Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Karl Rove: Traitor?
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 91 of 271 (223757)
07-14-2005 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Silent H
07-14-2005 1:54 PM


Re: READ MESSAGE 77
Done, my reply here Message 88

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Silent H, posted 07-14-2005 1:54 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 92 of 271 (223761)
07-14-2005 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Silent H
07-14-2005 1:39 PM


Re: The Public Flagellation of Monk
Let's review.
Did Karl Rove commit an alledged crime?
According to the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act a crime has been committed only if someone knowingly reveals an undercover agent...In Wilson's book, "The Politics of Truth," he writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse was again stationed outside the United States, according to the book; they appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins.
Six years later, in July 2003, Plame's name was revealed by columnist Robert Novak (search)
The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a "covert agent" must have been on an overseas assignment "within the last five years." The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say. Wilson's book makes numerous references to the couple's life in Washington over the six years up to July 2003.
The answer is no.
Did Karl Rove specifically name Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame?
Although Time reporter Matthew Cooper has indicated Rove did not specifically name Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, during their conversation, Wilson said: "My wife's name is Wilson, it's Mrs. Joseph Wilson. It is Valerie Wilson. He named her. He identified her ... so that argument doesn't stand the smell test.
The answer is no.
So no crime was committed and Rove didn't mention her by name to anyone.
The real question here is why is Judith Miller of the New York times wasting away in a cell protecting her source? Who is she protecting? Certainly not Rove! Rove has committed no crime, but the New York times has. The New York Times is obstructing a federal investigation that they demanded.
This message has been edited by Tal, 07-14-2005 02:09 PM

I helped scare an old person-I stopped someone from keeping more of their money-So what if people want to have say in the places they live and the cars that they drive-I gave money to an environmental group that helped keep us dependant on foreign oil-I help the enemies of democracy get stronger by telling them laws don’t matter-What if one day I need an abortion-Sex with an intern, everybody does it-I help teach kids around America that America is always wrong
Do you know what your DNC stands for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Silent H, posted 07-14-2005 1:39 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by FliesOnly, posted 07-14-2005 5:10 PM Tal has replied
 Message 102 by Silent H, posted 07-15-2005 5:05 AM Tal has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 93 of 271 (223766)
07-14-2005 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Monk
07-14-2005 1:47 PM


