Rove Did Leak Classified Information

posted by David Corn on 07/14/2005 @ 4:39pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (444)

Subscribe Now

"The fact is, Karl Rove did not leak classified information." So said Ken Mehlman, head of the Republican Party.

"I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name." So said Karl Rove of Valerie Wilson/Plame last year on CNN.

"He did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." So said Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, after Newsweek reported Rove had been a source for Time magazine's Matt Cooper but before Newsweek revealed a Cooper email that said Rove had told Cooper that "wilson's wife...apparently works at the agency on wmd issues."

The White House may be stonewalling on the Rove scandal, but the Rove camp--aided by its echo-ists in the conservative media--has been busy establishing the twin-foundation for his defense: he did not mention Valerie Wilson/Plame by name; he did not disclose classified information. The first of these two assertions is misleading and irrelevant; the second is wrong.

Did not disclose her name

According to Cooper's email, Rove told Cooper that "Wilson's wife"--not "Valerie Plame," or "Valerie Wilson"--worked at the CIA. But this distinction has absolutely no legal relevance. Under the relevant law--the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982--a crime is committed when a government official (not a journalist) "intentionally discloses any information identifying" an undercover intelligence officer. The act does not say a name must be disclosed. By telling a reporter that Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA officer, Rove was clearly disclosing "identifying" information. There was only one Mrs. Joseph Wilson. With such information in hand, Cooper or anyone else could easily have ascertained the name of this officer. (A Google search at the time would have yielded the name--and maiden name--of Wilson's wife.) Revealing the name is not the crime; it's disclosing information that IDs the officer. Imagine if a government official told a reporter, "At 3:15, a fellow in a green hat, carrying a red umbrella and holding a six-pack of Mountain Dew, will be tap-dancing in front of the Starbucks at Connecticut Avenue and R Street--he's the CIA's best undercover officer working North Korea." That official could not defend himself, under this law, by claiming that he had not revealed the name of this officer. The issue is identifying, not naming. Rove and his allies cannot hide behind his no-name claim.

******

Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent postings on Rove and the Plame/CIA leak, the latest GOP pro-Rove spin, how a conservative columnist tried to recruit Corn for Rove's defense, and other in-the-news subjects.

*******

Did not disclose classified information

A reading of this law also indicates that if Cooper's email is accurate then Rove did pass classified information to Cooper. It's possible that Rove did so unwittingly. That is, he did not know Valerie Wilson's employment status at the CIA was classified information. But he and his posse cannot say the information he slipped to Cooper was not classified.

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act makes it a crime to identify "a covert agent" of the United States. The law defines "covert agent," in part, as "a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information." (My emphasis.)

This definition clearly recognizes that the identity of an undercover intelligence officer is "classified information." The law also notes that a "covert agent" has a "classified relationship to the United States." Since the CIA asked the Justice Department to investigate the Plame/CIA leak and the Justice Department affirmed the need for an investigation and special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, once handed the case, pursued the matter vigorously, it is reasonable to assume that Valerie Wilson fits the definition of a "covert agent." That means she has a "classified relationship" with the government.

By disclosing Valerie Wilson's relationship to the CIA, Rove was passing classified information to a reporter.

"There is little doubt," says Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, that the employment status of an undercover CIA officer, "is classified information." He notes that the "most basic personnel information of the CIA--the number of personnel, the salaries--is classified. Anything more specific--like the identity of a NOC [an officer working under "nonofficial cover," as was Valerie Wilson] or the numbers and identities of officers working in a particular region of the world--is classified."

To sum up, it does not matter if Rove did not mention Valerie Wilson by name, and it is not true that the information he passed to Cooper was not classified.

Rove may still have a defense against criminal prosecution. Under the law, a government official is only guilty if he or she discloses information "knowing that the information disclosed so identifies" a "covert agent." Rove could claim that he was not aware that Valerie Wilson was working at the CIA as a covert official. After all, there are CIA employees--analysts, managers, and others--who do not work under cover. If special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald indicts Rove or anyone else, the most difficult part of the case will likely be proving that the person charged with the crime meets this he-knew-she-was-undercover test.

Not all wrongdoing is a crime. But leaking classified information is always serious business. George W. Bush took an unambiguous stand on the leaking of classified information when he was asked on September 30, 2003, about Karl Rove's possible role in the Plame/CIA leak. Bush noted,

I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.

Well, now Bush knows. Rove, according to the Cooper email, did not leak a name but he did leak classified information. Much of his defense is in tatters. And where is Bush's "appropriate action"?

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

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 (444)

OK, let's talk about the car conspiracy and how everything breaks down a day after the warrenty expires!!! Just got back from a dealer...I rather be hugging Zero! No offense Zero!

Any way, we can all see how things are working, we are now a divided country over the Rove issue. Right Wing or Left Wing conspiracy, I think they are both in it together and the people on top really don' care either way because they have everything they want and are trying to gain more. The only real way to make the changes is to get low lying people like us to communicate and share ideas to combat the over powered politicians that have destroyed the country. Yes, on both sides, they have ruined it because they have been able to drive a massive wedge down the middle. We need to have hard right wingers talk with hard left wingers to find the middle again, to come to a compromise and realize that we will agree to disagree and stop the hatred on both sides. People like Zero have great ideas and they should be shared with people like Liberty, because some where in between lies a truth that we can all live with.

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 4:46pm
Sorry, David, I meant to post that on your other piece...

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 4:48pm
Thank you for clearing this up, Mr. Corn.

We've been having quite a discussion about this over your previous article.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/13/2005 @ 4:50pm
David,

I saw you on Democracy Now, goodo. Way to lay it on McClellan. Don't relent, please.

It's pretty darn freaky out here. Is it possible they can actually cover this up? Can they brush it over? What's happening with Fitzgerald? Are we going to get a prosecutorial update this week or what?

I just called both of my Senators (WA) and told the staffer to ask them to hold Bush accountable. They need more support; I urge everyone to call your congressional representatives and senators about this issue!!!

In my view, Karl Rove is so busted, toast, terminated. How can the spin-meisters who seek to dispell the evidence and charges against this unscrupulous, national-security-jeopardizing, traitorous thug live with themselves?

Power corrupts - and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

We are in desperate need of an administration change.

Posted by rob.olywa at 07/13/2005 @ 4:53pm
David, why not mention the that there is a time frame of 5 years that a person is protected? After the fifth year, no one is protected. That is directly from the woman who wrote the law for Goldwater. Meaning, if she was classfied as an officer, and her last covert assignment was in 1997, she is not protected. And, if it is proven that she told one person that she worked for the CIA, all protection is off.

While I still agree that Rove purposely did this, he is protected by the law.

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 4:55pm
Rove's lame excuse is also a lie, like verything else that comes out of his mouth. Robert 'Douchebag' Novak was interviewed by Timothy Phelps and Knut Royce in Newsday on July 22nd, 2003, about a week after Novak's column first ran. Novak said (direct quote): "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me. They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it." [emphasis added].

So two years ago, arch conservative Novak said quite clearly that the two 'senior government officials' gave him the name. This latest excuse is a pathetic piece of lawyerly crap. And it's not even true.

Posted by hammers at 07/13/2005 @ 5:01pm
Dan: what if Rove is not convicted? What then? Are there any consequences for the administration? Do you think there should be any consequences?

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/13/2005 @ 5:33pm
Frank, I was always the one fighting the bullies in school who picked on the "geeks". I may not agree with you all, I do repsect your opinions and may get a little rambunctious, but overall I am just trying to help the left see that to fight the right, you can;t go with emotion, it has to be a clear message. That why FDR and JFK were so great. Clinton was also great on the message, the problem was with him was that he never wanted to be the bad guy. All he had to say was, "yup, Monica and I had a few hits off the pipe and she went down on me." Case closed! Honest and would have rocked the heck out of the hard core religious right! Would have been classic!

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 5:40pm
Nat, I would let this slip and start the witch hunt on the Haliburton issue. There is fraud all over the place there and the proof is soooo overwhelming it is defenseless!

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 5:42pm
And Frank, you drink Cab!

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 5:43pm
Sorry loyal leftists, but Mr Corn brings nothing new to the debate, like much of what goes on in the media and sites like this...rehash, after rehash from each side...

You are just going to have to wait and see what the Fed Prosecutor is really doing..

So interesting to see Mr Corn and many of you simply dismiss the person who actually wrote the relevant law because she is a conservative Republican...why even consider the law at all since she is a partisan hack, the law must under your deliberations be fatally flawed and obviously to be superceded by something much more draconian..and at the same time missing the original purpose of the Act.

And Nattie, you are just too much for any one to not get a good laugh,,,,under your system of justice, a man who is found innocent should still face consequences and also the man who hired him? And I thought Texas justice could be tough!

And one more time just because libs have such a short attention span (I'm sorry, but I'm in a good mood)....if as you all whine and complain that Karl Rove is this genius who is actually controlling Bush and our govt, not even ego would cause someone to readily give waivers to the involved media so that they could "reveal" him as their source if there was any there, there.

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 5:56pm
Frank, the other blog today is on the gender gap. The message is clear for Dems, do not have Hillary run in 08. Unlike the left leaning polls indicate, she infuriates Red Wing Woman and even blue state soccer moms. But take your chances on her...

Also, stop Howard Dean from Mud Slinging! He is killing you guys.

In my opinion the best and most sound Dem right now is Joe Lieberman. There are three issues with Joe: 1. He is not the best looking guy, so he will not appeal to the younger crowd (crime that even plays into anything). 2. Not the most exciting speaker 3> He is Jewish, which will highlight the terrorist reasoning for hating the US. I say we should only have presidential debates on Radio, so people actually listen to what they are saying. We elect a jew and a black woman to PISS OFF THE RADICAL ISLAMICS EVEN MORE!!!

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 5:56pm
So you think the public should just forget about the fact Rove clearly revealed classified information? Why, when touting much smaller controversies got the Republicans control of the entire country? Do you really think Democrats can succeed by simply decrying Halliburton? Been there, done that...

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/13/2005 @ 5:57pm
LL:

If you were the CEO of a large corporation, and you learned that your right-hand man gave away trade secrets to a rival but could not be convicted because the statute of limitation had run, would you fire him? Or would you have complete faith and trust in his abilities?

We live under the rule of law, but we work under the dictates of our superior officers. If our superiors forbid us to act in a certain way, even a legal way, we have to do what they say or else we get fired. We can't defend ourselves and say "but I didn't commit a crime or anything."

Bush routinely fires people for incompetence (and for political reasons). Rove should get the axe.

And LL: you denounce my "system of justice" with a laugh, but seem unable to come to terms with the fact that people are routinely executed in the forum of public opinion. Left, right, and center willingly pass judgment without perfect information, because we all know that perfect information about politics is impossible. The evidence against Rove, while not perfect, is pretty overwhelming.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/13/2005 @ 6:06pm
One final comment LL: you don't think there could possibly be any consequences in the forum of public opinion for Bush unless he is convicted? You must not have been listening hard enough to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/13/2005 @ 6:17pm
I would keep Hillary in the Senate and let her run with healthcare. Call me crazy, but she was failed once with it, so she must have seen what didn;t work, which in a lot of cases if very important!

Nat, tell me one thing that our enemies gained from the Plame story? That she hired her husband without proper protocal and then returned a CIA report that was in total contradicition to his Ed Piece in the NY Times? Like I said before. If she was covert, she would have disappeared into thin air, husband or no husband. She was not working with secret missions. If she was, there would have been no way she could have hired her husband. So, yes, I really don;t care because she was a nothing in the CIA and they know it.

Now if you want to talk about giving away national security and weapons, lets talk about the selling of our Top Secret weapons to the Chinese for pennies...and then is tied back into Campaign money to the Dem party. You see, that stuff happens all the time on both sides of the aisle. This is a smoke screen and if you were this angry at Rove, were you angry that Clinton lied under oath about Monica? He lied under oath...

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 6:17pm
Nattie you keep repeating the same kool aid talk...it hasn't been determined anywhere that counts that Rove revealed anything that is classified. So your question is mute. The purpose of the Identities Act is to protect our covert assets in the field or who will be returning to the field. It is not statute of limitations like we would normally associate with certains type of felonies.

Finally in your rather bizarre response regarding consequences, you still seem to lack an understanding of American Justice where those who do go through the justice system and are found not guilty are not supposed to be subjected to consequences..that is for the guilty. Nor as you want, should the President face consequences if it is determined by our Justice system that Rove is not guilty. It would be a dismal country indeed if your viewpoint were to prevail...anyone could charge someone and they would face consequences no matter their innocence because it's the accusation that counts in your presumption.

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 6:23pm
Nat, why would a captain of a swift boat dress himself up in full combat gear into a zone that was aleady bombed that he had nothing to do with? And then park his boat to go on shore into a infantry role to have someone take videos of him carrying a M16?

He was a fake. He should have kept to the politics at hand. Hell, he walked into Wisconsin and call Lambeau field LAMBERT field...that, Nat, is sacreligious! And then walks into Columbus OH and says he loves the Wolverienes...Ohio States biggest rival. I bet you never heard those stories and those are two state where he lost a lot of votes.

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 6:23pm
Liberty: I encourage you to read Arianna's lead piece on the Huffington Post. It explains in clear detail how ethics and law are two different things. When I say "face consequences" I don't mean have legal punishments imposed on him, I mean he should lose support and his agenda should be limited.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/13/2005 @ 6:30pm
Hey CornBall, Tell me why Judith Miller sits in Jail not willing to talk even though she has a full waiver to talk??? Who is she covering up for???Also, where is the same outrage toward Sandy Berger Stuffing CODE BLACK documents in his pants??You liberal commie freaks are so stupid its almost laughable if it wasn't so sad...I hope you keep spewing your commie crapolla cause it will keep giving you the same results...Loss of elections and the trust of the average american.. I mean if losing all 3 branches of goverment & most state houses wansnt enough to convince you loonie tunes, then I say keep on screwing yourselves!!!!!!!!

Posted by aludra at 07/13/2005 @ 6:35pm
Nattie, that is not a true consequence. your aim is truly misguided to my comments. If a man or woman is found not to have violated the law, your commentary is that they should still face consequences even though your opinion was shown to be wrong. What's wrong with that picture.

I have been CEO of some good size corporations and under the laws of this land, I would be sued and lose big time if I took action against someone who was falsely accused. And your analogy with the Swift Boat vets (whom I supported) falls short. Especially since I happened to have served briefly in 1970-1972 with Vietnam Veterans Against the War and met Kerry at one of our meetings. His attitude and actions after returning from 'Nam are as fully reprehensible as charged and I will not hesitate to declare that from my own first hand evidence...

Mr Kerry should have been charged with treason under the UMCJ and it's purely political that he hasn't been. so, I wouldn't go there

And finally, who in the world did Bush fire for incompetence? and firing for political reasons is all part of the political landscape for everyone. I know in the corporate world when I worked in it, you served at the pleasure of the Board of Directors and could be fired without cause at anytime; just part of the job. In the political world, unless elected, you serve at the pleasure of whoever appoints you and only as long as they still find you useful for the role you were appointed..no more

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 6:36pm
There's a lot in these comments to reply to. Let me just respond to the claim that Valerie Plame/Wilson was not covered by the law because she had not been overseas for five years. First off, we do not know what she was doing in that timeframe. The law does define a covert agent as an undercover intelligence officer "who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States." It doesn't say how long he or she had to serve overseas. Victoria Toensing in her op-ed piece made this requirement more burdensome than it is by saying this meant the covert agent had to be posted for a significant portion of time in an overseas assignment. Go back and read the passage I quote. It does not say that--and that's all the law says on this subject. But here's the key: the CIA asked the DOJ to investigate; the DOJ decided an investigation was warranted; and Fitzgerald has pursued the matter fiercely. If Valerie Plame did not meet the definition of a "covert agent" under the law, it is doubtful the case would have gotten this far. After all, would Fitzgerald want to bring a case to court that could so easily be blown out of the water? So this line of argument is just more fog--or wishful thinking--from the Rove defenders.

Posted by David Corn at 07/13/2005 @ 6:46pm
Corn Why wont Judith Talk?? Got any clever answers to that??

Posted by aludra at 07/13/2005 @ 6:49pm
Here is a pulitzer prize winning journalist properly taking the media to task over their "Rove uproar".

Civil War, D.C.-style by Michael Goodwin New York Daily News July 13, 2005

It's a civil war in Washington. The combatants have an eye-for-an-eye mentality. The partisanship is heated and nasty. Republicans versus Democrats? Nah. This one pits the media against the White House.

It's a war the media can't win, and shouldn't wage.

The intense grilling that White House reporters inflicted on presidential spokesman Scott McClellan Monday over whether political guru Karl Rove leaked the name of a CIA operative was no ordinary give-and-take. It was a hostile hectoring that revealed much of the mainstream press for what it has become: the opposition party.

Forget fairness, or even the pretense of it. With one of its own locked up - Judith Miller of The New York Times - much of the Beltway gang has declared war on the White House.

Reporters apparently have decided Democrats aren't up to the job. Can't blame them. With Dems reduced to Howard Dean's rants and Hillary Clinton's juvenile jab that President Bush looks like Mad magazine's Alfred E. Neuman, somebody has to offer a substantive alternative. The press has volunteered.

That the mainstream media are basically liberals with press passes has been documented by virtually every study that measures reporters' political identification and issue positions. But bias has now slopped over into blatant opposition, a stance the media will regret. Instead of providing unvarnished facts obtained by aggressive but fair-minded reporting, the media will be reduced to providing comfort food to ideological comrades.

Already held in lower esteem by the public than lawyers and Congress, the press risks looking like a special interest group. Its claims to represent "the American people," as one McClellan inquisitor did, are easily ignored when it serves as an echo chamber for the anti-Bush.

Indeed, as soon as Monday's bash-by-press session ended, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) called on Rove to resign. If everybody resigned when Kerry demanded it, Washington would be empty.

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 6:53pm
Nattie: re: Arianna Huffington

why would I even bother with AH...she is the laughing stock of California Politics for both the right and the left..after her ridiculous campaign for Governor where she was unveiled as a shallow self seeking opportunist, no one on either side of the political landscape takes her seriously My goodness this woman is so shallow, she drove her former conservative republican husband to homosexuality... she is a joke

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 7:04pm
Frank, you well may be right on the resignation but knowing Bush, he will not seek it. I wouldn't blame Rove for leaving...his main role has been completed, why not go into semi retirement and peace from the circus that is Washington

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 7:06pm
Hey Grits, I did...why dont you answer my question you sexist!!!!!!!!!

Posted by aludra at 07/13/2005 @ 7:09pm
Yeah, I tell ya: that "liberal media" is really something. I mean, just look at how their investigative reporters were relentless in exposing Bush & Co's lies leading up to the Iraq war....oh, yeah, that's right, they actually sat on the sidelines during that. Just look at how they took to task Bush during the 2000 campaign for lying about supporting a patient's bill of rights in Texas when he actually opposed and vetoed a bill for it yet correctly pointing out that Al Gore never said he invented the Internet yet rightly averred that he was responsible for helping secure the funding for the research of it....oh ,yeah, it was actually the other way around!

The Bushie definition of "liberal media" seems to be: anything that makes my beloved little boy king look bad, no matter its validity or relevance.

Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/13/2005 @ 7:09pm
David, If you don;t know if she has or has not been a covert operative within the last 5 years, then how can you, as a reponsible journalist, say "Rove Did Leak Classified Information". Isn;t that a misleading statement by not having all the facts in front of you and not to even have mentioned it until today?

I stand corrected on the length of overseas assignments, but I said her LAST overseas assignment as a covert op may have been over 5 years ago. That is the pending question, so shouldn't we wait until the CIA lets everyone know the truth?

But riddle me this batman. If Rove is found guilty, will you pursue Wilson with the same vigor for changing his CIA findings to what he wrote his NY Times ed piece on? That David, is total manipluation of the people, do you not agree?

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 7:22pm
Zero, I have to agree with you on that! I used to watch them but now I can;t because you are right, they are blowhards. I would like to see a show with Hannity matched up with someone a little strong the Colmbs. he is too nice of a guy!

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 7:28pm
LL: keep blaming the messenger and ignoring the message. If you had been paying attention to my posts, you would have known long ago that "consequences" referred to political outcry rather than some lynch mob.

The op-ed you posted seems to be telling the media to shut up and sit down, and behave themselves. The administration is stonewalling on an important matter of national security, leaving it up to the lawyers to decide who is right and wrong, and trusting in linguistic arguments to free it from having to justify itself. The article says that the media "forget fairness" but gives no analysis or support. The questions the media has asked McClellan are pointed and insightful, yet McClellan will not discuss issues he has already discussed under similar circumstances. Maybe the author you quoted wants this whole thing to just blow over and be forgotten, and I'm sure the Administration would like nothing better, but that doesn't mean the media are being partisan in this matter.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/13/2005 @ 7:30pm
Oh Kevin, as Dancall rightly points out so often, your analysis of truth remains at a level only a child could appreciate..

Every reputable study over the past 20 years has shown that the views of print and media journalists are overwhelmingly liberal.

As in support of abortion, gay marriage, heavy government intrusion into our wallets, maximizing government social programs over private endeavors, distaste for the military and ironically, our intelligence organizations, acceptance of low moral values, low respect for social instutions such as marriage and family.

Like many libs, you are confined by your own range of knowledge and capacity for rational thought to engage in subjects deeper than emotional ranting.

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 7:30pm
Thats right Zero, you are always right, I forgot. Just whenever I ask tough questions you try to belittle me with your "witty" comments. Get over yourself, already!

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 7:30pm
Frank, please share that poll (link, please)

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 7:34pm
By the way, for all of you out there I have a survey question I often pose (with predictable results).

How many of you have done the following:

1. served in the military

2. traveled to 3rd world countries (Mexico and Caribbean countries don't really count), I mean like in Asia, the Middle East, or Africa

3. lived and worked in 3rd world countries(same as number 2)

4. seen terrorism first hand

5. been subjected to the scrutiny and observation of a truly totalitarian government where rights are unheard of in writing or practice.

I will be interested in seeing the responses (by the way, mine are yes to all of the above).

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 7:36pm
Liberty: stop disparaging people's ability to think. It makes you sound like an arrogant blowhard, and stops us liberals from opening our minds to whatever else you might say.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/13/2005 @ 7:37pm
1 no 2 no 3 no 4 yes 5 no

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 7:37pm
Why Nat, just play the game. If I had to guess by my reponses he would also think I leaned left

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 7:38pm
Liberty: I hate the response "you haven't done what I have so be quiet and sit in the corner." I hear it from both the right and left on this site, but it is a bunch of bull. If your ideas are stronger, they will win. If they are stupid, who cares where you've been.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/13/2005 @ 7:38pm
Frank, are you working on your second bottle of Cab? BTW, I never responed to your correction on the pipe vs cigar. I was referring to a pot pipe...you know, "I smoke but never inhaled" Now if Clinton said that in one breath, yup I smoked and hooked up with Monica, then he would have won a lot more people over...and why lie about that? You were caught. Who cares if you smoked weed 20 years ago???

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 7:42pm
Hey Grits, I cant wait till 06 & 08 either. It will be most entertaining to watch you nutbag leftists even shrink smaller than you are now. I saw the same poll by the way...Yeah I believe the MSM polls as much as I believe in aliens. Didn't they say Kerry was gonna trounce Bush??Didn't they say you nutbags were gonna pick up seats in 02?? I got a solution to your bad back problems...Quit being such a wimp and actually get some BACK-BONE and help us REGULAR americans fight this war on terror instead of constantly trying to undermine our commander in chief for your petty political gains and acting like TRAITORS and helping the enemy.(Can you say DICK DURBIN) You might even win a election or two if you tried that

Posted by aludra at 07/13/2005 @ 7:46pm
Zero and Nat, that is the biggest complaint against Americans from our friends across the globe, that we don;t travel and make opinions without actually seeing things first hand. I think it is very ignorant to come out with a comment like that. Wasn;t Bush ripped for not traveling overseas like his Academia rivals who hate his guts?

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 7:46pm
As usual Nat, you miss the point...too many Americans have such a narrow range of world life experience that their eyeglass is not sufficient to see enough detail...It's like trying to the details in an object that is a mile away and you have only a 10 power lens and someone else's description.

That's why so much uproar is raised without the facts (and even sometimes with them) over the details you think you have but you lack a more complete picture.

If you think it arrogance to point this fact out, then the point truly hits home.

You folks rage over Karl Rove when I have seen 11 year old girls in Africa whose life consisted of walking down a mountain to a riverk far below and carrying a bucket of water back up the mountain twice a day so they had water to cook with and maybe make some tea. Maybe I'm just hoping more Americans could develop some perspective on life that more closely parallels a great part of the world that thinks we are nuts over debates like this.

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 7:48pm
Timmy needs a beatin' :)

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 7:49pm
Well, Frank, a lot of immigrants don;t come over here for those reasons...they come here with a dream to own their land and be able to raise their family without government telling them how to run their house...you know, without taking their hard earned money away. Shoot, if I was a mexican immigrant I wouldn't want to pay the government taxes for the work they do...because our white soft hands certainly won;t do it, now will they Frank?

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 7:53pm
Frank;

re Kerry and swift boat vets. you maybe overlooked my real comment on Kerry. I didn't focus on his 'Nam time (although I think given his character there are questions), I drew my conclusions from my first hand experience with him in VVAW. there I saw his hatred of the US and his willingness to go over to our enemies. I haven't respected him since then and never will.

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 7:54pm
Love Liberty,

-- Oh Kevin, as Dancall rightly points out so often, your analysis of truth remains at a level only a child could appreciate.. --

Translation: I can't refute it, so I'll just chuck out some geenralizations and hope they stick.

-- Every reputable study over the past 20 years has shown that the views of print and media journalists are overwhelmingly liberal. --

Translation of a "reputable study" seems to be: one that reaches a conclusion that I agree with. Thus, if I don't agree with it, thenit's not "reputable". Beautiful. And you still haven't countered why the mainstream "liberal media" sat on its collective hands when Bush & Co. were tossing out one lie after another leading up to the illegal Iraq war.

-- As in support of abortion --

They run plenty of stories on anti-abortion groups as well.

-- gay marriage --

And plenty of them on anti-gay groups, too.

-- heavy government intrusion into our wallets --

Except for corporate welfare, thougn, right? That's apparently OK with Bushies -- welfare for a filthy-rich company that doesn't need it yet none for a hungry child (which furthers what more and more appears to be one of the Bushie mottos: Save a Fetus, Starve a Low-Income baby).

-- maximizing government social programs over private endeavors --

Where the "private endeavors" won't come even close to covering the needs that government social programs do -- which is something you more than know but choose to ignore so your tax dollars can joyfully go to fund an illegal war killing and maiming the very same troops you only purport to support.

-- distaste for the military --

I know. The countless photos of several tens of thousands of innocent dead Iraqis splashed across all the mainstream channels just overwhelems one. Oh, that's right: we haven't seen those, have we?

-- and our intelligence organizations --

Hmmm, I'd think refusing an FBI budget request for more counterterrorism funding 1 day before 9/11 -- something John Ashcroft did -- would be pretty distasteful. And so would not placing counterterrorism as one of the top 7 budget priorities before 9/11 -- again, Ashcroft's doing.

-- acceptance of low moral values --

Yeah, that Sean Hannity never says so much as a single low-moral comment about anybody, I tell ya...

-- low respect for social instutions such as marriage and family. --

Interesting note: Liberal Massachutes has the lowest divorce rate in the country. Which state has the highest? Texas. (I'd have written "conservative" Texas but when a state favors an administration that runs up record deficits and increases NON-defense federal spending by 36&, this can hardly be called "conservative", now, can it?

-- Like many libs, you are confined by your own range of knowledge and capacity for rational thought to engage in subjects deeper than emotional ranting. --

Is that why you've neglected to back up any of your points above? Is that why you've not even attempted to counter Mr. Corn's piece here with logic and reason and facts? Once again, your Bushie tactic of throwing generalized mud in the hope that it sticks to distract from the issue at hand -- in this case, being the Rove/Plume story -- fails.

Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/13/2005 @ 7:54pm
The speaking of Latin immigrants. I love how the Dems Claim them! In actuallity, Latins are very conservative and very religious. They are just being lied to....that is why everyone she read, What Color is a Conservative, by JC WATTS!

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 7:55pm
LL: (paraphras) "I've been all over so my ideas must be right and yours wrong"

There's a logical argument. Wait, nope, a logical fallacy.

Address my points with your experience, but explain how your experience shaped your viewpoint before dismissing others' views.

Folks on the right rage over blastocyst stem cells too. Even ones that have been overseas.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/13/2005 @ 7:58pm
LARDBALL quoting MSM polls....WOO-HOOO!!!!!!!I'm Impressed!

Posted by aludra at 07/13/2005 @ 7:58pm
Scott Mclellan says no one wants to get to the bottom of this more than the president. If that is true, than why no internal investigation? If Rove is innocent, than why the silence? The easiest way to clear your name is to defend it yourself, not to hide behind lawyers. It seems to me that people who hide and deflect questions with "no comment" are hiding something.

Posted by question! at 07/13/2005 @ 8:01pm
LL,

-- there I saw his [Kerry's] hatred of the US --

I'd think lying about an unnecessary war to your country that gets tens of thousands of its soldiers maimed and killed would indicate a hatred for one's country, but, oh well, as long as its a Republican screwing America it's OK.

-- and his willingness to go over to our enemies. --

...in the hope of getting our troops out of another unnecessary war while the government lied and sat on its hands. Yet you hypocritically have respect for Bush who voiced support for the Vietnam war yet had daddy secure him a place in the Air National Guard so he could avoid serving in that very same war. Well, he's getting you that tax cut, I forgot...

-- I haven't respected him since then and never will. --

Yet you've plenty of respect for, say, Dick Cheney, I suppose, who used his foreign Halliburton subsidiaries to do business with Iraq, Iran, and Syria even when sanctions were in place. Love Liberty supposedly loves liberty yet supports an administrtation whose VP did Big Bidness with countries that denied so much liberty to its citizens! Keep at it, tiger.

Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/13/2005 @ 8:02pm
Frank, you must be reading too fast; I was responding to Kevin on the liberal media. those attitudes were the result of survey questions to print and air media by various polling organizations. Not directed towards everyday Americans.Here is where I get my nonsense

Evidence of how hard journalists lean to the left was provided by S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, in his groundbreaking 1980 survey of the media elite. Lichter's findings were authoritatively confirmed by the American Association of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in 1988 and 1997 surveys. The most recent ASNE study surveyed 1,037 newspaper reporters found 61 percent identified themselves as/leaning "liberal/Democratic" compared to only 15 percent who identified themselves as/leaning "conservative/Republican."

Self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives in the newsroom by more than three-to-one, 55 to 17 percent. This compares to only one-fourth of the public (23 percent) that identified themselves as liberal.

1985 Los Angeles Times Survey of Reporters and Editors 84 percent of reporters and editors supported a so-called "nuclear freeze" to ban all future nuclear missile deployment; 80 percent were against increased defense spending; and 76 percent opposed aid to the Nicaraguan Contras.

82 percent of reporters and editors favored allowing women to have abortions; 81 percent backed affirmative action; and 78 percent wanted stricter gun control.

By a margin of two-to-one, reporters had a negative view of then-President Ronald Reagan and voted, by the same margin, for Walter Mondale in 1984.>/i>

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 8:03pm
Now I think I am understanding this "Race to the Bottom" people keep writing about: they are talking about the contents of The Nation's web log interactive commentary system. The average value of the commentary is racing to the bottom value that such commentary can have, which is "not a lot".

A review by a self described intellectual...If it is racing to the bottom so quickly why are you here?? Or is it you dont really understand what is being said???

Posted by aludra at 07/13/2005 @ 8:07pm
"This is fun"??? Talking like a bunch of TRAITORS is fun to you??? Oh if Saddam could only have a few minutes with you liberals I wonder if you would feel the same way about your country?? Well this is not fun and its not a game...except to you libs

Posted by aludra at 07/13/2005 @ 8:10pm
FG....no to all from the most conservative person in this dialogue..Hannity is too shallow for me (although sometimes amusing) Frankly, we on the right don't have enough William Buckley's anymore. Television keeps dropping the intelligence quotient on both sides for the sake of quick repartees and witty one liners..Even true conservatives have standards

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 8:11pm
I did nutbag...read earlier Is not nbc & wsj the MSM??Why dont you pay attention??or are you having too much fun being anti-american???

Posted by aludra at 07/13/2005 @ 8:13pm
For Nat's comment on my cut and paste's...I have always preferred to defend a viewpoint with facts and not just my opinion. that may ring strange to you, but anyone who truly values debate knows that you have to bring your supporting facts to the table and not just an ability to speak one liners and emotional appeals to your auidience.

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 8:15pm
LL,

You're still not offering up a suitable explanation as to why the mainstream media sat on its hands regarding Bush & Co.'s lies leading up to the Iraq war, and also why they gave Bush numerous passes on his lies during the 2000 campaign and lambasted Gore even for mistakenly saying he toured a disaster site in Texas with the director of FEMA when it was the assistant director (what a heinous lie!).

And what you cite above misses a crucial thing: while the editors and reporters may be mostly liberal, it makes no mention of the percentage of the OWNERS of the stations and newspapers -- the ones who actually decide what or what doesn't get aired and published -- who are liberal or conservative.

Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/13/2005 @ 8:18pm
got to run out and make some $$$...so carry on Dancall, fight the good fight

And Aludra,,pick up the level a bit; we don't want to live down to liberal expectations...wit is good and appreciated, but sliming only works with the Ghostbusters.

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 8:18pm
before I go...and no time to re-educate you Kevin, you have yet to illustrate one lie by President Bush except the opinions of leftist writers and pundits at the Nation, Counterpunch and other such amusing dribble. Calling something a lie a 100 times over doesn't make it so...try facts and you may even gain some credibility.. Can I ask whether you are even old enough to know anything about Vietnam except what your libs have instructed you to believe..I will gladly share some real truth. Maybe even introduce you to a number of Vietnamese refugees who can share their stories about how wonderful Grandpa Ho Chi Minh and his cohorts have been in genocide, torture, and other great gifts they introduced when we shamefully abandoned the Vietnamese people. Eisenhower and Kennedy were right to send us there, we just got screwed by govt cowardice to all the left wing traitors who loved communism more than our troops and the Vietnamese people

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 8:26pm
LL, I appreciate your feelings and agree with your point of view. But honestly, I couldn't give a rats ass about what libs think about me, anymore than I'm sure they care about what I think of them. This is truly a waste of time anyway because they cant be educated beyond their utopian leftist views. Let them keep losing elections & the trust of the American people. That MIGHT educate them enough to get wise...but I'm not holding my breath!!

Posted by aludra at 07/13/2005 @ 8:28pm
Frank,,sorry to disappoint but gave up all the money for Christian work in the 3rd world and South Central LA. I have been blessed with a little Insurance agency I run from my home so I am free to do other things.

this is not to brag, because I am just trying to serve God, but our ministry feeds the poor here and overseas. We also provide clothing and medical supplies and job training. We feed the homeless in LA and Las Vegas. I have built homes, schools and churches in South Africa and the Philippines so maybe I don't quite fit the profile.

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 8:30pm
you see conservative Christians can and must back up their words..at least that's what I try and live and teach in my ministry

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 8:32pm
LL,

It's clear: You've chosen to ignore the valid points I've raised.

Frank,

Yeah, them Republican business owners love exploiting illegals for their cheap labor to fatten their already-fat wallets rather than give the job to a legal American and provide them with a good wage. In doing so, they deprive the country of Social Security funds due to the under-the-table payments to their illegal workers and deprive Americans of work -- which is as immoral and unpatriotic as you can get. And at home, they gripe about those illegals getting social services yet ignore that the illegals are only in this country because of their willingness to break the law by hiring them and abetting the illegals by supporting their law-breaking.

I tell ya, if you could buy these kinds of Republicans for what they're actually patriotically and morally worth and sell them for what they merely THINK they're patriotically and morally worth, you'd make a full-blown fortune, no doubt.

Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/13/2005 @ 8:35pm
It would still be more of worth than you LEFTIST TRAITORS!!!Im sure there are no liberals hiring illegals....(Can you say BILL RICHARDSON) What a nitwit

Posted by aludra at 07/13/2005 @ 8:39pm
Kevin, not ignoring your points, still waiting for you to provide any validity to your claims..at that you fail miserably.

I'm really curious either you are true blooded anti-capitalist, neo-anarchist or you just love trying to pull strings with outlandish comments...Do you even know any Republican Business owners? do you have any understanding that at least here in California, the majority of these business owners misusing illegals are Democrats..I know many of them. I have provided many illegals with good paying jobs though I work to stop the flow into the country...

I just think that either you are someone who just likes to get in and see how much you can stir the part or you are truly an out of touch with reality hardcore like I said earlier in this response.

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 8:44pm
What seems to be fading into the fog is Rove's motive here. This wasn't about Wilson. The damage had been done. Wilson had written his OpEd article refuting the yellow cakes claim. That was over...

What Rove was doing is what he does best....and this was send a message to anyone else out there who would publicly disagree with the Bush claims that war was necessary. One article by Wilson wasn't about to do that... but Rove's reputation as a hatchet man dates back many years. Does anyone remember that Papa Bush fired him for leaking information to Novak during his '92 campaign?

Rove is FEARED in Washington. There are people you just don't touch and he's one of them. Rove and PNAC are taboo topics. You don't dare accuse either of them of orchestrating the Bush wars....not without fear of retribution.

Think about why almost NO ONE - even on the left - will discuss or reveal PNAC's role in the WH or in our foreign policy. This country has gone to Hell...and there's not much further down we can go.

To read about the 9/11-PNAC connection...and wonder why this could be so hushed up.... CLICK HERE [tvnewslies.org]

Posted by Reg at 07/13/2005 @ 9:20pm
Okay, I've been on the sidelines but LL has taken this to a new los. LL, I think your opinions are garbage, and that you need to stop wallowing in your own ego and face the music: What Karl Rove did was unethical, and likely illegal. It jeopardized a woman's life. If he wasn't the actual culprit, then he needs to step up to the plate and tell us who did. Believe it or not, some of us on the Left have advanced degrees, have traveled, did serve in the military, and have helped in serious humanitarian efforts in Africa, and South America. Some, like my father, served in WWII. My point is that you're reliance on your credentials reveal a real lack of interest in health communication.

Kerry is over. Get over him.

Clinton is over. Get over him, too.

What we're dealing with now is the important issue. The rest of this is nothing but a net full of red herrings, just like your supposed credentials.

Incidentally, I recently spoke with a retired Naval officer whose father is close friends with Kerry. His father agreed with Kerry 100% after the war, and went on to work with Doctors Without Borders. The former officer with whom I spoke served in both Gulf Wars and is now working on a book about the horrors of this current regime. Both of them gradated Summa Cum Laude from Annapolis. I guess, then, being in the military doesn't necessarily mean that everyone's going to agree with you.

Posted by murphy1969 at 07/13/2005 @ 9:25pm
Hey Grits... What is your preoccupation with Ann Coulter?? You have brought her up now 3 times and she has absolutely nothing to do with either thread..I think you have some female issues that dovetail with your leftist nutbag leanings..Perhaps some counseling is in order. You LIBS believe in that sort of thing dont you????

Posted by aludra at 07/13/2005 @ 9:28pm
Deputy Dubya said he would take "appropriate" action if anyone in his administration leaked classified information to the (Liberal) Media. Deputy Dubya said he would "take care of" whomever might have leaked classified information to the (Liberal) media. Karl Rove -- a member of Deputy Dubya's administration -- leaked classified information to the (Liberal) Media. Ergo, Deputy Dubya will appropriately pardon Karl Rove for his liberal leaking and take care of him for life by seeing to it that he has a full and generous pension obviating the need for him to ever again do dirty tricks to earn a dollar.

Posted by mrmurry at 07/13/2005 @ 9:30pm
Hey Murphy, Her life was not in danger in the least!!!!!. She outed herself on the 3rd date with the Joe the LIAR Wilson. Also, she was not an undercover agent at the time...so get YOUR facts straight before someone calls your facts GARBAGE!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by aludra at 07/13/2005 @ 9:33pm
If Karl "LEAKED" the info?why did Cooper call him??People get your facts straight!!!!!

Posted by aludra at 07/13/2005 @ 9:34pm
I am still asking why JUDITH MILLER sits in jail WITH a WAIVER and still doesnt talk. Who is she covering up for??????????

Posted by aludra at 07/13/2005 @ 9:35pm
Well Grits...whatever the reason you believe...as long as you get help..well maybe there is hope

Posted by aludra at 07/13/2005 @ 9:38pm
Reg, I guess I'm an optimistic Liberal. I don't see that the country has gone to Hell. I think it's just that history is repeating itself. It's the same story, isn't it? People who crave power, get it, and then suck the life out of anyone who threatens their control. It always ends tragically, because such power eats the psyche. You're right that Rove is a vindictive, and shallow fool. But he's about to face the music.

I also don't buy that this is a matter of Left or Right. This is a very serious matter no matter what party is involved. What David Corn did was elucidate the law Karl Rove appears to have broken. Like I said, those who hold power too tightly fear those who might take it away. It's the fatal flaw of everyone who feels entitled to power.

But, really, I don't see our nation in a bad light. I see too many wonderful things beyond the political arena to agree with that statement.

BTW, I should clarify from the previous post that I did not serve in the military. I didn't have to. I spent six years around the military while my father was working with the DOD. I walked a different path, but that should never, ever invalidate a person's perspective of the world, LL.

Posted by murphy1969 at 07/13/2005 @ 9:39pm
Good...I have family in the military in IRAQ...so dont hand me that crap...Ask the majority of military families and they BELIEVE in the liberation of IRAQ and this war on terror and dont understand the traitors in this country. Yes you can always find the exception to that rule and from what I read from you tonight you must be one of them. I will say I appreciate your sons sacrifice to our country regardless if he believes in it or not. Perhaps in the future you can restrain yourself from getting so personal. Your son is not the only American making the sacrifice.

Posted by aludra at 07/13/2005 @ 9:47pm
That's it Mr. Corn. Your cover is blown. You are obviously deep in the Republican machine, and your job is to throw red meat to the radicals on both sides and let them go to town while the country slides deeper and deeper into a nationalistic, fascist, pseodo-Christian oligarchy.

This entire thread just goes to prove the saying that you can't argue politics or religion, and the Republicans have (again) proven to be masters of framing the debate and have combined the two divisive issues into one great publicity package. Republicans keep claiming to be for a Christian culture of life, thereby forcing Democrats who disagree seem to be anti-Christian and generally evil. It is masterful. If it wasn't so evil, you'd have to admire them.

Posted by Turk33 at 07/13/2005 @ 10:29pm
OK, go to the New england states and you will see hypocracy all over the place...liberals trying to tell the poor they want to help them on TV and on the political podeum, then run to their BMW's in their White neighborhoods that will not let their kids go to school with minorities. HYPOCRACY!

When I read someone calling LL's experience GARBAGE, I have to cringe. Guys like that should be commended, but you berate him like the media. You may not have to agree with his political idea and philosophy, but that is disrespect in its ugliest form. Is it because he is Christian, or just a conservative?

When you all can present facts, then we will be able to decifer if Rove is guilty. Until all the facts come out, lets be responsible and make a rational decision to see what to do. If a liberal makes outlandish remarks that our troops are like Soviet Goolags or Nazi's, you all gave a pass on that. When a republican made an impromptu off the cuff comment he was pursecuted and was made to resign his position. You are all full of yourselves, and until you start to realize that you lost the Congress, you lost the Senate and you lost the White House to the bottom line fact that they were voted in and the majority of the people want them there, I feel no pity for people who are so ingnorant not to learn from there mistakes.

Kevin, you have no idea what goes on in the corporate C level mindset, so get over yourself. Until you can have an articulate conversation on specific industry and know the dynamics of what it takes to run a 50,000 employee company, zip it. Have you ever thought of the fact that CEO look at the new American work force as a bunch of lazy sacks of crap, unlike what America was built on. That is why the Mexicans are going to be very successful in politics in the next 50 years...they work hard and keep plugging away. They will be largely successful. They no how not to bitch and be a bitch. They are learning the system and will master it or have thier kids master it. You probably have never had dirt under your finger tips and then had to walk into a mohagany filled conference room trying to figure out strategy for a company for 5 years down the road. If you want to talk about portfolio investments and being responsible for $500 million that in 5 years could create 10000 jobs, please let me know. You are probably very good at test taking seeing you can regurgitate crap!

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 10:30pm
Frank; just got back in; thanks for your words and it would probably surprise most on the left thanks to our media (including Fox) because those like myself are not desirable for the media circus precisely because we don't fit stereotypes...there are so many small to large churches and Christian organizations that I work with who are doing precisely the same as me and could serve as better spokespersons than the Falwells and others. But obviously you can understand how that wouldn't fit in to good programming.

As to the financial picture...well obviously I think Bush is too compromising in that area. but to his credit the economic data that has come out is very good...I would cut and reform a great deal.

As an added note; I am working on some proposals to the RNC to better reflect a true conservative economic development and budgetary program. It might surprise many of you as it is shaking some in my good old GOP; I want to emphasize spending at the Fed level just like the Constitution dictates that can lead to tremendous economic development and job opportunities:

1. Military (no surprise)

2. Big Investment in highway, rail and other mass transit including new technologies for means of transportation(Art I, Sect 8 subpara's 3&7)

3. Promote development of state of the art internet access for all citizens (Art I Sect 8 subpara 7 regarding Postal Service and Also 1st Amendment)

4. Border protection (Preamble and Art I Sect 8)

But with these I would eliminate Fed funding for Education, Welfare, corporate subsidies, farm subsidies, the income tax (either a flat tax or nat'l sales tax) required participation in Soc Security, Fed Grants...all should be left to the individual states as per the 10th Amendment

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 10:32pm
Dancall and Frankgrits, thanks for kind remarks and defenses...intelligent and lively debate is healthy...anger and vicious name calling reflect an inability to fully express one's thoughts and opinions (or a lack of ability to support one's opinion)

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 10:48pm
United States Code TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE CHAPTER 15 - NATIONAL SECURITY SUBCHAPTER IV - PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

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

U.S. Code as of: 01/22/02 Section 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(d) Imposition of consecutive sentences A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.

Oh! How silly of me, I forgot, Ms. Plame merely worked behind a desk! This according to Republican House Majority Whip, Roy (bozo) Blunt.

And speaking of Ken Mehlman, did anyone happen to listen to him yesterday and today? What is wrong with this man! Is he a man? And answer me this, why did both Wolf Blitzer and Chris Matthews allow Ken Mehlman to come onto their shows and spew such false information?

Mehlman yesterday with Wolf Blitzer: This is nothing more than a smear campaign by the left (he did mention Biden, Clinton & Kerry) and Joe Wilson is wrong and Karl Rove is right. Twice he said this! Blitzer did NOTHING! Then again this evening it was the same DAM thing on Hardball. Mehlman: This is a smear campaign, Joe Wilson is wrong and Rove is right. Now I'm taking my ball and going home! Mehlman is such a putz!

This is the primary reason why the Bush administration is able to continue it's mendacity. People like Chris Matthew's, who most of America loves! His Saturday Night Live parody is huge! People trust him! My future father-n-law thinks he'd make a great president! Oy! Vey. And Wolf Blitzer, he's just a joke! What we need is someone like a David Corn or an Eric Alterman or someone like Amy Goodman asking the questions.

You know with all of this hoopla over Turd Blossom, we haven't heard any news from Iraq. Is the war still on?

Posted by Munich at 07/13/2005 @ 10:53pm
Munich...where is the 5 year time frame? Not being an ass, but what the writer of this law you have pasted said there is a 5 year time frame that the above mentions is not relevant if she is considered a "desk clerk" for more than 5 years, then you wasted your time. Sorry, but that is the law. Shady as it may seem, the law is the law!!!

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 10:59pm
No wonder you don't sound like a true conservative, Liberty - you're a libertarian (hence the screen name?)! In terms of the less government is better, it is true in some areas and definitely not true in others. We went through a period of very little government involvement in business around the turn of the century (kind of like now), and as a result big business ran amok (kind of like now) creating monopolies (kind of like now), disregarding any negative effects on the environment in favor of the bottom line (kind of like now), treating employees little better than replaceable cogs in the machinery (kind of like now), and in general leading to a great many social reform movements. If business as a whole decided to use ethics, they might actually avoid some of the problems they themselve created (you think labor unions sprang up because the workers were being treated fairly?). In fact, treating the general population (the bottom 98% of us) with just a little dignity and compassion, they might just improve the bottom line in the long run. I know, it's crazy "commie" talk, but what do you expect from a Democrat - but wait, I'm really a registered Republican (can't prove it, you'll have to take my word for it) who has grown disgusted with the lies and deceptions coming from every level of this administration and from the Republican party in general. I don't want to start another string of "Yes they did!" "No they didn't!", I'm just throwing out my opinion and trying to spread a little common sense (it seems to be in short supply from both sides these days).

Posted by Turk33 at 07/13/2005 @ 11:00pm
Why won;t anyone admit that Wilson is a lier? You know why, because if he lied in his report, it proves that Sadam was after WMDs, therefore justifying the Iraq war. See through the forest...

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 11:01pm
Turk, join the libertarians!!! Hold everyone accountable, not just your hated political enemies...

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 11:03pm
I have been sitting aside watching these posts for quite a while now, and I have seen a general trend in the discussion. It starts out pretty much on key with the editorial but eventually, it quickly degrades into flaming over past political actions that have consequences on today, but are off topic. The argument then degrades further into a full out, "you are a communist/traitor/you hate america." and "you are a pig, a neo-fascist, a thirteen year old." Your heat and anger are first off, inflaming an already bad situation (like iching a mosqitoe bite), secondly, the insults are not adding to the discussion that is vital to democracy and lastly you all sound dense. Both sides in the discussion are guilty of this failure to be reasonable and I would like to offer a view on WHY a reasonable discussion is important. It might be most appropriate to cite Hegel's Dialectic in the formation of a more perfect thesis after a proposition and a counterproposition. The regulars of thes boards might want to have clearer "propostions" and "counterpropositions" if it is to help advance the debate, once again this is not happening and the points and their rebuttals are strewn about with cow manure. To advance your cause it would help alot more to seem reasonable than alienating and polarized. I foresee that after this post one side is going to blame the other for flinging more dung and not being open to reason. so I would like to offer up the view that you are all wrong and that you should try to find out which way to go about things, is the least wrong.

Posted by EricCitron007 at 07/13/2005 @ 11:28pm
Munich won't even bother with most of your rant but have to respond to the People like Chris Matthew's, who most of America loves!

get a grip on reality! his show is one of the lowest watched on cable..although I certainly find him entertaining though really lacking an ability to bring out any real substance. maybe that's why SNL loves to parady him!

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 11:34pm
are all of these conversations as droll (read: "psuedo-intellectual" whanking by [a majority of] patriarchs who fancy themselves useful political movers and shakers)? have you given any thought to how the insider, coded language in these posts is alienating to any sort of movement forward and really serves to do what your kind always does-stagnate debate and hold the status quo (just where is the 'intelligent and lively debate?"). this is mediocre rehashing at best. move your talk to action and help to unseat/impeach this criminal government and remove these equally criminal corporations (for example halliburton/ KRB) from their positions of power. talk, like masturbation (or cab), only provide(s) momentary relief.

if this is not time for revolution, i don't know what is. why aren't people in the press calling for change, revolt, impeachment, or simple accountability? where are the tough questions? you have the power to mobilize people and push the people in power. judy miller is taking the fall for the lot of you (of course, she's a woman!) and the fact that there isn't more press outrage about this is a collective disgrace. got integrity?

it's the people on the ground who must move to make a difference since you so-called journalists have, for the most part, tossed aside your responsibility to the public (there are some who do their job, for sure, as you thankfully are not a monolith). corporations, media, and other capitalist-driven interest groups are clearly in an unhealthy relationship (can you say FCC?) with this (and have been in previous) administrations. bush and his supporters find themselves above the law and you look the other way (or write some sort of article that rehashes what most of the general public already know).

quit playing to the choir or pretending there are only "two sides" to every issue. stop all of this nonsense talk about right wing and left wing, conservative and liberal, and giving little quizzes to find out who is more terror or "third world" savvy- it's the same juveniele media gotcha game the j. stewart pulled the curtain back on ages ago. the american public is tired of this discursive spectacle you've created. we've got your number. we're smarted than this. and we're angry that you've got our airwaves, print media, and internet, and are making a mess of it. shake it up, take a stand or step off (back onto your preppy patio and drink your cab and whank with your buddies out of our earshot).

what do your fear? why can't one of you confront this liar of a president? are you afraid of the bed in the far off gulag your government has waiting?

Posted by emmafedup at 07/13/2005 @ 11:36pm
turk...pretty much true about me but don't open a can of worms with unions..I have so much disdain for them and do speak from experience as I was in both the Teamsters and UAW...they make government seem benign and honorable...I have no use for the modern Unions

Posted by love liberty at 07/13/2005 @ 11:38pm
Eric, I think our biggest problem is that we want to convict Rove without having all the facts. Seeing that we don;t know what Plames true role within the CIA was for the last 5 years, how can one determine that "Rove DID Leak Classified Information" like Mr Corn states as a matter of fact and not opinion. I was always under the impression that we should get all the facts in order and then make judgement, you know, the "innocent until proven guilty". I have personally tried articulating this but I have been called a neo-con, right winger, idiotic and I am guilty of responding to the immature rants, by adding fuel to the fire. I would be interested in hearing your view points to see where you stand on this topic at this junction in time.

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 11:39pm
You miss some of my point, Dan. I don't totally agree with either side, but I totally disagree with the methodology of the Republicans. And I am not at all for a complete diminishment if government as Libertarians seem to be, because I think government is crucial to the well being of America and Americans. To get to what Eric said, the crux of this thread was Karl Rove and what should be done about him, and I think that for President to actually show himself a man of character and steadfastness, he needs to fire Karl Rove, whether Valerie Plame worked at a desk for 20 years, under cover for two weeks, or as a covert waitress at Hooters since Reagan was President. He said he would fire the source of the leak, and that source was Rove. That is the crux of the matter that all the spin and rhetoric from both sides seems to be burying.

Posted by Turk33 at 07/13/2005 @ 11:46pm
I have a question, I keep hearing how loyal Bush is to his friends, will he be more loyal to Rove than country?

Posted by Friscodog at 07/13/2005 @ 11:49pm
EMM, when the EU can get it straight, then you are more than welcome to rip on our system. Sometimes you only get half the story and it seems that your opinions are more legitimate than anyone who actually supports Bush. Does that not make for a biased intellectual discussion by the tone you came across with?

Bush has some major questions, but like I keep saying, lets try to get ALL the facts in and not berate us with superiority BS.

While Rove has some answering to do, so does Wilson on his findings that are obviously contradiciting the CIA report and his NY Time op-ed. I am not trying to get around Rove, but there is another story that is just as compelling and why the NY Times writer is sitting in Jail. Did she even have a source or did she make it up? And if Wilsons CIA report is different, how so and was Sadam after WMD's in Niger like the original reporting suggested?

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 11:49pm
That, Turk, I can agree with to a certain degree. I just think with the London bombings, he is giving it time or enough time to make a strategy plan without Rove in place.

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 11:51pm
Liberty, my point about unions wasn't to stand up for them today (although I am a member of a union) but to point out that unions wouldn't have been necessary nor would they be necessary now if business ethics wasn't just a course requirement for an MBA but an actual policy that could be trusted. You and I both know that despite the top heavy corruption at some of the unions, in essence they exist to protect the little guy from the big boss. If you think that no one deserves such protection and that it's every man, woman and child for him or herself, that's anarchy, not libertarian. And I'm not saying that as an insult, just following a thread of reasoning to its logical conclusion.

Posted by Turk33 at 07/13/2005 @ 11:52pm
Turk, Unions are necessary, but I also think they hurt growth. I believe, like our govt politics, that Unions must have an overhaul. We all know where there is money, there is power and that just leads to corruption. I really got a bad taste in my mouth when United Airlines was going to Strike just after 9/11 occured. Now if you can unions into China, then we can balance out the world!!!

Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 11:56pm
Don't know about the rest of you commies and neo-cons (kidding, just kidding!), but it's bed time. I much prefer the last 5-10 posts (with a couple of exceptions) than the previous 100. I think it proves that rational people from both sides can agree to disagree but do so with dignity. It's time for both national parties to put aside lobby groups and interest groups and party bases and sit down to really discuss the issues. Yeah, and if pigs could fly we'd call them eagles.

Posted by Turk33 at 07/14/2005 @ 12:01am
our system? just "who" gets to count as "us" in this United States- under this regime? does everyone have a "voice?" i'm certainly not represented in your categorically limited discussion.

all of whose "facts"... just whose facts get to count in this or any circumstance where a corporate-owned mainstream media or this government (that is known for its lies- downing street memo, anyone?) is involved?

your manufactured line of questions serve as a smokescreen. they are the very spectacle to which i'm referring. you're the man behind the curtain and you've already been exposed. the fact that you've been at it on this site for hours says a great deal about where your energy goes. you're clearly interested in the well-being of this country. why don't you get out from behind your screen and act on your interest? i'd like to see some ideas generated here that reflect action, not white male anger, not banter that is useless and unproductive.

and of course i'm ripping on this lame system because it's sick and broken (and of course your only rebuttal is to diss the EU). brilliant.

yeah, i'm frustrated (thus my tone-that you read through your hostility as BS), but who going through the world with their eyes wide open, isn't? i'm asking real questions and calling for answers/action.

Posted by emmafedup at 07/14/2005 @ 12:12am
Re: 5 year time frame. Mrs Wilson would only have had to gone overseas with a cover story as to the nature of her activities. This could have been for 1 day. It really doesn't matter what the original author is telling us what the law 'means'. It is stated in the text, if she would like to make the law more clear, perhaps she should introduce a new piece of legislation. The CIA apparently thought she was covert re timeframe so...why not wait and see what fitzgerald has to say.

Outing Ms Wilson probably had no effect on US national security. However, his actions made some cia officers fearful of future statements from the White House on agents...that's the real reason the CIA wanted this investigated.

I fail to see why Mr Rove even needed a security clearance at that type of level. He was a political strategist at the time, not yet deputy chief of staff.

I don't actually like the nation save for its civil liberty stances. I enjoy free markets and read The Economist (who won hands down in the walmart debate btw). And not everyone who disagrees with the republican machine is a bleeding heart liberal. I have been in the army, have been to a third world country, etc. I also fail to see how that has any relevance.

As to 'almost all' troops supporting the 'liberation of Iraq' we could certainly say that in the past tense. Not in the current tense. They are having serious reenlistment problems and only masking that by stop loss orders plus mandatory reserve time afterwards. Some people certainly believe it is a great thing, but the people at the base here that I have spoken too just don't understand why we should care about the Iraqis. People fight for their friends beside them, not for some grand vision.

I am from a military family. My father, a retired colonel/doctor, has a speciality in particular need of by the DoD. It's likely that he will be called up. And he'll do his duty, but he doesn't agree with Iraq or trust Bush.

Posted by semivoid at 07/14/2005 @ 12:14am
EMM I agree with you about there being more than two side to an issue, which is what alot of issues in this country have been generalized into, and I meant the example of the hegel dialectic only as argument in its simplest form.

As to Dan, when this was first put out in the media and a culprit was not in view (although some speculated), it was treated as if it was an illeagal leak, the bush administration said they would like to know if some one had done such a thing. I doubt that tone can be used as a basis of a solid argument but it seemed pretty general in the consensus, even in the administration's remarks, that revealing this woman's identity was at the very least unethical. As for being able to convict Rove, that will be very difficult. Greater offenses have been committed in the past by any administration, Dem or Repub, with minor repurcussions, mainly to low level staff. The facts are not all here and I hope they come out although judging just by the way politics and government work they never will. I personally would sift through the spin of the title of this thread, because to a certain degree the site has to cater to its main readers. Neo-con is a harsh word to use for alot of people in general, and idiotic is unreasonable because at least you are putting yourself on the line coming to a very liberal blog and arguing what you believe.

Posted by EricCitron007 at 07/14/2005 @ 12:33am
A lot of things to address for this newbie to the forum. Where do I start?

First, if we're all intelligent people (which we all suppose ourselves to be, I would hope), let's write intelligently. Spelling words wrong and misusing punctuation undercuts even the brightest ideas. Take your own thoughts seriously by presenting them properly.

The True Christian: I was raised on a strict interpretation of the bible, with the emphasis that the Old Testament was the old way of doing things and the New Testament is the new way of doing things. Jesus himself is quoted as saying as much. That's the whole reason he was born: to offer a new vision for the world to follow. I'll remind you (LL, I'm speaking specifically to you) of this vision: it can be summed up with the well-known phrases, "Turn the other cheek" and "Love thy neighbor." Terrorists attack your country? Turn the other cheek. Tell them you love them. They attack you again? Turn the other cheek. Tell them you love them. This, of course, is liberal commie talk, perpetrated by pinkos and supported by drug dealers and terrorist apologists. In reality, it is the literal philosophy of the God you claim to worship. My conclusion? You, like our President, are a fake Christian. You support the war? Fake Christian. You desire lower taxes so you can have more money for yourself, and give less to your neighbor? Fake Christian. You, LL, hide behind the veil of religion to mask your sins and assume some kind of higher political ground. You are, in reality, not a Christian. Please don't imply that you are. Your lies do no less than betray your soul.

The Liberal Media: This, of course, is hogwash. If the media were liberal, Noam Chomsky would write an editorial for the NYT. If the media were liberal, Howard Zinn would be on CBS. If the media were liberal, they would question everything, dig out every truth, and expose every lie.

But the media may in fact appear liberal. There is good reason for this. The right, not the left (and sadly, not the dictionary), has defined what it means to be liberal. Liberal, as defined in the dictionary: 1) suitable for a free man; generous. 2) of relating to, or based on the liberal arts [you know, reading, writing, the study of history, those kinds of things]. 3) of or befitting a man of free birth. 4) obs. lacking moral restraint. 5) broad minded. Note to those who will jump on the fourth definition: obs, as noted in my dictionary, means that that particular usage - in this case, "lacking moral values" - is obsolete. But this - and not the primary definitions of education, broad-mindedness, and generosity - is precisely how the right insists on defining "liberal." If #4, the obsolete definition, is the definition of liberal, I agree whole-heartedly that the media are liberal. They do lack moral values, as evident every day in papers and programs from the NYT to Fox News. But these values, or lack thereof, reflect more accurately the stances of conservatives, who repeatedly, under the banner of Christianity, cry for war, shift resources from the poor to the rich, and oppose factual scientific discovery. The media, regardless of their party affiliation, for whatever reason, be it their conservative corporate owners or their own personal fears or interests, have been in step with these conservative stances all my life (I was born under Reagan, who is no doubt making Hell hotter). So beware when a conservative calls the media "liberal." He or she is indeed saying the media is to the left, but what they are really saying is that the media isn't far enough to the right. Yes, LL, the media is left of where you stand. But they don't share my beliefs. They are far to the right of me. I could give a damn about the American mass media. Call them all liberals. Let them all go to jail. They don't fight for anything but their own success. You have far more to lose from this loss of the media than liberals do. They are the only thing propping this blatantly illegal and, more importantly, immoral Administration up.

I eagerly await your misspelled rebuttals.

Posted by ghostman at 07/14/2005 @ 12:34am
Emm, it is a smokescreen because you can't answer it. The facts I am referring to are the facts that the Prosecutor Fitzgerald is going after. He jailed a NY Time Reporter. He has gotten information from Rove and Cooper. He is putting together his case, and if you can;t understand what facts are, then you have issues beyond your inability to address some of my simple smokescreen questions...I have repeated myself over and over...if the facts point to Rove and it is proven, then he should fry. What part of that do you not understand? If this is sooo sensitive for everyone, then why did the NY Times reporter come clean after everyone else did....grandstanding maybe? Or trying to protect Wilson because maybe he did find evidence that you do not want to admit to. Get over yourself!

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 12:34am
Eric, I agree with your concern that Bush is going against his word. Like I said earlier, I just think he has to make the right move because all heck is breaking around him. London was bombed, Rove case and Iraqi children are being blown up because "it is our military's fault." While I agree with Ghost that a Christian should be peaceful, there is a time and place to stand up against a radical religion that will not stop until it gets what it wants. Do we give in and how much? Do we stop supporting Israel? Do we turn over UNOCOL to China? Do we go isolationist? we are in a pickle and it just didn't happen over the last 4 years, like a lot of people want to think.

It is tiresome to hear all these opinions and yet Rove is being sentenced before being convicted...a total disregard of the legal system and the notion that people are innocent until proven guilty. If ghost held true to his words as being a Christian, then he sould also believe that Rove should only be punished when the facts are laid out against him.

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 12:46am
And by the way, where were all you guys when Sandy Berger was caught stuffing classified documents down his pants and destroying them during the Presidential election? He only stole documents that could have told the true story of what the Clinton Administration did to fight terrorism. No big deal for you guys...

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 12:50am
Emm, you are right in the fact that I am wasting my time here. I will get on with my life and promise not to respond any more. I am sure guys like Zero will be happy because I am a neo con who may not agree with every word he says. I will let intellectual snobbery take control of the internet while I go to work to make money for the government to take. You see, my only goal in life is to make money for people who have no desire to work that I see everyday smoking cigarettes and playing cards in the streets. You know, the guys who dropped out of school early only to blame someone else. You all have the answers which is why our public school system is a joke and why we have 10 year olds have children.

Good luck to everyone and God Bless!

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 01:04am
Where is our great leader? Why doesn,t my beloved President defend his loyal aide Rove? This trivial debate would stop in an instant if my President would weigh in with his wisdom and sound judgment. Oh please Mr. President speak up and advance liberty and freedom around the world.

Posted by tom kovis at 07/14/2005 @ 01:18am
I didn't say a word about Rove, so for you to assume my position on the matter is unfair. So I'll tell you my position. But first, more on whether or not there is "a time and place to stand up against a radical religion..."

