Karl Rove: Traitor?

Right on cue Holmes. When you sense the argument slipping away, you always revert to name calling and sarcasm. You really seem insecure. Why can’t you let the arguments present themselves and let the readers make-up their own minds? I’ve noticed that about you. When you sense a loss of the debate you revert to self congratulatory comments as if by merely saying I won that it makes it so.Your phrases like the one above really serve no purpose other than to show you simply do not have confidence in your arguments and you must remind folks who haven’t been tracking the thread that See I’m winning, I’m beating Monk, oh boy, trust me it’s true.It’s like the references I made to your lack of source links. You seem to say trust me, it’s true, I don’t have time to look up source links, if you want info to support my blind assertions, then go look them up for yourself. I’m Holmes dammit, that should be enough for you. It’s laughable.You ask the readers to just trust you that you are winning the argument. You seem to be saying Please trust me, I’m winning, I promise, I’m kicking Monk’s ass, it’s true Instead of just letting your arguments stand on their own legs like I do. You’re really sad Holmes.But I know you have a lot blind followers here that support your posts regardless of their validity and you need to feed them some red meat from time to time to make them feel better when your arguments are slipping away. You need to give encouragement to the troops, I understand that, it’s Ok, but sad. Not at all. I was saying that Bush would prosecute whoever broke the law but was waiting for the results of the investigation before doing anything. You know, the whole innocent before proven guilty thing that you advidly champion unless the accused is a conservative. Unlike you, Bush wants to deal with facts and if Rove is guilty of something he will be dealt with. You already have him condemned and locked up in prison before all the facts are in.Let me ask you something before I go down all of your points and refute them one by one. Do you accept special prosecutor Fitzgerald as an independent and unbiased investigator into this whole mess? He has a distinguished career. I’d like to hear your opinion now so that if Rove is exonerated we don’t begin all the calls to lynch Fitzgerald for his bias because he was appointed by Bush. Dems will undoubtedly do that anyway, but in light of our conversations, I’d like to hear your opinion.So will you abide by the results of grand jury investigation regardless of the outcome? I will. If it is proven that Rove outed Plame and that Plame was covert at the time, then I believe Rove should be fired and if need be prosecuted. I don’t think this will happen but I’ll accept it if it does.If Rove is proven innocent will you acknowledge that and admit this has all been a democratic witch hunt aimed to sink Rove whom Dems hate more than anyone, or will you begin a long winded condemnation of Fitzgerald?Ok, on to the rebuttals: Reference to the memo first appeared in a Wall Street Journal article dated October 17, 2003 by reporter David Cloud. In the article Cloud writes:

quote:

---

An internal government memo addresses some of the mysteries at the center of the White House leak investigation and could help investigators in the search for who disclosed the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency operative, according to two people familiar with the memo.

​

The memo, prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel, details a meeting in early 2002 where CIA officer Valerie Plame and other intelligence officials gathered to brainstorm about how to verify reports that Iraq had sought uranium yellowcake from Niger.

---

So the question is. Who leaked this memo and how did Cloud get a hold of it? Cloud wasn’t the only journalist to reference the 2002 CIA memo. If you look around the net, you’ll see that it has appeared in several news outlets and blogs over the last couple of years.Here is a reference to it in DailyKos .Further, in the Senate report, subparagraph Former Ambassador, page 39, there is reference to INR analyst’s notes that describe the CIA meeting with Plame. It has been widely speculated that this INR analyst notes are from the same memo referenced by Cloud’s article.

quote:

---

An INR analyst’s notes indicate that the meeting was apparently convened by [the former ambassador’s] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue. The former ambassador’s wife told Committee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes.

---

I'm not saying this memo is the smoking gun. But it sure looks that way. I'm sure Fitzgerald will get to the bottom of it. Let's wait and see.

Done, my reply here Message 88

HaHaHaHa, oh man that’s rich. Back track and double talk. Even in light of glaring reality.Do you mean to say that just for the sake of argument he did lie, but that doesn’t make him a liar? It was Wilson who made the statement about the Iraqi inquiry. He said so in his book. I will agree with you though, if Wilson was the only source on the 1999 Iraqi inquiry to purchase uranium from Niger, then it is very suspect indeed. I really don’t know what you are referring to here. Plame was mentioned in the Senate report as suggesting her husband for the trip. It’s there in the Senate report. It’s a fact, there is nothing to rebut. You’re right about this. Schmidt did post a correction to her article which I missed. The original Washington Post article said "Iraqis". But in the correction, it wasn’t the Iraqi’s who were looking to buy 400 tons of uranium, it was the Iranians.But there are numerous points you've ignored. Like whether you can live with Fitzgerald's final report or will you acccuse him of bias?