I suppose in a way you are correct in the same way that Clinton misspoke when he said, I never had sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. It’s just like that. Clinton didn’t lie.
Clinton lied. Whether Wilson made a mistake or not is up in the air. His reasons seem credible to me. You notice he didn't say he didn't make a mistake or didn't do what was said, but explained why he may have made the error.
The fact that it happened to appear near the Vanity Fair photo op of Wilson and Plame basking in their new found (and lucrative) fame is merely convenience.
I merely raised the question of why it was placed where it was, as it was definitely out of place. I don't see why it would be convenient to place it after all quotes you took from it and into a totally different subject?
But we can let that slide if you want, to focus on the Senate Report issues...
Do you believe Plame had absolutely nothing to do with his trip to Niger? Can you at least be honest for one minute and look at the facts. He lied about this. He did so publicly in several interviews and news op-eds. Plame was involved, Wilson new it, Wilson lied about it.
Absolutely nothing? Then no, she was obviously connected to it. However he was refering to the accusations that she was wholly responsible for the trip. In that sense she really was absolutely not responsible. The idea for the trip started above her, the meeting to discuss the trip was essentially without her, it was signed off by people besides her, and someone other than her set Wilson up with what they wanted.
So if we are talking practical issues, she had nothing to do with it. If we are talking all details of the trip, then she sure does.
Let's say for argument's sake that he did lie about that. How does that show him to be lying about anything else, especially what was in the report? I might add that your own characterization was that he never met with anyone else but his wife, which was thoroughly rebutted.
There was no sale of uranium to Iraq, but the inquiry was made. I have asked you before if this bothered you and you haven’t responded. In 1999, a full 6 years after the end of the Gulf War, Iraqi’s were looking for yellowcake uranium in Niger.
Yes, any attempt to purchase uranium would be bothersome, though you have not shown that the Senate found there was an inquiry. I addressed this in post 77, and now you are outright ignoring my statements and evidence.
All they said is that the CIA took it as a sign their theory was correct, and that the INR took the opposite to be true. Thus there was no conclusion. Indeed, even if true was not an inquiry, but a suggested interest. They never were able to make an inquiry due to Niger's disinterest.
It wasn’t rebutted at all and I have just quoted the section of the Senate report that shows the Iraqi’s did indeed have interest in 1998-1999 as noted by Wilson.
I just said you were rebutted regarding your stated focus of the trip, and supplied info. The above has nothing to do with what I said or the evidence I have supplied. You appear to be trying to hang your hat on one issue, and that is if Iraq had shown in interest in Niger uranium, and that means we should all be scared of Iraq. Great. What I am debunking is your claims regarding the Senate's report regarding Wilson's trip and its findings.
This is a classic case where you like to throw volumes of information without saying much and rehashing previous points. It WAS Wilson who reported the Mayaki interpretation. Did you notice that Wilson was not mentioned by name at all in this section of the report? He is referred to as the former ambassador does that mean is wasn’t Wilson? The intel report was Wilson’s and based on his report to CIA contacts in a meeting that occurred in his home.
What are you talking about? I know it was wilson who they were refering to. Did you read the Niger section of the report? The Senate mentioned that there were discrepencies between the report generated from Wilson's trip, both within the intel community, and Wilson's own assessment of what was said. It appears that he personally did not feel that Mayaki had that assessment of the Iraqi delegates intent (or did not say so anyway), though he himself may have felt that was the intent.
But let's say Miyaki might have, which might be a "safer" assumption, what has that got to do with Wilson's report and its being discredited by the Senate? That was your point, which I was challenging. Now you seem to have lost focus and are defending Wilson's report.
This only shows that the Schmidt article I cited is consistent with what the Senate report said on page 45 of the Niger section of the Senate report.
I cannot believe what I am reading. There was no dispute that he had said something wrong regarding his identifying the forgeries. Yes, the senate asked him about this. None of their conclusions were that he lied or that this indicated none of the rest of his intel was inaccurate. I even gave you their conclusion which suggested it was misused by CIA, and poorly credited.
And so you are going to use that one single thing which was not in dispute to try and whitewash the entire Schmidt article/smear job? Your contention is that she was right and you made many strong claims about what the Senate concluded regarding Wilson.
Where is it? I gave you the links. Where are the words from the Senate report which corroborate your claims about what they said about Wilson?
I might also add that you totally bypassed one of the major errors you made which was believing that Wilson reported to the CIA that Iraq had tried to buy a specified amount of uranium in 1998. That was only in Schmidt's article, which you repeated as gospel many times, and was refuted even by Schmidt's own paper!
Where is the honesty?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Monk, posted 07-14-2005 1:47 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Monk, posted 07-14-2005 3:49 PM Silent H has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 94 of 271 (223793)
07-14-2005 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Silent H
07-14-2005 2:29 PM


Holmes writes:
So if we are talking practical issues, she had nothing to do with it. If we are talking all details of the trip, then she sure does.
Let's say for argument's sake that he did lie about that. How does that show him to be lying about anything else, especially what was in the report?
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?
Holmes writes:
Yes, any attempt to purchase uranium would be bothersome, though you have not shown that the Senate found there was an inquiry. I addressed this in post 77, and now you are outright ignoring my statements and evidence.
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 just said you were rebutted regarding your stated focus of the trip, and supplied info. The above has nothing to do with what I said or the evidence I have supplied. You appear to be trying to hang your hat on one issue, and that is if Iraq had shown in interest in Niger uranium, and that means we should all be scared of Iraq. Great. What I am debunking is your claims regarding the Senate's report regarding Wilson's trip and its findings.
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.
I might also add that you totally bypassed one of the major errors you made which was believing that Wilson reported to the CIA that Iraq had tried to buy a specified amount of uranium in 1998. That was only in Schmidt's article, which you repeated as gospel many times, and was refuted even by Schmidt's own paper!
Where is the honesty?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Silent H, posted 07-14-2005 2:29 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Silent H, posted 07-14-2005 5:46 PM Monk has replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 95 of 271 (223800)
07-14-2005 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Tal
07-14-2005 2:08 PM


Re: The Public Flagellation of Monk
Tal writes:
alledged crime?
What the hell is an "alledged crime"?
Look, it's really quite simply. The President said he would fire anyone in his administation that leaked the name. Karl Rove leaked the name (granted, he made not have used her name...but get real Tal). The only question remaining is if the President will keep his word. I bet "no".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Tal, posted 07-14-2005 2:08 PM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Monk, posted 07-14-2005 5:43 PM FliesOnly has replied
 Message 107 by Tal, posted 07-15-2005 8:52 AM FliesOnly has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 96 of 271 (223803)
07-14-2005 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by FliesOnly
07-14-2005 5:10 PM


