leftists but there is probably no help there...The hard part is always getting people to look past their emotions and just look objectively to the facts at hand. One can always hope but if history is any judge, well.........

Posted by love liberty at 07/12/2005 @ 9:36pm
Dan,

I would love to comment on Love's post. Unfortunately, that url link he provided from the Washington Post isn't pulling up.

Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/12/2005 @ 11:25pm
Is this the new talking point? It needs some work.

According to Wilson [commondreams.org]:

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. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake -- a form of lightly processed ore -- by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. 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 . . . .

The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq -- and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired . . . .

Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff.

If Wilson overlooked something, perhaps Bush's own ambassador overlooked the same thing. It sounds that way.

Now, Wilson's report was delivered, as he said, to the ambassador and members of the embassy staff.

Why should we not believe Wilson? It's not like it was unusual for intelligence concerning a proposed Nigeran sale of yellowcake to Iraq to be based on false documents. One given by the US to the IAEA was pronounced a fake by Dr. ElBaradei [news.bbc.co.uk] before the UN Security Council in March 2003, when the council was debating the resolution, eventually withdrawn, which would have authorized force against Iraq. As pretains specifically to Ambassador Wilson's mission in Iraq, DCI George Tenet admitted [cia.gov] in the wake Wilson's New York Times piece: "These 16 words should never have been included in the text [of the January 2003 State of the Union message] written for the President."

Of course, it was those sixteen words that alerted Wilson to something being amiss. That is the first problem with the conspiracy theory now be advanced by the right: Are we supposed to believe that Wilson went to Niger, overlooked evidence of uranium deals between Niger and Iraq in order to embarrass Mr. Bush after Mr. Bush contradicted his findings ten months later? And if Mr. Wilson's motive for this whole charade was to embarrass Bush, then why did he wait another six months to do so? Why didn't Wilson just jump all over Bush immediately after the SOTU and before the invasion?

Wilson answers the question himself:

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.

In other words, Wilson, a perfectly reasonable man, assumed that he didn't have all the answers. But then he found out that the State Department knew of his work and published them in a fact sheet.

So, Wilson would like to know if his work was found to be inaccurate, and therefore ignored. In that event, he says it would be understandable that his work was discarded, but he would like to know what was wrong with his findings. He also raises the possibility that the work was ignored because " it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq", in which case, Wilson adds, "a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses."

It would appear that Wilson's second possibility is the one better taken. People who are confident in the argument they are presenting and the evidence to support would never dream of constructing of something like the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon. What were Dick Cheney and Lewis Libby doing taking so many trips to Langley? The fact is that, as the Downing Street document reveals, Bush and his people first decided to go to war, but found their case "thin" and therefore set about fixing intelligence and facts around the policy, that is, fabricating facts and dissembling intelligence reports.

That is a fantastic scenario. It is one which one such as I, being the sort who normally scoffs at conspiracy theories, would usually find difficult to swallow. However, the reasons given for going to war against Iraq weren't just wrong, they were wildly wrong. If somebody scored that poorly on an exam, it would be easy to suspect he was trying to flunk.

Mr. Bush and his people were lying and knew they were lying. There was nothing wrong with what Ambassador Wilson found in Niger, except that "it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq" that had to be maintained to justify what turned out to be an unnecessary invasion.

That is the other thing wrong with the new set of right wing talking points. The evidence still points to still points to Bush and his people deliberately leading the American people into war by false pretenses.

Which brings us to why Rove gave these stories to about half a dozen reporters. Wilson had to be discredited because he could testify to intelligence being discarded or dissembled if the facts didn't fit the neocons' plans of invading Iraq. I don't know whether Valerie Plame really was a covert agent by some legal definition, or whether, if she was, Rove knew it, or whether Rove knew that he was in any way compromising national security by exposing Valerie Plame (or, to use the denoting phrase, Joseph Wilson's wife) as a CIA agent. He should have known at least that last part. That is why he should lose his job, at a minimum.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/12/2005 @ 11:26pm
Love,

-- The hard part is always getting people to look past their emotions and just look objectively to the facts at hand. --

If only toe-the-line Bushies would do this, for then they'd plainly see that their little boy king and his administration blatantly lied about the justification for the Iraq war. But, oh well, as long as them gays can't marry and the rich get their tax cuts, what the heck, right?

Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/12/2005 @ 11:28pm
Why won,t George Bush talk? My 80 year old mother is curious to know why the President only makes speeches and bold outbursts at military bases. I have read all of the comments above and the biggest question still remains; Why won,t Bush talk? You all go back and forth bashing one another blaming Clinton and blaming the media. Hell some have even blamed the truth. The only question to be answered is: Where is Bush? Why won,t he talk? So I ask,please Mr. President lead us from this dark day and start us on that road to freedom and liberty.

Posted by tom kovis at 07/12/2005 @ 11:58pm
Gentlemen -

(Please excuse the formality, but I'm not part of the regular crowd.)

It would imply pathology for someone to be more dissatisfied with the Bush administration than I am. It's certainly the worst leadership this country has seen since Nixon - and at least Nixon (whatever else you might say about the man) wasn't a hick.

But I really do believe in two principles, which I think should be placed above my own biases in this situation: Innocent until Proven Guilty, and The Benefit of the Doubt.

The first of these principles is well acknowledged and enshrined in law; but I personally think that the second is equally important, purely from an ethical standpoint.

From this perspective, I too would want conclusive proof of a crime - or at least of clear malicious intent - before I would demand the resignation of such a senior official as Rove; however unsavory I might otherwise find him to be. Perhaps that information (or proof) is already out there, but I can't say that I've seen it yet.

Of course, Bush has grandly claimed that he would fire anyone on the spot for "leaking" - but if that promise were just hollow grandstanding (which most of us suspect it was) it would not carry real moral weight in forcing action on The President's part. Actually, it's a statement that should be violated in favor of the two principles mentioned above.

I hate finding myself on the conservative side of any debate - but it does happen upon occasion. The only reason that it ever happens is that various principles (as I understand them) apply equally to both sides.

Best - Blink

Posted by Blinky at 07/13/2005 @ 05:00am
Jack, Not once did you mention that "she" in Wilson's EDITORIAL is his wife. You know, the CIA Agent who assigned him knowing that he hated Bush. The one that she didn;t make sign a NON-DISCLOSURE, a CIA policy for field work to be done. The same assignment that is being questioned even by other more CIA agents. Where is the report that he presented to the CIA, the one that actually said the complete opposite and one that said Iraq was looking for the Uranium?

BTW, Carl Rove NEVER mentioned Plame's name or at least Cooper never wrote it down. Cooper was used the term double secret or something like that, which reporter agree that means that this story or her ID was never to be mentioned by the press. Only that the reporters went to the white house to get an explanation of who and why Wilson was sent.

"Bushies", Frank, give me a break. You have no evidence and you guys are going to look like fools because you all shot your load without waiting for the facts of the case to emerge. If you all waited for the facts, then you could have made some other attempt to discredit Rove. Now you are going to look like a bunch of 3rd grade cry babies who didn;t get picked for the kickball team. and it does remind me of a story that depicts the difference between who we all think.

I was in the 3rd grade and was alway a good athlete. We were playing kickball at my Catholic School that was full of nuns. It was my turn to kick, and kick I did. It was a line drive and smacked a girl classmate square in the face. Well, if you have ever kick a jello ball, you all know how are it is to kick on with accuracy. I walked into school and got punished by the nuns because, "I purposely kicked the ball at her". I got home and my mother was crying and she said why would I ever kick a ball at a girls face on purpose. "what?" , "Yes the school called and told me the girl told them that you purposely kicked the ball at her face". Needless to say I got in a whole lot of trouble. Even my mother didn;t believe me.