I, having been raised in the hypocritical environment that is the American Christian Church, know the bible well but am no longer what one would call a conventional christian. I have become more of a diest, sharing more or less the same religious views of many of the founding fathers. Therefore, I personally have no qualms, nor present any hypocrisy, when I say I agree that there are situations when force must be used. These times are few, but they do occur. What I was saying in my first post was that those like LL, who talk about church and God and prayer as if they truly believe in it all and abide by the bible as best they can (minus inescapable human fallacy), are simply hypocrites and liars. Jesus was a complete pacifist. He wouldn't have hit a man if that man raped his mother, so he most assuredly wouldn't have attacked Afghanistan if 18 (or however many) terrorists from Saudi Arabia attacked New York. And he most assuredly wouldn't have gone on to attack Iraq. A true Christian follows the word of Jesus and is a complete pacifist. Everyone else is a faker. Now, I'm not a complete pacifist. But I'm also not a Christian. I'm just sick of Christians supporting war of any kind. Christian religion tells them to lay down and die rather than beget violence in any form. They will be rewarded for it in heaven, as the bible says. LL and other similar "Christians", do not seem so ready to die for the God they claim they are ready to die for. They sure do not incorporate His philosophy into their speech and political beliefs.

You go on to mention other sticky issues, but for what reason I'm not sure. Take the China issue. The Christian philosophy is clear: abandon all greed; help your neighbor; never participate in violence. The only reason a true Christian would not want China to purchase a corporation is because corporations are inherently greedy and oppressive, and thus evil, and the Christian would discourage anyone, whether American or Chinese or whoever, from having anything to do with one. And the Christian most assuredly would not fight to protect a corporation, whose only goal is to amass large amounts of money. I am personally against China purchasing an American corporation. But a Christian should not maintain a similar stance - at least not for the same reasons.

As far as Rove, I think we agree, to a point. In this country, you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. I'll abide by that. But I'll be wary just the same: our justice system, based on capitalism as it is, is not built for true justice, but rather for social and economic efficiency. In addition (or, as a result), the powerful in this country have undeniable influence in the courts, even when they sit in the defendant's chair.

I will not call Rove a criminal until he is convicted as a criminal. But I place little stock in the judgments of our justice system - which do not often enough coincide with the judgments of morality - and therefore, the label "criminal", as defined by law, means little to me. Rove is immoral. He has done countless immoral things, has lied and plotted and destroyed people's lives (including Valerie Plame's ) - all legally, mind you - to advance political interests. On these grounds, I condemn Karl Rove. As far as him being guilty of "knowingly" leaking Plame's identity? I'll withhold judgment of that particular detail for now. But whether or not he is found guilty for that specific offense, what he did, and has done throughout his dark opportunistic career, was wrong.

Let's not play with labels and linguistics.

Posted by ghostman at 07/14/2005 @ 01:37am
What entertainment we liberals provide for those few righties brave enough to venture into this left wing swamp of brilliant journalism. I haven't seen a key criminal investigation question pondered on this board so far, that of "motive" . Why would Plame's work or identity be brought up to the press in the first place? And so soon after Wilson's debunking the Nigeria story? And, again, why would Rove refer to Wilson's wife as "fair game" on a TV show? I think this investigation will uncover a bigger story, perhaps the collusion of the vice president and or president in this entire matter. It's clear by the Bush admin's appointments and vengeance programming that these folks value loyalty to personality over country. They are the real traitors.

Posted by parulis at 07/14/2005 @ 01:48am
Why do people, especially middle class conservatives, embrace anti-intellectualism? While I understand your frustration, Dan, at some of our social problems - these should continue to be vigorously debated - I don't understand your defeatist attitude and your anti-intellectual stance (you label intellectualism "snobbery"). Why is it that the intellectual left (and not the intellectual right) is constantly referred to as snobs or elitists? John McWhorter, a linguist, wrote a book about anti-intellectualism in the black community, and how prevalent it was, and how parents pass it down from generation to generation and how peers promote it. I see the same anti-intellectualism across all races and classes in this country. The media is perhaps the greatest offender. What do we get on the news while the Iraq war continues? Michael Jackson and the Runaway Bride. We don't need less intellectual "snobbery", we need more. We need to aspire to more vigorous debates, and maintain ambitions to seek out higher truths. Not give up and go back to our ruined communities, as you imply, just to watch them fall further into that ruin.

A passion for intellect is exactly what this country lacks. Exactly what those kids on the corner you speak about lack. Exactly what most voters on both sides lack. Exactly what most "Christians" lack. But maybe that's to be expected. After all, intellectual "snobbery" is exactly what the media lacks, and exactly what the President - the intellectual and moral leader of our country! - lacks.

Posted by ghostman at 07/14/2005 @ 01:59am
let's go to fanstasy land for a moment and pretend that jeb bush spent real cash improving the voting system in fla in say '98...by '00 we'd have known that gore would be in and, from there a possibility that al would still be our president--possibly anyway. so ...in late '03 one of gore's aides leaked some data to the liberalmedia; maybe something like outing a cia operative as retaliation for a disagreement and strong criticism from the spouse of said op...

can one of you bush supporters write, with your other hand on the bible of course, and state for the record that y'll would not be screaming your afreakin' heads off about the scenario above?

thought so. in fact (it's ok to admit this), you'd be screaming for the resignation of the president! this is an easy speculation because you and yours WERE screaming for clinton to resign, OVER NOTHIN"! remember? back in the days of fellatio-politics? ring any bells? (ahem...)

here we have an obviously worse sitch. consider: rove, or another "loyal friend" of w lets this giant boomerang fart go. do any of you HONESTLY belive that our commander knew nothing of the aide's plans to do the outing?? that this was not discussed, probably at length, after the president had the the op-ed piece read to him...? HUH?

Posted by dabar at 07/14/2005 @ 02:09am
Gentlemen -

Allow me to defer to your expertise. Please help me understand something about this Rove issue.

In Robert Scheer's article on the same topic - a few clicks away from here - he writes:

According to e-mails that Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper sent to his editor (which were revealed by Newsweek over the weekend), Rove told Cooper that Wilson's devastating expose should be discounted because the Niger fact-finding trip had been authorized by Wilson's wife, who worked at the CIA.

Frankly, I don't get this. How would the fact that the trip was CIA sponsored affect the legitimacy of the information uncovered? How would revealing this CIA sponsorship to the media discredit Wilson? Why would any of that matter?

Please help me with this. I'd very much appreciate it.

Blink

Posted by Blinky at 07/14/2005 @ 06:29am
Ghost, Broke my promise but you deserve an answer. My anti-intellectual statement is not pointed at you. You bring up many valid points and seem to be care to listen to other opinions.

It is just that the so called middle class doesn't have time to be up to date and doens't read world politics as much because they are working their tails off. They are worried about if they can make ends meet. Is this a problem of the way our country works? Maybe. However, there are a lot of people who do not rest their soul in science or what a politician tells them or what foreign policy we have around the world, because they know that corruption is now unfortunately a part of politics. So why even embrace intellectualism when you have some intellects who don't have the common respect to listen to them becauase they don't hold the same opinion or don't speak in "Academia Language." Most people just want to be part of their local community with their families and put their just and faith in a higher being. Jesus would have been considered a lower to middle class person and that is who they Identify with. Someone who does not step on people because they may not have the same education. In the great land of America, it is/was the tired, poor and hungry that came to this country. It was those people and the spirit of being free that spurned these people to achieve great things and made this country prosper. But when you think about it, most of these people never went to school or university and did not hold a "intellectual status" like some in these blogs carry. So when a person asks a question about a topic and the response is a emtional intellectual outcry that a simple question is weak, not because it is, but because they don't have the answer, really tweaks me. I used to receive C's in college from liberal professors because I would challenge them in class. On my tests I would have the same answers and still receive a grade or two less from my friends. We had a professor that gave out C's if you didn;t reference the newspapers he wanted because he said the other newspapers weren;t credible. So, these are the men and women that are teaching our youth. The ones that want freedom of thought and being opened minded. But all it takes is one contradicition to their ideals and you are written off.

I hope that can answer the question and sorry to all others for breaking my promise of not posting any more rants.

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 09:14am
Be careful about crediting Wilson and going blindly into a Republican ambush. Bob Somerby in yesterday's Daily Howler does a careful reading of the history:

Special report--That virus keeps spreading!

JOE WILSON'S CREDIBILITY: In the seven years we've been doing the HOWLER, the New York Post's Deborah Orin has rarely "gotten it right." But libs and Dems have now caught a virus; many are displaying the same kooky traits that talk-show conservatives have long displayed. Result? Amazingly, even some of Orin's claims are more accurate than those of many liberals! On Monday's Hardball, for example, Orin made the following statement about sainted liberal icon Joe Wilson (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/12/05). The scribe was stretching in several places, but uh-oh! She was basically right:

ORIN (7/11/05): There is an issue of whether Karl Rove told the truth and the whole truth. But what`s more important is, it is clear that Joe Wilson didn`t tell the truth. We have a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report that says, on virtually every point that Joe Wilson made, starting from denying his wife had him sent on the trip, which turns out to be not true--

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Right. She did.

ORIN: She did. And to claiming that he found that there was no ties with Iraq and that he reported that, which he did not report--he reported, if anything, the opposite. To claiming that he reported there were forged documents, which was not true, because he never even saw the documents. So Joe Wilson`s credibility is seriously in question. And what we now see is, what Karl Rove appears to have been doing was to be pointing out to Time magazine that Joe Wilson could not be trusted, rather than trying to get even with Joe Wilson.

"Joe Wilson`s credibility is seriously in question." Yes, Orin was stretching on several points--but her judgment on Wilson was basically right. From Day One, Wilson has been an extremely shaky messenger, although liberals and Dems have refused to admit it. Here are a few basic problems with Wilson's performance--problems that will continue to affect the way the Rove story plays out: First, Wilson never seemed to understand the simple logic of the Niger matter. In his 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush uttered those famous sixteen words: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Six months later, Wilson published his famous New York Times op-ed piece--and quite literally, he didn't say a single word about Bush's actual claim. What happened on Wilson's trip to Niger? "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place," he wrote--and his statement was surely right. But Bush never said a transaction took place; he only said that uranium had been sought. But from Day One, Wilson didn't seem to grasp the logic of the claim he thought he was refuting. None of this stopped him from the grandiose, self-puffing claims that have characterized his woeful performance from that day to this.

Second, Wilson didn't seem to understand the basic logic of his own report to the CIA. As Orin noted, the Senate Intelligence Committee reported on this matter last summer--and the unanimous committee (nine Reps, eight Dems) savaged Wilson's performance (for example, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/20/04). Indeed, the committee found that Wilson's report bolstered suspicion that Iraq sought uranium. In the Post, Susan Schmidt penned an accurate account of what the committee unanimously said:

SCHMIDT (7/10/04): Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.

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

(CORRECTION. See below.)

Excitable liberals will quake and rail, complaining that Schmidt is a Big Proven Liar. But Schmidt's report was perfectly accurate. Indeed, the unanimous committee report included the following statement: "For most analysts, the information in [Wilson's] report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal." All eight Democrats on the committee agreed with that assessment. According to the unanimous committee, Wilson hadn't debunked Bush's claim. "For most analysts," Wilson's report gave the claim more credibility, they all said!

There's no way to revisit all of Wilson's stretches, outright misstatements and howlers. The unanimous committee savaged Wilson in various ways; for a review of some of his long string of groaners, we'd recommend Matthew Continetti's 7/26/04 report in the Weekly Standard. (True-believers will refuse to read such a source. But as Orin noted, Wilson told a string of scribes that he discovered the problems with those famous forged documents--documents he never even saw. The committee slammed him for those remarkable misstatements too.) In truth, Wilson has been an extremely shaky messenger from Day One of this two-year episode. This doesn't mean that others were free to "out" his wife, if that actually did occur. It means that liberals and Dems who want the truth must be careful about Wilson's stories. Such libs will understand why many Americans will be suspicious of Wilson's claims--although true believers all over the web will assure them that Wilson's a hero.

Yes, some libs have now caught a virus from the kooky talk-show right. In the process, we're developing our own gang of pleasing blowhards--and they're singing the praises of Wilson.

THE GRAND INQUISITOR: Lucky liberals! All over the web, Grand Inquisitors are telling you tales that keep you excited and energized. Good news! Your tribe has been perfectly right from the start! And the other tribe has been evil and wrong! Your blood has raced--at last you've felt justified--as you've read these pleasing tales. But uh-oh! These scribes have been playing the time-honored role perfected by pseudo-con hacks of the 90s. They're filling your heads full of pleasing tales in which your side is eternally right. Unfortunately, Wilson's performance has been so bad that, in the matter of Plame and Rove, many of these tales are just wrong. But no matter! You can still believe them if you wish--if you want to be played for a sucker.

Consider Josh Marshall's misleading post about a current dispute. Question: Is it possible that Rove was trying to debunk a false story when he spoke to Matt Cooper that day? Marshall, throwing feed to the herd, says that he is shooting down "egregious mumbojumbo" about that. But uh-oh! The alleged "mumbojumbo" isn't so bad--and Marshall's claims are misleading and wrong. It's hard to do, but Josh is spinning so hard he makes Orin seem right by comparison!

Could Rove have had a reasonable motive when he spoke to Cooper that day? Marshall quotes this passage from an AP report about RNC chairman Ken Mehlman:

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (7/12/05): Rove "was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise," said Mehlman. Cooper's e-mail says that Rove warned him away from the idea that Wilson's trip had been authorized by CIA Director George Tenet or Vice President Dick Cheney. According to Marshall, Mehlman's claim is "egregious mumbo-jumbo." Here's his response to that quoted passage:

MARSHALL: The argument, as elaborated by others, is that Rove was warning Cooper off Wilson's phoney story because it was about to be debunked by a soon-to-be-released statement George Tenet. A great argument. Only Wilson never said that. He said that the CIA, following up on a query from the vice president, sent him on a fact-finding mission to Niger.

Was Rove warning Cooper about a bum story--about the claim that Cheney authorized Wilson's trip? "Wilson never said that," Marshall says. But uh-oh! That statement by Marshall isn't quite true. And it's irrelevant any way.

In his post, Marshall quotes Wilson's 7/6/03 op-ed, in which Wilson doesn't exactly claim that Cheney authorized his trip. But Wilson did stress the alleged involvement of Cheney's office--and you know how that Washington press corps can be! By the time of that evening's World News Tonight, ABC's Geoff Morrell was saying this:

MORRELL (7/6/03): Ambassador Joe Wilson says, at the request of Vice President Cheney's office, the CIA sent him to Niger in February 2002. He spent eight days there investigating a British intelligence report that Iraq tried to obtain from Niger yellowcake uranium, which can be used to build a nuclear weapon. It wasn't exactly Wilson's fault. But viewers might start to believe something false; they might start to believe that Cheney's office sent Wilson off to Niger. And the following morning, Wilson's juices were clearly flowing when he glad-handed (and semi-misstated) on CNN's American Morning:

BILL HEMMER (7/7/03): Ambassador Joseph Wilson is back with us here on American Morning live in D.C. Good to have you back! Good morning to you!

WILSON: Hi, Bill, and welcome to Soledad [O'Brien].

HEMMER: Well, it's great to have her.

O'BRIEN: Thank you very much. Appreciate that.

HEMMER: It's a wonderful day for us here at American Morning! You went to Niger several years ago. You concluded essentially that Iraq could not buy this uranium from that country. Why not?

WILSON: Well, I went in, actually in February of 2002 was my most recent trip there--at the request, I was told, of the office of the vice president, which had seen a report in intelligence channels about this purported memorandum of agreement on uranium sales from Niger to Iraq.

Was Wilson trying to mislead viewers? We wouldn't make that charge, but Republicans had every right to correct a misimpression that clearly was out there--the misimpression that Cheney's office had sent Wilson off to Niger. ABC made the claim that Sunday night--and Wilson seemed to say it the next morning. And by the way, Wilson was wildly misstating something else about Cheney, as he himself would later admit. He kept insisting, in every forum, that Cheney must have seen a report about his trip to Niger; a year later, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously agreed that this wasn't true, and Wilson admitted that he had been wrong to make this claim all over the land. At any rate, many Americans were getting the impression that Cheney had sent Wilson off to Niger. The White House had every right to correct this impression at the time Rove spoke with Cooper. If the shoe had been on the other foot, Dems would have corrected it too.

What were Rove's motives in speaking with Cooper? We don't have the slightest idea. But the impression was going around that Cheney had sent Wilson off to Niger, and the White House did have every right to correct this false impression.

One more question: What did the White House think of Wilson at this time? Again, we have no way of knowing. But right from Day One, Wilson has been pompous, grandiose and extremely unreliable. He made endless misstatements, and he didn't seem to grasp the simple logic of the matter at hand. He was savaged in that Senate report--and none of the Dems stepped up to defend him. Almost surely, Rove thought Wilson was a kook and an asshole. Unfortunately, it isn't clear he was wrong.

But so what? To this day, Wilson's a Sainted Liberal Icon. Today's liberals want to be happy but dumb--just as dumb as pseudo-conservatives have been for the past several decades. He wants to be fed stupid tales, in which his side is always right, and the other side is wickedly wrong. And no, he doesn't want ambiguity! Luckily, liberal Grand Inquisitors, with their own mumbo-jumbo, are there to throw sweet feed to the herd. As stampeding liberals munch the sweet hay, can you hear what the herders are saying?

CORRECTION: We originally included an erroneous paragraph from Susan Schmidt's WashPost article. There is a correction on the Nexis post, but it's at the bottom, and we didn't see it. For full explanation, see Atrios. He saved the day.

Posted by unionlawyer at 07/14/2005 @ 10:08am
All this partisan wrangling is pathetic and unproductive. You guys should all be doing something more productive - that doesn't involve sitting in front of a computer! I like the old saying, " give someone enough rope...... ". Well, we'll just have to wait and see if there was enough rope for Rove to hang himself. All the speculation may keep you busy, but opinions are like A-HOLES - everybody has one!

Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/14/2005 @ 10:10am
Some older background that sheds light on where the investigation is now [washingtonpost.com]

Rove won't be fired (and certainly won't step down) until his perjury case goes to trial: the Bush Administration "needs to take a stand against Democrats who oppose the President for purely partisan purposes"

Posted by nathanhale at 07/14/2005 @ 10:34am
I have to add this and which may shed light on a lot of things her in The Nation: This is on Joe Wilson and No wonder why David Corn won't go after Joe Wilson!!!http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp

"The biographical blurb describes him as a "political centrist" who received a prize for "Truth-Telling," though a careful reader might notice that the award came in part from a group associated with The Nation magazine -- which only Michael Moore would consider a centrist publication."

Why would it only be Carl Rove who committed pergury? Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are also "government officials".

You will probably not read the article, so again, I wasted time...but the date of the article is July 12, 2004...one year ago!

Broken promise, but one that has totally a meatball for you all to decide who is protecting who here at The Nation!!!

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 11:29am
I'll respond to your comments - and others - later today, Dan.

Posted by ghostman at 07/14/2005 @ 12:04pm
Why is JUDITH MILLER sitting in jail with a full waiver??? Any of you clever libs got an answer to that???Who is she protecting folks????

Posted by aludra at 07/14/2005 @ 12:27pm
Aludra: It is interesting that Judith Miller remains in jail, but it is difficult to conclude who she might be protecting. Regardless of who that is, it is clear that Rove made a mistake in identifying Valerie Plame in the media.

The RNC talking points seem to make no other legal argument about whether Rove is guilty besides the semantic argument that he did not say her name. I wonder if this indicates that they have no other legal footing? I know there is debate as to what Plame's status was, whether she worked undercover within the last 5 years outside the country. If she did, is Rove toast?

If it turns out that there are other sources inside the administration (Scooter Libby) that gave the media the same information, maybe including Plame's name, will media attention be deflected off of Rove and onto another administration source, or will the range of impact simply widen?

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/14/2005 @ 12:33pm
Dancall: you seem focused on whether Ambassador Wilson lied in his report. I want to learn more about this argument. How can Wilson have been lying when the claims about Niger were falsified? Additionally, is it more important to determine whether Wilson lied or to determine who falsified the documents suggesting Sadaam was attempting to obtain uranium from Niger?

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/14/2005 @ 12:36pm
Sorry, didn't read unionlawyer's post until just now. Very informative.

Did Cheney inquire about the Niger claim with the CIA?

What possible motive would Valerie Plame have for sending Wilson to Niger besides a simple investigation of the Niger claim? Are Republicans claiming that the purpose of the trip was simply to shed a false light on the President's claims?

And, if Wilson did lie, was this a bigger lie than the one the Administration kept repeating about the aluminum tubes?

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/14/2005 @ 12:46pm
Nat, Read the article. Wilson lied about seeing documents that had not reached US soil. He also lied in the sense that because he found no smoking gun, doesn;t mean that there was no connection. British Intel reports and even Our Senate Intel Committe confirmed that there was contact by Iraq to buy Uranium from Niger. He also lied numerous times that his mission was from Cheney's office, when in fact it wasn't. These trips have to documented, no documents tie Cheney to this trip and the CIA confirmed that Cheney had no way of knowing about it. he also lied when questioned if he wife sent him...plainly stated, no. Also, it is significant to know that these missions require a NON DISCLOSURE from the CIA and Wilson. Because his wife sent him, nothing was signed, thus allowing him to go the the NT Times and write his op-ed piece. He also mislead the readers by stating in his op-ed, that he found no "TRANSACATIONS", which the president never claimed in the State of the Union speech. The president said that Iraq was looking to acquire urianium from Niger. A major difference and a play on words. That is why this whole thing is a smoke screen because if the NY Times knew about this, they are in a whole lot of trouble. It is evident that Wilson was lying through his teeth and had a agenda to discredit Bush. Right or wrong, he lied to both the CIA and the American people.

The other major factor is that if Plame sent Wilson on this trip, she was not an undercover agent. That is not there job. They are usually the ones doing the investigative work on the ground.

If Wilson lied in his reports and then misled the NY Times to allow him to publish his op-ed, there may be some issues within the CIA, or a "government official", one of which both Wilson and Plame could be called.

So to answer your question more directly, British and CIA intel both confirmed months after Wilson came home from his trip that Iraq was looking to acquire Uraium. The problems that the Dems have no is that their banter that Bush lied will make them loose face and credibility, so as a strategy, they are trying to say Rove is a criminal and dismiss the Wilson story.

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 12:51pm
And Nat, read the article I had the link with...Ties or The Nation itself has praised Wilson and given him awards, which is why I keep asking everyone here about Wilson and no one cares to answer...now do you see my point! And lets be honest, if Rove broke the law, he should be fired and sentenced, but we can't let the Wilson story get away because it actually is justification to our war in Iraq...

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 12:56pm
Joe Wilson's Top Ten Worst Inaccuracies And Misstatements

1.) Wilson Insisted That The Vice President's Office Sent Him To Niger:

Wilson Said He Traveled To Niger At CIA Request To Help Provide Response To Vice President's Office. "In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. � The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office." (Joseph C. Wilson, Op-Ed, "What I Didn't Find In Africa," The New York Times, 7/6/03)

* Joe Wilson: "[W]hat They Did, What The Office Of The Vice President Did, And, In Fact, I Believe Now From Mr. Libby's Statement, It Was Probably The Vice President Himself ..." (CNN's "Late Edition," 8/3/03)

Vice President Cheney: "I Don't Know Joe Wilson. I've Never Met Joe Wilson. � And Joe Wilson - I Don't [Know] Who Sent Joe Wilson. He Never Submitted A Report That I Ever Saw When He Came Back." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 9/14/03)

CIA Director George Tenet: "In An Effort To Inquire About Certain Reports Involving Niger, CIA's Counter-Proliferation Experts, On Their Own Initiative, Asked An Individual With Ties To The Region To Make A Visit To See What He Could Learn." (Central Intelligence Agency, "Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence," Press Release, 7/11/03)

2.) Wilson Claimed The Vice President And Other Senior White House Officials Were Briefed On His Niger Report:

"[Wilson] Believed That [His Report] Would Have Been Distributed To The White House And That The Vice President Received A Direct Response To His Question About The Possible Uranium Deal." (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq," 7/7/04)

The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Reported That The Vice President Was Not Briefed On Wilson's Report. "Conclusion 14. The Central Intelligence Agency should have told the Vice President and other senior policymakers that it had sent someone to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal and it should have briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador's findings." (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq," 7/7/04)

CIA Director George Tenet: "Because This Report, In Our View, Did Not Resolve Whether Iraq Was Or Was Not Seeking Uranium From Abroad, It Was Given A Normal And Wide Distribution, But We Did Not Brief It To The President, Vice-President Or Other Senior Administration Officials." (Central Intelligence Agency, "Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence," Press Release, 7/11/03)

3.) Wilson Has Claimed His Niger Report Was Conclusive And Significant

Wilson Claims His Trip Proved There Was Nothing To The Uranium "Allegations." "I knew that [Dr. Rice] had fundamentally misstated the facts. In fact, she had lied about it. I had gone out and I had undertaken this study. I had come back and said that this was not feasible. � This government knew that there was nothing to these allegations." (NBC's, "Meet The Press," 5/2/04)

Officials Said Evidence In Wilson's Niger Report Was "Thin" And His "Homework Was Shoddy." (Michael Duffy, "Leaking With A Vengeance," Time, 10/13/03) Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: "Conclusion 13. The Report On The Former Ambassador's Trip To Niger, Disseminated In March 2002, Did Not Change Any Analysts' Assessments Of The Iraq-Niger Uranium Deal." (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq," 7/7/04)

* "For Most Analysts, The Information In The Report Lent More Credibility To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Report On The Uranium Deal, But State Department Bureau Of Intelligence And Research (INR) Analysts Believed That The Report Supported Their Assessments That Niger Was Unlikely To Be Willing Or Able To Sell Uranium." (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq," 7/7/04)

CIA Said Wilson's Findings Did Not Resolve The Issue. "Because [Wilson's] report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the president, vice president or other senior administration officials. We also had to consider that the former Nigerien officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said." (Central Intelligence Agency, "Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence," Press Release 7/11/03)

The Butler Report Claimed That The President's State Of the Union Statement On Uranium From Africa, "Was Well-Founded." "We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: �The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.' was well-founded." (The Rt. Hon. The Lord Butler Of Brockwell, "Review Of Intelligence, On Weapons Of Mass Destruction," 7/14/04)

4.) Wilson Denied His Wife Suggested He Travel To Niger In 2002:

Wilson Claimed His Wife Did Not Suggest He Travel To Niger To Investigate Reports Of Uranium Deal; Instead, Wilson Claims It Came Out Of Meeting With CIA. CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "Among other things, you had always said, always maintained, still maintain your wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA officer, had nothing to do with the decision to send to you Niger to inspect reports that uranium might be sold from Niger to Iraq. � Did Valerie Plame, your wife, come up with the idea to send you to Niger?" Joe Wilson: "No. My wife served as a conduit, as I put in my book. When her supervisors asked her to contact me for the purposes of coming into the CIA to discuss all the issues surrounding this allegation of Niger selling uranium to Iraq." (CNN's "Late Edition," 7/18/04)

* But Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Received Not Only Testimony But Actual Documentation Indicating Wilson's Wife Proposed Him For Trip. "Some CPD, [CIA Counterproliferation Division] officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife �offered up his name' and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, �my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.'" (Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

5.) Wilson Has Claimed His 1999 Trip To Niger Was Not Suggested By His Wife:

Wilson Claims CIA Thought To Ask Him To Make Trip Because He Had Previously Made Trip For Them In 1999, Not Because Of His Wife's Suggestion. CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "Who first raised your name, then, based on what you know? Who came up with the idea to send you there?" Joe Wilson: "The CIA knew my name from a trip, and it's in the report, that I had taken in 1999 related to uranium activities but not related to Iraq. I had served for 23 years in government including as Bill Clinton's Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council. I had done a lot of work with the Niger government during a period punctuated by a military coup and a subsequent assassination of a president. So I knew all the people there." (CNN's "Late Edition," 7/18/04)

In Fact, His Wife Suggested Him For 1999 Trip, As Well. "The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA's behalf � The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region �" (Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

6.) Wilson Claimed He Was A Victim Of A Partisan Smear Campaign

Joe Wilson: "Well, I Don't Know. Obviously, There's Been This Orchestrated Campaign, This Smear Campaign. I Happen To Think That It's Because The RNC, The Republican National Committee's Been Involved In This In A Big Way �" CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "But They Weren't Involved In The Senate Intelligence Committee Report." Wilson: "No, They Weren't." (CNN's "Late Edition," 7/18/04)

Senate Intelligence Committee Unanimously Concluded That Wilson's Report "Lent More Credibility" For Most Analysts "To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Reports." "Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq." (Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

Members Of The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence That Wrote The Unanimous "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq":

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)

Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH)

Sen. Christopher Bond (R-MO)

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS)

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)

Sen. John Warner (R-VA)

(Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

7.) A Month Before The Bob Novak And Matthew Cooper Articles Ever Came Out, Wilson Told The Washington Post That Previous Intelligence Reports About Niger Were Based On Forged Documents:

In June Of 2003, Wilson Told The Washington Post "The Niger Intelligence Was Based On Documents That Had Clearly Been Forged Because �The Dates Were Wrong And The Names Were Wrong.'" (Susan Schmidt, "Plame's Input Is Cited On Niger Mission," The Washington Post, 7/10/04)

However, "The [Senate Select Committee On Intelligence] Report � Said Wilson Provided Misleading Information To The Washington Post Last June [12th, 2003]." (Susan Schmidt, "Plame's Input Is Cited On Niger Mission," The Washington Post, 7/10/04)

* Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: "The Former Ambassador Said That He May Have �Misspoken' To The Reporter When He Said He Concluded The Documents Were �Forged.'" (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq," 7/7/04)

8.) Wilson Claimed His Book Would Enrich Debate:

NBC's Katie Couric: "What Do You Hope The Whole Point Of This Book Will Be? Joe Wilson: "Well, I - I Hope, One, It Will Tell - It Tries To Tell An Interesting Story. Two, I Hope That It Enriches The Debate In A Year In Which We Are All Called Upon As Americans To Elect Our Leaders. And Three, � That [It] Says That This Is A Great Democracy That Is Worthy Of Our Taking Our Responsibilities As Stewards Seriously." (NBC's "Today Show," 5/3/04)

Wilson Admits In His Book That He Had Been Involved In "A Little Literary Flair" When Talking To Reporters. "[Wilson] wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved �a little literary flair.'" (Matthew Continetti, "�A Little Literary Flair'" The Weekly Standard, 7/26/04)

Wilson's Book The Politics Of Truth: Inside The Lies That Put The White House On Trial And Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity Has Been Panned In Numerous Reviews For Its Inaccuracies:

* "On Page One Of Chapter One, He Quotes NBC Talk Show Host Chris Matthews, Who Told Him That, After Mr. Wilson Chose To Go Public: �Wilson's Wife Is Fair Game.' Later, He Bases His List Of Suspect Leakers On Conversations With Members Of The News Media And A �Source Close To The House Judiciary Committee.'" (Eli Lake, Op-Ed, "Don't Quit Your Day Job, Mr. Wilson," New York Post, 5/4/04) * "For Example, When Asked How He �Knew' That The Intelligence Community Had Rejected The Possibility Of A Niger-Iraq Uranium Deal, As He Wrote In His Book, He Told [Senate Intelligence] Committee Staff That His Assertion May Have Involved �A Little Literary Flair.'" (Matthew Continetti, "�A Little Literary Flair,'" The Weekly Standard, 7/26/04) * The Boston Globe: "In Essence, Much Of Wilson's Book Is An Attempt To Portray The Bush Administration As A Ministry Of Fear Whose Mission In Pursuing War In Iraq Required It To Proclaim A Lie As Truth." (Michael D. Langan, Op-Ed, "�Truth' Makes Much Of Bush Controversy," The Boston Globe, 5/4/04) * Newsweek's Evan Thomas Wrote In The Washington Post: "[W]ilson's Claims And Conclusions Are Either Long Hashed Over Or Based On What The Intelligence Business Describes As �Rumint,' Or Rumor Intelligence." (Evan Thomas, Op-Ed, "Indecent Exposure," The Washington Post, 5/16/04)

9.) Wilson Claimed The CIA Provided Him With Information Related To The Iraq-Niger Uranium Transaction:

"The Former Ambassador Noted That His CIA Contacts Told Him There Were Documents Pertaining To The Alleged Iraq-Niger Uranium Transaction And That The Source Of The Information Was The [Redacted] Intelligence Service." (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq," 7/7/04)

* However, "The DO [Director Of Operations At The CIA] Reports Officer Told Committee Staff That He Did Not Provide The Former Ambassador With Any Information About The Source Or Details �" (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq," 7/7/04)

10.) Wilson Claimed He Is A Non-Partisan "Centrist":

Recently, Joe Wilson Refused To Admit He Is A Registered Democrat. NBC's Jamie Gangel: "You are a Democrat?" Joe Wilson: "I exercise my rights as a citizen of this country to participate in the selection of my leaders and I am proud to do so. I did so in the election in 2000 by contributing not just to Al Gore's campaign, but also to the Bush-Cheney campaign." (NBC's "Today Show," 7/14/05)

"[Wilson] Insist[s] He Remained A Centrist At Heart." (Scott Shane, "Private Spy And Public Spouse Live At Center Of Leak Case," The New York Times, 7/5/05)

* Joe Wilson Is A Registered Democrat. (District Of Columbia Voter Registrations, Accessed 7/14/05) * Joseph Wilson Has Donated Over $8,000 To Democrats Including $2,000 To John Kerry For President In 2003, $1,000 To Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) HILLPAC In 2002 And $3,000 To Al Gore In 1999. (The Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 7/12/05) * Wilson Endorsed John Kerry For President In October 2003 And Advised The Kerry Campaign. (David Tirrell-Wysocki, "Former Ambassador Wilson Endorses Kerry In Presidential Race," The Associated Press, 10/23/03) * "[Wilson] Admits �It Will Be A Cold Day In Hell Before I Vote For A Republican, Even For Dog Catcher.'" (Scott Shane, "Private Spy And Public Spouse Live At Center Of Leak Case," The New York Times, 7/5/05)

Posted by aludra at 07/14/2005 @ 12:59pm
I hope you nutty libs keep backing up this LOSER for as long as possible. He will take all of you down with him!