Actually it was Novak's article that leaked the name. Rove spoke with Cooper. Shouldn't we be looking at Novak's leak? If for nothing else, then just for the sake of curiosity?

1) Will you agree with Fitzgerald's final report or not?2) If not, will you seek to discredit him?

I don’t know. I think Rove is innocent and it looks that way to me despite the media blitz to lynch him, but I’ll wait for the special prosecutors report. Isn’t that the fair thing to do, to wait till the facts are available as judged by an impartial investigator? Isn’t that justice? Ok so now we move away from the notion that if he’s guilty of a crime he should be punished. Everyone agrees with that. Now you are discussing ethics. That’s certainly part of the discussion. Well, can we be fair? Is it possible to be fair given all the media coverage? How deep does the hatred go?Here’s how I see it. We know Cooper contacted Rove. Not the other way around. So the notion that Rove went out of his way to leak info in an effort to discredit Wilson doesn’t hold. It seems that Cooper and Rove discussed several issues, but predominately social security.Near the end of the discussion Cooper asked Rove about the Wilson trip to Niger and Rove warned him that his info was questionable. That’s when Rove mentioned Wilson’s wife [Plame] as apparently working for the agency. Rove may have used the term "apparently" because it was common knowledge among Washington insiders that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. If it was public knowledge that she worked for the CIA, then it wasn’t a secret at that time.If it is shown, through special prosecutor Fitzgerald’s report, that there was another leak that exposed Plame long before the conversation between Rove and Cooper, then I don’t see how Rove was doing anything wrong.I’ll admit it’s a complicated issue. Most scandals are. I may also be wrong about some of the statements here, I'm speculating. The truth won't be known until the report is issued.

Why don't you believe McClellan when he says the special prosecutor asked him not to discuss the matter in public?Is he supposed to ignore that request? He was answering questions before while the investigation was under way and did so up until the time the special prosecutor asked the adminstration to hold further comment.You quoted him saying this here:

quote:

---

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry's question at the beginning. There came a point when the investigation got underway when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be their -- or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing. I think that's the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.

---

So again, is McClellan supposed to ignore the special prosecutors request?

Yes, it does sound fishy.Then again, that might be exactly when the prosecutor made the request, as a result of the increased media scrutiny. Why issue a gag order if there is no media attention? If Fitzgerald is honest and not responding to Administration influence, then a gag order is in place and should be complied with.If that is so, then cries of cover-up seem unfounded, no?Either way, poor Scotty is left twisting in the breeze on this one. That's one of he perils of that position. Hope he's getting paid well cause he's earning it.

All true. They thought a crime might have been committed that's why they sent it to DOJ. The questions that need to be answered are:Who first made her name public, and was she a covert CIA operative at the time.?The answers to these questions look increasingly like they have nothing to do with Rove.This message has been edited by Monk, Fri, 07-15-2005 03:46 PM

C'mon, give the little guy a break. He's just doing his job. Although, I agree, he could be a little more informative without revealing anything specific about the investigation.BTW: I'm not ignoring your long list of questions. I'm just not in the mood for it right now. I'll get around to it a little later.