You can say all you want, but you all remind me of that girl in the playground that couldn;t put her hands up quick enough to stop the ball from hitting her. She was out there playing a game and was hurt, not because I purposely kicked it at her, but because the ball happened to fly at her in fair territory. Simole as that, she was a cry baby because her feeling were hurt and had to take me down to "save face". No pun intended!!!

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 08:28am
You're wrong, DanCall

1. The "she" in Wilson's article is not his wife; she is Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the ambassador to Niger. That should be clear from the passes I cited. Ms. Plame is not mentioned in Wilson's article.

2. This is equivocation. Rove did not have to mention Plame by name. Joe Wilson's wife is good enough. How many people does that identify at one time?

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/13/2005 @ 09:42am
"I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people:"

that sounds like a CIA report!

OK, I messed up.

Maybe this would clarify things: "In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency " Jack, what other "officials", who are they? Or was is a single source renegade in the CIA that disliked Bush so she hired her husband knowing full well that he disliked Bush, had already made public comments about Bush and didn't have him SIGN A NON-DISCLOSURE...A STANDARD PRACTICE INSIDE THE CIA. IF SHE HAD DONE THIS, YOUR BOY WILSON COULD HAVE NEVER WRITTEN THE EDITORIAL IN THE NY TIMES! That is the root issue. And why you have a NY Times writer sitting in Jail as we speak. If the Wilson and the the NY Times collaborated on this story, then Plame and Wilson may be joining some high ranking NY Times executives in jail!!! After Wilson wrote the editorial, it was then Novak wrote his story as a gift from Rove because he did his homework and figured out that Wilson's wife was a common CIA officer who drives into work every day. BY LAW, she is not protected under the ID protection law, get over it and move on.

"how many people does that ID at one time?" Why did his wife select him to do the job without the White House or any senior CIA official knowing about it, Jack? You are putting the cart before the horse because it is perfect for your hatred towards the Bush Admin.

Do you want a CIA operative that is that dumb to be protecting your family?

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 10:28am
You see Jack, someone is caught with their pants down, and it wasn't Rove, because by all legal means set forth by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, Rove did nothing wrong. It is a smoke screen to protect someone else, someone in the media that is allowing stories like this to be published knowing full well that Wilsons report to the CIA contradicted his Editorial piece.

Please re-read what Wilson is wrote in his Ed piece. do you honestly believe that sipping Tea and meeting with high ranking officials is going to get you the truth? Try going into the ghettos and going undercover to see what side deals were being made. Gee, send Wilson to speak with Gerry Adams with Shinn Fein and the weapons that the IRA have... "well, wilson, we have been keeping a keen eye on the weapons and promise nothing will ever happen." Wilson, "ok, no problem, I will go tell the president to tell the Brits they have nothing to worry about". Jack, wake up!

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 10:40am
Here's how this is going to go down in this administration, same as it would in any other administration. Evidence against Turd Blossom will not be sufficient to prove that he willingly identified an undercover C.I.A. agent. Bush will say, since Turd didn't break the law, he doesn't have to go. In a magnanimous gesture, Bush will pardon Miller and Cooper, recognizing their patriotism. The only possible fly in the ointment is that Turd may have perjured himself in his Grand Jury testimony. In that event, we'll see more stonewalling and delays, with the president sticking behind his Turd up until a verdict is reached. Then, if guilty, we'll see a Turd pardon.

May I also add, every Bush voter knows his Turds don't stink...???

Posted by nathanhale at 07/13/2005 @ 11:06am
Nat, unfortunately you are right...not that YOU are right, but the way the system works. If Clinton pardoned Mark Reich, then I can;t imagine who Bush is going to pardon at the 11th hour!!!

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 11:26am
It beats me what other officials what other officials there were. Speculating about it being "a single source renegade in the CIA" doesn't make that assertion an established fact. And frankly, I don't think it works as a fact any better than what these guys were saying about Iraq's military capabilities two and a half years ago; to put it more bluntly, my own speculation is that the Bushies are making this up. It's not like it would be out of character for them.

That Wilson disliked Bush is a red herring. Bear in mind he also disliked Saddam, with whom he had personal dealings. When Wilson was acting ambassador to Iraq in 1990, he dared Saddam to hang him for sheltering Americans in the US embassy in Baghdad. Of course, whoever is writing these White House talking points won't include anything about that.

[H]ow many people does that ID at one time?" Why did his wife select him to do the job without the White House or any senior CIA official knowing about it, Jack? You are putting the cart before the horse because it is perfect for your hatred towards the Bush Admin.

That both fails to answer my question and begs one of your own.

[S]omeone is caught with their pants down, and it wasn't Rove, because by all legal means set forth by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, Rove did nothing wrong.

Right now, I don't give two bits whether Rove violated that act. He was careless with a national security matter and exposed a CIA operative in the process for purely political reasons. Many years ago, when I was in the army and had an MI MOS, I had a fancy security clearance. If I had been that careless with information less sensitive than the information Rove was mishandling, I would have had my clearance pulled and reassigned to an MOS to didn't require one; in effect, I would have been fired from my job. That is what should happen to Rove.

Please re-read what Wilson is wrote in his Ed piece. [D]o you honestly believe that sipping Tea and meeting with high ranking officials is going to get you the truth?

The full context of Wilson's statement is:

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business.

Yes, that sounds like a typical business trip to me. And if he is meeting with people whom Saddam would have to go through to get the kind of deal outlined in a purported memorandum of agreement with a Nigeran official, then he was talking to the very people who could tell him something.

Wilson was sent to check that out a formal agreement between two governments, not any cloak-and-dagger attempt by someone in Niger to smuggle yellowcake to Saddam. Of course, if it were anything like that, then there wouldn't be anything so formal as a memorandum of agreement. Had that been the case, then somebody other than Wilson would have been more suited to investigate.

However, the circumstances being what they were, Wilson was certainly a credible choice for the assignment, regardless of who recommended him.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/13/2005 @ 11:28am
Jack, be real about how to get uranium. All you have to do is pay off or kidnap a family member of someone who worked at the plant. sadam is not going to call the ambassador and say, "hey, anyone got any yellow cake they want to sell?" For a military guy, you must have been pretty sheltered! Why do you weapons disapear in our bunkers? Because some poor kid was offered big money to look the other way. Jack, you really can;t be serious about defending Wilsons story! Jack, have you ever read the 9/11 commission report? Not the short suggestion one, the book and thier findings...you may want to crawl into a ball after what you read!

So, with your logic, ALL CIA people can'tt say they work for the CIA? What if she was on TV as an analyst Jack? Jack, she was out with her husband all the time hob nobing around town, taking pictures with the president,...all anyone had to do was trail her into Langly for 10 straight days and know she works for the CIA. That is why people who have desk jobs at langley are not protected. you make this seem to be that she was some spy, when in fact, she wasn;t. She was a renegage analyst who sent her husband on a free trip to Niger to hob nob with the high ranking officials there. The information she had is information that terrorist already knew about so her life is not a jeopardy. If she was counter intel and had visited the country to make plans, then she is protected. Jack, sorry, but your hatred towards Bush does not justify your issue with Rove and will certainly not be held up in either the court or with the CIA, who has not said one thing that Rove did wrong. Start your drum beat on another issue and move on, soldier of the liberal army!

Jack, if this was SO TOP secret, why did Wilson feel compelled to write a editorial in the NY Times that condradicted his story in the Real CIA report? Why, Jack, why? ALL THIS HAPPENED BEFORE THE LEAK WENT OUT, Jack! So in essence, Wilson and Plame could legitimately be brought up on charges by falsifying documents to the CIA if wrote he wrote in the NY Times is correct. Get it? That to me, Jack, is a little bit more important to national security then leaking a desk analysts name to the press. That means that CIA operatives can go to the press for their political agenda without being held accountable.