Posted by aludra at 07/14/2005 @ 1:00pm
Ghostman.. I pondered whether it is even worth responding to you because I have met many like you (the Bible has much to say about someone like yourself, and none of it is promising).

Obviously you came from a very legalistic Bible training and as such you sought out those passages that would answer your feelings. That part was good but unfortunately it caused you like many others to abandon real truth for a humanistic selective truth.

Not to belabor and take away from the central discussion for everyone, but you cannot pick and choose your Christian theology (well, you can under free will,,but it's still error), that sets you up as God.

You also couldn't be bothered to read some of my other sharing. I and thus my wife and children have given up nearly everything I achieved in the corporate world for the kingdom of God. We strive to fulfill Jesus's commands in Isaiah 58, Matthew 10, and 25...we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the homeless, teach here and overseas how to make a self sustaining living. build homes and schools, provide medicine and nutritional supplies, and also to your absurdity have been quite prepared to die having served in the military as well as my sons.

But you are so in error that Jesus is a complete pacifist. He is the judge of all mankind. He gives the sword to execute justice in this world (Romans 14). And He will come again at the final battle with Satan and all who support the devil with a SWORD. In Luke 22:36 He tells the disciples that He sent them out the first time with nothing. Now He says to take provision and a sword (not for agression but defense). Most of your selected passages deal with how believers deal with each other.

Frankly you are just a bitter person who found no peace in Christianity because you never understood the Prince of Peace Jesus, who told you He is your peace, His kingdom is not of this world, you will not find your peace in this world, not as long as the devil and evil exist, except in Christ.

Also, you seemed to like what Jesus said about love,peace,and forgiveness, but not about submission to authority. Seems like a key point about your emotional and mental struggle.

Posted by love liberty at 07/14/2005 @ 1:04pm
Aludra, let's keep the tone down a bit. We are bringing light to a situation that does not need to followed up with name calling...I do appreciciate your support, but do you understand?

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 1:09pm
We can only hope that Bush will do the right thing but it's probably not going to happen. He's not going to get rid of the guy who got him his job. No way. We can count on this Administration to do the only thing their good at. Lie, lie, lie. It's how they got there and it's how they hang on. They lie about things that are not even that important. They lie because they probably physically can't tell the truth. Maybe they can't recongnize the truth because they've been telling lies for so long. I just hope that maybe the media will step up to the plate. I saw some coverage of this story on the network news....mostly light weight and short but at least it's a start. I guess I just can't let go of what little hope I have that we can still save this country before they turn it into a complete facist state.

Posted by debmcd at 07/14/2005 @ 1:12pm
How bout discussing the content of my submissions?? I dont need a lecture from anyone about my tone. This is still America isnt it??? I would recommend you reading earlier in this thread and lets see if you have the same comments from the forked toungue LIBS???

Posted by aludra at 07/14/2005 @ 1:14pm
It's called take the high road and come out with facts that they continually ignore and only come out with "Bush lied". The question now is did Bush really lie about Uranium in Niger? All reports indicate that he didn't, so will the entire well to do free thinkers of the world apologize for calling him a liar? I doubt it because they feel hatred beyond what they can comprehend. It is called rage. They see red (no pun) and drive them wild like a Bull in the ring. If they would only focus on the issue instead going after blinded hatred, liberals would actually do ok. This in itself is a direct lie to their inner soul.

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 1:25pm
Hey Dancall, I think we've worn out the heavy libs....either that or they have found blogs to rest in where they don't have to defend their views. I know you are more moderate than me but your problem in their eyes is that you 1)stay on point, 2)do so in a reasoned manner, and 3) keep reminding them of the facts which gets in the way of their whining

keep up the great work

Posted by love liberty at 07/14/2005 @ 1:43pm
That is what it is all about, isn't it? I just don't understand it. If they would actually dig for facts and articulate them into a solid case, they may be able to do some unbelievable work. I think this exchange can also spell out that conviction with fact is much more powerful than conviction with emotion. But I think you and I have learned that through the business world.

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 1:56pm
First of all, I also caught your questioning of Scott McClellan on Democracy Now David. It's nice to see my brothers and sisters in the Fourth Estate at the White House at least pretending to do their jobs. It's been awhile.

As for whether or not Karl Rove will get in any kind of trouble for exposing Valerie Plame's cover, I say that we'll have George W. Bush on impeachment charges for lying about getting a professional from Ann Coulter before that happens. This White House (and the Congress it controls) would just assume jump from the Washington Monument before it puts "Bush's Brain" behind bars or on the unemployment line. (for those of you who don't know what a "professional" is, think Monica Lewinsky)

Thirdly, Love Liberty, someone doesn't become a sage because he or she wins a Pulitzer Prize. I know some Pulitzer winners who haven't done a damned thing of consequence since. I also know a Pulitzer runner-up that for all intents and purposes shouldn't even be in the business anymore. Hope this clears that up.

Posted by edwriter at 07/14/2005 @ 2:01pm
Ed, Ask David why he doesn't go after Wilson? I have already called my Senator who was on the intel committee asking when she will be making a public statement about the Wilson case. Of course she is a Dem and will never come out against the main stream drum beat that Bush Lied but the NY Times is innocent. Wilson is a fraud and so is his wife. If she broke CIA protocal of not having her husband sign a Non Disclosure allowing mindless people to believe his op-ed report in the NY Times, then keep up the good work driving non judgemental people to the Repblican side. You will never win a emotional rant over a logical presentation. Sorry!

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 2:09pm
"Heavy libs" don't wear out. We do, however, recognize would-be debate opponents who aren't qualified for the debate. Much of what I've read here by the right-leaning is baseless invective, still more of it wholesale inaccurate. What a bore.

Posted by mewsician at 07/14/2005 @ 2:42pm
To borrow from one I wrote previously:

Along with their sudden outrage over character assassination such as that they allege is being directed at poor defenseless lamb Karl Rove, another entertaining moment in dealing with Bush/Rove supporters like those that appear here is when they begin pontificating about a dearth of fact in the dialogue. This a crowd who happily accepts that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 9/11 attacks. The same crowd who thinks that cutting taxes on wealthy people somehow magically helps them. The rabid rabble who sits by and watches - if they're even paying attention to such mundane things, which usually they are not - while partisan hacks rewrite science so it will suit their business-friendly agenda. The same people who have made 10 years' worth of hay over the "I didn't inhale" statement yet now unquestioningly accept a vicious, lying toad like Karl Rove defending himself with the hilarious claim that because he referred to Valerie Plame merely as "Wilson's wife," he is not guilty of revealing her identity.

The simple truth is that the LLs and DANCALLs of the country do not now - and never in their lives ever have - understand the principle of "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." They are missing the gene that dictates to rational people that you cannot have one set of rules for "your side" and another set for everyone else. It's called hypocrisy. Learn about it. And maybe, in the process, you will also stumble across some techniques in recognizing fact from fiction (still watching Fox News, are you?), in recognizing the difference between hearing what you WANT to hear and hearing what is factually SO, in something called "vetting" of sources that will prevent you from calling something a fact when it is anything but. Good luck. From what I've seen, I doubt many in your camp are up to the challenge. And while your ilk has always been part of the American landscape and always will be, this time, it's personal. Because in your haze of self-delusion and your bloated sense of entitlement to a permanent Republican governing majority gained by any means necessary - a distinctlly un-American notion - you're taking the rest of us down with you.

Posted by mewsician at 07/14/2005 @ 2:48pm
Mew, very cowardly of you and you keep making my point of intellectual snobbery. Tell me the facts, you know, finding out if Plame was actually a covert agent. Then we can say fire Rove and send him to jail. You can't and refuse to recognize it! All we hear is "he lied", "he should be fired". And why in your all knowing and questionable ability to debate the subject are liberals not asking questions about what Wilson did? I am very interested in hearing your view point...

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 2:49pm
Mew, you are brilliant. Did you come up with that all by yourself? I am very proud of you. AGAIN, YOU NEVER ADDRESS THE FACTS! IT IS JUST A COMPLETE EMOTIONAL RANT THAT GIVES YOU NO CREDIBILITY. PROVE TO ME THAT PLAME IS A COVERT OPERATIVE BY THE STANDARDS OF THE LAW THAT YOUR ARE GOING TO PROSECUTE HIM WITH. My goodness. You are using the same logic that let the Child molester out to kill a family, rape and kill another boy and rape his sister only to be caught on CAMERA. Or is that not a good use of a Camera???

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 2:53pm
Gentlemen -

If someone has the time, I'd still enjoy an answer to my non-partisan question above, which was:

How would the fact that the trip was CIA sponsored affect the legitimacy of the information uncovered? How would [Rove's] revealing this CIA sponsorship to the media discredit Wilson? Why would any of that matter?

I don't mean to slow down the discussion - but again, some clarification on this basic point would be greatly appreciated.

Blink

Posted by Blinky at 07/14/2005 @ 2:54pm
Response to Aldura

References:

Wilson, Joseph What I Didn't Find in Africa [commondreams.org], The New York Times via Common Dreams, July 6, 2003

Wilson, Joseph The Senate's bad intelligence [salon.com], Salon.com (Subscription or Day Pass Required), July 16, 2004

Bloomberg Wilson's Iraq Assertions Hold Up Under Fire From Rove Backers [bloomberg.com], Bloomberg.com, July 14, 2005

1.) Wilson Insisted That The Vice President's Office Sent Him To Niger

No, he has never said that. None of the quotes you cite say that. Mr. Cheney or someone working for him got word of a memorandum of agreement between Niger and Iraq for the former to sell yellowcake to the latter. Someone in Mr. Cheney's office tasked the CIA to look into the matter.

2.) Wilson Claimed The Vice President And Other Senior White House Officials Were Briefed On His Niger Report

One might assume Mr. Cheney and other officials were briefed. After all, it was somebody in Cheney's office who asked the question.

However, Wilson states in The New York Times that he delivered his report orally to the US ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, and her staff, and that his findings were consistent with the ambassadors's. He has never seen a written report of his mission.

3.) Wilson Has Claimed His Niger Report Was Conclusive And Significant

I haven't seen where Wilson uses those words to characterize his mission. He was tasked to look into a sale of yellowcake pertaining to one memorandum, which he did not see. This is apparently the same memorandum that the US government gave to the IAEA; as IAEA Dr. Mohammad ElBaradei testified to the UN Security Council in March 2003, that document is a fake. The day after Dr. ElBaradei's testimony, the state department admitted the error and apologized. That would go a long ways to explaining why neither Ambassador Wilson nor Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick found nothing in Niger.

Since Wilson has never seen a written version of his report, there's no telling what it said by the time it got to the Senate Select Committee. Fixing facts and intelligence around the policy (i.e., fabricating and dissembling) was the order of the day between the time Wilson went to Niger and the time the first missiles were fired over Baghdad. No finding by the select committee will change that. The committee's conclusions in this respect should not be considered reliable.

4.) Wilson Denied His Wife Suggested He Travel To Niger In 2002

She very well might have suggested him. So what? He has worked as a diplomat in Niger, was acting ambassador to Iraq during the run up to the 1991 war, was ambassador to Gabon in the mid nineties and is considered an expert on uranium mining in Africa. Whoever suggested him, it was a good suggestion. Apparently other people at the CIA agreed, as they chose Wilson to go on the mission.

5.) Wilson Has Claimed His 1999 Trip To Niger Was Not Suggested By His Wife

See note to point 4.

6.) Wilson Claimed He Was A Victim Of A Partisan Smear Campaign

The only thing wrong with this statement is the use of past tense. The RNC talking points are a smear campaign. They are full of lies and half truths about Wilson and his wife.

7.) A Month Before The Bob Novak And Matthew Cooper Articles Ever Came Out, Wilson Told The Washington Post That Previous Intelligence Reports About Niger Were Based On Forged Documents

See note to point number 3. Some of that intelligence was based on forged documents.

8.) Wilson Claimed His Book Would Enrich Debate

Whether it did or not is entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

9.) Wilson Claimed The CIA Provided Him With Information Related To The Iraq-Niger Uranium Transaction

Wilson had some information, although he never saw the specific memorandum.

10.) Wilson Claimed He Is A Non-Partisan "Centrist"

This claim is supposedly refuted by the fact that he's a registered Democrat who's given money to the Clinton for Senator and Kerry for President campaigns. There is nothing in that would suggest that something other than a centrist. He also gave money to both the Bush and Gore campaigns in 2000.

Being a registered member of one party or another is simply a matter of checking a box on a form. The fact that Wilson is a registered Democrat does not mean he is a partisan Democrat who automatically supports Democratic candidates.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/14/2005 @ 2:54pm
And Mew, if you actually read what I have said OVER AND OVER is that if they can use the law to get Rove, then he should be fired and jailed. But you just read what you want to read and come out with raging rants trying to use insults to get off the point. Which is precisly what is going on with the tactic to protect Wilson and the NY Times.

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 2:56pm
Jack, all of your rebuttles can be answered with one question. Why did she not follow CIA protocal to make her husband sign a non disclosure that hand cuffs him from talking to the press about his findings. Until you can get that answered, the above points are moot!

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 2:58pm
Blinky, these people are not interested in such tedium. Their technique, learned by suckling at the bountiful teat of the Karl Rove smear machinary, is to bloviate endlessly about a whole lot of peripheral details that are completely irrelevant. They're not interested in clarification, only in slinging as much mud as is slingable, secure in the knowledge that some of it will stick.

Bad news appears to be rearing its ugly head for them, however.....the media is wakening from its stupor and the American public has begun to recognize the schoolyard behavior for what it is. It's important to remember that the one-trick pony Karl Rove has built his amoral career on wrecking peoples' lives during elections. He has yet to demonstrate the smallest capability for helping his hapless candidates - in this case, Bush - actually govern once in office. Like all poorly educated bullies, he's begun the process of hanging himself with his own rope made of hubris and a misplaced sense of invincibility.

Posted by mewsician at 07/14/2005 @ 3:03pm
Here you go Jack...Please slowly and carefully: We now know for certain that Wilson was wrong and that Bush's statement was entirely accurate.

The British have consistently stood by that conclusion. In September 2003, an independent British parliamentary committee looked into the matter and determined that the claim made by British intelligence was "reasonable" (the media forgot to cover that one too). Indeed, Britain's spies stand by their claim to this day. Interestingly, French intelligence also reported an Iraqi attempt to procure uranium from Niger.

Yes, there were fake documents relating to Niger-Iraq sales. But no, those forgeries were not the evidence that convinced British intelligence that Saddam may have been shopping for "yellowcake" uranium. On the contrary, according to some intelligence sources, the forgery was planted in order to be discovered -- as a ruse to discredit the story of a Niger-Iraq link, to persuade people there were no grounds for the charge. If that was the plan, it worked like a charm.

But that's not all. The Butler report, yet another British government inquiry, also is expected to conclude this week that British intelligence was correct to say that Saddam sought uranium from Niger.

And in recent days, the Financial Times has reported that illicit sales of uranium from Niger were indeed being negotiated with Iraq, as well as with four other states.

According to the FT: "European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq."

There's still more: As Susan Schmidt reported -- back on page A9 of Saturday's Washington Post: "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."

The Senate report says fairly bluntly that Wilson lied to the media. Schmidt notes that the panel found that, "Wilson provided misleading information to the Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on a document that had clearly been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'"

The problem is Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel discovered. Schmidt notes: "The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger."

Ironically, Senate investigators found that at least some of what Wilson told his CIA briefer not only failed to persuade the agency that there was nothing to reports of Niger-Iraq link -- his information actually created additional suspicion.

A former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, told Wilson that in June 1999, a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations." Mayaki, knowing how few commodities for export are produced by impoverished Niger, interpreted that to mean that Saddam was seeking uranium.

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 3:03pm
Mew, why is the NY Times writer sitting in jail? Keep avoiding the hard questions and making opposite view points as some inferrior intellectual appreciation of the truth. What is now obvious is that you like to pick fights and run like hell. I know your types very well and I feel no sorrow for the kids who kicked the crap out of you for being a wise ass that ran behind the teacher!

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 3:09pm
Jack-point 4...so it is ok for him to lie? I am a bit confused!

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 3:14pm
So, no one wants to tackle the question if Rove is fired and found guilty, do we as nation give Wilson and Plame a free pass for not following CIA protocol and letting Wilson write a op-ed story on his CIA findings? Wouldn't that be a breach of national security? You see folks, I am conceeding for an honest debate format that Rove is fried, so bring it on...

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 3:23pm
I "fight" for - and with - situations that are worth my time, DANCALL. And as a general rule, that never includes anything involving someone who invokes alleged playground incidents from 30 or 35 years ago.

Posted by mewsician at 07/14/2005 @ 3:29pm
Frank, that is what caused this fiasco to happen in the first place. If we all had cool heads and let the facts come out, we will all live a stress free life!

Mew-peole carry childhood experiences with them their whole lives. It is aparent that you still hold bitter times close to your chest.

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 3:33pm
I'll ask the question again......If Rove was guilty, why wont Judith Miller get out of jail and name him as her source??? She has her waiver in her hand...She could name him with impunity...BUT NOOOOOOOOO....If you libs are right ...She would have nailed him days ago...instead she sits in jail with her big mouth shut protecting someone....Still haven't seen an intellegent answer to that question...Because you cant answer it....Plus I have seen NOVAK talk about this many times and has said many times it was NOT ROVE....Keep digging LIBS...Your hole is getting bigger & bigger!!!!

Posted by aludra at 07/14/2005 @ 3:34pm
Frank, you are making all the sense in the world! Just let it play out, brother! Get the emotions out and let the facts take their place. Both Wilson and Rove have some questions to answer, but more importantly, who is the NY Times reporter covering for? If it is Rove or anyone in the Admin, why? It just doens't make sense!

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 3:36pm
Dan

Got me thinking about Wilson. I'm surprised to find that the Brits are standing by their claims regarding Iraq/Niger. It at least makes the denial look fishy. Didn't know I admit (just to prove one of your points of having all the facts). Still, I don't understand how Wilson would lie in a OpEd piece knowing very well that this could/would distroy his (and that of his family) reputation. It still smells.

Posted by nugo at 07/14/2005 @ 3:36pm
Dude, Aludra, you kill me!

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 3:36pm
Nugo, everyone at that level has egos. Look at Ebbers from World Com trying to pull off a $11 Billion fraud. But that is why I am stuck on Wilson and why his wife never made him sign the non disclosure. Let's be honest, how many people that performs work for the CIA writes a op-ed column? My conspiracy is that ALUDRA keeps saying is that Judith Miller and the Times struck a deal with Wilson and his wife. Have you ever heard of a double agent? Not all CIA people are clean. He also had a lot of connections with French officials which his wife even outlined. Who opposed the war the most? The French!!!

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 3:41pm
Well, actually they are Frank. Because if the claim that Plame was working on National Security Issues and her husband knew about reports that she could even know about and makes comments on them, that is a leak. You also have to consider that if he was working on National Security issues, he is not supposed to share his findings in a op-ed column. make sense?

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 3:46pm
Dan, now you're off in a world of fantasy. Still, there is certainly something fishy about J.Milller as well. Maybe we all will be in for a suprise once the whole story has been told (if ever).

Posted by nugo at 07/14/2005 @ 3:47pm
I will add to Dans comment that ROVE is NOT under investigation...Facts are tough aren't they

Posted by aludra at 07/14/2005 @ 3:49pm
Correct me if I am wrong, but did not Novak say that he had two senior administration sources? Couldn't Judith Miller's source be the other "senior administration" source and that source, unlike Rove, has not given permission to set aside the confidentiality agreement?

Posted by publius at 07/14/2005 @ 3:49pm
And also Frank, the language coming out of fitzgeralds office is "goverment official." Both Wilson and Plame could be considered "GO's". The main issue now is "purgury". Now if it Rove, then go after him. But can you see my concern on the Wilson case?

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 3:49pm
Pub, Judith Miller works for the NY Times. I think Colin Powell's name will be surfacing soon because I have seen reports of Powell making comments about not knowing Roves wife worked for the CIA.

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 3:51pm
Of couse the Grits have no talking points....Im laughing at the superior intellect

Posted by aludra at 07/14/2005 @ 3:53pm
Nugo, we will never know the whole story because the Dem and rep leaders are meeting behind closed doors knowing they have each other and call a truce. They will let the people who really care (us) rip each others throats out while they jump into the BMW's, send their kids to the best private schools and eat at the best places in town. That is why I want the hard right and hard left to figure out a way to communicate because there are truths on both sides. We just need to know how to communicate with one another...kinda like teaching everyone the Myers Briggs Personality tests.

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 3:54pm
I understand that she works for the NY Times. My point is that we know (if we believe Novak) that at least two senior administration officials were talking to reporters about the Niger/Wilson/Plame situation. Judith Miller's source could have been someone other than Rove, thus, she sits in jail while Cooper is free.

Posted by publius at 07/14/2005 @ 3:55pm
Believe me if it was Rove or any other WH staff she would have come out with that info days ago...She is a big lib working for a commie newspaper and wouldnt hesitate for a sec to try to hurt bush if she could....So why does she sit in jail folks????????

Posted by aludra at 07/14/2005 @ 3:58pm
In addition, while Wilson did use stronger language later, he did couch his op-ed piece in terms of "the facts as I understand them." Also, wasn't the part of the Senate report that was critical of Wilson part of one the "supplementary" reports, i.e. one that was not approved by all (or a majority) of the members?

Posted by publius at 07/14/2005 @ 3:59pm
I didnt ask for a response from you grits...so its just fine with me if you dont respond to me thank u

Posted by aludra at 07/14/2005 @ 4:03pm
Frank, let's do a time line. Wilson was sent on a unauthorized trip from the wh that was explained by wilson that is who sent him. The cia ops who got his report said it was "shoddy" and the Intel Committee realized he lied because what the French, Brit and Previous Intel was telling them. Remind you, this is all going on before the "leak". Wilson was hired by his wife, which he lied about and said it was Dick Cheney's office, which is in the op-ed. When confronted about it, he still denied it. He was also did not sign a Non disclosure that would hand cuff him from sharing ANY of his finding with anyone. Knowing full well about that, he went to the NY Times who gave him permission. This is now the time that Rove went to the press to discredit Wilson's op-ed. Do you think they didn;t check on Plame and didn;t read the laws on the books at this time? Novak wrote the story and all hell breaks loose. Rove met with Cooper to tell him "under double secret" terms not to publish anything on Wilson. That by all reporters terms is a "for whatever reason, stay clear and don;t rat on your source". That is in the notes...at least the "double secret" piece.

The story gets out and the NY Times is exposed. The Media is being polled in negative terms as not being trustworthy. If the Times allowed this and Wilson is a Fraud, it crushes the Times...Rove knows this! Also, if the Iraq-Niger story is true, then that justifys Bush's story, making Iraq a "clean" decision. The Dems have to start anti Rove/Bush campaign, which they have done successfully. If you read Bush' word on firing anyone, he does mention "illegal", and by the law, Rove do date has done nothing "illegal". Now Fitz's office is starting to talk about Purgury. If Wilson or Plame lied, that is Purgury. So we just have to wait and see.

Bottom line, Rove is reacting to a trick by Wilson and Plame!

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 4:05pm
Pub, but if Plame is not a covert op, that point on two officials is moot. That is what the law states. This is not the courts where liberal judges can interp the law.

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 4:07pm
My problem with your chronology of events is that it seems strange to me that the day after Wilson's op-ed piece appears, the administration starts furiously backtracking on the Niger/Iraq connection.

On July 7, the day after Wilson's original Times article, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer took back the 16 words, calling them "incorrect:"

Fleischer: Now, we've long acknowledged -- and this is old news, we've said this repeatedly -- that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect.

And soon after, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice acknowledged that the 16 words were, in retrospect, a mistake. She said during a July 11, 2003 White House press briefing :

Rice: What we've said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn't have put this in the President's speech -- but that's knowing what we know now.

That same day, CIA Director George Tenet took personal responsibility for the appearance of the 16 words in Bush's speech:

Tenet: These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.

Tenet said the CIA had viewed the original British intelligence reports as "inconclusive," and had "expressed reservations" to the British.

Posted by publius at 07/14/2005 @ 4:13pm
Publius, I think they had to retract because they 'dicovered" that their own CIA was not convinced of the Iraq/Niger link. The brits, however, still are standing by their claim as of today.

Posted by nugo at 07/14/2005 @ 4:22pm
Pub, you got me on this. I can't explain it. But you also have to remember at the time everything was questionable. Now if you think we should have waited a year or two to make sure we had the best intel to make a better go-no go decision...I am with you.

But now, after all the intel came in, it looks like Iraq was looking to purchase the yellow cake.

That, Pub, is why we should be on our leaders to get to the bottom of, but lets keep media out of the picture. They are all about $$$. The more papers you sell, the higher the ad price goes up. Lets not forget that outside the NY Times, all other papers in the Times family is hurting really bad!!!

Still, I think we are hitting the root issue here!

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 4:23pm
And lets not forget the Economy is doing extremly well and in three years positive growth before the 08 elections, what are the Dems going to go after? They are doing their best to try to nail Bush, and to date, there has not been one true Scandal except for the "Bush Lied" campaign. See how politics work? They are trying to gain the power back...this is a serious issue, but not one that should be grabbing all this attention. Lets get real about Social Security, Making our borders safer, helping inner city kids, you know, things that actually effect every day US citizens!

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 4:30pm
Even if the Iraq/Niger link is true this would hardly been a reason for war. Nobody doubted that Sadam was out to rearm but couldn't in any reasonalbe time (because sanctions and inspectors apperently did their job). You need a little more than yellow cake to make a bomb. Remember that the scenario before the war was that he is an imminant threat. That was not true.

Posted by nugo at 07/14/2005 @ 4:33pm
Dan, I can counter your "refutations" to my refutations with href="http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/press_release/2003/pr07112003.html">this. Please read it slowly and carefully:

These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.

-- George Tenet in response to Wilson's article, July 11, 2003

Mr. Bush's statement was not accurate. Otherwise, Tenet would have defended the inclusion of those now-infamous 16 words in the SOTU. Why was the response to Wilson's article to admit the words should have been in Mr. Bush's speech?

Again, I'd dismiss this whole thing as human error if those had been the only words a Bush regime official had to eat. However, there are a lot more than that, aren't there? No WMDs. No relationship with al Qaida. No justification for war. How did they get it so wrong? Did some sorcerer put a curse on these people so that they cannot say a truthful statement containing the word Iraq?

Perhaps if instead of deciding to go to war and then looking for talking points, Bush and his neoconservative aides had looked for facts and then made a decision based thereon, they wouldn't have so much egg on their faces, not to mention blood on their hands.

Frankly, Dan, the question of whether Wilson didn't sign a nondisclosure statement or that he did and violated it are red herrings. When we come right down to it, the question of whether or not Karl Rove violated this law or that one or none at all isn't terribly important, either. What I want to deal with is that America was sent to war on many pieces of bad information; I maintain that was not an accident and that those were deliberate lies.

The present story fits into that scheme only because the Bushies had to discredit anybody who would dare talk about how the policymakers said one thing after he told them another. That is why Karl Rove, or somebody, talked to reporters. All these talking points form the RNC represent are a renewed attempt to discredit Wilson, since they haven't done it yet.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/14/2005 @ 4:34pm
"All these talking points form the RNC represent are a renewed attempt to discredit Wilson, since they haven't done it yet." PULLLLEEEEEEEZE The RNC doesnt have to discredit Wilson...He did it to himself...Look at the senate committe report...They discredited Wilson...That is why he is so mad cause he is the one with egg on his face...And may I say its an improvement

Posted by aludra at 07/14/2005 @ 4:39pm
Jack, you have a very good argument. And as I just stated before your post, I think we should have waited a bit longer to make sure these reports were on the up and up.

But that is the big picture and one that the Dems cannot figure out how to present in a logical format with one solid leader in charge. The problem with the Dems right now is they have no solid leader and the ones on top are in a power struggle...thus, the root problem with politics.

So, getting back to Rove, which the Dems picked this fight, I believe was a bad decision because this is too much of a "hot topic" that can be argued vigorously back and forth with no one getting taken down. Unfortunately, the RNC is turning the tables and are making the Dems look like a bunch of cry babies. It is a tatic, but until the Dems can come out with a solid leader, I am afraid the Republicans will take the task to the Dems every time.

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 4:43pm
But I still think that Wilson is a Fraud! Had to get that in. :)

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 4:44pm
"Things that effect every day [sic] US citizens".....

Oh. You mean like abusive, penalizing tax policies? Environmental devastation? The looting of the coffers so Halliburton can get ever richer? And in what universe do you live that you see an economy doing "extremly [sic] well"? Is this the same economy that has a staggering current account deficit? The one with a ruinous trade imbalance? The one where the dollar has tanked against other currencies? The one that China effectively owns lock, stock and barrel through purchasing of U.S. T-notes?

Yes. By all means DANCALL, let's get busy on things that matter to the citizenry. Naturally I assume this means you and others like you will renounce your Flat Earth Society memberships, and get busy doing what it takes to throw the Bush cabal out on their ass in '08.

Posted by mewsician at 07/14/2005 @ 4:45pm
Aludra,

It is amusing that you do not know about Judith Miller, but you may wish to read this piece. Assuming she is liberal, just because she works for the New York Times, is a mistake. She was one of the strongest supporters of the Neocons leading up to the war and continuing after it was in progress. Her source may surprise you more than it would surprise me.

http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/

As for Karl Rove not being under investigation, the actual quote said he was not a target. A target is something very specific in legal terms. He is a subject, which means he is being investigated. It sounds as though he may be a target now. That quote is fairly old.

Posted by Baeller at 07/14/2005 @ 4:50pm
Mew, you have no idea how I stand on those issues. For one, I am for the environment and protecting it. I lean libertarian so I think we are being way over taxed. Economy doing well is that people feel comfortable to spend their savings. Companies that you looth are hiring at a mad pace. Unemployment is down, about 5-7 points lower then our top allies in Europe. The EU coming together can not be matched in dollar value because it is still new. Haliburton I believe is still the best company to go with because they are the only one who can perform all the services under one umbrella. However, they should be punished because it is obvious that there is fraud everywhere. But, I understand that investigations like World Com take years to complete so I don;t go off shooting my load like a 13 year old seeing a naked girl for the first time. Get a life!

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 4:51pm
Dan, to answer your question "Why did she [Valerie Plame] not follow CIA protocol to make her husband sign a non disclosure that hand cuffs him from talking to the press about his findings." My reading of the situation is that Valerie Plame-Wilson did not hire Joseph Wilson to make a visit Niger. Her area of expertise was counter-proliferation, and thus, the decision to send Joe Wilson to Niger was not hers to make. Most likely, someone higher up the CIA pecking order made the decision to send Joe Wilson to Niger. It that person who should be asked why Joe Wilson did not have a non-disclosure agreement or what the contents of that agreement contain. The non-disclosure agreement might very well have a provision allowing Joe Wilson to tell his side of the story to correct misstatements.

Also, my understanding is that the conclusion of the Butler Report and the other British and American reports was that although there was evidence that Iraq was putting out feelers about the purchase of yellowcake, none of the nations approached gave any thought to actually selling to Hussein. My reading of Wilson's statements is that is what the Niger PM told him. I am wrong in this?

Posted by publius at 07/14/2005 @ 4:52pm
DANCALL, through the words you choose, you continue to paint yourself with an accuracy I could never hope to match. Just how, exactly, does my "getting a life" enter into the picture, again - ? Do you mean that I should "get a life" by agreeing with you? Would lthe life I "get" involve any identifiable characteristics - such that I will know it when I "get" it?

And as a minor aside - what does WorldCom have to do with anything?

Posted by mewsician at 07/14/2005 @ 5:01pm
Baeller, Are u suggesting that she is a right winger???Perhaps she is protecting Rove?? I think not...Also many Libs supported the war...Clinton...Kerry(well sometimes.....never could make up his mind)until they saw Dean making political points by opposing the war. I think Miller is protecting her company she works for and possibly a high ranking LIB. We will see soon enough...I cant wait

Posted by aludra at 07/14/2005 @ 5:01pm
No, PUBLIUS, you are NOT wrong.

Posted by mewsician at 07/14/2005 @ 5:01pm
Also, although this took place five months after the State of the Union (June 17, 2003), the CIA concluded in an internal memorandum, once it was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, that "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad."