So then you have no basis for your assertion that Rove should be gone. It’s not based on any wrong doing on his part in the current investigation. It is based on his past history. Well, if that’s the case, then maybe you should start a new thread and put forward your evidence in that thread. But in this thread, you have no basis. It hasn’t been proven that he leaked the name of an undercover agent, and it appears unlikely that it will ever be shown. He didn’t do it. I know you desperately want to believe otherwise, but it just ain’t so. Saying it over and over again doesn’t make it so. It may help you feel better, but it won’t change the facts. I was showing the context in which the subject of Wilson’s wife was discussed in the conversation between Rove and Cooper. Cooper called Rove and the topic came up at the end of a long conversation about other things, that's when Cooper brought it up. Cooper brought up the topic of Wilson's trip. Cooper led Rove into that area. If Rove was actively trying to smear Wilson, wouldn't Rove be more proactive than to wait and hope that someone asked him about it?You may not like it, but again, facts are hard to deny for objective people. You, on the other hand, are obviously bitterly partisan and are loathe to think that Rove might escape the lynching being served up on the left.Notice how the media is now having to change it’s tune from calling for a conviction to just, well, Rove should go because, well, he’s a bad guy. Yea, he’s what’s wrong with everything in America. The truth is he is largely responsible for helping Bush win two elections to the dismay of Dems. They certainly hate him for that. Thankfully, we have a little thing called due process to prevent wild lynch mobs from excising hate filled vendettas. Why admit to wrong doing when none has been proven? Regarding Wilson, he IS a "big ole fat liar". The truth is what it is. Deny it at every turn if you like, choke on it if you must, but there it is nonetheless.Wilson, is the one making himself a target. Did you catch his prime time appearance last week with Democratic Senator Schuemer? Just wait, that’s only the beginning with Wilson.I’ll make a prediction. You’re going to see Wilson on TV talk shows, news interviews, and print media articles. You’ll see a lot of Plame also. They are going to be everywhere fanning the flames of the scandal because they will continue to get rich on the whole affair. Every appearance is another chance to bolster book sales.
But that’s not all.When Hollywood gets involved, they will really cash in. Hollywood will either put out a made for TV movie or maybe a full length flick like they did a few years ago about Reagan played by Brolin, remember that? Hollywood will jump at the chance to smear Bush. Look for it, it’s going to happen. Oh yes, we have only just begun to see the Wilson / Plame media campaign.

You have strong feelings about it Holmes and you were NOT squashing treason talk at the beginning of the thread. You were the one who first mentioned treason. But when you mentioned it, you were straddling the fence to cover yourself. This is what you said in Message 3

quote:

---

While I consider Rove "traitorous", because he holds the wellbeing of this nation and its people subservient to other entities, I am not sure if he is technically guilty of "treason."

---

So you admit there is no evidence to declare Rove a traitor, yet you still consider him to be traitorous. There is also no evidence to suggest conspiracy or lying to the Grand Jury, but that doesn’t bother you, convict him anyway. You used this technique when you said that just because Wilson is a liar on one topic, it doesn’t make him a liar on others.I really wish you would stop this equivocating, Holmes, it’s a poor defense. Saying that Rove is traitorous without being a traitor is fallacious. But I will grant you that it’s a defense that can be used anytime, anywhere, and on any topic. Maybe everyone should start using it because it’s so easy, here’s a few:Clinton had a blowjob, but that doesn’t mean he had sex.Hilary found the Rose Law firm billing records in her bedroom after two years, but that doesn’t mean she lied about it.Howard Dean said Republicans are brain dead, but that doesn’t mean he insulted Republicans.We could go on all day with this, but you get the idea. Rove wasn’t damaging to the critics relative, in fact, this whole affair is going to be the best thing to happen to her. Plame and Wilson are getting rich off of this. Movie to follow with more riches. Wilson hasn’t even begun to complain, but he will. I’ve noted in other posts we will begin to see Wilson everywhere, because that’s how he can sell more books. And there is something strange going on which is precisely why premature condemnations of Rove are purely partisan.Why do you think Judith Miller is in prison? To protect Rove? No, because Rove has given a universal waiver to allow anyone to speak to the grand jury. So Miller isn’t protecting Rove, it must be someone else. Wouldn’t it be wise for Bush to find out who that person is before taking action against Rove?

Well, of course I understand that. When I used the term "Hollywood" I didn't mean to imply there is one Hollywood "company" that makes all the movies. It was a reference to all movie producers as a group and that not all, but a majority of them have political views that are decidedly left of center, in other words, holding more positions in support of Democratic politicians and policies. I don't see any attempt at all to "keep views in balance". The drive it to make the most cash in the shortest amount of time. If that can occur while at the same time catering to the political leanings of the movie makers, so much the better. I never said "only" and it's pretty stupid to draw that conclusion from my post. My point was that given the left wing political slant that many in Hollywood maintain, then it it likely that someone there will jump at the chance to turn the Wilson story into a movie. When that happens, Joe and Valerie will get rich (or more rich than they already are).