Can you please send me the transcript that he had with Sadaam or video. I would really like to see the hanging quote. Or did he embelish that story to make himself look like a tough guy?

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 11:54am
Frankgrits While I have never been able to understand how any person with any degree of intelligence could be a Democrat, much less a liberal, I enjoy your comments to the degree that they merit response. But,,you folks who hate Bush and all of us who support him continue to be led by emotions and not facts (especially Kevin who seems to have the most stereotypical liberal responses possible)

I have debated a number of the left's mouthpieces including Elaine Cassell, Wayne Madsen, and others. They are consistent as most of this group in refusing to let facts get in the way of their opinions.

What you folks are so angry about is this:

1. Bush has strong convictions and ideology that you disagree with and sees no need to make any serious compromises

2. He is fully supported by staff, the majority of the Republican Congress and approximately half of US Citizens who if not in complete agreement are solidly in agreement with his decisions and direction for our country. You don't understand why we share his convictions and ideology

3.Many of you dislike him (and thus also his Christian Conservative supporters) because of his and our strong beliefs

4.Finally, the understandable frustration that you keep losing elections and control over the direction of the country. Sorry, but that's politics.

Finally, if you want to keep misdirecting anger towards Rush Limbaugh and the totally idiotic belief that he has molded our thoughts (thus you think the dittoheads); wakeup

Rush Limbaugh only speaks in a media voice to provide an outlet to our beliefs and opinions. He could not exist nor succeed if this was not the case. Get it? He reflects us not the other way around!

Stay tuned for a great posting on the facts that show Rove is to be praised as the honest Whistleblower (and we know the left loves whistleblowers)that the Plame case will reveal.

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 11:59am
Addendum:

Understand these facts about the direction and decisions of President Bush:

1. We not only support the President's decision to go into Iraq, we wish he would be more decisive instead of making politically correct decisions in more genteel approaches towards the terrorists (this would result in less soldiers dying).

2. We enthusiastically support the President in reducing across the boardincome taxes for all Americans without regard to class or race or marital status. Frankly we hope he continues to do more in this area. And based upon news reports today he has been proven right and the economy has never been stronger.

3.We hold the President responsible for honoring our vote supporting him and put in Federal And Supreme Court Justices that will strictly rule according to the Constitution and not create rights/laws that are the responsibility of the individual states.

Just the core reasons why we love this President and while I enjoy the repartee, I have no qualms, doubts, misgivings or fears about his ability to see through to the end of his second term, the agenda we conservatives expect him to deliver.

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 12:08pm
Frank, that was a generalization, but there is also some truth to the matter people react to emotional issues without getting the full story of what actually occured. yes, the prewar intel was a disaster and Iraq was questionable. However, if you look at all the facts surrounding what went on with Iraq 10 years prior to invading them, and looking at who had what interests there, the big picture will open up. we sit in our little worlds and cry if our feelings are hurt without moving on and worrying about what we can do today. Our society is full of soft cry babies that have no back bone. What I am arguing on this site has nothing to do with Bush or Clinton, Rep or Dem, it has to do with attitude. Yes, if you are going to go after Bush and Rove, HAVE ALL THE FACTS before making attacks. This story is a smoke screen to what the bigger picture is. If this was a story on the flip side, you would be defending the president and his admin. This is a story that is so far blown out of proportion by the press to muddle the facts because they know they were in the wrong. All they have to do is work the emotions of the liberal left into an already HATRED of Bush and the war is on. We had a US Senator use the term WAR against the Supreme Court...is that appropriate? Yes the country is divided, but it is not divided by Bush vs Clinton. It is divided by moral issues and for people trying to jam their views down each others throats by the use of the courts. Red states want to stay red and blue the same. let it be. Blue states should not be forcing their ideals on anyone else like liberals say the red states do with religion.

Get over the fact that this is a federal investigation and no one knows all the facts. What we are arguing about it hersey and when facts and legal terms come up, you are all dismissing it because your agenda is to bring down the "bushies" because you believe he lied to you about WMDs.

You should also read what is going on at the World Trade Center site and what the liberal groups are doing their. They want to have a Freedom of the world center built on top of the Tower site. Is that really appropriate to bring this stuff up on the site of 3000 dead innocent victims. It is grand standing liberal indeals and people are angry and are getting agrier because liberals took over a $300 million project that is going to allow Geore Soros have a say what goes on there. You know, the man that hates conservatives...is going to have a say in what is fair.

Frank, you know and I know being athletes that you win some and lose some. The most important thing is how hard you work after you win and don;t get comfortable and how well you rebound after a loss and not to sit crying because "it was a bad call, or home court advantage". That is why the world has it down pat. The game of soccer is a game where a tie is OK. It is valient and means you will come back again for another match. If you win or loose, you come back over and over. We live in a society that we all have to win or loose. And by reading comments from what is being posted here, we may have some sore losers!

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 12:12pm
Frank, That is LL response, not mine. Sorry! But we do agree 90% of the time and I think that you have legitimate beefs against what you consider poor leadership qualities. However, other people don;t feel that way and if they present liberals with facts against their emtional outbursts, it is countered with "don't feed the pigeons" comments from people who don;t have the facts to questions being asked that they first made comments about. If you beleive in what you beleive in, that is fine, but what LL and I am saying is that to "debunk" is to have fact, not opion based of hersey fact.

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 12:40pm
Lost what, Frank? And to let you know that liberals opposed entering WWII and it was a Democrate who held us out of the war when our allies were getting the crap kicked out of them. My dad was a survivor of the Battle of the Bulge at the age of 17. Dems back then are not the same so don;t try to place liberals in that category.

frank it proves to the readers that you wanted to take me on and then went off on me when it was someone elses comments.

when I use the term spinless, it is a description of a person who wants everything but will not go the distance. I am not saying that republicans have a solid backbone, but it is spinless of people to make comments without having facts, Frank and when they are countered only to be ridiculed as a right winger.

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 1:04pm
How can anyone take someone seriously when all we hear is hersey with no facts. Do you honestly think the judge in the Rove case will allow any of your arguements in the court room?

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 1:06pm
Frank, that had to be one of your poorest responses. It's hard to respond to one so poorly written.

1. To state that "all Presidents have strong convictions", let me just say Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

2. Where does it say that Presidents must compromise? That is what elections are about. You fight for your convictions knowing you will win some and lose some. This word compromise is one that liberals and so-called moderates (to me a moderate is someone with no convictions)love but conservatives try to keep out of our vocabulary. It's a losing proposition.

3. Bear with me on this point, it gets a little preachy. Frankly, while I understand your comments on Christians trying to impose their religious beliefs, there are some corrections that must be stated. For the most part, what you who disagree are really saying is that you disagree with those who said that our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are based upon Judeo-Christian precepts and moral law. You are welcome to your opinion but that just ignores that facts (once again). Most of our emphasis with the courts is to simply return to the rule of law that we were founded on and lived by until the 20th Century(except for slavery which was a evil not supported by Biblical Christianity (Galations 3:27,28 "...for as many of you as...have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free...for you are all one in Christ Jesus"

And while I agree that some voices seem to call for a more religious nation and court rulings that seem Christian directed, I have spent a number of years teaching and preaching to Pastors and Churches that our role and expectation should be quite different. This is a secular, pluralistic nation (but founded and centered on Christianity and it's beliefs). And Our role as Christians is not to make this a Christian nation but to declare and reveal the kingdom of God in Christ Jesus to the nation and the world. And to understand the world is not expected to live to Christian standards. I believe that the greatest way to change a nation is to change hearts. Laws have never succeeded in changing behavior, only a heart change can do that.