Posted by publius at 07/14/2005 @ 5:11pm
Pub, those are the million dollar questions...who in the CIA knew about the non-disclosure or was he advised not to sign it. As you can tell, I really don't trust anyone. This is a highly sensitive investigation and one was to base a war on. Do you not think that this was under "national security" secret level? Which in turn, scares me more if he is allowed to talk about CIA findings in an op-ed.

Remember, Bush only said Iraq was looking to pursue uranium, meaning he was trying to make a bomb. All it takes with is one dirty bomb to kill 30,000 people. He did it before...he knows how to do it. To answer a previous question about not finding WMDs and other weapons. when we were debating with the UN for over 4 months, munitions were being moved to syria. Where do you think the terrorists are getting their stuff now? All is takes is a solid bomb that could be made with what they are using in the car bombs, mix in the yellow cake and wait for the right day with the winds at perfect conditions. 30,000 people gone.

That is why I was sold on going in early. I thought we could be proactive instead of being reactive. But I am just a libertarian who thinks that you can do whatever you want, but if you disrupt my way of living, I will get you before you get me. Sorry, but it is raw survival!

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 5:11pm
Aludra,

Ignorance is bliss. Read the article I posted. I didn't say she was a "right winger". I said assuming she is a liberal, just because she works for the New York Times, is a mistake. I also said that the articles she wrote were extremely supportive of the administration(which I termed as Neocons). If you do not wish to put out the effort to be informed, perhaps you should stop posting your uninformed opinion in public. Many people are already ignoring you, but others take your words to heart. It is not good to post misconceptions and assumptions, when others may take them as reality. You could also, or instead of reading the article, search for her articles leading up to the war and from the front. I believe they would change your opinion, if it is able to be changed.

Posted by Baeller at 07/14/2005 @ 5:11pm
No, Mew, you acused me of things that you assumed I believed in to paint me in a box. So, I am telling you to get a life because snobs like you think they know everything without checking the with the whole story first.

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 5:13pm
Frank, Honestly, I do want to have everything double checked. Because as we are double checking the 16 words that Bush took back, it looks like our CIA was wrong and there were attempts to get yellow cake. But, to get back to the point, I just want the truth. But when we go after one truth it will open the door to others truths that you must also be willing to accept without calling people like me neo-cons (not you specifically)

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 5:16pm
The piece you posted was interesting but really said nothing...I'm sure you could be convinced otherwise as easily as I my friend..Like I said earlier..I couldn't give a rats ass if you people ignore me or not..Just wait a few days..I think I will enjoy all of you loonies wiping the egg off your faces like you did after the Downing St.Memo,the CBS national guard story, etc went NOWHERE.. Keep it up..Like I said ...the hole is just getting deeper & deeper!!!

Posted by aludra at 07/14/2005 @ 5:18pm
And Frank, those truths are so complex because we have soooo many side deals everyone is guilty because we follow our politicians blindly...on both sides. Which, frankly, is why I believe in a smaller government.

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 5:18pm
All though there is alot of content in the debate here, there is still alot of flaming. I already discussed this in my first post. It is useless and degrading for the person who posted the comment, and the person the comment was directed against.

I do not understand why Wilson, and Plame are under fire in this thread, even though they are close in topic matter. The central question is "did Rove leak the information?" I think this whole forum needs a restart button to rid it of all the mud that has been slung. As for the Wilson digression shame on the left for following the deflection presented by the right. I think that it should also be noted that even after all of this debate, alot of Corn's ideas still stand, and although his tone is clearly calling for action against Rove, it is not asking him to be sent to jail.

Posted by EricCitron007 at 07/14/2005 @ 5:19pm
Posting twice does not make the point any more valid

Posted by aludra at 07/14/2005 @ 5:23pm
Publius, that makes perfect sense, except that the Nigeran PM could have told Ambassador Wilson about it assuming the US would find out anyway, regardless of whether or not he had any intention of selling yellowcake to Saddam.

However, the PM would have also known that the US would likely find some way to penalize his country for selling yellowcake to Saddam, so I don't believe he would have.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/14/2005 @ 5:24pm
Eric, I think we all have come to conclusion to wait to see what the laws are and if Plame was a covert agent. Otherwise, it is a waste of time to debate a editorial's one sided opinion. When we can discuss the law and understanding of who said what in exact text and when, I personally think it was unprofessional to accuse someone of being guilty without the full understanding of the law. The law is the law, and if you want to debate that, then we have problems. Go for it.

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 5:25pm
Frank, I have already called my Senator who is on the Intel Committee that said Wilson lied. So yes, I will make the call after the results are in

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 5:26pm
fair enough

Posted by EricCitron007 at 07/14/2005 @ 5:26pm
It said exactly what I said it did. She was given leaks by administration officials, and wrote the White House message.

From the article:

" While Miller might not have intended to march in lockstep with these hawks, she was caught up in an almost irresistible cycle. Because she kept printing the neocon party line, the neocons kept coming to her with huge stories and great quotes, constantly expanding her access.

The Downing Street Memo story is not over. I believe we are seeing the beginning of a perfect storm(as defined by wikipedia). The Karl Rove leak is just one item. Currently, there are many items. The DSM is another. These items all stack upon eachother. Whereas any one of them can be dismissed with little problem, the more there are the harder it becomes.

Posted by Baeller at 07/14/2005 @ 5:28pm
Regarding Plame's status at the CIA here's what David Corn typed today:

"Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA under what's called "nonofficial cover." She was a NOC. This means that when she worked overseas she did not have a diplomatic passport and did not pass herself off as an embassy official. If anything happened to her, she'd be in mucho trouble. And she worked with a front group that was set up to give her--and maybe other CIA officials working in the field of WMDs--cover as energy analysts. When the leak occurred, she was indeed at a desk job at the CIA. But NOCs can come and go from CIA headquarters. They maintain their cover so they can return to the field if necessary and to protect the operations they previously worked on and the people (sources, agents, fellow officers) they previously worked with. Outing a NOC can endanger more than the particular person"

It certainly doesn't sound like she was licking stamps at the CIA.

Posted by nugo at 07/14/2005 @ 5:31pm
The operative word is "worked". Do you know what NOCs do? They are the killers in the CIA. If she was still in that role, she would not have been seen at public sightings with Wilson...an Ambassador. Now, ask David, how long ago she WORKED as a NOC? If it was within 5 years, Rove is done. If not, as the law states, Rove did nothing wrong. Sorry, but that is the law as outlined.

There are many NOCs that become CIA officials that leave the NOC role and become low level people. It is called a step before retirement.

Frank, Yes, I will support the impeachment effort if the facts come out against him. I am not a blind Clinton Lover that gave him a free pass when he LIED UNDER OATH! No matter if was over a BJ or not, he lied under oath!!!

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 5:47pm
Yes, Frank, that is the Crux of the argument. WTF happened with Wilson, Rove and Plame??? If George Tenent was made to take back his comments because of Wilson's report, that would be an Ironic twist, wouldn't it?

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 5:50pm
Frankgrits,

When you say "reasons other than what was enumberated" do you mean other than the twenty-three (23) reasons enumerated in the Attack Iraq resolution? The real dishonesty here is those who never supported the war posing as authorities on the reason (singular to hear them tell it) why we went to war.

Varian

Posted by Varian at 07/14/2005 @ 5:50pm
Someone really needs to do a timeline for this!!!

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 5:51pm
That varian is a GREAT POINT, but we all know it is called grandstanding and why no politician can be trusted!!!

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 5:52pm
Exactly Varian!!!

Posted by aludra at 07/14/2005 @ 5:53pm
Dan, regarding your question as to "ow long ago she WORKED as a NOC?"

Here's a what I found:

"Yesterday, Plame didn't return a message left with Wilson requesting an interview, but she had listed her employer as "Brewster-Jennings & Associates" in a filing when she donated $1,000 to Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign. She listed her occupation as "analyst."

This is from a Boston Globe piece from 10/10/05. Her's the entire article: http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2003/10/10/apparent_cia_front_didnt_offer_much_cover/

This would indicate that she used her front company Brewster-Jennings & Associates in 2000, indicating that she worked at this time as a NOC, i.e. within the 5 year time frame mentioned by you.

Posted by nugo at 07/14/2005 @ 6:03pm
The real question is, if the intelligence was manipulated to create a way to sell the war to Congress and the American people, because the President wished to invade Iraq, would you support impeaching him? Colin Powell sold me on the war. I argued with all my friends about it. I trusted that he had evidence they had weapons of mass destruction. My belief was that we should get rid of Saddam, because he is a bad guy. We can use the WMDs as an excuse, and once we find them we will be vindicated. This has not happened. Without the WMDs, we look like fools to the world. The intelligence agencies look like fools. Sadly, I believe they were setup to look this way. The President wanted this war, and made the intelligence fit it. As such, I have lost all trust and faith in the President. I have seen the evidence that this war was desired to occur, framed in such a way as to be accepted, setup to look "good", and doctored. I am not sure what to do about Iraq, but I look forward to a full investigation into what this administration has been doing. Fitzgerald sounds like the guy to do it. I hope that the Democrats do not get in his way. He sounds like one that could, with time, find the truth.

No, I can not prove it in a court of law. As more facts come out, it becomes very evident that if there were a split between power in DC, there would be hearings and perhaps the beginnings of impeachment trials.

Posted by Baeller at 07/14/2005 @ 6:06pm
That is interesting because if she is a NOC, then why is she giving money to a Democrate? She was a NOC, but there are also 4 levels that do not include a NOC. A "analyst" is one of the lowest on the level. NOC's have no ID. Now I have heard she at one time was a NOC, but until the CIA officially tells her status at the time, we will all be sitting on pins and needles.

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 6:10pm
I have also heard that is the company that the whole world knows is a CIA front.

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 6:12pm
Baeller,

I had the same experience.

It is stunning that something like the DSM's do not result in a public outcry which is the only thing to get an official investigation going. I assume people still do not know about them since our media didn't make a big fuss (because they would look like fools if true, too, I guess).

Posted by nugo at 07/14/2005 @ 6:13pm
BAE, Now the point you made about setting it for the US to fail is interesting. Wilson made reference to documents that were forged to make it look like Iraq was guilty. The problem is, those documents weren't released to the US until 8 months after Wilson's referral to them. How did he know about them.

And lets not forget that UN inspectors were not allowed into Iraq for 8 years, when part of Sadams peace agreement allowed them to come and go. He also delayed the UN inspectors for months, allowing him to move some of the weapons freely. Did we all forget that large sums of money were found in ratty houses? Do you not think he was moving weapons if he was moving his money all over the place?

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 6:17pm
You know why the Dems are not going crazy? because that will open up the can of worms of what Clinton did in office. What/why do you think Sandy Berger, ex Clinton Sec of State and Kerry right hand man, stole classified documents from a top secret facility. Remember, that this is all connected! And I would appreciate not being called a neo-con for bringing up Clinton. As I told Frank, if the Dems want to go after the truth, they have to be willing to go after the WHOLE truth, which would hurt Bill pretty hard!

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 6:20pm
You ever notice how Bush never pointed fingers at Clinton, but the Dems were beating the drum that 9.11 was Bush's fault and some even made comments that he was in on it? That is one reason why rational think the Dems are full of it. Anyone with half a brain would realize that no one was at fault for 9/11 and to go that far is beyond all measure!

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 6:23pm
Dan, no proof for this (weapon shuffle). No indication either that this might be the case. Don't you think Bush in particuar would be interested in uncovering such a plot? And so far: nothing. Maybe it's time for you to admit that they actually might never have existed.

Posted by nugo at 07/14/2005 @ 6:24pm
Another interesting fact folks....Joe Wilson Outed his own wife on his website BEFORE he went to Niger. By your LIBS rules shouldnt Joe go to Jail?????

Posted by aludra at 07/14/2005 @ 6:24pm
By the way...the DSmemo was a COPY by a political hack...thats why noone cares about it..smells too much like CBS National Guard story

Posted by aludra at 07/14/2005 @ 6:28pm
Weapons inspectors were forced to leave on the eve of the war. They had been allowed back into Iraq in 2002.

Wilson had high level security clearance, he could have known just about anything he needed.

The sanctions have been reported to have worked very well. Saddam had put off his weapons programs until they ended. We put on a nice show with shakey evidence that most of the international community knew was not true. Hans Blix reported before we forced him to leave Iraq, so we could invade, that he could find no evidence that there were any weapons. He was ready to sign off completely on the idea that Iraq had nuclear weapons, or a program that was making progress in making them. He was not ready to sign off on chemical or biological, because there were some reports missing about the destruction of some of the old stockpiles. He stated in his report that he doubted they existed.

We were not setup to fail. Saddam was posturing, but we should have known it. There were government intelligence agencies that knew it. We just ignored them. We set ourselves up to fail.

Posted by Baeller at 07/14/2005 @ 6:29pm
Ok this is crazy...Clinton, Gore Kerry all said he has WMDs. If Saddam didnt have WMDs, how did he kill all the Kurds & Iranians...with spitballs?????

Posted by aludra at 07/14/2005 @ 6:33pm
Yes, people, that is part of the truth that you all some how keep dismissing and if you want to go down the "made it up story", then you have to really look at the time line and history of what was said by previous administrations. Which is why Sandy Berger stole highly classified documents that outlined Clintons response, know how and strategy on Iraq and Al Quada. It is all right in front of us, so if we are going to say we were using faulty intelligence, then we have to also say that Bill Clinton was lying as well.

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 6:40pm
I apologize, Blix could find no evidence of the destruction of VX nerve gas and anthrax stockpiles. He thought there should be evidence, and therefor was not sure about those two.

Posted by Baeller at 07/14/2005 @ 6:41pm
But, the documents that Sandy stole were "lost", or basically he destroyed them. Giving us, the citizens, no clue what went down. Do you smell some kind of cover up? And again, please address the fact that Plame donated money to Gore...a $1000, which is a lot of money! Also keep in mind that I read Boston Herald Piece and also went to David Corn's web site. He keeps on forgetting to mention the years she worked as a NOC. Maybe it just an oversight!

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 6:43pm
I do not know why Clinton believed there were weapons of mass destruction. He lost the ability to keep inspectors in Iraq during his administration. Perhaps, he believed that something was still there. The fact the Hans Blix was there in 2002, and believed there were no weapons(excepting the two cases I have mentioned), is a stronger fact than an ex-President or people in the Senate.

Posted by Baeller at 07/14/2005 @ 6:43pm
But, BAE, we did know that Sadam owned a Chemical plant in Sudan and soil samples that were taken by the CIA said it was the exact formula to make nerve gas...and it was fresh. He owned it and financed it, problem is that it was in Sudan and not Iraq, so when you play the semantics game, you win. The wild thing is a Investigative reporter went to the same chemical site and said nothing they could tell was up...and that is taken for hard truth?

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 6:46pm
BAE, then why did it take Blix 8 years to get in and over 4 months before he was pressured to let him in?

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 6:47pm
I do not know what Sandy Berger was doing. Why do you keep coming back to this? It was a crime, he was charged with it.

You wish to know what went down? I wish to know what is going down. The Clinton Whitehouse was much more open than this one is. They were classified documents, you still would not know what is going down for 50 more years. I don't approve of what he did. I also think it is almost completely irrelevant.

Posted by Baeller at 07/14/2005 @ 6:49pm
Just a few IRAQ & AL-Queda connections..if any of you care for some facts.....

1. From 1987 to 1989, detainees served as an infantryman in the Iraqi Army and received training on the mortar and rocket propelled grenades. 2. A Taliban recruiter in Baghdad convinced the detainee to travel to Afghanistan to join the Taliban in 1994. 3. The detainee admitted he was a member of the Taliban. 4. The detainee pledged allegiance to the supreme leader of the Taliban to help them take over all of Afghanistan. 5. The Taliban issued the detainee a Kalishnikov rifle in November 2000. 6. The detainee worked in a Taliban ammo and arms storage arsenal in Mazar-Es-Sharif organizing weapons and ammunition. 7. The detainee willingly associated with al Qaida members. 8. The detainee was a member of al Qaida. 9. An assistant to Usama Bin Ladin paid the detainee on three separate occasions between 1995 and 1997. 10. The detainee stayed at the al Farouq camp in Darwanta, Afghanistan, where he received 1,000 Rupees to continue his travels. 11. From 1997 to 1998, the detainee acted as a trusted agent for Usama Bin Ladin, executing three separate reconnaissance missions for the al Qaeda leader in Oman, Iraq, and Afghanistan. 12. In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars. 13. Detainee was arrested by Pakistani authorities in Khudzar, Pakistan, in July 2002.

Must be a right-wing plot.............

Posted by aludra at 07/14/2005 @ 6:51pm
It is purely speculation, but I would wage all my money that he moved the stuff of hide it in the open fields, which if probably take a solid year to go tooth and comb. blix is a joke and a puppet to the UN and France. Did you see that China and Russia said the world needs to revamp the UN. We say it and are ridiculed!

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 6:52pm
Saddam played a game. You can not be the dictator of a country, held by military force, if people think you have bowed down to anyone. He played little games. He held people at the doors to places. Every game took action by the UN Security Council, which had grown tired of it. The US began to be the only voice. As time went on, the US could not continue to do it. Saddam won. We left.

The only reason Blix got back in is because of 9/11. The US had extra influence, because of the empathy towards us. We used it to push back forwards on Iraq.

I have no knowledge of this chemical plant. If it was sending WMDs to Iraq, we should have found some. If it was owned and controlled by Saddam, it is surprising the Bush administration did such a bad job of getting the information out. The reason we invaded Iraq, is a chemical plant in a different country? Saddam was a bad guy. Making up intelligence to lead us to war is wrong. If we didn't have evidence, we should have used a different reason or just left him in power.

Posted by Baeller at 07/14/2005 @ 6:57pm
I remember those satellite pics... Lost weapons in open fields? Dan, are you kidding yourself?

Posted by nugo at 07/14/2005 @ 6:57pm
Anytime someone doesn't agree with the administration, they are destroyed. Blix was a good man, until he spoke against the war, then he was evil.

Posted by Baeller at 07/14/2005 @ 6:58pm
Remember when Cheney & friends were talking about knowing exactly where the weapons are (did they lie or were they decieved by "compromised intelligence") but the inspectors couldn't check it because they wouldn't tell?

Posted by nugo at 07/14/2005 @ 7:02pm
Aludra,

Links between the US and Al Qaeda: We supported Osama Bin Laden during the Cold War. We sold and supplied them weapons. We trained them in fighting using guerilla tactics. We have many people in the US and UK now that have travelled for training in Afghanistan. Some people in the US have probably recruited people to be trained. In fact, at least 2 citizens have been found to be working with Al Qaeda. Supposedly the bombers in UK were working for them(all British Citizens!!!). We trained the people that flew the planes in flight schools in the US during 9/11. Oh no! We must be a terrorist state, we should invade ourselves.

Posted by Baeller at 07/14/2005 @ 7:02pm
What stupid logic.....So what is your solution to combate the terrorists BAE????Tell me your plan please

Posted by aludra at 07/14/2005 @ 7:05pm
to Dancall, Frankgrits and other dialogue friends,,been busy and will rejoin later (see my post in John Nichols)

Posted by love liberty at 07/14/2005 @ 7:54pm
BAE, the reason why I bring up the Berger files is that the Senate Intel committee can view them and make the determination whether or not Clinton knew anything. Not to bring up Clinton as the bad guy, but all this is connected! It is why we should be paying attention to the Oil for food scandal and what countries people (political affiliations) were being paid off by Sadam

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 7:55pm
If you still want to argue this from the standpoint of why we went into Iraq, here's a different take:

["]In their brilliant essays on the Civil War for Horace Greeley's New York Herald Tribune, Marx said, look, Mr. Lincoln is only going to war to preserve slavery.... Lincoln went to war to discipline the Confederacy and to say to the South, if you'll help me preserve the Union, we'll help you preserve slavery..... But Marx and others said no, the crucial thing is to be at war. Once the war has started, then the argument can really begin. .... And finally, Marx said, as a war-winning measure, Lincoln will have to make an Emancipation Proclamation. He'll have to do it because it will be the only way of subverting the Confederacy. Let the war begin, but above all, let us be at war.

That's what I think. Once the war had been declared against Islamic fascism in the region and against its totalitarian friends, I knew there were many Iraqis who were ready to take advantage of it, who were yearning for the chance, and that the United States would have to take their side. I also said this in my answer to your last question. George Bush the elder, when he went in to rescue the Kuwaiti royal family, had no idea he'd end up guaranteeing a no-fly zone over northern Iraq. It was not part of his plan. It was improvised at the end of the war. But once he'd done it, he was stuck with it. And once they'd done that, Iraq was, to borrow a phrase, half slave and half free. And there was no doubt in the long run which side the United States would have to take on how that would be resolved.

I'm proud to have been among those who said, well, let's bring it on then. Let's not prolong this agony any further. It's the people who were hesitant about that, it seems to me, who owe the explanation that for some reason is always demanded of me. Not that I mind, of course. In the least. At all. For a minute. No resentment. Whatever.["] -- Christopher Hitchens (but you knew that)

Varian

Posted by Varian at 07/14/2005 @ 7:57pm
Hello Aludra,

If you are going to use the detainee example as "proof" of a connnection, then the US was just as connected as Iraq (John Walker Lind). And as far as Clinton talking about Saddams weopens, HE DID NOT TRY TO INVADE OR OCCUPY IRAQ! Probably because, unlike Bush, he listened to generals (ones who actually faught in wars, not chickenhawks) who told him that it was not a good idea.

Posted by indianabob at 07/14/2005 @ 8:06pm
How MANY "scandals that will doom Bush" have we seen....and they all petered out within a few weeks?

Haliburton, Texas Air Guard service, Downing Street Memo (just 2 weeks ago THAT was everywhere and was "going to result in impeachment, now ...nothing?)...

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2005 @ 8:15pm
Granted Clinton did not go to war, although he justified lobbing a few cruise missles at Saddam for his WMD stockpiles. But the point is...Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and many other LIBS said Saddam had WMDs long before Bush was ever in office. So...how do you explain that?????

Posted by aludra at 07/14/2005 @ 8:15pm
Aludra,

I just saw someone else ask (like many of us) why is that so many individuals, governments, administrations, international organizationz, and intelligence services said Saddam had WMDs, many before Bush became president, but only "Bush lied." Looks like moonbat logic.

Varian

Posted by Varian at 07/14/2005 @ 8:41pm
Of course Varian you speak wisdom as usual...something very lacking with the leftwingnuts. But their hatred for Bush is blinding them so much, logic just cannot get thru....But I hope for the sake of our country they will eventually get it..I am not holding my breath on that though...they have had power for so long they are having very tough time adjusting to their new minority status...I just wish the republican takeover had happened earlier in history instead of the middle of this war on terror..they would rather have power by risking all our lives than helping us defeat this terrible enemy of freedom loving people. It is sad state of affairs for a once grand party that used to believe in national defence & liberty

Posted by aludra at 07/14/2005 @ 8:53pm
I didn't say only "Bush Lied". I said his administration doctored the evidence to strengthen the case. This is very different from "He lied".

Did you know that Saddam asked permission to invade Kuwait, and we gave it to him? We also aided him during the Iran/Iraq war(we also aided Iran). We granted him permission to invade Kuwait, and then we "protected the royal Kuwaiti Family."

You are all happy with the arguement for war, and how it turned out?

As to how I would fight terrorism... I would have invaded Afganistan. I would have streamlined the intelligence agencies. Gotten the cooperation of the world, as they were willing to offer. Iraq was out of left field.

Posted by Baeller at 07/14/2005 @ 9:24pm
Bae, It is a flat out lie that we gave permission for Saddam to invade Kuwait. Where did you get this info??I would like to see that for myself...By the way,many of your lefty friends were against the invasion of Afganistan...Also whether you believe it or not..Iraq is just another front on the war on terror. There are many fronts and many more battles to fight before this is all said & done. So far I still dont see your plan to really fight terror. So far it sounds like a lot of hand holding to me

Posted by aludra at 07/14/2005 @ 9:35pm
By the way BAE, why not answer my earlier point about Clinton..You seem to leave that part of history out of your Bush rant

Posted by aludra at 07/14/2005 @ 9:36pm
April Glaspie quote, when speaking to Saddam Hussein before the first Gulf War:

But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?

Posted by Baeller at 07/14/2005 @ 9:46pm
Clinton regularly destroyed military complexes that were built up, especially those against our airplanes. I believe though, that you are referring to the missiles sent after Osama Bin Laden, perhaps I am mistaken. He did that at a time when he could do nothing else because of the constant attacks on him and his weak position in the country.

Saddam Hussein did have chemical weapons in the past. After the first Gulf War, an agreement was signed saying he had to destroy them. As far as we could tell, he was complying, at least in part. The weapons inspectors were there to make sure he complied fully. Apparently, he destroyed most of what he has, as we have records of almost all of it. The sanctions against him stopped him from developing anything new, but as I posted before there were two types of weapons that were not proven to be completely destroyed. I believe the claim was that the paperwork was destroyed, but don't take that to heart.

Posted by Baeller at 07/14/2005 @ 9:49pm
There is no way to end terrorism. The UK fought the IRA for a very long time. It is still going on, though almost over. Using violence doesn't end terrorism. The Palestinians are still fighting the Israelis, do you believe that if they kill enough of them, it will end? I don't accept Iraq as a front in the war on terrorism, unless you say that we made it. Saddam was not allies with Osama. Osama disliked him. Saddam wasn't religious, he was a pragmatist that used some amount of religion to stay in power. Osama is a religious fundamentalist. He was very strict and saw people like Saddam as a problem. At best, they grudgingly worked together, but there is little evidence of it. My way of ending terrorism is mostly changing the reasons that terrorists are made. Poverty and ignorance. Though, in truth, I see a growth of fundamentalist Christianity in this country, even with the education. I do not know how to combat it, but supposedly I would have advisors if I was the President.

Posted by Baeller at 07/14/2005 @ 10:22pm
How dare you defenders of our President speak up! Please, Please, shutup can you not follow our beloved President and not comment. Oh why do you argue with the unwashed. Do as our leader does do not talk.

Posted by tom kovis at 07/14/2005 @ 10:31pm
Yes, but the IRA didn't like Hitler but they made deals together because the had a common enemy, defeating England! Just because two sides don't like each other doesn't mean they won't help each other take the the greatest enemey. That is the trap we had in the 70's and 80's. We chose to work with Sadam to take on Iran after there take over of the Shaw. After the war, Sadam's ego took over and the rest is history. Same with helping the Afghans take on the Russians. And why the Russians and Chinese came out with their joint statement today about reforming the UN.

Let's add into that story about April Glaspie was immediately fired for not telling Sadam not to go into Kuwait. Do you know who was helping her on the side? Joe Wilson!

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 11:30pm
And lets also understand that we if the enemy, now matter how small their network is and how much everyone wants to "contain" them, all it takes is one nuclear dirty bomb by one terrorist to knock out a city. If we didn;t deplete our CIA and listened to the military experts like the founder of the Delta Forces telling Clinton to pull the trigger on Sadam when he had the chance, we all wouldn't be blogging today. It is a bunch of what if's and sometimes we need to take Risks. No one thought Hitler was going to anything and he was "contained", mean while he grew his military under the radar. And how many people needed to die after that "containment". We all sit around like we know what to do. No one knows what to do and if you think other wise, then why are you not on a terrorist strategic swat team. We all think we have the answers, but we are only told what the media tells us and what we can find in open source government documents. But there is a dark world that is kept far away from us and it can only be handled by people with strong wills, one who who die for their beliefs. Christians did it for years but did not always die fighting. They accepted their fate and put there trust in a higher being. Ghandi did the same and many other leaders throughout history died by defending peace by using peace. The question is, are you willing to face the Jihad Sword and let your head get cut off in the name of peace?

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 11:43pm
Sorry it is choppy, just tired...

Posted by dancall at 07/14/2005 @ 11:45pm
Dancall and Aludra you seem to have carried the ball well while I have been away...the core to this whole dialogue (and was stated crudely by Aludra) is that the left cannot come to grips with how to fight terror (not all there are actually reasonable libs in the world like Frankgrits)...

All this other stuff on Rove and the totally inane charges that Bush lied us into War with Iraq they are just smoke screens for their inability to do 2 things:

1. win elections (if not for Ross Perot, Dems would not have a President since Jimmy the joke Carter)

2. Come up with real solutions to defeat terrorism

Hence, they can only parrot the pathetic Dems in Congress who think that representing your country means whining, calling your opposition names, and the adult version of holding your breath in a tantrum (filibustering non legislative action).

We can't really expect more when this is their example; plus the left wing extremists who are really off the American charts...the Amy Goodmans, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Robert Jensen, and the like...these people I just named hate America and openly want to dissolve our Constitution and replace it with a true Socialist Democracy...

Not going to happen anytime soon and especially if their charade is exposed to the happy libs who don't fully share their views but simply support old fashioned Hubert Humphrey liberalism.

Of course they have their true believers on this site, but fortunately for America, they represent about 2-5% of the people.

Well, this should help to keep things alive.

Posted by love liberty at 07/15/2005 @ 12:13am
310 posts!! And i just read all of them...you guys had a lot of BS to peddle.

I just hope Rove gets his comeupance, he deserves it!

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 12:21am
Lady Liberty (why for which you chose that name escapes me)

Lets get a few things straight, Bush aint fighting terrorism to well, and last time i checked, the Democrats havent gotten a shot at it awhile. Kinda stupid to say the Democrats don't know how, when we aren't in a position to try. You can't take the credit for the good, and then shift the blame for the bad on the Democrats forever!

Don't feed me that Ross Perot, thats old, overpeddled, and politically lowbrow. Republicans want Democrats to get over Katherine Harris and not whine about 2000, well...Get over 1992!

Democrats can't come up with a way to combat terrorism. 2 reasons. First they can't move any of their legislation through the chambers, because, and i reiterate, they don't control a single branch of the federal government. Second, If they do propose a piece of legislation that is publically popular, unfortunately the Republicans can kill it, sign their names at the top and put it in the hopper as theirs taking the credit for it. Thats the way our version of democracy works!

Unfortunatley the hypocrasy of your statement; "Hence, they can only parrot the pathetic Dems in Congress who think that representing your country means whining, calling your opposition names" seems to escape you. You are parrotting whining Conservatives, who among other things call people names.

One of my favorite Ann Coulter columns was very similar. She said something like, "The nincopoop liberal wackos only seem to be able to argue by sticking their tongues out and calling their opposition names." I laughed for hours at her unwitting hypocrasy!

Filibusters on "non-legislative" items (arguably all issues that come up in Congress are legislative) are well within the rules and traditions of the Senate. Tantrum comment is tantamount to name calling again.

I am not to sure what you mean by liberal extremists being off the America chart, i would imagine you agree conservative extremists are too (considering your word choice extreme would mean inherently to far out of the norm); such as Rush, Laura Ingram, Ann Coulter, James Dobson, Grover Norquist, Gordon Liddy, and their ilk, who want to turn the country into a...fascist democracy?

Where do you get your generalization of liberals or your statistics? I think you've read WAY to much Michelle Malkin...its bad for the brain (i secretly read her too...she's kinda cute...its just a darn shame she has such a huge character flaw).

And just FYI, although Jimmy Carter was not the right president for the time he was elected, I don't think their is a single ex-President that has made our country prouder. He is a true American and exudes the American values that our current brood of politician can only pretend to think they have. It does a real disservice to President Carter and our country to call him a joke. And by using Republican logic, you've just deamonized our troops and are supporting the terrorists, President Carter is a veteran!

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 12:40am
Polls that you say are the popular opinion is a bunch of BS. Kerry by all the polls was supposed to win. Even the exit polls told you that. Until the voters vote your people into office, you really have no leg to stand on. In 2000 we heard about the Republican conspiracy to fool the Dem voters. But we never heard the truth that is was the Dems who voted for the chad system to begin with. It was OK for Gore to not allow overseas military not to get their votes counted...man would you want to serve that commander? Then we never heard about the media's debacle of calling FLA early when in fact thousands of registered Republicans didn;t show up to vote in the Pan Handle (1 hour behind) because they were told it was over....Mr Lib, where was the ACLU on this one??? Then in 2004, not one Ohio Registered Dem Politician complained that the polls were fixed. It was the National Dems from other states who said the Republicans cheated, even after the Ohio delegation told them it was fair and square.

You see, after the 2000 election, common sense people realized that the Dem party was being overrun by a bunch of ACLU lawyers that want to use the courts to take over their agenda. The Dems underestimate the power of common sense. You can bitch all you want, but you lost then and you are losing now. It baffles my mind that Dems can't figure this out. I thought I was thick headed, but until you can get the people who bitch the most to actually vote, you are going to have a long and frustrating life!

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 01:21am
Liberal ego...you chose well; and since you also have a reading problem, I am Love Liberty, not Lady Liberty. I love liberty because my family down through me and my sons have fought to defend it since before the Declaration of Independence (if you like you can even see a statue of my Great-Great Grandfather General John Robinson at Gettysburg and I have his saber)and we cherish this country and the freedom we enjoy.