Did I say every last celebrity was a Democrat? Do you understand what the word Majority means? It means that although there will always be representatives of the minority, in Hollywood, Democrats rule. But if you want me to name some, then here is a partial list of some of the more vocal Democratic celebrities, but it is by no means conclusive:1. Martin Sheen 2. Alec Baldwin 3. Jessica Lange 4. Sean Penn 5. Susan Sarandon 6. Ed Harris 7. Woody Harrelson 8. John Cusak 9. Mike Farrell 10. Robert Altman 11. George Clooney 12. Barbara Streisand 13. Tyne Daley 14. Ed Asner 15. Bradley Whitford 16. Danny Glover 17. Casey Kasem 18. Sally Kirkland 19. Oliver Stone 20. Sheryl Crowe 21. Michael Moore 22. Harry Belafonte 23. Jane Fonda 24. Tim Robbins 25. Kevin Spacey 26. Steven Earle 27. Gillian Anderson 28. Kim Basinger 29. Ed Begley, Jr. 30. Jackson Browne 31. (REM)Peter Buck and Michael Stipe 32. Diahann Carroll 33. Don Cheadle 34. Jill Clayburgh 35. Peter Coyote 36. Lindsay Crouse 37. Matt Damon 38. Vincent D’Onofrio 39. David Duchovny 40. Olympia Dukakis 41. Charles S. Dutton 42. Hector Elizondo 43. Cary Elwes 44. Mia Farrow 45. Laurence Fishburne 46. Sean Patrick Flanery 47 Bonnie Franklin 48. Jeananne Garafalo 49. Melissa Gilbert 50. Elliott Gould 51. Robert Guillaume 52. Ethan Hawke 53. Ken Howard 54. Helen Hunt 55. Anjelica Huston 56. Samuel L. Jackson 57. Jane Kaczmarek 58. Melina Kanakaredes 59. Tea Leoni 60. Wendie Malick 61. Camryn Manheim 62. Marsha Mason 63. Richard Masur 64. Dave Matthews 65. Esai Morales 66. Ed O'’Neill 67. Chris Noth 68. Alexandra Paul 69. CCH Pounder 70. Bonnie Raitt 71. Carl Reiner 72. Tony Shalhoub 73. Gloria Steinem 74. Marcia Strassman 75. Loretta Swit 76. Studs Terkel 77. Lily Tomlin 78. Blair Underwood 79. Dennis Weaver 80. Bradley Whitford 81. James Whitmore 82. Alfre Woodard 83. Noah Wyle 84. Moby 85. Robert Redford 86. Kathleen Turner 87. Joan Cusak, 88. Dustin Hoffman, 89 Oprah Winfrey I never said anything about a brainwashing leftist agenda. I said that for the most part, Hollywood leans to the left and supports Democratic viewpoints. I don’t need to watch more than 17,000 movies to conclude that. Yea, I’m sure Wilson did just fine with his 7 figure book deal at Carroll & Graf Publishers.

Notice I said "Democratic celebrities". The term celebrity may not necessarilly mean we are only speaking of actors. But my original point was that some group in Hollywood is going to make a movie about the Wilson story and when they do, Wilson and his wife will make a bundle.Just so we are clear hear and you understand what I mean when I use the term "Hollywood", when I say Hollywood I mean those individuals living somewhere in southern California who are involved in making movies. They may have homes outside of California but when they make movies they are in movie studios in southern California. They may also have to shoot their movies on location so they may not always be in Southern Californmia but for the most part they are. They may be producers, directors, actors, or whoever but I use the term "Hollywood" to designate that group. The group may also include TV and radio personalities, authors, or other type of celebrity. Are you Ok with that designation and do you understand what I mean when I say "Hollywood" is doing this or that?.I feel as though I must qualify every single term I use so that you won't go off on some tangent that is beside the point. I hope we a clear here.Now, since you obviously do not believe the majority, not minority, but majority of "Hollywood" types has left leaning political views, then do you think they lean to the right and tend to support Republican positions? Maybe you believe there is no political bias at all and "Hollywood" types are not political at all.Regarding the list. You asked for it so I gave it to you. The folks on that list have been public about their political views and they all supported Kerry and condemned Bush in the last election. I have heard many of them speak out about their politics. I didn't just cut and paste, I've heard them for myself, have you?All I'm saying is that the predominate viewpoint in "Hollywood" is left leaning. This is getting far of the OP, but you seem obsessed with it so I'm obliging you.So, what is your assessment of the majority political view in Hollywood? Which is it? Left, Right or Neutral?