Finally to this particular point, I am always amused as someone like yourself says about Christian conservatives "Don't try to legislate morality or nominate judges that will not follow the Constitution because you will be ‘Treading' on my rights and I will fight you

Nearly all law is based upon a moral judgment. You don't think that Roe v Wade was a moral decision. Of course it was, I just believe it was a bad one that legalized the murder of infants. liberals determined that was an acceptable moral decision.

So yes, I want judges that will interpret laws and lawsuits according to the constitution and not try to invent rights that are not delineated in the Constitution. Liberal judges believe openly that they have that right and privilege.

Last, obviously you either do not believe or understand my commentary about the absurd comments you and others keep making on Rush Limbaugh. I will repeat slowly.....maybe this will sink in (sorry couldn't resist)

I like Rush, and he echo's much of what we conservatives believe. He is most of all and entertainer and a good one. But we do not get our ideas and thoughts from Rush. He just reflects our thoughts and ideas. You folks just can't seem to understand that Frankly, sometimes he is a little bit moderate for my tastes, and I don't listen all the time; would like to listen more but am busy being both a full time capitalist and a full time Pastor.

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 1:16pm
Frank, that I agree with you on. But we ALL must move past the Rove thing and accept the fact that the press is destroying the country, not just the Rep and Dems. They have a reponsibility to come straight down the middle on what is going on in the world, not just here in the US. BBC does a great job at that!

Now if the liberals could focus their energy and get a presentation that is clean, crisp and to the point, that is when the White House will be filled with Dems. There are just too many liberals with too many ideas...kinda like my last rant. All over the board, making it confusing. That is what LL is saying, people want strong and decisive leaders. Not a Kerry who says, "I voted yes before I voted no." Even though he was saying he was thinking about it, the perception he is weak. You may not agree with Bush and Rove, but rally your troops and come out with compelling facts based on the issues. That is what the middle ground wants to hear. Not cry baby mud throwing from both sides of the aisle!!!

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 1:24pm
Frank, Frank, Frank, your comments on Rove continue to betray your obvious intelligence. Don't you think that the Dems have their "Rove's"? You know people like Begala and Carville, that we conservatives utterly dislike..That is a non sequitur.

Your continued rantings that Bush is an idiot controlled by Rove is pure emotional dribble. Why do you folks continue to ignore solid Democrats like Lanny Davis (you know advisor to Clinton) who continues trying to tell people that they so underestimate Bush's intelligence. Lanny should know, he went to college with Bush.

You folks keep mistaking Bush's speech deficiencies for lack of intelligence. Well, I have to tell you keep it up! I stutter badly in conversations except when I am preaching or teaching. It's just God's touch on me that makes me seem fluent at those times. Otherwise, I can't speak to people in a fluid manner. So I know what the president goes through.

And to your previous to Dan...strongly NO on the very intelligent vs decisive non bending. Jimmy Carter is a very intelligent man and one of the worst presidents in our history.

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 1:32pm
In reference to DanCall at 11:54 am

You are speculating, Dan.

Wilson was sent to Niger to find out something about an agreement between Niger and Iraq about the sale of yellowcake that was above board enough to have a memorandum of agreement. If there was anything cloak-and-dagger about this, the CIA would have sent someone else to investigate that.

According to Wilson, his findings in Niger about a deal to sell yellowcake to Iraq based on a memorandum of agreement were consistent with those of Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick, who had also investigated the matter prior to his arrival.

For a military guy, you must have been pretty sheltered! Why do you weapons disappear in our bunkers? Because some poor kid was offered big money to look the other way.

I was in the army sometime after the Vietnam War. I spent a year in Korea. We had an occasional problem with barracks theft and black marketeering of items from the PX or class 6 store, but never anything like weapons disappearing. Our weapons were kept secure when they weren't being used, and they were seldom used. It would have been pretty hard to move that sort of thing downtown.

ALL CIA people can't say they work for the CIA? [S]he was out with her husband all the time hob nobing around town, taking pictures with the president,...all anyone had to do was trail her into Langly for 10 straight days and know she works for the CIA.

Well, her cover at the CIA was blown thanks to the White House, so it doesn't matter if she's photographed in public any more. The whole world now knows Joe Wilson's wife is a lady named Valerie Plame and that she was a CIA operative. Her exposure, whether it violated any law or not, ruined her career and compromised the work she doing.

[W]hy did Wilson feel compelled to write a editorial in the NY Times that condradicted his story in the Real CIA report?

Wilson did not file a written report and never saw what was put in writing about his findings. Again, you are begging the question as to whether what Wilson wrote in The New York Times differed from what he told the ambassador and her staff prior to departing Niger.

Wilson has stated since the article appeared that he felt compelled to write it because what was said publicly about Iraq's attempts to purchase yellowcake from Niger differed from his own findings; he wanted to know why.

Did a report on Iraq's attempts to purchase yellowcake differ from what Wilson told the ambassador and her staff? That is quite possible. An innocent explanation, suggested by Wilson, is that while his mission failed to turn up any evidence of an attempt by Iraq to purchase yellowcake from Niger, other evidence could have supported such a case. However, it appears that Wilson's findings were simply ignored by policymakers, thus raising a more sinister explanation, also suggested by Wislon.

The more sinister explanation is credible. We know that the case for war against Iraq was "thin" [timesonline.co.uk] and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Dissembling reports was the order of the day in the run up to the war. There might very well be a number of people who should be brought on charges of falsifying reports, and it's not the Wilsons.

Can you please send me the transcript that he had with Sadaam or video. I would really like to see the hanging quote. Or did he embelish that story to make himself look like a tough guy?

In the fall of 1990, Saddam threatened to excute anybody who harbored foreigners. Wilson defied him by bringing about a hundred American into the US embassy. He then met the press wearing a noose in lieu of a necktie. Later, he said that he was sending a message to Saddam: "If you want to execute me, I'll bring my own [expletive] rope."

You may find that anecdote on the BBC website [news.bbc.co.uk], among other places.

I have vague recollections this incident from fifteen years ago.

I read Mr. Wilson's gesture as sending the message that he suggests he intended to send. Perhaps you have an alternate reading.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/13/2005 @ 1:33pm
Jack, so you are saying that Wilson's report to the CIA and what was writen is possibly a contradiciton. By your explanation, it seems that Wilson got caught with his pants down because if he was hired by his wife, who does the report go to, his wife? See where I am going with this?

I just think this whole thing is blown out of proportion, Plame is not a spy and her life is not in jeopardy, if so, she would have diasappeareed into thin air. she was photographed many times with Wilson and anyone with half a brain could figure out she worked with the CIA. That is the issue with the law. If she was covert, she wouldn;t be in that role hiring outside consultants to do credible intel gathering. They would have had ops on the ground talking with lower end people finding out what type of side jobs were going on.

This is a time when Dan rather was using false documents, A NY Times writer was let go after outside pressure found that he was writing stories on events that he didn;t even attend. You may all cry about right wing media, but what was the last story they made up that was proven. hell, Dan Rather won a award for what he did...that is part of the divide in this country. If a man can win a media award for using a document without checking if it was real, it was found to be a fraud, and he still sticks with his story and gets a free pass? Putin, blammed Bush and told the Russian people that the US Government Fired Rather, because that is the message that media is sending around the world.

I remember when Druge broke the story on Clinton. Dems were furious, but when the facts came out, it was turned again against the right wingers trying to bring him down. Facts are facts people...you have a legitimate beef with some of the WMD stories, but this one is out of control!

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 1:52pm
here is the posting I promised on Karl Rove Whistleblower...can't wait to here the Fed Prosecutor flatten a lot of lib hope!