Just because Dems aren't in power doesn't mean they can't propose solutions and so far they have none. They have no ideas on how to do better than the President and other than retreat, I challenge you to name one piece of legislation as you claim they can't get through that would defeat terrorism. Characterizing behavior is not name calling (ie whining, tantrums)

You're not sure that those who oppose our constitution and it's republican form of government (small r republican as you know) are off the charts? Those I named all hate our form of government and openly declare it. And in contrast to the openly anti-americans I named on the far left, provide one quote from the list you named (and I'm not by reference saying I completely agree with any of them)where they have pronounced that they want to completely change our form of government or are members of any organization that has that stated purpose.

Where do I get my generalizations on Libs, oh I don't know; maybe it's in blogs like this or in the letters to the editor to the LA or NY Times; or maybe they words that come out of their mouths on TV (especially cable) or Free Speech TV, or Counterpunch, sources like that.

And Lastly, Jimmy Carter; I stand by my statement; we can thank him for much of today's terrorism. As a veteran I am qualified to speak about another veteran. He is not true to his faith nor to his country. He has done little to draw respect from me,,in fact in the past year he has been banned from Habitat for Humanity which he was so closely aligned with.

Posted by love liberty at 07/15/2005 @ 01:56am
DANCALL:

Tell me, George (bellicose) Bush & Karl (turd blossom) Rove, they're your heroes aren't they? I can tell! I'll bet you even purchased the George Bush (non) action figure? The AWOL patch, was it sold separately?

This is a little something on your hero, Rove, Dancall:

From author Ron Suskind: For Karl Rove, it's all and only about winning. The rest--vision, ideology, good government, ideas to bind a nation, reasonable dissent, collegiality, mutual respect--is for later." Waiting outside Rove's door in the White House for an interview, and hearing Rove issue a tirade about a political operative who had displeased him. "We will fuck him," Rove said, "Do you hear me? We will fuck him. We will ruin him. Like no one has ever fucked him!"

James Moore and Wayne Slater, authors of Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential came to the same conclusion. "He seemed to be driven by a roaring internal engine to control every disagreement, rule every dispute, and dominate every contest," they wrote. "In everything he did, Karl Rove wanted to win."

Rove never would have done anything to hurt Ms. Plame now would he Dancall? Heroes are good people aren't they Dancall? Rove would NEVER EVER do something like this!

I'm just glad they're your heroes Dancall! You see Dancall, many brave young men and woman have perished needlessly in this senseless war in Iraq, all because of your heroes mendacity!

What was that you stated the other night about seeing through the forest? Or was it farst!

Posted by Munich at 07/15/2005 @ 01:57am
Munich...

I've got to ask..is your name because you are a Neville Chamberlain for our times kind of person? you know as in Munich Agreement, one of the greatest diplomatic failures in history.

And to respond to Dancall not with facts (why should you let facts get in the way) but to use as references pure leftwing fiction writers. Suskind is a man who openly disdains Christians and looks down upon middle class americans with an elitist attitude (quotes available).

Posted by love liberty at 07/15/2005 @ 02:33am
Kerry was a bad presidential candidate. Democrats were worried about framing and nominated him. Republicans got a president reelected. It may have been a good thing for Democrats. The Bush administration is beginning to fray and unravel. They have been unable to frame issues and get things done. They consantly have egg on their faces concerning past deceptions and claims. I guess only the future will tell us where the country is heading. What is amusing is that most of my coworkers had about as much dislike for Bush as they did for Kerry. I am in a very red state. The fact that Kerry failed on any level to get a message together or defend himself, lost him the election. I imagine that if someone had been able to do either of those things, they would have won.

I am not scared of terrorism. A streamlined intelligence system would have caught 9/11, before it happened. We had signs. I can think of ways to limit signs of what was coming, were I the terrorist, but this isn't happening. We generally stop attacks.

One nuclear bomb getting into the US... If that is what you are worried about, perhaps we should actually put up border security. Invading Iraq, who had no nuclear bombs(we did have good evidence of that, regardless of what Bush thinks), in order to stop this is silly. You wrap yourselves in fear and the flag. I am not scared. I believe the country is best served by working with our allies. Destroying the image of the US around the world does not help our cause in any way. If we are in Iraq for 10 years, how much will our military suffer? Recruitment is low, retension is pretty good for now; though, in both cases there are reports of shady dealings now. It has been 2 years. We took a bad but stable regime and made it into a war zone.

Posted by Baeller at 07/15/2005 @ 06:08am
BAE, I am not scared. I know we are taking the fight to them. And to Munich's point on Rove, I also like to win. Because in a choice between winning and loosing your life, I take winning ANY DAY!

Munich, I have a very close friend who is a secret service agent and know some others who say the same thing. Behind the Scenes, the Clintons were the nastiest people you would ever want to meet. They tell stories of opening a car door for Mrs Clinton and say "Good Morning Mrs Clinton", response, "Fuck you". Or on many occassions telling them to get their bags. So if you want to talk about the real people behind the scenes, your dear Mrs Clinton is known in the Secret Service as the biggest bitch on the face of the earth. Yet, these guys are willing to take a bullet for her.

What you should also know is that one of the best jobs on the service is to serve in the detail of an ex president. Bush Sr is virtually impossible. When Clinton's term was over, not one Service agent volunteered for his service. Tells you something doesn't it. I have also heard stories about the Bush families rembering every agents name and ask about thier wife and children and to top it off remember thier names.

It just seems to me that the more liberal someone is the more bitter and angry they are. I don't know what childhood issues create this, but I think it may have to do with always loosing and not feeling the sweet victory of success!

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 09:38am
Getting back to the point on hand. When is David Corn going to get all the facts for us to decide in a responsible way if Rove is going to jail or not before convicting him before knowing ALL the facts? And let's not forget that we need to follow the letter of the law and not a twisted interpretation of the law

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 09:44am
Love Liberty (for which i wrote lady, on the assumption that you were female)

I am not all to sure that you fully understand how or republic works, nor am I all that sure you understand what liberty is outside of what the Republican talking heads have told you, and you gingerly regurgitate.

You are right about "proposing" alternatives to the Bush terrorism policies in the sense that Sen. Reid, or others can issue ideas on Meet the Press, or through editorials. But, seeing as you only give credit to your own and blame to those that don't agree with you, I am sure you have missed the many times Democrats have done just that. And again, I must point out, like legistlation, the Democrats are not defending their ideas well enough, and allowing their opponents to steal and put their names on the publicly popular policy ideas. (If you need an example, look at how the new Dept. of Homeland Security was created)

On the issue of your "characterization." Your sentence; "and the adult version of holding your breath in a tantrum (filibustering non legislative action)" is yes a false characterization of behavior, however, and you should no better than to pretend you were just characterizing behavior, the meaning behind it is equivalent to calling Democrats babies. However, you still did not answer for, (prehaps because you know there is no answer for)my main critique your inaccurate account of judicial filibusters.

The reason I ended my paragraph with a question mark was to call into question not only the idea of a fascist democracy (an oxymoron) but a socialist democracy (also...and oxymoron). Your generalization of Democrats is not only flawed, by the fact that it is a subjective generalization, but its intellectually elementary. You seem to have a problem thinking outside your box, and calling into question your preceptions. You defend your ideas with vigor but without substance, and you focus to much on the small "points" like my use of Lady opposed to love, which does not discredit me, or necessarily make me an inaccurate reader.

Where from which have your found proof of Zinn, and Chomsky's open hate for America? You've been reading way to much Ann Coulter, she thinks McCarthy was a true patriot! People that critique America, or don't agree with Everything the government does, are not traitors or America haters. In fact, if you don't remember, our government was formed for us, and by us. That gives us (all of us) a responsiblity to challege power when we don't agree with it. We are protected in our rights to challenge that power too! Right to freedome of speech, assembly, petition, vote, bear arms! And with your willingness to chase people who disagree with you our of town with pitchfork in hand, I think speaks volumes to your proported love of liberty.

Your claim about Jimmy Carter being banned from H fo Humanity is not only false, but its completely disrespectful. And from someone who believes that those in power should be respected, its quite a hyperbole. In fact in October 2006 H for Humanity and President Carter will embark on a new project in Indai, and just this year Carter and his foundation gave H for Humanity $1.2 million. Lets all try to speak truthfully and not just make stuff up as we go along. If you try to defend the indefensible, it just makes you look like you NEVER are correct, so for you own sake, don't propogate rumors or lie in any format. If you can't defend it, admit it.

You being a veteran, (thanks for your service by the way), doesn't give you carte blanche to say whatever you want about anyone you want who was also a veteran. You do have a responsibilty to be truthful in what you say, and actually yes, defaming someone's reputation IS a crime! (Although you clearly have not defamed his record, I am only making the point that you do have a responsibility to be a truth teller).

Dancall:

LEARN TO READ!!!! I never said anything about polls, I called into question Love Liberty's generalization and siting of statistics that Liberty pulled out of their crack. READ! I sent you the link once, and I'll give it to you again!

Click Here for God's Sake So You Posts Can Be Slightly More Relevant [hop.com]

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 09:49am
Baeller I couldnt agree with you more!

Kerry was the best loss we could have had. I think a lot of American's shared your sentiments about his canidacy AND Bush's!

One other thing to note, the Bush campaign was amazing at making it a referendum on Kerry, and not getting their first term record and or future goals brought onto the table for voters. I wouldn't say it was deceptive, but I would say they dodged the bullet on proposing a second term agenda and presenting it to the public.

Also interesting that you mentioned the nuclear issue. Just to give everyone a little more faith in our government, when Bush took office, one of the first things he did, was begin proposing the idea of "Strategic Nuclear Warheads" (bunker busters and mini-nucs). In order to get this ball rolling in the DoD, Bush actually closed the entire non-proliferation sector at the CIA. For those not familiar with the CIA, there are sectors that run opperations for different security issues. (Ie. the Iraeli Sector, South Pacific Sector, Terrorism Sector) But in getting rid of the Non-Proliferation Sector, agents and directors didn't lose their jobs, they were just sitting aroun the CIA and their anchors without any directives or a way to send information back up the chain. We basically left our operatives out in the cold, so we could pursue making new bombs. In fact the job of director of non-proliferation retired in 2000, after the change in administrations, and TO THIS DATE, has not been replaced.

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 09:59am
My sick head thinks we are using nukes to set of the "earthquakes" and "tsunamis". Because if you look at what Lib is saying about nuclear bombs and that we have some that fit inside a suitcase, it is a very scary world! And if you look at that region of the world, especially Indonesia, the radicals were gaining unbelievable strength. After our relief effort, the US is the hero...Problem is, it would be virtually impossible to prove.

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 10:06am
We can thank Russia for the lovely suitcase bombs! They decided they needed them in case they went to war with us. There are rumors that the Russians smuggled a number of them into the US and had agents here just in case. I think some author is writting fiction book about a senario like that...OHH its Pete Early...HA! Nice guy, I used to know him!

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 10:10am
Lib...this is a direct quote from you: Second, If they do propose a piece of legislation that is publically popular, unfortunately the Republicans can kill it, sign their names at the top and put it in the hopper as theirs taking the credit for it. Thats the way our version of democracy works!

Well I assume that use of "publicly popular" must have statistical data to back your statement. So I assumed you were using polls.

So if you want to clear up the mess, can you please show me the facts as stated by the term "publicly popular" that you are referring to?

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 10:18am
Or should I say that is "if they propose" a publicly popular idea, so as LL asks, name a piece of legislation that is popular and that the dems have proposed.

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 10:22am
Drifting a bit from Mr Corn's article, no?.....Karl Rove?

I'm just curious as to TWO points....1. Why the Left, who granted Mr Rove "super-villain genius" status for his "machinations" during the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections, feel that NOW he is "powerless" and "doomed to resignation or firing"?

and 2. Why in less than a week, the Downing Street Memo, which we were all told (by The Nation and elsewhere) would lead to "Bush's impeachment" or at the least the defeat of Republicans during the 2006 mid-terms....has now been fully abandoned and replaced by "Rove-gate"?

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2005 @ 10:22am
Mask, it is pointless to ask those questions. All you will get is a bunch of angry emotional outcries filled with SAT words that have no substance because they do not have a solid fact base case to.

This is a cover up to the bigger story of Wilson and media. I am still waiting for the FACTS and EVIDENCE of the case to come out that Mr. Corn seems to keep ignoring when convicting Rove prematurely.

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 10:32am
Who would investigate Bush? The Republicans in Congress? The Republican controlled Justice Department? The fact that there is an investigator now is a lot of progress. We are witnessing death by a million paper cuts.

Posted by Baeller at 07/15/2005 @ 10:37am
I'll bet David Corn's concern for free speech doesn't apply to this post.

So today Clifford May reveals through much research that Valerie Plame was exposed By Joe Wilson himself working with the known democratic activist David Corn. Has David Corn been in front of the Grand Jury and if not why? Go to the link for the entire story for the below is just excerpted...

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200507150827.asp

This just in: Bob Novak did not reveal that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent for the CIA.

Read -- or reread -- his column from July 14, 2003. All Novak reports is that the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson is "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."

Novak has said repeatedly that he was not told, and that he did not know, that Plame was -- or had ever been -- a NOC, an agent with Non-Official Cover. He has emphatically said that had he understood that she was any sort of secret agent, he would never have named her.

snip

So if Novak did not reveal that Valerie Plame was a secret agent, who did? The evidence strongly suggests it was none other than Joe Wilson himself. Let me walk you through the steps that lead to this conclusion.

The first reference to Plame being a secret agent appears in The Nation, in an article by David Corn published July 16, 2003, just two days after Novak's column appeared. It carried this lead: "Did Bush officials blow the cover of a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security -- and break the law -- in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?"

Since Novak did not report that Plame was "working covertly" how did Corn know that's what she had been doing?

Corn does not tell his readers and he has responded to a query from me only by pointing out that he was asking a question, not making a "statement of fact." But in the article, he asserts that Novak "outed" Plame "as an undercover CIA officer." Again, Novak did not do that. Rather, it is Corn who is, apparently for the first time, "outing" Plame's "undercover" status.

Corn follows that assertion with a quote from Wilson saying, "I will not answer questions about my wife." Any reporter worth his salt would immediately wonder: Did Wilson indeed answer Corn's questions about his wife -- after Corn agreed not to quote his answers but to use them only on background? Read the rest of Corn's piece and it's difficult to believe anything else. Corn names no other sources for the information he provides -- and he provides much more information than Novak revealed.

snip

Corn's article then goes on to provide specific details about Plame's undercover work, her "dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material." But how does Corn know about that? From what source could he have learned it?

Corn concludes that Plame's career "has been destroyed by the Bush administration." And here he does, finally, quote Wilson directly. Wilson says: "Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames."

Corn has assured us several times that Wilson refused to answer questions about his wife, refused to confirm or deny that she worked for the CIA, refused to "acknowledge whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee." But he is willing to say on the record that "naming her this way" was an act of treachery? That's not talking about his wife? That's not providing confirmation? There is only one way to interpret this: Wilson did indeed talk about his wife, her work as a secret agent, and other matters to Corn (and perhaps others?) on a confidential basis.

If Wilson did tell Corn that his wife was an undercover agent, did he commit a crime? I don't claim to know. But the charge that someone committed a crime by naming Plame as a covert agent was also made by Corn, apparently for the first time, in this same article. No doubt, the independent prosecutor and the grand jury will sort it out.

Criminality aside, if Wilson revealed to Corn that Plame worked as a CIA "deep-cover" operative "tracking parties trying to buy or sell" WMDs, surely that's news.

And it is consequential: On the basis of Novak's story alone, it is highly unlikely that anyone would have had a clue that Plame -- presumably under a different name and while living in a foreign country -- had been a NOC. At most, her friends in Washington would have been surprised to learn that she didn't work where she said she worked.

But once Corn published the fact that Plame had been a "top-secret operative," and once he quoted Wilson saying what exposing his wife would mean -- and once Plame posed for Vanity Fair photographers -- anyone who had ever known her in a different context and with a different identity would have been tipped off.

But they would not have been tipped by Novak -- nor, based on what we know so far, by Karl Rove. Rather, it appears they would have been tipped off by Joe Wilson who, the publicly available evidence strongly suggests, leaked like a sieve to The Nation's David Corn.
Posted by no one fool at 07/15/2005 @ 10:44am

Here's a great quote from Joe Wilson's CNN interview:

Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said.

The question remains: what was her status at the CIA?

Mr. Corn rightly points out the weakness in Rove's "I didn't identify her by name" defence. However, those who really believe that an indictment is possible or likely are engaging in some wishful thinking, at least in my opinion. Not only has the law not been broken, but we still don't know who Judith Miller is protecting.

BTW, did anyone read today's NY Times cover story on this Rove business? It was really...confusing. I kept having to reread some of the paragraphs. Seriously...I'm a news junky and it made my head spin.

Posted by Beausoleil at 07/15/2005 @ 10:45am

BAE, these people were elected by the people. It is funny because I remember Dems telling Reps to shut up and wait until you win the vote. Well, what happened? Reps, not only got the WH, they voted off years as well. Tom Dashal, Senate Minority LEADER, was voted out by his people. When Dems can realize this and not whin or bitch about it, maybe in 08 you will get somewhere, but at the pace you are going; having Hillary use third grade tatics calling Bush Alfred E Newman, and have Senators compare our military to Nazi SS Hench men, will not get you any where. I just have to laugh out load when I realize that you could actually do some damage against the RNC but the Jack Ass Dem leaders keep on letting you people down. Get over the RNC and start looking at the competency of YOUR LEADERS!!

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 10:46am

BAE, that is the NY Times spinning. They are intentionally making the story confusing because they are trying to hide something. What should be done is a time line, like they did for us in the old history books and how dectectives work on timelines doing their inestigative work. That is what I have been saying all along. Stop writing opinions and get to the facts and a timeline is the best way to go at it, then you can dig in on each point on that time line.

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 10:56am

Both sides have been throwing around nazi and hitler quotes. I was not a Democrat in 2000. I was an independent, who had no real opinion between Gore and Bush. I realized after the last election, that I am a Democrat now. I am proud of my party. I am not proud of my President. Bush can wrap himself in religion, 9/11 and the flag all he wants, it doesn't trick me. Not anymore. He reminds me of times in US history that I am not proud of. I see Nixon and I see McCarthy. The Republicans may be better at framing things. They may have better control of the media. Even with those, they have lost a lot of people now. They will continue to lose more. People wake up everyday from the haze leftover from 9/11 and our manufactured war. We have to live with these realities. Rove is just part of the slimy feeling coming out about this administration. There are ethics investigations going on. There are scandals. A lot of people still support Bush just because they shouldn't question a president during wartime, or they should support the war and our troops. I will continue to work to make sure that people can separate the war and our troops from this President.

Posted by Baeller at 07/15/2005 @ 10:59am

Ok ok...Hillary's taunt was elementary, just like Rove's taunt about liberal response to 9-11. (Although at least Hillary's was true..Bush does look like Newman)

Republicans are constantly misrepresenting Durbin's remarks though. Its really begining to piss me off. Before another one of you dittoheads slams the Democrats for Durbin's words, go back and read them, and make a post of some substance about it, not a misrepresentation. If you disagree with what he said, say so and on what grounds, but quit mischaracterizing his remarks! He didnt compare our military to Nazis or anything else, he made a remark specifically about the outrageous incidents that happened under our watch by Americans!

Again...Dancall...READ MY POSTS!!! I gave a great example of Republicans taking a Democratic idea (Dept of Homeland Security), decryign it, and then picking it up and claiming it as their own!

And you must be MR if you keep reading my posts and think I sited some poll or statistic! I said publicly popular...for example...Social Security is a puplicly popular government program, but Bush's proposal to privatize SS is non publicly popular...I mean really, do you live in a vacum?!

And FYI our Dem leaders aren't letting us down. I think Harry Reid is doing a hell of a lot better job than Bill Frist! Ken Mehlman isnt a leader, Ken Mehlman is Karl Rove's extension into the RNC...arguably Karl Rove is not a leader either, he's a dirty tricks opperative...so where do you get these comparisons? I know...here's a big SAT word you...your ass!

Dancall, please click here, since you are still having problems with other people's posts

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 10:59am

Well put Baeller

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 11:01am

Judith Miller. Read about her. She isn't hiding a liberal or a Democrat.

I am all for ending anonymous sources except in whistle blower instances. They are obviously being used lately as a way for those in power to attack those outside of it anonymously. Reform journalism. Let us get back to investigating and forget the parroting. I am glad we have blogs now. They find the stories. They highlight them. They keep them alive.

Posted by Baeller at 07/15/2005 @ 11:01am

The LA Time's internal memo, which was guidelines for anonymous sourcing in articles, I think should be the norm.

Its right on the money, and will help to counter the use of the press as a propoganda machine for any party

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 11:07am

Man,

Why doesn't the Left save its piss & vinegar for the judicial nominations? Seriously, b/w the Rove non-issue and every other conspiracy comprising these "daily outrage" columns, you'll exhaust yourselves...and the public, whose attention span is (with the exception of us news junkies/partisan firecrackers) very short.

Posted by Beausoleil at 07/15/2005 @ 11:08am

Actually, lib, I never said that you used polls, I was referring to the use of "popular opinion" based on false information that polls give to the public. They are often slanted to get what the author of the questions want. My reference to polls was to say that you probably beleived that popular opinion was in favor of John Kerry, POLLS showed that Kerry was winning when conducting exit polls. Why don't you take a bit of your own advice and read what I was saying.

And I did correct myself before you went on a "ego" trip trying to make me look like a fool. Again, Homeland Security, a good idea, so what? Social Security. If you are going to trash a proposal, HAVE A COUNTER PROPOSAL. So what you are saying is the Dems are playing politics with our social Security program that by 1st grade math will not be able to sustain itself in 20 years.

See everyone, Liberal Ego is an angry man who does not read what other write, he only wants his agenda and his intellect to shine. I had the common sense to re-read and correct myself, but in the original post, I was not referring to any specific poll liberal posted, only a rebuttle to his notion of "PUBLIC OPINION", which he understands as what fits his agenda. Again, anger and hatred blinds people...and stop using foul language at me!

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 11:09am

follow the money .... halliburton equals dick cheney equals iraq war equals need a reason equals send a guy to get one equals hmmm that didn't work out equals he has the nerve to call dc, kr and man boy bush on it equals out his wife .... follow the money not too difficult oh by the way america's youth, our tax dollars too bad collateral damage .....

Posted by bobdylan at 07/15/2005 @ 11:09am

Bob, Follow Dick Cheney's IRS returns...they are public.

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 11:11am

mask, your question may go to the issue of the conservative media, and why they are hell bent on avoiding the issue of the downing memo. they hearings are being carried out, and ignored by your rightwing heroes @ cnnmsnbcfox. but this one's pretty hot and --as i've posted before: rove is not the issue. he's not an elected official. the issue here is: did bush have conversations with rove about any of this (of course he did--unless he was too busy playing with his ball of string? actually i don't buy the "bush is dumb" agrument, i'm more in the "retarded like a fox" camp)...and will the admin. live up to it's claim that no one who leaked any data on a cia op would be employed by them. my guess is they'll just deny it and refuse to get rid of him. but, again, who cares? right? it's not like at a time of war, these issues should be of consequence.

but:

on the pages of this mag you'll find an interesting argument by liz holtzman that is more of a story, factually indisputable, legally sound, and utterly dismissed by the media also. do you think that's an accident?

Posted by dabar at 07/15/2005 @ 11:12am

and if you think guys are getting paid under the table, wake up because there are too many people watching him. And don;t try to connect his 5 year retirement package that was signed in 1998 before he became VP and extended into the year 2003. Not justifying the Fraud with Haliburton, but clearing some generalizations for the readers.

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 11:13am

DAB, we will not know until ALL the facts that Fitzgerald has comes out. And apparently Rove is not being investigated now...so can we stop all the anger and think about the timeline and why Plame was donating $1000 to the Gore campaign under her covert name and company?

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 11:17am

And lets not forget that Wilson hated Bush's father because he gave him the WORST jobs as Ambassador. So, if Wilson hated Bush and his covert wife was donating $1000 to the Gore campaign, does that not make a CIA operative questionable on what she is putting in her finding that actually may help Bush?

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 11:20am

Don't mean to intrude on all the segways,,but back to Mr Corn's charge....why isn't anyone on the left responding to or apologizing for their inaccurate railings against Karl Rove; as Dancall pointed out (and thanks for getting ahead of me on that one)....Wilson admitted yesterday on CNN

In an interview on CNN earlier Thursday before the latest revelation, Wilson kept up his criticism of the White House, saying Rove's conduct was an "outrageous abuse of power ... certainly worthy of frog-marching out of the White House."

But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said.

It has grown deafly silent as to the heart of this matter by you libs....

Posted by love liberty at 07/15/2005 @ 11:22am

You see LL, Wilson is not asking for him to resign...he can;t because he knows Rove did nothing wrong. He is asking the preident to Fire him. He is making politics out of this now!

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 11:26am

I did read it, I pointed out your falacy, and you just took the time to refocus your thought, so dont claim i didnt read it or was not accurately portraying your post when I did, and you had to clarify what YOU meant!

Secondly, 20 years is a little off isnt it? Check out the Concord Coalition site, they do a great job about tracking Social Security! And yeah, the truth of the matter is BOTH sides are playing politics. Bush is gambling that by proposing a solution like carve out private accounts, he can increase his voter base, appear to be fixing the problem, AND fundementally change social security from a SECURITY program to a new form of retirement account. Democrats are playing politics in the sense that Bush's gamble is really really weak and they want to exploit his boneheaded gamble to gain votes for THEIR party. But by not putting out an alternative, is actually just smart. They have no reason too, the whole debate is just political rangling, why propose a REAL policy to counter a policy based on PR? By proposing a real policy aimed at long term solvency for SS, the Dems would give credence to Bush's pseudo-fix.

You're right, I am angry, I'm angry because you frustrate the hell out of me, buy making some of the dumbest responses to my posts, and I don't have enough faith in the intelligence of our country to just let your posts sit there without a retort. I mean, i've watched our country be systematically decieved for 5 years. And when confronted with fact, I see people like you pretend that it isnt there. Nice shift on me not reading other people's posts though...purel Rovian approach...to bad that unlike when Rove does it, all anyone has to do is scoll up to see through your fib. I really dont understand how Republicans get away with pointing the finger at other people when they are to blame...are you all really that disconnected from reality? Or is it a concious effort, like the little kid in school that lied all the time? And to be honest, this is the FIRST time you corrected yourself, only after claiming that you didn't have to because i misread your post (which i didnt, and you proved false by...CORRECTING YOURSELF!!!) And then you correct yourself AGAIN at the end, and still didnt have the decency to at least admit that I didn't misread your post, but YOU weren't clear about what you meant!!

At least I can take solice in the fact that I was correct, you admitted as much, and your decision to not address anything else I posted, tacitly consents to the fact that you are generating ideas from your posterior (better word choice for you?)

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 11:27am

Rove is not a "target". This is one of those quotes that just won't die. He was not a "target", he was a "subject", in October of 2004.

Here is an explaination:

The Department of Justice has special policies when the subpoenaed person is either a "target" or a "subject" of the grand jury investigation. A "target" is someone the prosecutor or grand jury has substantial evidence to link to a crime, and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is likely to be indicted. A "subject" of a grand jury investigation is someone whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation.

From this webpage: http://www.lawyers.com/lawyers/A~1001633~LDS/FAQ+CRIME+FEDERAL.html

Karl Rove is being investigated.

Posted by Baeller at 07/15/2005 @ 11:28am

There may be obstruction of Justice charge coming out.

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 11:29am

DABAR

Sorry...but is "The Nation" included in "my" "rightwing heroes" of the Media?

I'm not seeing the "wall-to-wall" coverage of Downing Street, like we are on Rove now. Yet, we were told less than 2 weeks ago, that DSM would likely lead to "forcing the Republicans to hold an inquiry" and that any such inquiry would lead to "impeachment of Bush for lying us into a war".

Now....nothing...not a peep. But, there IS constant clamoring for the head of a POLITICAL OPERATIVE?

Why?....I think the reason is simple....revenge. The Left is firmly convinced that Rove was the "mastermind" of "stealing 2000, 2002, and 2004" from them, and they want revenge. So much so, that they NOW ignore a "impeachment scandal" (their words) and send out their "big guns" (Schumer, Reid) to go after Rove. (While BTW, they only sent out the fringiest of Dems, John Conyers, to go after "DSM").

Again....why?

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2005 @ 11:29am

And for you Dems, that means it is not Rove, it could be Cheney or Bush. Time will tell.

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 11:30am

I am fully convinced that Rove was part of the campaign of misinformation leading up to the war in Iraq.

Posted by Baeller at 07/15/2005 @ 11:31am

LL

Wilson might well have said "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity,". But what does that mean? That Novak is allowed to out a former NOC? Wilson only said she was not working in that position any longer but that doesn't mean Wilson outed her. Her cover was already blown! That doesn't make any sense.

Posted by nugo at 07/15/2005 @ 11:40am

here are some "facts" from a guy who can spell and who knows how to string facts together with emotion. ha! i'm playing against the rules. oops! i forgot, one or the other for the nimble-minded who can only handle "the facts" the suit them. stay "on point" as long as it's your point- or should i say one you heard on Fox News. try thinking for yourself. (yes, i know, the New York Times is, in many of your so broadly informed opinions, a "commie" newspaper, blah, blah, blah. but krugman is a trained economist who knows his "facts."

and bravo for the defenders of intellectual inquiry. i have seen grade school students whip up critical inquiries about stink bugs that are more intelligent than this self-serving exchange. no wonder why some of you are hiding behind a computer screen (and blaming Blacks for all of our social ills and teachers for your bad grades, etc.). you have no analysis of how power works in institutions and culture, and this is really quite frightening. what krugman has to offer is a big picture, something your circular tirade is missing.

all i can think of when i read this is what a sad state our country truly is in when there are people like many (not all, certainly) of you who think you know it all, who think bashing "intellectuals" (sorry that you can't read SAT words- just keep a dictionary near your computer), and spewing the Fox party line, and bullying others with repetition of stayed rhetoric instead of engaging in listening and thoughtful analysis is actually a worthy use of your time.

but it's clear that you're angry, too. and i don't blame you. your president is a liar and he's created the most divisive and hated America in the history of this great nation. enjoy your little right wing love fest. i'm sure there are others watching from afar getting a kick out of it and others who find it frighteningly sad. in the words of napoleon dynamite..."idiots!"

July 15, 2005 Karl Rove's America

By PAUL KRUGMAN John Gibson of Fox News says that Karl Rove should be given a medal. I agree: Mr. Rove should receive a medal from the American Political Science Association for his pioneering discoveries about modern American politics. The medal can, if necessary, be delivered to his prison cell.

What Mr. Rove understood, long before the rest of us, is that we're not living in the America of the past, where even partisans sometimes changed their views when faced with the facts. Instead, we're living in a country in which there is no longer such a thing as nonpolitical truth. In particular, there are now few, if any, limits to what conservative politicians can get away with: the faithful will follow the twists and turns of the party line with a loyalty that would have pleased the Comintern.

I first realized that we were living in Karl Rove's America during the 2000 presidential campaign, when George W. Bush began saying things about Social Security privatization and tax cuts that were simply false. At first, I thought the Bush campaign was making a big mistake - that these blatant falsehoods would be condemned by prominent Republican politicians and Republican economists, especially those who had spent years building reputations as advocates of fiscal responsibility. In fact, with hardly any exceptions they lined up to praise Mr. Bush's proposals.

But the real demonstration that Mr. Rove understands American politics better than any pundit came after 9/11.

Every time I read a lament for the post-9/11 era of national unity, I wonder what people are talking about. On the issues I was watching, the Republicans' exploitation of the atrocity began while ground zero was still smoldering.

Mr. Rove has been much criticized for saying that liberals responded to the attack by wanting to offer the terrorists therapy - but what he said about conservatives, that they "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war," is equally false. What many of them actually saw was a domestic political opportunity - and none more so than Mr. Rove.

A less insightful political strategist might have hesitated right after 9/11 before using it to cast the Democrats as weak on national security. After all, there were no facts to support that accusation.

But Mr. Rove understood that the facts were irrelevant. For one thing, he knew he could count on the administration's supporters to obediently accept a changing story line. Read the before-and-after columns by pro-administration pundits about Iraq: before the war they castigated the C.I.A. for understating the threat posed by Saddam's W.M.D.; after the war they castigated the C.I.A. for exaggerating the very same threat.

Mr. Rove also understands, better than anyone else in American politics, the power of smear tactics. Attacks on someone who contradicts the official line don't have to be true, or even plausible, to undermine that person's effectiveness. All they have to do is get a lot of media play, and they'll create the sense that there must be something wrong with the guy.

And now we know just how far he was willing to go with these smear tactics: as part of the effort to discredit Joseph Wilson IV, Mr. Rove leaked the fact that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the C.I.A. I don't know whether Mr. Rove can be convicted of a crime, but there's no question that he damaged national security for partisan advantage. If a Democrat had done that, Republicans would call it treason.

But what we're getting, instead, is yet another impressive demonstration that these days, truth is political. One after another, prominent Republicans and conservative pundits have declared their allegiance to the party line. They haven't just gone along with the diversionary tactics, like the irrelevant questions about whether Mr. Rove used Valerie Wilson's name in identifying her (Robert Novak later identified her by her maiden name, Valerie Plame), or the false, easily refuted claim that Mr. Wilson lied about who sent him to Niger. They're now a chorus, praising Mr. Rove as a patriotic whistle-blower.