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 In Case You Missed It: Karl Rove, Whistleblower

From The Wall Street Journal

Review & Outlook July 13, 2005

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. ... 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.

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. ...

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. ...

For Entire Article Please Visit: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 1:55pm
Frank, you are correct and the when the people voted him in then that is the way the country will be lead by the president. I can;t understand why Dems complained when Clinton was in office for the right wingers to stop complaining and wait until they have a repblican in office because he was elected by the people. The tables turn, Congress, Senate and the White House are controlled by the republicans. that is fact because they were voted in. This is not a conspiracty and if liberal view points were truly in the majority, then wouldn;t one wonder why there aren;t more elected dem officials?

Frank, a CEO does not always agree with the CIO, CFO, COO or the like, what he/she does is take all that info and make hard decisions to move the company into the the furture for investors, which is to make more money and to prosper...isnt it the duty for the president to do the same?

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 2:00pm
LL: thanks for the WSJ perspective, but if you expect people to think of this as nonpartisan, you are dreaming.

Scott McClellan said that the reason the white house did not appoint an independent investigator is because he had no information that anybody in the White House was involved in the incident. How did he not know that Rove was clearly involved in the incident?

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/13/2005 @ 2:03pm
BTW, if you all haven;t heard the latest world polling, The Wall Steert Journal is ranked in the top 3 credible newspapers world wide. The New York Times dropped to 6th. I think Financial Times was 1.

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 2:04pm
Nat, because maybe Rove didn;t tell anyone that he talked to the reporter? But that wouldn;t work because that would actually disconnect him to Bush, wouldn;t it?

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 2:06pm
Frank,

Well, first of all the moral "lapses" are big for me..And lying under oath is pretty big for any elected official much less the president (and it doesn't and shouldn't matter the reason for the lie except if it affects our national security).

Clinton never was elected in a landslide if calling 43% of the vote a landslide..If it wasn't for Ross Perot (our Nader), Clinton would never have been elected President in the first place.

What achievement? You mean reforming welfare as demanded by the Republican Congress

Or how about his efforts to dismantle our intelligence agencies and military strength. One of my sons' was decorated by Clinton and said that all his unit despised what he meant to the military.

Or how about the balanced budget amendment? Here is the actual timeline of Clinton's deficit proposals fought by the GOP beofe they won the Balanced Budget Amendment drived. Before giving in to the Republican Congress, he claimed deficits "as far as the eye can see"

-- In January 1994 Bill and Hillary Clinton unveil "ClintonCare." The proposed hostile federal takeover of one-seventh of the U.S. economy would add at least $75 billion to the deficit over the next six years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

-- In September 1994 the President furiously lobbies liberal Democrats in Congress to oppose a Balanced Budget Amendment -- a measure supported by 75 per cent of the American public. Labor Secretary Robert Reich is a little too honest when he confirms most Americans' suspicions about this Administration: "The President is against simply balancing the budget."

-- In October 1994 the President signs into law his $30-billion "crime bill." The Los Angeles Times describes the legislation as a "once-in-a-lifetime federal spending bonanza" containing "a vast array of new social programs" including federally funded exotic-dance classes, sensitivity-training courses, and midnight-basketball leagues. The cost of the Clinton bill has to be shaved after the Democratic House of Representatives rejects the original version as too expensive.

-- In January 1995 Bill Clinton submits a 1996 budget plan that calls for $12 trillion of spending over the next seven years and $200-billion deficits for as far as the eye can see. Even Washington Post reporter David Broder blasts the document as a "symbol of Clinton's failed leadership." Because of the debt Clinton is adding, writes Broder, "the annual net interest is projected to climb from $198 billion in 1993 to $270 billion in 1997 -- when it will, for the first time, be larger than the projected defense budget."

-- In March 1995 Clinton again helps torpedo the Balanced Budget Amendment -- this time by strong-arming five Democratic senators, who had campaigned as champions of the amendment -- to flip-flop and vote no.

-- In June 1995, under pressure from the GOP Congress, Bill Clinton submits a new, revised budget proposal. It still doesn't balance the budget by 2002.

-- In July 1995 the Clinton White House begins its successful "Medi-scare" strategy to undermine public support for a GOP plan to rein in stampeding Medicare costs. Even the Washington Post editorializes that the Clinton Administration has become a gang of "medagogues." On Medicare and Medicaid, the White House is "engaged in an irresponsible campaign based on distortion and fear."

-- In October 1995 Bill Clinton confirms what most of the public is already painfully aware of: "I raised your taxes too much."

-- In December 1995 Bill Clinton vetoes the historic balanced-budget legislation enacted by the Republican Congress --listing 82 reasons why it cuts too much spending. He complains of cuts in everything from foreign aid to corporate welfare.

-- Later that month Bill Clinton releases his unprecedented third and then fourth budget proposals of the year. But they still don't balance the budget.

-- In February 1996 Bill Clinton releases a $1.65-trillion 1997 budget that calls for $360 billion in added spending, or $3,100 per American household, over the next seven years. Then with a straight face he tells the nation that "the era of big government is over." Oh, and the proposal still doesn't balance the budget by 2002.

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 2:10pm
Dan:

McClellan said he asked Rove specifically about the incident. Why didn't Rove tell McClellan?

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/13/2005 @ 2:11pm
If Rove didn't tell the administration, then he must have lied to protect Bush from scandal...

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/13/2005 @ 2:12pm
Because Rove doens't report to McClellan and if you know anything about "whistleblowing laws", then McClellan doesnt even have to answer to the president. it is also part of the Sarbanes Oxley Act that is set up to monitor corporate fraud. The whistle blower law is in full steam ahead on this issue. Meaning if you seeing fraud being conducted and you report it, you can not be fired. Back in the 80-even now, when whistle blowers came out, they were fired because they were found "not to be credible". There have been some heavy duty law suits recectly where the whistleblowers have sued the company for wrongful termination and have received tens of millions in return. In fact, now if you whistle blow, bonuses are attached.

So, in a short sentence, if he is a whistleblower, he is protected by law! Get it?

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 2:16pm
Dan: Your tangent doesn't make sense, and seems like a distraction from my point. Either Rove lied to the administration, which said they would fire anyone involved in this scandal. Then Rove must go. Or the Administration lied to the American people, and continues to lie about whether it will fire anyone involved in the scandal, or even cares.

I'm betting on the second one.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/13/2005 @ 2:23pm
Dan, you see that is their dilemma; a conservative whistleblower; for the left it is an oxymoron and cannot be processed by their minds. They love whistleblowers against Military or Corporate structures, but not against the media

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 2:23pm
Nat, the WHISTLEBLOWING LAW STATES that he doesn;t have to tell anyone or say anything that is not invloved with the investigation. Make sense now? He consulted with his lawyers Nat...he protected himself and yes, he is protecting Bush, which is what you want on your staff!

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 2:29pm
Dan:

Maybe you don't understand the concept of whistle-blowing. When some lowly admin working on a project realizes there is something wrong going on, they can make that information public without having to worry that they will lose their job. That is not the same as the 2nd most powerful person in the country, anonymously and potentially illlegally, destroying his opponents.

If Rove really thought that what he did was right, honest and good, he would not have hesitated in coming forward and making public the fact that he was the source of the info. What did he have to lose? His job? hardly. His reputation? He was not betraying the administration, which is the reason for whistleblower laws in the first place.

My point was never about illegality. My point was he did dastardly deeds, and no whistleblowing laws should prevent the President from sticking to his word and firing the B*stard

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/13/2005 @ 2:32pm
Frank, sure he does, he just doens't have to jump through the hoop for a liberal ideas!

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 2:33pm
I never fogot that his dad ran the CIA. Interesting to see that when the Bush Family was out of the CIA, terrorism skyrocketed because they knew Clinton would do anything....lets not forget that Frank!