Ultimately, this isn't just about Mr. Rove. It's also about Mr. Bush, who has always known that his trusted political adviser - a disciple of the late Lee Atwater, whose smear tactics helped President Bush's father win the 1988 election - is a thug, and obviously made no attempt to find out if he was the leaker.

Most of all, it's about what has happened to America. How did our political system get to this point?

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

Posted by emmafedup at 07/15/2005 @ 11:44am

LL

Sorry, I wasn't that clear.

According to an earlier post by Dancall it is still illegal to out a former NOC within 5 years of her activity. It seems that in 2000 Plame was still active in her position (an ealier post):

"Yesterday, Plame didn't return a message left with Wilson requesting an interview, but she had listed her employer as "Brewster-Jennings & Associates" in a filing when she donated $1,000 to Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign. She listed her occupation as "analyst."

This is from a Boston Globe piece from 10/10/03. Her's the entire article: http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2003/10/10/apparent_cia_front_didnt_offer_much_cover/

This would indicate that she used her front company Brewster-Jennings & Associates in 2000, indicating that she worked at this time as a NOC.

Posted by nugo at 07/15/2005 @ 11:49am

Whoohoo Emmafedup...you by dog!

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 11:51am

And where are Mr Krugman's columns on Downing St Memo, too?

again, why is "Rove" the target now..."leads to Bush"?....well, didn't the DSM "lead" to Bush?...more directly? We were TOLD that it did....and now it's not even in the A Section of "The Nation" or Daily Kos?

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2005 @ 11:51am

I meant, you are MY dog...not by dog

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 11:51am

To answer your last point on what happened to America and how did our system get this way? When liberals did nothing when Clinton lied under oath. (Sex or DOD, it doesn't matter. He lied under oath but was justified that it "really wasn;t important") The ones screaming for truth today turned their backs and defended him then. If the Dems outed Clinton then or Reps outed Reagan in the weapons deals, then politicians wouldn;t feel the need to look the other way when their guy is in the hot spot.

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 11:52am

Nugo, that is the point and facts I am waiting for. I have heard from a ton of people here in DC, that company is a KNOWN CIA Front. So there is nothing secret about it.

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 11:54am

EMM,

"What's happened to America? How did our political system get to this point?"

Easy answer, millions of Americans who disagree and have grown tired of the more than 40 year control that a Democratic House had used to take us down the path into near full blown Socialism.. We had just gotten to our boiling point and worked hard to build the political strength to reverse some of the damage done by liberal politics.

Posted by love liberty at 07/15/2005 @ 11:54am

Guys common...your agruments have not logical connections.

I am not even sure YOU know what you are writing/saying.

Basically what I am hearing (and please correct me, because I am positive you don't realize what you are writing) is tht the DSM was supposed to cause all this outrage and it didnt, or it has been dropped off the face of the earth, so how can Rove's inbroglio even compare? In short we should drop Rove's issue, since it doesn't reach impeachable offense like the DSM which we dropped...or in otherwords you are arguing to give Rove a pass (regardless of innocense or guilt) because it does not ammount to lying to the American public...

THE TWO ISSUES ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE! Do you all need it in pop-up form!?

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 11:56am

Dan, it doesn't matter to what extent (and by when) the front company was know as such. It's still illegal to out an former undercover agent.

Posted by nugo at 07/15/2005 @ 12:01pm

Liberty, do you even know what FULL BLOWN SOCIALISM is?

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 12:02pm

No Liberal, if you READ previous posts, we have a clear and logical approach to this...wait until ALL The facts come out to see were we stand instead of running around chasing our own tails without knowing the full story. It is called Innocent until proven guilty. Everyone that is against you is not saying we should pass on this, we are saying if Rove did anything legally wrong he should be outed.

Know there is also another story here that you keep dismissing and that is the Plame, Wilson and NY Times issues.

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 12:04pm

I do not believe all the facts came out about the DSM, Bolton, the lead up to the war, or actually almost anything during this administration. The more facts come out, the dirtier the administration looks.

Posted by Baeller at 07/15/2005 @ 12:06pm

"While BTW, they only sent out the fringiest of Dems, John Conyers, to go after "DSM")"

mask, you struck the problem quite precisely: in a nyt oped piece by bill bradley, not too long ago, he made the point that every time the republicans lose an election the become uber-republicans. conversely, the "strategy" for the dems has been that when they lose somewhere, they too become uber-republicans. yes, it's a shame that the politicians who claim to represent the poor and poorly represented, do neither. and, only a few on the fringe actually behave in a way that comes close to their rhetoric.

it's true = we don't have much in the way of valid choices and as the economist put it regarding the last election: the choice between the incompetent and the incoherent just about sums it up. so when one(!) like conyers actually defends the principles for which he stands, rather than simply talking about it, i think that at the least we should all listen to the concerns. try not to forget: conservatives set the impeachment bar a coupla years ago...this downing biz, if accurate, surely exceeds that criteria.

Posted by dabar at 07/15/2005 @ 12:08pm

NUGO, gosh, how many time do I have to explain the law. The CIA has not confirmed how long ago she was a NOC. If her last year as a NOC was in 1995, the LAW STATES THAT SHE IS NOT PROTECTED! What I am asking for is a confirmation date of her last day as a NOC. There are a lot of NOC's that step down and take desk jobs that would qualify having a cover in that "company". So, when we get that date, we will know. And if you read and listen to the wording Wilson made yesterday, he is not asking for Rove to resign or go to jail because he knows he did nothing legally wrong. He is grandstanding against Bush as a polical stint to discredit him. What is being left out is the quote that Bush made that he will fire anyone who has conducted ILLEGAL activity. Please get this straight!

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 12:08pm

OH MY GOD!!! Dancall, what even made you think my post was direct to you? And I do believe I said Rove could be innocent or guilty.

To be fair, YOU have been saying that, but not everyone else. Not everything I write is direted towards you.

Please fill me in on the other story though...I am not sure I've seen it, if you could provide a link i'd appreciate it.

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 12:10pm

BAE, and I agree with some of that. But like I said yesterday, if you are going to start looking at facts about what led to the war, you have to go back into the Clinton administration to see what the intel was coming out and what Clinton was saying. That is the part that Liberals will not get through their heads and believe the worlds problems happened when Bush came into office...understand there was history and we must revisit history no matter how ugly it is. If Bush is at fault, then he should be punished, but to go to that extreme, the Dems must be willing to go the distance and start exposing their faults in the 90's, which is something they will not do.

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 12:11pm

Lib, my bad, I meant liberals with an s...you make things too diffucult.:)

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 12:12pm

Dan, no reason get hyperbol. Rather then saying -as you do- that I have no idea when she quit her activity I tried to give some info indicating that she was active in 2000. That's all. whether that's true or not will be seen. But's its more then you have to offer.

Posted by nugo at 07/15/2005 @ 12:12pm

Lib, what story?

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 12:13pm

Nugo, exactly. I don;t know and claim not to know, which is why if she is under the 5 years, I think Rove should go to jail.

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 12:14pm

I just think that Wilson and the media was caught with their pants down and the Dems needed some kind of scandal to go after Bush with, seeing this is really the only thing in the last 5 years that has any sort of meat to it.

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 12:15pm

You're mention to Plame, Wilson, NY Times Article,

I am not sure what you're refering too...i might be missing an angle, so I'd like to read up on it

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 12:17pm

I just think it is irresponsible for guys like David Corn to say he is guilty without having all the facts laid out. His original piece never mentioned the law outlined by the protected act of 1982 and then he does not have the date of her last day of employment as a NOC. Those are some MAJOR facts to be left out when accussing someone of a sentence that carries jail time, don't you think?

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 12:19pm

Yall read todays profiles on Luskin...turns out he's kinda a scum bucket too

I am not sure what to make of it, but why on earth would someone with Rove's power, hire a slimy lawyer?

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 12:20pm

Dan, the post was originally leveled against LL not you. Just to hightlight that there by not being a undercover agent at the time she was outed -as Wilson mentioned yesterday- could still be illegal.

Posted by nugo at 07/15/2005 @ 12:21pm

Its human nature to make up your mind before the court does. Everyone does it, so to be fair, its the most honest of discussions. We all can sit back and say "We just cant be sure till the verdict is in" But thats not honest communication with one another. We all get gut feelings, and sometimes we are wrong, but you really can't get upset about someone like Corn...a columnist making prediction or based on available facts, a judgement.

After all, isnt that the Administration's line on how we got into Iraq?

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 12:23pm

Lib...

do I know what full blown socialism is? Well like the old saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". For Conservatives, we see that this nation since Roosevelt has come as close to it as we ever want to experience. Let's see, Social Security, Government Run education, high taxation, government intrusion and control over health care, heavy gun control, and the recent Supreme Court Emminant Domain decision. Those would be enough in my books for a socialist country.

Posted by love liberty at 07/15/2005 @ 12:25pm

There are plenty of article and you may dismiss this one, but check out the RNC website...http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=5620

Start connecting the dots. When Wilson got the job suggested by his wife, he never signed a non-disclosure which is standard protocal by the CIA to stop people from running to the press...

And then realize that Wilson hated Bush's father and his "undercover" wife was making donations under her name to the Dem party.

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 12:26pm

Ok...so thats a NO with a whole bunch of distracting verbage that really wasnt needed.

All you really needed to say was "too close for my comfort."

But you DONT know what full blown socialism is.

So, i pose a new question, do you know what a true socialist system would look like (hint. the USSR wasn't it)

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 12:28pm

Dancall

I already read that one :-\

It gets dangerous when you have to say stuff like "connect the dots." That usually means that its not fact based, but purely circumstantial. Egh...thought maybe there was a nother scandal brewing.

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 12:29pm

Lib, your question on Plame status is valid...but the point like Dancall makes is that based upon the evidence and statements we have up to this point, Rove appears not to be guilty of anything illegal or unethical.

If would think if there were plans for Plame to return to covert status, Wilson would have added that plum to his admission on CNN yesterday. That would be consistent with the way he levels charges against the administration.

So, as Dancall and others have consistently inquired of all of you on the left, where is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? or do you admit that lacking clear evidence, this is just more political hyperbole that has gone on for ever.

Posted by love liberty at 07/15/2005 @ 12:30pm

Lib, I can understand the point. But look at the emphasis on the word Did in the title and then not have the facts to back up what defines "Classified Information". Thus my problem with Corn misleading people who will get half their info from the title and then only read part of it who then go blabber at the mouth without knowing the whole story. He is supposed to be a professional and I believe his tricks are extremely unprofessional, especially if he is a man of the truth!

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 12:31pm

Dancall,

From all I have heard, Bush senior sent a letter to Wilson after the article, praising and agreeing with him. Bush senior also praised him after his actions in Iraq. Wilson hated him after all of that? Very strange.

Posted by Baeller at 07/15/2005 @ 12:31pm

Dancall,

A point of clarity. When an agent is undercover, they don't cease to exist. They can make donations, go shopping, have credit cards, and even a family. It only means that their connection to the government is not known outside of intelligence channels. Its silly to say insinuatethat her donations to the Dem party either A)make her a fair target or B)prove she was not undercover at the time

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 12:33pm

Well we can play semantical games about David Corns title all day long. And using Luskin's legalese Corn's title doesnt suggest that Rove KNEW it was classified...just that he leaked it

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 12:34pm

I don't care if Bush fires him or not. It is destroying Bush. It will be amusing if he is indicted. Whether or not he is, I believe that this will harm the administration. I think he should be fired for leaking the name, even if it wasn't a crime. As did President Bush, before it was made public that Rove was the person that leaked the name. You will write him a blank check, and trust always in the chosen one, but there are others that won't. Those are the ones I am concerned with. I am not an extremist. I am not even what is considered a liberal, as far as I understand the latest definitions. The koolaid sure is good, isn't it?

Posted by Baeller at 07/15/2005 @ 12:35pm

After Bush senior praised him, he sent him to the lowest level Ambassador job. It is politics...kinda like calling someone an asshole with a smile on his face.

That actually reminds me of a story of what Dems used to rip Bush sr on. The way he pronounced Sadams name used to piss him off. So he kept saying it over and over and over, driving him crazy. But the intellects on the left would bash Bush because he is not worldly and couldn;t pronounce his name correctly.

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 12:35pm

Yeah...i didnt hear about Bush Sr hating him either.

Wilson is buddies with Scocroft and Baker, and all of Sr's cronies

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 12:35pm

But Lib, if he leaked it, does it matter if she is not protected. Have you ever thought for one second that Rove knew this would get out and the liberals would over react and then he will have a field day exposing Wilson and the liberal media? As LL said before, Rove is the genius behind the scene. He would not be this stupid!!!

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 12:37pm

Bush Sr was laughing his ass off during an interiew when someone asked him about it. He said something to the effect of they just don;t learn!

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 12:39pm

I agree B,

But i do think keeping Rove would do FAR more damage to the entire Republican party than firing him, regadless of the outcome. If Bush fires him, it allows Bush, and the administration to save face, kicking the can of Republican Fatigue down the road. But if Bush holds on to him, even if he is exonerated, I think people will see that as codling slime...I think Rove's position a Chief of Smear and Slime is cementing quickly if not already cemented in the public mind. I may be wrong, but thats how i'm reading it.

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 12:39pm

LL

I don't think anyone disputes the "innocent until proven" presumption.

However, since we have an official investigation going on and the CIA got really pissed as well someone must have done something wrong. Everyone is focusing on Rove/Bush because of all the categorical denials the last two years. Whether Rove really did break the law will be seen but he's the "prime suspect" as for now.

Posted by nugo at 07/15/2005 @ 12:41pm

Dancall,

Rove is not the genius everyone portrays him to be. The best attribute of Rove is that he crosses the line and doesn't think twice about it. Most of his ideas, and politicing is actually fairly elementary. Its just that he does the stuff nobody else would think acceptable. Look at his entire career and Lee Atwater was his mentor. The biggest problem Dems have at countering Rove, is two fold. 1) They are scared that they can't do the same thing and get away with it (probably well founded fear) and 2) Rove's elementary politicing is so stupifying many of the Dems look at it and say "Nobody will buy that load of bull-hockey" and they counter Rove with inaction (A la John Kerry's countering the Swift Boat Vets)

Rove aint Mr. Smartypants...He's Duff the schoolyard bully

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 12:44pm

For anyone who wants to know exactly what the truth is about every last detail of the Karl Rove issue, read Paul Krugman's column in today's (Friday's) NY Times. It should, in fact, be required reading for every single voting citizen in this country. Below I've attempted to include the link to the printer-friendly version (don't know if I'm successful, however):

Posted by mewsician at 07/15/2005 @ 12:46pm

Nope. Not successful. Don't understand what I did wrong - but it's easy to go the NYT and look it up!

Posted by mewsician at 07/15/2005 @ 12:47pm

Well, the CIA may be pissed and using the Rove tatic to expose Wilson and his wife...ever thought of that? remember, Bush's Dad ran the CIA... Listen, if the CIA had hard evidence against Rove, Bush would have already fired him. The issue I keep driving at and why the CIA may be pissed, is it exposed the CIA with Plame and how they are lax in following protocal.

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 12:47pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/opinion/15krugman.html?hp=&oref=login&pagewanted=print

Posted by mewsician at 07/15/2005 @ 12:48pm

The Swift Boat deal hurt Kerry and I am sorry, there are plenty of guys that disagreed with his war hero status. That was the biggest mistake Kerry Made. He tried using his controversial service as a mainstage. He should have kept that low key because it exposed his trail that he was after political office during his tour in Nam and what he did to get there. I am not discrediting his service, he just should have not listened to his advisors to go after the "Vietnam Vet" vote...HUGE Mistake!

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 12:51pm

Lib re continued socialism question: if I go by the views of the Socialist orgs like the International Committee of the Fourth International (whose web site is the World Socialist Website) or People's Weekly World affliated with the Communist Party USA, or how about Bob Avakian and the Revolutionary Work and his cohorts like Larry Everest and Michael Slate?...

Using just some of these (and they should be experts right?) my list would include Cuba, Venezuela, China, North Korea, Brazil (actually they are disappointed with Lulu), to name the most popular

Posted by love liberty at 07/15/2005 @ 12:53pm

Dancall,

You mean wait until the trial happens, and the indictment? The facts are much more readily available. Why doesn't Bush just ask Rove what he did, and if he did it? If Rove says he did nothing, the President can get up on national TV and say that Rove is innocent. The President does know if she was covert.

Posted by Baeller at 07/15/2005 @ 12:54pm

The funny thing is Bush Sr. ran the CIA for a relatively short stint. And just FYI, the CIA unlike the military is traditionally fairly liberal. If they were playing politics, most likely it wouldnt be in the current administrations favor. But i doubt they are playing politics!

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 12:54pm

Well you silly lefties have shot your wad again...I am so enjoying watching all of you made total & utter fools out of yourselfs. Please OH please keep acting the same, talking the same, acting desperate as you have for the past 4+ years..go after all the kooks for your base that you can...and we will continue to crush all of you TRAITORS like the grapes that you all are!!!!!!!!!!God BLESS Karl Rove, W, & most importantly AMERICA

Posted by aludra at 07/15/2005 @ 12:56pm

Dan, again this is pure speculation. Fact is still that Rove's involvment was denied furiosly while he was sitting right in the middle of the whole thing.

Whether he's guilty is not that important (would enjoy to see it happen, though). But what is happening now is that it torpedos Bush's credibility and perception in the public.

Posted by nugo at 07/15/2005 @ 12:58pm

That NY Times piece means nothing and again is full of opinion. The truth that Bush was lying about Social Security. Why don;t you give me the explanation of how we are going to sustain the current SS program? Would love to hear that after the baby boomers retire, our work force is going to cut cut by over 25% and not have enough workers to support the retired Baby Boomer gen. Then on top of it, people can;t afford a lick right now because we are being taxed up the butt to make up for half of Americans who never pay taxes but will be covered by SS.

Keep reading the Times to get your brain washing. Just wait to see the facts that are not emotional driven...my goodness!

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 1:00pm

I bet George Bush Sr. is laughing now. Especially when his opinion appears to be something to this effect(quote from him):

Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have 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.

Sources, in that case, means agents not anonymous leaks. I guess if he is laughing, his opinion must have changed from utter contempt and anger to one of acceptance as long as it is for a politically motivated reason to destroy the credibility of someone.

Posted by Baeller at 07/15/2005 @ 1:00pm

dream on NUGO

Posted by aludra at 07/15/2005 @ 1:00pm

Liberty, again you have made sure to prove my point. All countries you listed are...drum roll...Communist (often misnamed socialist)

There is a difference between communism and socialism. Its not as nuanced as my friends on the right would like to make it seem. But my suggestion is to check out Engles and Marx. That is socialism from its original authors.

About the socialistic parts of our society, well...we are a interesting version of a Republic, or as many call it, a representative democracy. Our constitution enshrines some of those social aspects you may not like, such as

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Social Security IS a social program...but you know...just like the Constitution says, we are all in this together, and that is a way we can provide for the general welfare, and domestic tranquility. Without the socialist aspects of our nation that you so openly abhor, we wouldnt have police, military, interstate roads, minimum wage, public education, or libraries where you can check out Marx and Engles!

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 1:04pm

Nugo, Maybe Rove never told anyone? Especially McClellan, because he understood that he might slip under questioning. The fact that Bush said I will get rid of anyone who did something "illegal" still doesn;t get through to you.

BAE, Bush is saying nothing because ANYTHING he says will be twisted and turned, so I think he is smart and taking his lawyers advise to not say a word, which is a constitional right under the 5th ammendment, epecially during a time of a FEDERAL INVESTIGATION!\

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 1:04pm

Aludra, please keep going on. It is entertaining.

Posted by nugo at 07/15/2005 @ 1:05pm

re Mew and others recommending to read Paul Krugman...a little economics 101...economists are like Baskin Robins, 31 flavors. There is no such thing as a totally objective economist. Right or left, their data and conclusions are always slanted in favor of their political prejudice. That is the honest answer and neither right nor left people of serious thought would ever make a true conclusion based on the economists. You only pitch your view hoping your bias carries the public debate or more importantly.... if you are in power, your economic views are implemented over opposing views.

Posted by love liberty at 07/15/2005 @ 1:05pm

preamble, i don't know why i wrote prelude..but its the preamble to the Constitution

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 1:06pm

BAE, nice try, taking words out of context. Does he have to say NOC to make you happy? Agent has many levels of understanding. If you ask 10 people, you might get 10 different answers.

And where the hell where you people when Clinton lied under oath?

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 1:06pm

MEWSICIAN i alread posted krugman's article here. scroll up. you'll see it (at 11:44 am).

Posted by emmafedup at 07/15/2005 @ 1:09pm

Hey Lib, so is taking a man;s house is good for social issues, no? See how the liberals think one way and conservs think the other. When you see social, you refer to socialism. when we see social, it means each individual is reponsible for their own actions which will then boost the social well being of the community

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 1:09pm

I wonder if Bush regrets that he gave the impression over and over again that he would discharge anyone involved in the scandal. Notice I didn't say that he stated he would discharge anyone involved, in fact he carefully denied that he would discharge anybody involved unless they were first convicted by a criminal court. But everyone who was listening (maybe not carefully enough) at the time concluded that Bush was stating that if anybody in his administration was found to be connected with the disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity, they would be discharged. If anyone was really paying attention, maybe they would have realized that Bush wasn't trying to get to the bottom of this because he was unwilling to investigate the charges whatsoever. While Rove may yet have a legal defense, the impression that Bush created will be one of deception and lies. Even if a non-political person is found to be the source of the leak, and if Plame had not been overseas in the last five years, she was still a covert operative in the CIA, and identifying her was not a nice thing to do.

The claim that Rove was doing a service to the world by verifying the connection between Wilson and his wife in the CIA is laughable. Cheney wanted to know about Niger, the CIA sent a qualified operative, who reported back to the administration. Maybe the administration thought Wilson did a subpar job, or thought Wilson's conclusion was unfounded. Nevertheless, exposing the Plame connection was purely partisan hackery.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/15/2005 @ 1:10pm

All this talk about Kerry reminds me, while we're on the subject of leaking classified information, Kerry disclosed the name of a CIA secret operative, Fulton Armstrong, during confirmation hearings for John Bolton even as Bolton tried to keep him from doing it. Shouldn't we be demanding Kerry's resignation as well? I mean, to be consistent and all? Come on, I want to hear what our excuses will be?

Posted by jeck at 07/15/2005 @ 1:11pm

Dan, no, I'm aware of it. But I'm not talking about bush firing Rove (in fact, I'm glad he hangs on). Again, the public perception will be that the Reps essentially screwed up. And public perception is key. It's the corner they put themselves in.

Posted by nugo at 07/15/2005 @ 1:11pm

Because, this country was built of freedom of the individual, not the freedom of the government to impose social programs that needs taxes to fund others who choose not to go to school and be accountable for their actions. Some of our brothers and sisters do not have the same abilities as some of us, so the communities repsonibilites are to help them...which is a STATES RIGHT, NOT A GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED PROGRAM!

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 1:12pm

Isn't THIS passage from Mr Krugman's column a bit "telling"?

"Ultimately, this isn't just about Mr. Rove. It's also about Mr. Bush, who has always known that his trusted political adviser - a disciple of the late Lee Atwater, whose smear tactics helped President Bush's father win the 1988 election..."

Lee Atwater???.....Paul still holding a grudge for something that happened nearly TWENTY years ago?

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2005 @ 1:13pm

Dancall, i never said anything of the sort, you are making leaps past my narowly focus post.

Our system has socialist aspects, i didnt say it is socialist!

Social programs are socialistic in nature! Unfortunately for you 1920s Social Darwin types, our contry isnt founded on solopsism, its founded on society and social interactions, commonwealth!

Don't take my post any further than I left it, that is SPECIFICALLY why i narrowly focused. And for the record, I do not support the immonent domain decision recently passed down.

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 1:13pm

Nat, Bush has turned over the investigation to the officials who handles that role. He is wide open and Rove has been wide open to questions. When the truth is revealed then we can make judgements of who was right and who was wrong.

And I believe that if you get Bush out of office, then Cheney is president, which I don;t think you want! Then Condi Rice will step up and get serious face time for the AMerican people to see how great she is. A black strong conservative woman is your biggest nightmare!!!

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 1:16pm

Dan, you are right about one thing, the country was founded on protecting individual rights, but not EACH individual, ALL AMERICAN individuals...I don't understand this movement back toward social darwinisn...it blows my mind...Our Consitution LIMITS the power of the government and GRANTS liberties to all Americans, so the individual argument is really not honest, we are a collective group of individuals, individuals without solipsism...

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 1:17pm

You mean like state that are still commonwealths? You mean state right to run their community the way they want it to be run without Goverment intervention?

Please elaborate...

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 1:17pm

I think Mr. Corn has a lot of explaining to do...maybe in front of the grand jury...He knows what I am talking about..I think Mr. Fitzgerald will be calling him very soon..Better not plan on any vaction time Mr. Corn

Posted by aludra at 07/15/2005 @ 1:18pm

Condi Rice never got the memo that al Qaeda might try to fly airplanes into buildings on U.S. soil--er, did she?

Posted by nathanhale at 07/15/2005 @ 1:18pm

Liberal, I am a libertarian, so lets agree to disagree now. Which is why I actually agree with some of the issue liberals bring up, but do it such a unorganized way that the message confuses people. This then Drives the engine of the Roves of the world to destroy progressive ideas.

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 1:19pm

Listen, Rove could have cleared this all up. What makes it suspicious is the cover up of Rove et als involvement. If Rove and others were clean, or innocent whistleblowers as the WSJ is proposing, then all the stonewalling, Luskin's retarded spin, and Rove's shadow lurking isnt necessary, and the millions of dollars spent on a special prosecutore wouldnt be necessary. Just chew on it for a bit...rationally please!

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 1:20pm

Folks, suggest to continue the discussion over a beer or two. Wonder how that would end.

Posted by nugo at 07/15/2005 @ 1:20pm

COrn was just on Fox news...

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 1:20pm

Dancall, on the socialist issue, i was going to pose the same idea after reading you post a few back :) So i guess...Agreed!

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 1:21pm

I agree with Rove coming clean. But I think he was baiting the media into this...if he comes out clean with wilson and the story of Iraq pursuing Uranium in Niger coming to light, he has done his job! Think on that and chew it.

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 1:22pm

We should absolutely make a drinking game out of this thread!

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 1:23pm

I have to run. Talk to you all later...

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 1:24pm

Think on that and chew it, although I understand what you meant, i think is rather offensive.

Chew on that, is a term of speach...Think on that and chew it sounds leud!

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 1:24pm

That would be a hoot! But, seriously, gotta run

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 1:24pm

Got to get it right, though: Boston Lager or Coors Light?

Posted by nugo at 07/15/2005 @ 1:25pm

Nattiebumpo,

He didn't do a good job of pointing that out. In fact, I am not sure I believe it is true, even now. He was upset about her being outed. He would know if she was covert. McClellan claimed that was not the way the Whitehouse operated. No one would have been given authority to do that. They vouched for Rove. He was asked if anyone involved would be fired, and Bush said yes. It is interesting how things turn around. Luckily, he has the followers that will believe his spin, even when history says otherwise.

Posted by Baeller at 07/15/2005 @ 1:26pm

Politics should be treated like guys in a bar room fight. They angry, beat each other up, then shake hands and drink together.

I think when we can all understand this mentality, we would all do ourselves a big favor!!! And if you want to hear the best world political analogy, watch the movie Team America: Assholes, Pu##sies and D$cks. It is classic!!!!

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 1:28pm

Just to piss off the liberals, I will go with Coors Light, huge supporter of the NRA. :)

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 1:29pm

There is no middle anymore. I miss the middle. I miss the moderates. Now it is..."You are either with us, or against us".

Posted by Baeller at 07/15/2005 @ 1:30pm

Dan: You sound like you're against federal power. Why do you support such a strong federal government as we have in power these days?

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/15/2005 @ 1:31pm

i wouldn't call krugman's article the truth with a capital "t." he's giving you the facts as he sees them and you're free to read them as you see them. just like LL reads socialism as being responsible for america's political ills over the past 40 years. LL is exactly the type of person who shuts down engaging debate. he comes on and says, EMM, here's your question (no, not really- um, where did those quotes and words come from anyway?) and then gives his answer (which is, I'm right and your wrong. end of story.). he blames a system (socialism) as if it's a monolith. whatever. blowing smoke just to piss people off. it's bullying, just like the right/left wing pundits on Fox and other Mainstream Media outlets who don't have an intelligent bone in their body (Bill O'Reilly). The president, for that matter, is similar. He's got taking points, for goodness sake, because he can't form a sentence on his own. He's a dumb ass who couldn't even run a ball club or an oil company or make decent grades in college and he's running this country into the ground. And here you all are defending this ignorant texan and his crooked family and his corrupt whitehouse. it's laughable. you've got the facts in front of you. why don't you try investigating some independent news sources. indie news isn't sponsored by corporate or religious interests so it has the people's interests at heart, not some ideological tenet driving it's writing or bottom line. try and get your facts from an indie source and come back to your keyboards and bang out something of substance. see what materializes. perhaps you'll all learn something new from each other, then, instead of stroking one another's ego's or fueling your collective road rage, you'll actually produce a decent dialogue that others can join in on.

Posted by emmafedup at 07/15/2005 @ 1:31pm

I'm gonna just go photocopy the Constitution and set up my own country in my living room!

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 1:32pm

brilliant...probably as brilliant as your chrome dome or your beer belly.

"Politics should be treated like guys in a bar room fight. They angry, beat each other up, then shake hands and drink together.

I think when we can all understand this mentality, we would all do ourselves a big favor!!! And if you want to hear the best world political analogy, watch the movie Team America: Assholes, Pu##sies and D$cks. It is classic!!!!"

Dancall finally reveals his true colors. i knew you and your buddies were a bunch of l*@ser white guy whankers. you never quite grew outta high school mode, did ya, dan? no wonder why you're anti-intellectual. eeeewwwwwwwww.

Posted by emmafedup at 07/15/2005 @ 1:43pm

Emmafedup

What are some indie news rags you suggest?

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 1:46pm

yeah, it is interesting the dichotomy of the left and right arguments. The right does seem to be anti-intellectual, anti-freethought...

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 1:49pm

Plato and Jesus both caution against repeating what others have said as defense for your own thoughts! Or in other words, cautioned against being anti-intellectual

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 1:50pm

Yeah while you lefties are anti american..proud of yourselves?????

Posted by aludra at 07/15/2005 @ 1:51pm

Baeller: you said

"He didn't do a good job of pointing that out. In fact, I am not sure I believe it is true, even now. He was upset about her being outed. He would know if she was covert. McClellan claimed that was not the way the Whitehouse operated. No one would have been given authority to do that. They vouched for Rove. He was asked if anyone involved would be fired, and Bush said yes. It is interesting how things turn around. Luckily, he has the followers that will believe his spin, even when history says otherwise."

Bush said he was upset about her being outed, but didn't say he would discharge anybody until they were convicted. If it turns out that Plame was not overseas in the last five years, then the IIPA may not require he be convicted.

I have heard some suggestions, but little analysis, as to whether he would be convicted under other statutes. Does anyone have insights about how the Rove fiasco would play out under other relevant law?

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/15/2005 @ 1:54pm

No Ema, I know how to get the job done. I just look at liberal puss bags that sit around and complain about things instead of getting stuck in and getting dirty. That is what this country was founded on. Not to be run by a bunch of coffee drinking losers who sit around and discuss world politics and how their ideas are always the best.

You will never get over the fact that you were the losers in Highschool or college that didn't get the ladies or guys that you wanted because you didn;t have the balls to go after what you want. You were taught by you liberal parents that you are always in the right and if someone says other wise, we will sue them. It has nothing to do with being an intellect,m which you just showed your intellectual snobbery! It has to do with surviving in a world of chaos and understanding that I was taught to protect puss bags like you when a bully is kicking the crap out of you!

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 1:55pm

Nat, I would think that using his (Rove's) position and excess to information for smearing a political opponent could be an offense.

Posted by nugo at 07/15/2005 @ 1:58pm

and buy the way, was that a racial slant against being a white guy? Oh thats right, you are liberal and can get away with racial and antireligious statements.

FYI, JC Watts is going to be a future president. Obama, can;t even hold JC;s jock strap!

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 2:04pm

I was once told I could never be an intellect because I believed in god...that was a college professor!

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 2:07pm

Emm,

thank goodness we have your participation to remind us of what true wackoism looks like...I probably spend far more time listening and reading from Free Speech TV, Amy Goodman, Counterpunch, and the rest than you have ever listened to a true conservative.

In fact, I don't have to spend a lot of time listening to "conservative" radio or tv because I do investigate a very broad range of sources and I know where to get my facts that support my viewpoints and thus don't depend on media to frame my opinions.

We "extreme" right wing conservatives can't be all painted with the brush of ignorance like liberals are so fond of using. I have degrees in History (specializing in Asian Studies), Theology, and Business Management. That is not a mark of arrogance or superiority, just info to back up my point. I have built new companies from the ground up, corrected failing companies, and started churches and schools here and overseas. I participate actively in local government as a nonpaid elected official, invest most of my free income to helping the needy. I therefore am a doer not just a talker, and confident in my viewpoints..

Some on this blog, feel so smug in slamming others as ignorant and passing beyond sharp repartee to belittlement. I will always strongly disagree with leftwing viewpoints as inconsistent and injurious to our Constitutional Republic and it's founding principles, but I also therefore am confident and encouraging in the right of the debate to flow freely.

Posted by love liberty at 07/15/2005 @ 2:08pm

I dont think it counts as a racial slant if yourself a white guy

Posted by nugo at 07/15/2005 @ 2:09pm

What a waste this tangent is. Liberals love being liberal. Republicans do the same. Lets talk about the issues rather than attack people on the other side for having a viewpoint we disagree with. Jeez!

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/15/2005 @ 2:14pm

Lib,, "yeah, it is interesting the dichotomy of the left and right arguments. The right does seem to be anti-intellectual, anti-freethought..."

It is not the right that tries to shut down religious speech and thought, it is not the right who tries to limit access to media or control who owns it, it is not the right who consistently resorts to framing the other side as uneducated, unintelligent idiots...no, those comments have been repeated over and over in every public forum by Liberals. We just don't worship intellectualism like libs do...I have hired a number of highly educated, very bright people who could not accomplish anything that I hired them to do..No ability to make decisions, unable to provide tough personnel decisions like firing, disciplining because they were afraid to offend...too bad, I would love to be able to use them more if they were productive.

Posted by love liberty at 07/15/2005 @ 2:15pm

Thank you Nat. You see I let my guard down and was trying have fun, but I was called a racist and a fool. Unbelievable!

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 2:15pm

LL, it is called paralyisis by over analysis!

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 2:17pm

And I would have loved to work for you

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 2:18pm

LL: another irrelevant distraction. Focus! If you are here, you must be trying to combat what you see as liberal "spin". This last comment is not helping.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/15/2005 @ 2:24pm

Nat,,don't take it personally, you are what is called an open minded liberal who respects other viewpoints. Many like Lib ego, Nathanhale, Munich, Emmafedup,and mewsician have no respect or tolerance for opposing viewpoints. To them, Dancall, Aludra, and myself are ignorant right wing christian capitalists who don't merit open dialogue.

Posted by love liberty at 07/15/2005 @ 2:32pm

Um...ok Liberty...I made a sweeping generalization, which may or may not be true...but your response not only tacitly consented to its validity, but your own statement was an admission of anit-intellectualism.

Also, I am not to sure you're living on the same planet with the rest of us. Liberals don't try to shut down religious speech, its the pseudo-Christian movement of the Right that is going around telling everyone else they arent qualified to talk about God and are going to hell. I guess you just missed that one, its not like Dobson and Perkins haven't been in the news or anything!

I didn't know liberals try to limit access to media control, considering Sumner Redstone and Rupert Murdoch...I mean what are you talking about!?

I do agree, some liberals can tend to be condecending, but honestly, when you put your posts on here in the marketplace of ideas, and they dont hold up...or quite frankly yours tend to get torn to shreds, I am not sure its us being condecending so much as you are failing to completely formulate and intelligent thought.

And just to set the record straight, the right has its share of condecending intellectuals too. I am assuming you've heard of the Heritage Foundation, or read David Frume? I make that assumption because so much to attempt to postulate is badly misunderstood interpretations from both.

Also, there is nothing bad about intellectualism. I would have to argue that anti-intellectualism is inherently in nobody's best interest! I call it the ostrich theory of life...if you bury your head in the sand everything will be alright...how about confronting your held beliefs and those that hold up to the confrontation are worth holding onto...or would that be to hard for you?

There is no maxim that says highly educated people are great workers. Some of the most extensively educated individuals are real morons. Also, you have an underlying assumption that highly educated people are all liberal. That too is false, as is the connection that those highly educated liberals are unproductive workers. There are many highly educated conservatives, you are correct that research data shows a positive correlation between education and voting liberal. But on close review of said study the voting trends are almost identical for undergraduate degrees, but post-graduate education swings toward liberalism. However, that does not give liberals some sort of lock on education or intellectualism.

Also, I'm very sorry that you've had a bad run with employing educated individuals to work for you. Maybe you should re-examine your hiring process, it sounds like you are just hiring the wrong people! There is not logical connection that can be made from your hiring of educated individuals and poor performance. Hume would call your assumption of fact connection false, and relable it custom instead. I used to be the executive director for a non-profit (Ymca of USA), before that I was a regional manager for a large entertainment corporation (Blockbuster), and in my experience (and education), I've found that employee productivity rest squarly on the shoulders of management. Two main reasons; bad recruiting and hiring practices, and secondly bad manager oversight and encouragment. In short I am suggesting that your problems with your employees might actually just be problems with yourself.

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 2:50pm

Actually I have plenty of respect for others view points. I just expect you to have substance, most of your posts are dry, lacking any original thouht, never completed, and prove your inabillity to consider opposing points of view. I tell you, i've got much more respect for Dancall, than you or Aludra. Neither of you have contributed anything but virol to these threads.

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 2:53pm

Back to the issue at hand...

Did y'all know that David Corn and Cliff May (of the National Review) will both be writing about their correspondence on the Plamme issue?

That'll be interesting to see. The point/counterpoint debating between these magazines is always entertaining reading, especially when everyone sticks to intellectual jousting and stays "above the belt".

The same goes for this "comments" thread.

Posted by Beausoleil at 07/15/2005 @ 2:55pm

I have not seen one of LL statements be "torn to shreds". I have only seen emtional outcries that try to say he is wrong by calling him names without factual rebuttles.

As far as hiring someone. Intellects have the ability to communicate and talk the game very well, thus fooling the hiring manager or recruiter. The best way to hire someone is to go off heavy duty personality tests that will determine how the person will perform on the job. So, that means that what most liberals call idiots, may actually be the best fit for a CEO because they have the ability to cut through the BS and make hard decisions.

Regarding encouragement. Because we have built a soft society, managers who are good are afraid to hurt the feelings of the employee...you know, they have to take sensitivity training and the like. Not to knock your previous jobs, but I think that LL is coming at this from a independent business owner who doesn;t have the time to coddle people and go through the hand holding process. When the Dems want to raise taxes, they are hurting companies that do not have the revenues to sustain your perfect company that has a great HR department and Education program. In fact, when you raise taxes on these some of these companies, you are raising the taxes on their personal income because they are not protected by corporate tax shelters. The majority of Americans work for small companies like these. So when you raise taxes, that causes the business owner to have to cut down on staff because that is directly impacting the his ability to live his lifestyle with his family. So, they go out and hire "intellects", who may cost more but should have the ability to perform. So when you say we give businesses to many tax breaks, know the full dynamics on how it impacts local business, which impacts the "social structure" of that community.

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 3:05pm

"I tell you, i've got much more respect for Dancall, than you or Aludra. Neither of you have contributed anything but virol to these threads."

Lets see.... Bush Lied..Kids Died...Rove needs to go to jail...Cheney went to war for Halliburton....Etc(not enough room to print all the slop)

Hey Liberal Ego...Is that what you call intellectual discourse or maybe you can justify it by calling it sweet talking???

WHAT A FOOL

Posted by aludra at 07/15/2005 @ 3:06pm

this site is getting a little tiresome..unfortunately there is only so far we can each travel against a brick wall before we conclude we ought to try another route...

I keep trying to convince myself that Ann Coulter is wrong and we should try and talk to liberals...but the results here are no different than with my own brother...the gap never narrows..it really is apropo that in this day and age..between liberal and conservative....it is a Bridge too Far

Posted by love liberty at 07/15/2005 @ 3:18pm

And liberal, not to get way off topic, the Sarbanes Oxley Act is coming after the Non-profits and government agencies next. It is a crying shame that people like Jesse Jackson hide behind tax exemption staus because they work for non-profits and funnel money through them. He has not paid taxes in years, yet he blackmails companies for his advantage...ie Coca Cola. He had a discrimination law suit against them, but told them he would drop it if his son could have sole ownership and distribution rights in Chicago. Look at the 9/11 debacle when hard earned money that hollywood stars were grandstanding and asking for from people who make pennies to them did nothing when the stories came out that 80% of that money was not going to the victims and their families. Liberals are just as corrupt of big business. There are millions of dollars being funneled through non profits that liberals with no business sense have no clue about. Trust me on this, you know the IRA everyone keeps talking about, there network in the US is so far beyond anything you would ever want to comprehend. Ted Kennedy wasn't insulted that Bush wouldn;t met with Shienn Fein leader Gerry Adams on St Pats because Ted saw it as a good political move, but met with Mr Adams the next day. You see lib...Mr Ted Kennedy and John Kerry really don;t give a crap about this war because Kerry and Kennedy are getting votes from IRA supporters who funnel money to the IRA under the guise of legitimate business in the New England area.

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 3:20pm

Get right down to it, we are still living the wars between france, germany and england. The EU is riddled with Corruption and France and Germany are not following their own advice as outlined in the EU rules. Germany and France break every rule and then put the hammer on the smaller countries. If you look at the dynamics of the EU, the smaller and less "attractive" countries are pro America. Britian is standing toe to toe with France and Germany, which is why the British pound has not been converted to the Euro. They too, do not trust France and Germany. Why would you, Germany tried twice in the last 100 years to take them over, while france had side deals with Hitler during the second attempt. Today they are aligned and making no qualms about it.

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 3:27pm

Whoohoo.....i really pissed them off!

Yeah...the emotional outcries are really coming from the left!

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 3:31pm

There are two sides here now. There are a few that may not be included in this statement, but for the most part everyone here is. There is condescension and righteousness on both sides. I see it better on the side defending Rove, but that is because I am a party to the other side. I used to be able to claim being in the middle, but no longer. I still consider myself a moderate.

I feel that posts like this last one by LL and most of those by Aludra do not help with the discussion. There may be others which I have not read or glanced over. I imagine there are those supporting the firing of Rove that you(LL, Aludra, DanCall) feel similarly about. The posts are very emotional, and show a certain attachment to the issue that lowers the level of discourse and the respect of those you are speaking to, for you. Fanaticism is not good in any form. Blind faith is never good, when it is given to a person. Calm down, look at the opponent's words and judge them for what they are. I urge this of both sides.

I only began commenting because of the gross inaccuracies in Aludra's posts. I came by to offer corrections, and got pulled into the discussion. I see there is no use in continuing. None of us will change our minds. I will go on and talk to those around me, and try to change their minds. I live in a very red state, but many of the people I know do not feel comfortable with the President.

I hope to see the next article by David Corn soon.

Posted by Baeller at 07/15/2005 @ 3:32pm

once again, you're missing the point (it's because you're seeing red and you're too busy thinking about kicking ass, but aren't all bullies who are overly emotional?). i am neither a liberal nor do i side with anything anyone has said thus far (i can't find a place to enter this discussion because it's so unsound).

for the most part, you all see with these bizarre two-sided glasses. NEWS FLASH!!!! there are more than two-sides two every issue. there are more than two parties in this world (well, not in the US because the Greens and other parties have been bullied out of existence by the monied class). there are more than two ways of conceiving of political thought (not just liberal and conservative - which i've been trying to point out is such a narrow minded way of talking ....that you MUST have picked up from your mainstream media because you sound like FOX parrots).

i don't care if you're christian your not. worship however you choose. but when you start speaking for jesus you sound silly. and when you start saying that someone has accused you of being racist (i was calling you ignorant, really, but you don't have to be, because you can read up on systems of power and concepts of white privilege)- you're really just being a baby. and then you start name calling. what is a puss bag anyway? FYI-i never got my ass kicked in high school and i never needed protection from dumb jocks. now be gone before i have someone drop a house on you!

Posted by emmafedup at 07/15/2005 @ 3:33pm

Listen, Aludra, Liberty and Dancall...you may not agree with me, you may respond to made up points, or say I've said things that I havent said. But...know this...when the liberals get the White House in 08, we won't forget you! We'll take you by McDonalds and get you a happy meal!

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 3:35pm

correction... "i don't care if you're christian or not."

Posted by emmafedup at 07/15/2005 @ 3:36pm

This just in: Bob Novak did not reveal that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent for the CIA.

Read -- or reread -- his column from July 14, 2003. All Novak reports is that the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson is "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."

Novak has said repeatedly that he was not told, and that he did not know, that Plame was -- or had ever been -- a NOC, an agent with Non-Official Cover. He has emphatically said that had he understood that she was any sort of secret agent, he would never have named her.

As for Novak's use of the word "operative," he might as easily have called her an "official," an "analyst, or an "employee." But, as a longtime newsman, he instinctively chose the sexiest term (one he routinely applies to political figures, too, i.e. "a party operative").

Reread Novak's article, and you'll also see that Novak in no way denigrates Wilson. On the contrary, he talks of Wilson's "heroism" in Iraq in 1991. And nowhere in his column does he say -- or even imply -- that Wilson was unqualified to conduct the Niger investigation or that Plame was responsible for getting him the assignment -- merely that she "suggested sending him."

Even so, it is unclear whether Novak's sources may have committed a crime by talking to Novak about Plame. That would depend on a number of variables involving what they knew about Plame and how they came to know it. A prosecutor would have the power to compel Novak to testify regarding what was said to him and by whom.

Is this splitting hairs? Not at all. In Washington, plenty of people are acquainted with CIA operatives who are not working undercover. For example, when a CIA analyst wrote a book under the pseudonym "Anonymous," it was widely known that Anonymous was the Agency's Michael Scheuer. Before long, someone revealed that in print. No crime was committed or alleged -- no classified information had been disclosed, no NOC had been exposed.

So if Novak did not reveal that Valerie Plame was a secret agent, who did? The evidence strongly suggests it was none other than Joe Wilson himself. Let me walk you through the steps that lead to this conclusion.

The first reference to Plame being a secret agent appears in The Nation, in an article by David Corn published July 16, 2003, just two days after Novak's column appeared. It carried this lead: "Did Bush officials blow the cover of a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security -- and break the law -- in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?"

Since Novak did not report that Plame was "working covertly" how did Corn know that's what she had been doing?

Corn does not tell his readers and he has responded to a query from me only by pointing out that he was asking a question, not making a "statement of fact." But in the article, he asserts that Novak "outed" Plame "as an undercover CIA officer." Again, Novak did not do that. Rather, it is Corn who is, apparently for the first time, "outing" Plame's "undercover" status.

Corn follows that assertion with a quote from Wilson saying, "I will not answer questions about my wife." Any reporter worth his salt would immediately wonder: Did Wilson indeed answer Corn's questions about his wife -- after Corn agreed not to quote his answers but to use them only on background? Read the rest of Corn's piece and it's difficult to believe anything else. Corn names no other sources for the information he provides -- and he provides much more information than Novak revealed.

Corn also claims that Wilson "will not confirm nor deny that his wife �works for the CIA." Corn adds: "But let's assume she does. That would seem to mean that the Bush administration has screwed one of its own top-secret operatives in order to punish Wilson �"

On what basis could Corn "assume" that Plame was not only working covertly but was actually a "top-secret" operative? And where did Corn get the idea that Plame had been "outed" in order to punish Wilson? That is not suggested by anything in the Novak column which, as I noted, is sympathetic to Wilson and Plame.

The likely answer: The allegation that someone in the administration leaked to Novak as a way to punish Wilson was made by Wilson -- to Corn. But Corn, rather than quote Wilson, puts the idea forward as his own.

Keep in mind that from early on there were two possible but contradictory scenarios:

1) Members of the Bush administration intentionally exposed a covert CIA agent as a way to take revenge against her husband who had written a critical op-ed.

2) Members of the Bush administration were attempting to set the record straight by telling reporters that it was not Vice President Cheney who sent Wilson on the Africa assignment as Wilson claimed; rather Wilson's wife, a CIA employee, helped get him the assignment. (And that is indeed the conclusion of the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee.)

Corn's article then goes on to provide specific details about Plame's undercover work, her "dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material." But how does Corn know about that? From what source could he have learned it?

Corn concludes that Plame's career "has been destroyed by the Bush administration." And here he does, finally, quote Wilson directly. Wilson says: "Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames."

Corn has assured us several times that Wilson refused to answer questions about his wife, refused to confirm or deny that she worked for the CIA, refused to "acknowledge whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee." But he is willing to say on the record that "naming her this way" was an act of treachery? That's not talking about his wife? That's not providing confirmation? There is only one way to interpret this: Wilson did indeed talk about his wife, her work as a secret agent, and other matters to Corn (and perhaps others?) on a confidential basis.

If Wilson did tell Corn that his wife was an undercover agent, did he commit a crime? I don't claim to know. But the charge that someone committed a crime by naming Plame as a covert agent was also made by Corn, apparently for the first time, in this same article. No doubt, the independent prosecutor and the grand jury will sort it out.

Criminality aside, if Wilson revealed to Corn that Plame worked as a CIA "deep-cover" operative "tracking parties trying to buy or sell" WMDs, surely that's news.

And it is consequential: On the basis of Novak's story alone, it is highly unlikely that anyone would have had a clue that Plame -- presumably under a different name and while living in a foreign country -- had been a NOC. At most, her friends in Washington would have been surprised to learn that she didn't work where she said she worked.

But once Corn published the fact that Plame had been a "top-secret operative," and once he quoted Wilson saying what exposing his wife would mean -- and once Plame posed for Vanity Fair photographers -- anyone who had ever known her in a different context and with a different identity would have been tipped off.

But they would not have been tipped by Novak -- nor, based on what we know so far, by Karl Rove. Rather, it appears they would have been tipped off by Joe Wilson who, the publicly available evidence strongly suggests, leaked like a sieve to The Nation's David Corn.

I wonder how David might look in an orange jump suit

Posted by aludra at 07/15/2005 @ 3:43pm

Aludra, are you a just a Corn Thorn, or are you actually hear to have substantial substantive debate?

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 3:45pm

A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee. "She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times.

Posted by aludra at 07/15/2005 @ 3:45pm

Mr, Intellectual Use your intellect and try to focus on a coherent response

Posted by aludra at 07/15/2005 @ 3:48pm

Also, anyone who has been following this case even remotely would see that it is highly unlikely that Novak informed Rove of plame, or that Rove's source was a journalist.

That would mean Mr.Damage Control for the president had to go to a journalist to get info against a critic that he only wants to reinsert into the news stream throuh Matt Cooper...makes a lot of sense huh?

Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 3:49pm

I'm still laughing at the superior intellect

Posted by aludra at 07/15/2005 @ 3:51pm

Emm, we know your not a Dem nor a classic or even modern lib...your a borderline anarchist...but that's cool because you're more honest than most of today's libs who are only mad because they've lost power and Rebubs are in charge,,,not really over the issues as you have pointed out. Unfortunately for you, there is really no option right now to our 2 party system. I have at times left the GOP and been with the Libertarian party or the American Independent Taxpayers party; but in the end, reality is that if I want to get anything done, I must work thru one of the 2 big boys.

Even David Corn who is not as far out as many of his cohorts is more of a "let's reform the Dems" kind of guy...

You just want to tear it all down and start over...it's a valid opinion but not going to happen...

It's tough to work the system, but it's still a better system than any I've seen in my travels. Moving the political landscape here is like moving an iceberg; it's inches not miles per hour. It's also why we have stability in Government like no one else (except maybe Castro, but then his oponents are all dead or in prison)

Posted by love liberty at 07/15/2005 @ 4:09pm

MISSION IMPLAUSIBLE July 13, 2005

Karl Rove was right. The real story about Joseph C. Wilson IV was not that Bush lied about Saddam seeking uranium in Africa; the story was Clown Wilson and his paper-pusher wife, Valerie Plame. By foisting their fantasies of themselves on the country, these two have instigated a massive criminal investigation, the result of which is: The only person who has demonstrably lied and possibly broken the law is Joseph Wilson.

So the obvious solution is to fire Karl Rove.

Clown Wilson thrust himself on the nation in July 2003 when he wrote an op-ed for The New York Times claiming Bush had lied in his State of the Union address. He said Bush was referring to Wilson's own "report" when Bush said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

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

Driven by that weird obsession liberals have of pretending they are Republicans in order to attack Republicans, Wilson implied he had been sent to Niger by Vice President Dick Cheney. Among copious other references to Cheney in the op-ed, Wilson said that CIA "officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story" that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy uranium from Niger, "so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

Soon Clown Wilson was going around claiming: "The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked, and that response was based upon my trip out there."

Dick Cheney responded by saying: "I don't know Joe Wilson. I've never met Joe Wilson. I don't know who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back." Clown Wilson's allegation that Cheney had received his (unwritten) "report" was widely repeated as fact by, among others, The New York Times.

In a huffy editorial, the Times suggested there had been a "willful effort" by the Bush administration to slander the great and honorable statesman Saddam Hussein. As evidence, the Times cited Bush's claims about Saddam seeking uranium from Niger, which, the Times said, had been "pretty well discredited" -- which, according to my copy of The New York Times Stylebook means "unequivocally corroborated" -- "by Joseph Wilson 4th, a former American diplomat, after he was dispatched to Niger by the CIA to look into the issue."

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

So important was Wilson's fact-finding mission to Niger that he wasn't paid and he produced no written report. It actually buttressed the case that Saddam had tried to buy uranium from Niger, though Wilson was too stupid to realize it. His conclusion is contradicted by the extensive findings of the British government. (I'm not sure, but I think that's what Bush may have been referring to when he said, "the British government.") One could write a book about what Joe Wilson doesn't know about Africa. In fact, I'm pretty sure someone did: Joe Wilson.

About a year later, a bipartisan Senate committee heard testimony from a CIA official that it was Wilson's wife who had "offered up" Wilson for the Niger trip. The committee also discovered a Feb. 12, 2002, memo from Wilson's wife gushing that her husband "has good relations with both the PM (prime minister) and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."

Wilson's response to the production of his wife's memo was: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."

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

That was the information Karl Rove was trying to convey to the media by telling them, as described in the notes of Time reporter Matt Cooper: "big warning"! Don't "get too far out on Wilson."

Democrats believe that because Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, the White House should not have been allowed to mention that it was she who sent him to Niger. But meanwhile, Clown Wilson was free to puff up his apocryphal credentials by implying he had been sent to Niger on an important mission for the vice president by the CIA.

Despite the colloquialism being used on TV to describe the relevant criminal offense, the law does not criminalize "revealing the name" of a covert operative. If it did, every introduction of an operative at a cocktail party or a neighborhood picnic would constitute a felony. "Revealing the name of" is shorthand to describe what the law does criminalize: Intentionally revealing a covert operative as a covert operative, knowing it will blow the operative's cover.

Rove had simply said Wilson went to Niger because of his wife, not his skill, expertise or common sense. It was the clown himself who outed his wife as an alleged "covert" agent by saying he was not recommended by his wife, and thus the White House must have been retaliating against him by mentioning his wife.

Wilson intentionally blew his wife's "cover" in order to lie about how he ended up going to Niger. Far from a serious fact-finding mission, it was a "Take Your Daughters to Work Day" gone bad. Maybe liberals shouldn't have been so insistent about that special prosecutor.

COPYRIGHT 2005 ANN COULTER

I KNOW ALL YOU LIBS & COMMIES LOVE ANN

Posted by aludra at 07/15/2005 @ 4:25pm

Dancall finally reveals his true colors. i knew you and your buddies were a bunch of l*@ser white guy whankers. you never quite grew outta high school mode, did ya, dan? no wonder why you're anti-intellectual. eeeewwwwwwwww.

"looser white guy whankers". "when you start saying that someone has accused you of being racist (i was calling you ignorant, really, but you don't have to be, because you can read up on systems of power and concepts of white privilege)"

Emm, so a white guy with a good family structre is ingnorant? Not using "white" in sentence is not using a "stereoytypical" description, but if a white guy makes a comment about any other race or socio economic status would automatically be called a white supremist.

I should have never stooped to your level and I apologize. Like I said earlier, I was only joking around and let my guard down. You all took advantage of that fact, which is why I don;t trust liberals. You called me a white racist, but defend yourself with a weak argument.

After that rant, there is nothing that I have said that is out of emotional outcry and I will defend all other posts with hostorical facts

You see, Emm, you are what I described. A trouble maker that hides behind racial issues only to fail at your ultimate goal.

Lib and BAE, I have no issues with you. Or would you like to defend EMM calling me ignorant, or should I just say a white rich guy?

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 4:28pm

And let me clear one thing up. I have not made one emotional outcry about the subject at hand, is Rove Innocent or Guilty. I have been the one the whole time saying wait for the facts to come out, only be called a racist or neo-con for countering them when all they are doing is regurgitating what David Corn is saying and not listening to what he purposely left out.

Emm, I really don;t care how you practice your faith, I am a libertarian and believe you can do whatever you want. I just don't appreciate being called ingnorant or a white rich guy. That statement is ignorant because you don;t know me and what I am all about. I did have a good home and good education thanks to strict parenting. I also believe that children and adults should pursue their dreams, no matter how bizarre they may seem to mainstream people. I was taught not to judge like that, which obviously you were. So the ironic twist in this whole thing is that you are probably the one is a racist who is jealous of others who had parents that worked hard to provide the best for thier children!

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 4:35pm

Aludra:

Whoever identified Plame was aware that she was a CIA agent. If that person was inside the administration and had access to confidential information, they clearly should have been more careful about making that information public.

As to the assertion that Corn identified her as a covert agent: this is silly. Once her name was public, she was no longer an officer of "Brewster-Jennings" but instead an identified CIA officer. Her non-official cover was blown by Novak's identification, and she was NOC in America.

Leak of CIA Officers Leaves Trail of Damage Warren P. Strobel, Knight Ridder

Training agents such as Plame, 40, costs millions of dollars and requires the time-consuming establishment of elaborate fictions, called "legends," including in this case the creation of a CIA front company that helped lend plausibility to her trips overseas.

Compounding the damage, the front company, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, whose name has been reported previously, apparently also was used by other CIA officers whose work now could be at risk, according to Vince Cannistraro, formerly the agency's chief of counterterrorism operations and analysis.

Now, Plame's career as a covert operations officer in the CIA's Directorate of Operations is over. Those she dealt with - whether on business or not - may be in danger. The DO is conducting an extensive damage assessment

...

Larry Johnson - a former CIA and State Department official who was a 1985 classmate of Plame's in the CIA's case officer-training program at Camp Peary, Va., known as "the Farm" - predicted that when the CIA's internal damage assessment is finished, "at the end of the day, (the harm) will be huge and some people potentially may have lost their lives."

"This is not just another leak. This is an unprecedented exposing of an agent's identity," said former CIA officer Jim Marcinkowski, who's now a prosecutor in Royal Oak, Mich., and who also did CIA training with Plame.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/15/2005 @ 4:43pm

You see Nat, no one knew who she was and her name was never mentioned to the main stream media until Corn blasted it all over the place. If you read between the lines between what Corn and Wilson discussed, and then what Corn wrote, Wilson himself may have told corn before any article had been writen. It comes down to a reponsible press, which is the root of evil because no one checks up on the facts because the readers don;t have time to do so. They think as their "people" are trust worthy, when in reality, politicians drive revenue for the media. It has been going on for centuries. there are cases worse then this when Jefferson lied about his political oppents in the press.

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 4:49pm

I've been with this blog for the last 3 days and have to say that having the guys (if they really are guys) from the other side participating is much more interesting & entertaining in so many ways. It is great to see how the blog moves back and forth from ranting to discussion/analysis and wonder where, how and when it will end.

I still think the beer thing would be better since eye-to-eye would encourage more honesty (up to the 4th pint at least...).

Posted by nugo at 07/15/2005 @ 4:56pm

Nugo, I would love to comment, but I refrain because I will be called a white rich guy...maybe I should change my call name to KKK? How about that EMM?

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 5:10pm

That could also be 3 strike outs! that is for all you non-"jocks" out there...K= strike out in baseball.

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 5:12pm

Dan: Novak mentioned Plame's name & status in the media.

Novak's July 14th Article: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."

Whoever identified Plame to Novak was aware that she was a CIA agent. If that person was inside the administration and had access to confidential information, they clearly should have been more careful about making that information public.

As to the assertion that Corn identified her as a covert agent: this is silly. Once her name was public, she was no longer an officer of "Brewster-Jennings" but instead an identified CIA officer. Her non-official cover was blown by Novak's identification, and she was NOC in America. After Plame was identified in the media, Corn likely inquired in what capacity Plame worked at CIA. That doesn't change the fact that she was no longer a secret. That secret was revealed by Novak, and damaged her and others' efforts on NOC to learn more about WMD.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/15/2005 @ 5:26pm

You are right, it is a far stretch...

Posted by dancall at 07/15/2005 @ 5:35pm

I find the passion with which strangers attempt to make their points very amusing. What is at stake - the opinion of another web-nerd? Nobody is going to have an epiphany here! Nobody knows all the facts. I think you guys just like to argue and all the people with real lives have gotten tired of this kind of pointless discourse. Nobody hates Bush more than I do, but we're a long way from proving anything inregards to Mr. Rove. WE know he is the most sleazy political operative in recent memory but is he guilty of the accusations against him? Lets wait and see what Fitzgerald comes up with. Having said that, Rove and Novack go back a long way - so suspicions are understandable.

Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/15/2005 @ 5:45pm

no-nonsense:

I am one of those "open minded-liberals" who actually feels like my opinions become deeper when I have the chance to bounce them off of people on the other side. While some of the responses are partisan drivel, many of them are informative. They help me understand how the other side forms its world view, which makes my own arguments against them much stronger. The posters here thatare willing to question their own beliefs likely find that the outcome is simply better beliefs.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/15/2005 @ 5:53pm

LL- you are so right, the party choices are limited and that's really a problem for those of us who want to work outside of mainstream ideology. it's telling that you refer to the two systems (dems and repubs) as "big boys" as i do see them as patriarchal machines (this is not a diss toward men but a comment on institutions which is where i do my analysis of power and knowlege production). any thoughts on what to do?

yet, LL, you are "close but no cigar" as they say when you try to call my politics. i am not a 'borderline anarchist'- a curious characterization nonetheless. i'd just like to have a country where the politics are of, by, and for the people. where the everyday person can run for office without breaking the bank, as it were (and don't even try to suggest that at the local level-let alone state or fed- this is possible because it is not) and if it were, you can't even do it on a party line other that one of the "big boys" (ick).

we're also in trouble because our constitution was constructed by white male property holders who were protecting their own interests (and hedging out the future interests of others, ie: non-property holders, Blacks, women, the working class, criminals, etc.) and we need revisions (and we have had many) unlike the kind that are enacted by the ideologues in power today. our system of government is clearly corrupt and entangled in a web of corporate favoritism (14th amend., for example) that in effect are bleeding us all dry.

you (editorially) all might think sneaky sort of backhanded side-deals by pesticide salesman who are now in charge of the senate and having a dork who thinks he's tom cruise as a commander-in-chief is kosher but most of us regular tax paying Americans are pretty disgusted by it. While these folks line their pockets with war profits and backroom deals, the everyday American is still without health care and that's a crime. Our representatives are fighting over trivial crap and haven't made a move to take care of their own (with the exception of a few who get slaughtered when they speak up because people don't understand metaphorical speech). These politicians all have health care and padded bank accounts. And what do the majority of US households have? An economic struggle. And don't give me that pull myself up by my bootstraps BS. The myth of meritocracy is just that. We've got economic conscripts loosing limbs everyday overseas and returning to substandard housing and benefits and your representatives are hooking up the the gun industry with special legal privileges in secret legislation (why aren't they lobbying for medical benfits for our soldiers, etc.?) These military kids/economic conscripts have no other option because the cost of college/secondary education is so outrageously expensive (and thanks to our representatives, college loans are increasingly harder to get). And trades that are presently wide open to take on working class kids...yeah, you find one that pays the bills and let me know.

p.s. stop your whining, dancall. no one called you a rich white guy. i called you ignorant and suggested that it was your ignorance that stiffled debate. i stand by that. i hate ignorance. but i don't dislike white people or men or rich people or christians or the like. i dislike the current white supremecist capitalist patriarchal system that values certain people and knowledge over others.

Posted by emmafedup at 07/15/2005 @ 6:27pm

Concerning Rove Scandal: Who's Lying Now? What a state of affairs to just expect Political People in Washington to lie and we now are just concerned about the current liar. This country succeeds in spite of it's politicians. Voting for a different party is useless as you just go from one liar to another. The all lie, and a few get caught!

Posted by Henry Zieman at 07/18/2005 @ 09:59am

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

Archives

February 2010

January 2010

December 2009

November 2009

October 2009

September 2009

Subscribe to The Nation RSS Feed

Atrios

Arts and Letters Daily

The Caucus

Campus Progress

Crooks and Liars

The Daily Gotham

Daily Kos

Echidne of the Snakes

Ezra Klein

FAIR

Feministe

Feministing

Firedoglake

Glenn Greenwald

Gothamist

In these Times

Hendrik Hertzberg

Huffington Post

Hullabaloo

Matthew Yglesias

Media Matters

Mother Jones

My DD

New York Review of Books

Openleft

Pam's House Blend

Pandagon

Political Wire

The Progressive

RaceWire

Real Clear Politics

Roberto Lovato

Romenesko

Swing State Project

Talking Points Memo

Ta-Nehisi Coates

Tapped

Tech President

Tompaine

The Washington Note

Utne Reader

Wonkette

ZNet