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 2:37pm
I meant nothing!

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 2:38pm
All your posts mean nothing, Dan

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/13/2005 @ 2:43pm
Nat, Whistleblowing works for the CEO or CFO as well. It is called CYA. It allows for a saftey net.

And Nat, that is the problem, you are emotional. We were having a convo based on what the laws were and then you took your interperation of what is good and evil and went off.

And Frank, it is all about Money! But it is also a British publication. The WSJ, unlike the NYT, tries to keep it short and simple with facts laid out to let the individual reader make the decision on how to respond. The nYT uses emotional hersey to drive the people to move toward their agenda. The WSJ is money! The financial Times is money. If you understand money, then you will understand why politicians do the things they do. It works for both reps and dems. It is a great thing, but at the same time can ruin a persons integrity!

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 2:44pm
Is that because I disagree with you Nat? Because I actually have a logical and referenced response back to you??? You see Frank, based on our earlier exhange, Nat hammered the nail in the coffin!!!

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 2:46pm
Dan:

Hopefully that mild barb didn't hurt too bad. Anyway, I don't understand why you keep dismissing my ideas as "being emotional". There are clearly bigger issues than whether Rove is in fact convicted, namely whether this President and his harmful agenda is discredited.

If we get the word out about his administration's being caught in a clear lie, then maybe people will change their minds.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/13/2005 @ 2:47pm
Nattie, I think the reason dancall posted his heartrending story about the kickball incident was to point out the fact that his mother and the nuns saw, even in childhood, that the forces of Satan directed his life.

Posted by nathanhale at 07/13/2005 @ 3:04pm
here's the statute. seems like, based on the language and what's factually known, whoever told novak that wilson's wife was a cia op would/could easily be found guilty. unless my hermeneutic powers are completely gone....

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----000-.html

Posted by dabar at 07/13/2005 @ 3:06pm
Nattie, as Dan keeps succinctly stating, your responses are solely based upon your disagreement with the direction and ideology of President Bush and we millions of conservatives that elected him. Stop the sour grapes and if you believe you have a better philosophy/direction for the country, run for office or help to elect those who agree with you.

That is the heart of all this dialogue. And unless we degrade into a third world or anarchist nation, we will continue to make the voting booth the primary place where we determine the outcome over our continuing debate. Always has been and hopefully will remain; In the meantime, venting is healthy and debate the soul of an open society. As much as I hated Clinton and all he stood for, I worked hard with many others to bring my viewpoint into the controlling position. I also recognize that I will probably be on the other side at some point in the future (although Democrats are doing an excellent job in self-destructing right now). At which point I will resume my earlier battle.

That is the adult way we do politics in the US and thank God for it. It seems to work pretty well as we have the most stable government in the world and also the most stable and productive economy (Europe is in tatters economically and in trying to develop the EU for any who study the facts).

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 3:07pm
LL:

You respond witha common tactic of conservative ideologues: attack the messenger, ignore the message. You continually confuse the distinction between logic and illogic with the distinction between real-world policy and legal issues. Both policy (public perception --> effectiveness of political agenda) and law (whether Rove is convicted) are important parts of the debate as to what the outcome of this Rove scandal will be. When you want to have a debate, please respond to the content of my message rather than calling me illogical.

And if you want a discussion only about the legal issues, and don't want to face the fact that Bush is being dishonest and is likely to face public perception problems, then please respond to this comment I made on "Why Bush Has to Fire Rove":

As the law stands, Rove could easily be indicted for a crime and possibly convicted. If the Newsweek story is true, then it is clear that Rove identified Plame as a CIA agent. Whether or not he knew she was undercover is the only relevant barrier to Rove's conviction. If he was aware that she was undercover as a "desk" agent at CIA then he should be convicted. He will obviously argue that he was unaware of her status, and his emails give that story an air of credibility. However, given his position in the administration and his obvious ability to determine whether she was undercover, it may be circumstantially shown that he violated the statute.

If he were indicted, that would be disastrous for the administration. The prosecutor would likely present evidence of his dastardly deeds throughout his prior work on Bush 1's campaign, Bush 2's Texas campaign, and both of Bush's presidential campaigns. If a bright light is shown on his tactics, the credibility of the administration will fall off a precipice.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/13/2005 @ 3:15pm
No No No Nattie; I do stick to the message; your presumption of;

1. Rove's guilt (notice the preoperative words "if the Newsweek Article is true"...IF, not established truth but media rumor!

2. That Bush is this monsterous liar..That is your opinion not fact. I know you will respond with "he lied about Iraq and WMD" no he didn't; read the 9/11 Commission report and if you are honest with yourself instead of relying upon leftwing conspiracies and inuendos, you may come to a different conclusion.

Again, my point (and Dancalls' and others) is that your emotional hatred of Bush and conservatives clouds your ability to rely upon the facts. You are doomed to disappointment and frustration if you continue down this road...not a gloat just the facts of life and politics.

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 3:28pm
LL:

You must not have read my posts:

1: (a) Bush said he'd fire anyone "involved" in the Plame scandal; (b) Evidence pretty clearly indicates Rove was involved; yet (c) Bush doesn't fire Rove. Hence, Bush lied.

2: "Newsweek story": Wait, are you saying that we should all wait for a criminal conviction, and if there isn't one Bush should not fire Rove? Bush has already denounced the outing of Plame, and he knows someone in his administration is responsible. Who cares about a criminal conviction?

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/13/2005 @ 3:38pm
Response to post by DanCall @ 1:52 pm

You're still begging the question, Dan.

[I]t seems that Wilson got caught with his pants down because if he was hired by his wife, who does the report go to, his wife?

There is absolutely no reason to believe that Valerie Plame "hired" Wilson for this trip. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Valerie Plame was acting as a renegade at the CIA out to embarrass the Bush regime. The fact that she gave money to the Gore for President campaign is evidence of nothing except that she probably voted for Al Gore, as did, I'm sure, a number of other CIA operatives; and we can be also sure a number of others voted for Bush. That someone at the CIA voted for Bush doesn't mean we should suspect him of dissembling intelligence prior to invasion of Iraq; that someone at the CIA voted for Gore doesn't mean we should suspect them of conniving to embarrass Bush. So I don't give two bits where you are going with it.

The report did not go to Valerie Plame. It went to Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatick and her staff; it was delivered orally. What happened after that is anybody's guess.

You can bring up Dan Rather and Bill Clinton all you want; they are still red herrings. This involves probable wrongdoing in the Bush regime, not at CBS News or in the Clinton administration.

The question here is did somebody at the White House, Karl Rove or anybody else, expose Valerie Plame, either by name or by a unique denoting phrase like Joseph Wilson's wife, as a CIA agent? Was there willful fabricating of facts and dissembling of intelligence reports prior to the war against Iraq? Was the exposure of Ms. Plame done for a purely political purpose? Did that purpose just happen to be to keep under cover the willful lying about the reasons for going to war against Iraq?

In case you haven't figured it out, I believe the answer to each one of those questions is Yes. I think it goes a long ways to explaining why everything said about Iraq's weapons and terrorist associations by the Bushies prior to the war turned out to have been wrong. Even prior to the war, there were good reasons to believe them wrong. They decided to go to war and then looked for reasons, making them up if necessary. Having a thin case for war, they fixed intelligence and facts around the policy. The intelligence community was set up as the fall guy. If it turned out that all the neocons' claims were bogus -- as it did -- they would just say, "whoops, we were relying on what these guys said, silly us."

There is quite a bit more documentation to support that theory than the one you are advancing. The scheme advanced in the Bushies-as-willful-liars theory starts to come unraveled when somebody who did some of the actual legwork for them turns around and says, "but what they said I said isn't what I said at all."

You may think that I am a nutty conspiracy theorist. You would be wrong. I still think Oswald acted alone. I am very skeptical of conspiracy theories. Normally, I would look at something like this and assume there was some human error along the way (a possibility most conspiracy theorists often overlook): Wilson went to Niger; found nothing; so reported; somebody got what he said wrong; end of story. This would normally be the most plausible explanation.

It is a rare occasion that I will reject that kind of reasoning. Why do I reject it here? For one thing, there were too many errors; innocent human error would be a good explanation in this case if Iraq had been found to be swimming in weapons grade biochemical toxins, weapons grade nuclear materials and documentation showing that Saddam provided Osama with cash and training. So what if Wilson found nothing, because there was nothing to find, but those sixteen words still found their way into Mr. Bush's 2003 SOTU? Hey, this kind of thing happens. Wilson probably wouldn't have even bothered to write his article for The New York Times, or, if he had, it would barely have caused a ripple.

However, it wasn't just those sixteen words. It was any and all talk of a nuclear threat from Iraq, any and all talk of how many tons of what toxins Saddam had stored around Baghdad or Tikrit or anywhere at all, any and all talk of his working relationship with any Islamist terror organizations. Could information be that wrong by chance?

I don't think so.

For another thing, there is too much suspicious activity that appears to point to the dilberate disselmbling of intelligence. So what was Feith doing in the OSP [newyorker.com]? What were Cheney and Libby doing making so many trips to Langley [smh.com.au]? These people wanted war and they weren't going to let the facts get in the way. If they had, there would probably have been no invasion. The Bushies would have had to content themselves with nation-building in Afghanistan, which, as Mr. Rumsfeld said, had no good targets. Perhaps he was right; but it had and still has a lot of real terrorists who really are responsible for the September 11 attacks.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/13/2005 @ 3:47pm
lets be realistic here...just because Bush can practice plausable deniability does not mean he didn't lie. WMD has dropped off the radar and now we are bringing democracy to Iraq??....come on...catch phrases like "resolve" "stay the course" "Democracy" the facts are that when WMD went bust we needed something and what better then bringing democracy or better yet "The war on Terror". Rove is a smart guy...not sure how anyone can believe he made some unwitting quip..but the real point here is that there are 1700+ dead and 13000+ wounded...(and who knows how many iraqis). So it all comes down to how comfortable you feel with that...i'm not. To have an administration who seems to be latching on to every hotbutton issue they can and playing on the fears of the public to justify this mess is unacceptable. So, I don't care if Bush TECHNICALLY did not lie...or Rove TECHNICALLY did not break the law...that's great legal debate, but it doesn't change the fact that everyday more people are dying because of this ....so Dan and LL ...i don't know you but i just hope a few years from now when the crush of disabled vets hits the VA, and the street corners,the "conservatives" that elected Bush are still "supporting the troops"...

Posted by stoney95 at 07/13/2005 @ 4:12pm
LL: Bush didn't lie?

War was certainly not the last resort as claimed by Bush (to bring in the Downing street memos but also R.Clark and others) and for that he should be held accountable as I can not imagine a greater offence. If not literally lying about the WMDs then for sure making a case which was based on cherry-picked intelligence (or no intelligence at all). With all the after-the-fact surfacing of new arguments for the war there is no doubt in my mind that it was done intentionally. Or do you actually believe that going for Iraq was the right thing to do anyway in the absence of WMDs or an imminant threat to the US?

BTW: Europe (or the EU) is quite competitive as the US is finding out. And this is being accomplished while supporting the welfare system. Even though improvements and adjustments are nescessary it's a long way to call the European model dead. I believe the opposite will be true and you might start to wonder some time soon why this in not possbile in the US as well.

Posted by nugo at 07/13/2005 @ 4:17pm
Dissembling on intelligence Read about everything the administration knew here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Then ask yourself, how did they know so many things that weren't true, and why didn't we continue to back the UNMOVIC inspections, which were finding that virtually every supposed threat from Iraq was neutered? Until I'm proven wrong, I will continue to assert that the real reason for invading Iraq is that Saddam "tried to kill my dad".

This is a "right-to-life" president who, as governor of Texas, signed 154 of 155 execution warrants that crossed his desk, because executing criminals serves as a deterrent. But he won't fire a single member of his administration for incompetence or for actions of questionable legality.

Rove will stay put; the only way to get this administration pissed off is to counter their lies with truth.

Posted by nathanhale at 07/13/2005 @ 4:22pm
Nattie:

Bush has not lied about Rove or the investigation; I just went back and reviewed again the Presidents answers to the Press on Sept 30 03 here are his words: THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

He said if they violated the law; that's what is partially involved in the Fed Prosecutors grand jury investigation; and Rove's lawyer has said that Rove is not a target of the investigation, that he has both testified before the grand jury and willingly from the beginning gave waivers to any press personnel who might be called before the grand jury..

The facts are the facts as we know them; the rest will be revealed by the Fed Prosecuter.

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 4:34pm
The fact is, Republicans are only concerned about ethics in the White House when the president is a Democrat.

Posted by nathanhale at 07/13/2005 @ 4:46pm
Nugo,

the left wing lies and conspiracies emotionalism just doesn't cut it.

First of all,everyone in the global intelligence community believed right up to the time of the invasion that Saddam had WMD. Bill Clinton, Chirac, oh can it be?

Former President Clinton, in an appearance on "Larry King Live" on July 22, 2003, said, " . . . (I)t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there."

In October 2003, months after the Iraq war began, former President Bill Clinton visited Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso. Durao Barroso said, "When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."

or how about Chirac French President Jacques Chirac, in February 2003, spoke about "the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq," noting "the international community is right . . . in having decided that Iraq should be disarmed."

Second, we had a legal right to resume hostilities because of Saddams violation of UN resolutions, his refusal to show some kind of proof that he had destroyed his WMD, and his hostile fire against US and British Aircraft on a near daily basis

Third, The invasion and regime change was a significant blow against terrorism and in support of our mutual defense agreement with Israel due to Saddam openly providing $25,000 rewards to suicide/homicide bombers in Israel. There has been a dramatic decrease in these attacks in Israel since we took out Saddam. Don't forget that Americans have been killed and injured in those attacks in Israel

So, yes absolutely I believe the invasion was justified, legal, and necessary

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 4:49pm
Nathan Hale...get real; of course we are concerned about ethics..as this debate continues to express, it's about determining whether there really is a problem or just more media hype and democratic whining

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 4:50pm
You may Love Liberty, but you should get your timeline straight. UNMOVIC was not in Iraq in July or October of 2003. But they did have to leave before the invasion. Remember? They were finding no WMD, and dismantling missiles that could reach Israel.

Saddam provided $25,000 per suicide attack? How many millions did the House of Saud pass to al Qaeda?

Posted by nathanhale at 07/13/2005 @ 4:55pm
Surely NathanHale you can think through this a little deeper...

Without evidence of what happened to the WMD we were all supposed to just lift sanctions and send Saddam on his merry way like he was asking? That is foolhardy at best and suicidal at worst.

Secondly you completely ignore my pointed response to your wild claim that Bush lied in making his claims for the invasion..his opinion was shared by the world community who would know better than you and I, including Bill Clinton.

Third, so you don't believe there should be consequences to those who kill or injure US citizens? and regarding Saudi Arabia; obviously we have had problems there but frankly if you pay attention, they are taking big hits with terrorism and have finally in the past year gotten serious about taking out terrorists in their own country. There is a lot more to discuss in that regard but it should stay within another debate.

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 5:04pm
Love Liberty, this isn't a personal attack: You are stupid. You tell me: when did Saddam let UNMOVIC back into Iraq, and when were they forced to leave? And, what did they find while they were there?

Posted by nathanhale at 07/13/2005 @ 5:08pm
LL:

I understand your defense of Bush not firing Rove a little better. You were right, Bush staunchly opposed firing leakers in his administration who harm national security unless they were convicted in a criminal court. Bush said he had "nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."

He didn't say he'd fire the traitors though. But it is curious to me why he would not fire an acknowledged traitor in his administration? Faith in friends before love of country, maybe?

David Corn's newest post makes it clear how Rove revealed classified information. He is clearly a "traitor" under our president's definition.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/13/2005 @ 5:14pm
LL

And I believed it too. I remember to have argued with friends that if Sadam indeed has WMDs and would not let the inspectors back in then there should be military force applied. For that I supported the idea of moving troops in position in order to make the threat believable. Then the inspectors were let back in to do their job but this wasn't good enough anymore for those with other ideas in mind. Thats' when I changed my mind as well.

But I do think that in matters of war and peace just "believing" those WMDs exist will not do it. For that you better get some "facts". But then: you really have to want to get to the bottom of this, right?

Facts, by the way, are also the Downingstreet memos which you seem to ignore. Wonder why.

Posted by nugo at 07/13/2005 @ 5:27pm
LL

Regarding Rove/Bush: I wonder whether you would really come up with a similar defense in the case of a Democrat as president. Just contemplate that for a moment and give a honest answer.

Posted by nugo at 07/13/2005 @ 5:45pm
So many tangents, so little time...

Regardless of whether Rove committed a crime or not (I doubt they'll be able to find the intent needed to be charged), he was still awfully cavalier with sensitive information. Whether Rove, his lawyers or the other parrots with the bullet points want to admit it, he was at least one of the leaks of sensitive information. Unless Bush goes back on his word and wants to make poor (I use that adjective very loosely) Scott McClellan (man, he got stabbed in the back if you ask me) look like even more of a schmuck, he has to get rid of him.

Why is the GOP fighting it? Just put Rove back in his mastermind position of political operative, and he won't have to worry about any pretences about serving the country. He can be up front about serving his party first. He can push some weak apology just to save the party some embarassment and move on. Operationally speaking for Bush and the boys, I doubt anything much will change.

Posted by Buffalo at 07/13/2005 @ 7:15pm
If Rove was responsible for leaking the name of a CIA agent I guess he'll get to be a writer for The Nation? I mean, didn't Phillip Agee become a hero to the left?

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

FROM THE PAGES OF THE NATION (ARCHIVES) The Nation (March 14, 1981) "On Naming C.I.A. Agents" by PHILIP AGEE

Equally, people should not be fooled by claims that the C.I.A. is needed to save the world from "terrorism." In actual fact, the C.I.A. is intimately aligned with some of the worst terror going on today, and many of those described by the C.I.A. and the mainstream media as terrorists are in fact resisting oppression and terror, albeit with force. Those who oppose naming names because it endangers lives ought to weigh the thirty-five C.I.A. line-of-duty deaths over thirty-three years against the tens of thousands who have died as a direct or indirect result of C.I.A. operations. Countless others have passed through the torture chambers of foreign security services supported and trained by the C.I.A. C.I.A. employees are not children engaged in innocent games. They know perfectly well how aggressive and provocative is the Agency as an institution, and they know (or should know) how well deserved is whatever retaliation they get.

===========================================================

I'm sorry, but this sudden "concern" for leaking CIA agents names is pretty funny coming from TheNation.

Posted by jrtruth at 07/13/2005 @ 10:06pm
THE STORY IN A NUTSHELL:

Joe Wilson's original piece [nytimes.com]

...but as you see from this Wash Post article, the NY Times wasn't afraid of putting Bush Bashing ahead of Truth-Telling! [washingtonpost.com]

...now given that Rove knew all the info from the Wash Post story long before anyone else, it was quite understandble as chief Political Aide to Bush, that he'd want to set the record straight by telling reporters the following! [msnbc.msn.com]

...but at least based on what we know about what Rove told Matt Cooper, there is no evidence that Rove was involved in leaking the indentity of a covert CIA officier. Thus, the denials from the White House are perfectly consistent. Its quite clear from this that Rove's intention was to provide context to Joe Wilson's editorial and NOT retribution for it as the lefties would like to cry!

Now perhaps these good reporters like Matt Cooper, Judith Miller, and Bob Novak went ahead and looked into Joe's Wilson's background to find out for themselves whether there was some compromise to Joe Wilson's credibility based on what his wife's role was in sending him to Niger and discovered quite independently that Joe Wilson's wife was a CIA agent.

My recommendation is that if someone doesn't want people to find out their wife is a covert CIA agent, its not a good idea to write an Op-Ed piece in the NY Times touting yourself as an expert even though if you are an expert its only because of what your wife did for you as a covert CIA agent. You can't expect to criticize a political opponent citing yourself as an expert without an expectation that the person under attack might invite reporters to question your credibility by suggesting they look into the details of your "so-called" expertise.

Posted by fastEddieo at 07/14/2005 @ 07:12am
I have a question. There appears to be a dispute about who sent Wilson to Niger. If the identity of the person who sent Wilson is not classified, then we should be told who it was so we can determine if Rove was lying to Cooper (to smear Wilson). If it is classified, then either Rove was lying or is guilty of revealing classified information.

Have I missed something -- Do we know who sent Wilson?

Posted by JAR at 07/14/2005 @ 09:08am
JAR:

Yes we do know---it was a CIA analysist who took suggestion from Valerie Plame. This was proven by email memos used in a bipartisan congressional subcommittee investigation (READ WASH POST LINK ABOVE).

If ROVE was guilty of leaking this as it was classified, then congress is also guilty.

The Senate has made it public knowledge.

Posted by fastEddieo at 07/14/2005 @ 1:08pm
I think I'm a bit confused about how Wilson was chosen for the Niger trip discredits him. Granted, his wife recommended him, but, from all accounts I've seen, she was a CIA employee in good standing whose opinion seems to have been valued by her superiors, the recommendation was seconded by a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations and finally approved by 'an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson.' So, we have what I would assume are three valued CIA operatives saying, 'Yeah, let's send this guy.' How is this not vetting him?

At any rate, I have to go back to my point--law broken or not, does anyone not see Rove being pretty loose with what anyone would say is sensitive information all in the effort to shoot down a political issue? There was no reason other than politics for Rove to be speaking with Cooper and is that reason enough to be offering up information into who works for our intelligence community--covertly or otherwise?

Fast Eddie, your last comment concerns me as well. You're implying the only person who should not have wanted Valerie Plame's role in the CIA revealed is her husband, so he should've been more careful. Of course he wanted her role to remain a secret for her own safety, but Rove, Bush, you, me and every other American should prefer our CIA operatives' identities remain hush-hush at least, if not entirely covert. They can't do their jobs in the light of day. Perhaps this is why Wilson felt comfortable drawing a big target on his forehead for the GOP machine--he accepted he was fair game at that point, but putting someone serving their country into the middle of things was probably something he assumed was not fair game. Evidently, he miscalculated the depths Karl Rove is willing to go.

Posted by Buffalo at 07/14/2005 @ 2:14pm

David Corn

Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.

In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.

Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.

Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini

White House Stonewalls on Rove Scandal

posted by David Corn on 07/11/2005 @ 9:06pm

David Corn

Archives

» The Beat

» The Notion

» Altercation

» Editor's Cut

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

White House Stonewalls on Rove Scandal

posted by David Corn on 07/11/2005 @ 9:06pm

Share this article

David Corn

Archives

» The Beat

» The Notion

» Altercation

» Editor's Cut

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!