Re: The Public Flagellation of Holmes
Look, it's really quite simply. The President said he would fire anyone in his administation that leaked the name. Karl Rove leaked the name (granted, he made not have used her name...but get real Tal). The only question remaining is if the President will keep his word. I bet "no".
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by FliesOnly, posted 07-14-2005 5:10 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by FliesOnly, posted 07-14-2005 7:34 PM Monk has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 97 of 271 (223804)
07-14-2005 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Monk
07-14-2005 3:49 PM


Do you mean to say that just for the sake of argument he did lie, but that doesn’t make him a liar?
I was very clear Monk. If Wilson meant that she had absolutely no involvement, including periferal involvement, in the process then he would be lying. If he meant that she had absolutely no involvement with the formulation, decisionmaking, and preparation of sending him on that trip, then he is not lying.
Given that he was responding to a charge that she was intrumental in formulating, deciding, and preparing him for the trip, I don't see his statement as lying.
Post the source of where he said it so I can read it fully in context.
Now, for sake of argument we can say that he was lying. In which case I am saying he did lie, my next question is why does that mean he lied in the report? You have lied at least once in your life, correct? That does not make all you say and do lies, correct?
In this case, we have the record of the trip and the report and the analyses. You claimed that the Senate proved him all wrong. That they ripped him apart to some degree. Where is it?
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'm getting lost in your non answering of my points. Which inquiry are we discussing now? Did the Senate conclude that there had been an inquiry based on Wilson's findings, or more importantly that Wilson had lied at any point regarding his testimony?
You seem to keep shifting what is under discussion. I made it very clear we were discussing the claimed findings of the Senate regarding Wilson and his findings, and even his article if you want.
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.
That's not what I was talking about. I was discussing the focus of the trip which was rebutted... now you are talking about Plame? Okay let's talk about Plame then. Yes she clearly offered up her husband as a potential agent for them. I never said she didn't.
So what about your claims that she did everything and Wilson never talked to anyone else. Is that true or utterly falsified by the Senate report?
You claimed nothing about the trip came from Cheney or CIA, as Wilson had claimed. Was your claim true or utterly falsified by the Senate report?
If falsified, what exactly are people to make then of the fact that Rove was telling reporters these same false claims in order to discredit Wilson's true statements regarding the nature of evidence?
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.
She didn't post the correction... the Post did. Intriguingly she doesn't seem to have come clean on any of her misstatements, though the post has allowed people to correct her.
You have yet to say what this means then. What impact does this have on your accusations? It must have some impact as you repeated it to me so as to add weight.
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?
First of all I was mainly dealing with your claims regarding the Senate report's findings. They were proven pretty wrong, and I documented it with the Senate report itself. Do we agree on this or not?
Second if there are other points I missed, please let me know what they are. Just create a simple list of points that I need to address. And if you want me to deal with specific articles, rather than general data, give me a citation.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Monk, posted 07-14-2005 3:49 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Monk, posted 07-14-2005 5:53 PM Silent H has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 98 of 271 (223805)
07-14-2005 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Silent H
07-14-2005 5:46 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Silent H, posted 07-14-2005 5:46 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Silent H, posted 07-15-2005 4:55 AM Monk has replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 99 of 271 (223823)
07-14-2005 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Monk
07-14-2005 5:43 PM


Re: The Public Flagellation of Holmes
Monk writes:
Actually it was Novak's article that leaked the name.
No, Novak was not the leak...he simply wrote the article.
Monk writes:
Rove spoke with Cooper.
Look, I don't pretend to know everything that is going on with regards to who talked to who...but it is my under standing the Rove spoke to more than one person. If I am wrong about that then I am wrong. It still doesn't change the FACT that Rove did leak the name to Cooper...so the President still needs to fire him...correct?
If you truly think that the President has no need to fire Rove, regardless of whether or not a crime was committed, I would like to understand why you feel that way. Integrity means nothing to you? Ethics? Being a complete prick is ok for a senior member of the White House Staff?
I’ll let you and Holmes debate the Senate report. My questions area bit easier. How can you possibly defend what Rove did? I don’t want some crap about we (the Public) not really knowing what he did. I am talking about simple right and wrong. You and I both know he leaked to name. You and I both know he did it for purely political reasons. You can pussy foot around all you want, but you know he did it and you have to agree that he should, at the very least, be fired for it. Am I correct, or are you just a partisan hack who cares about nothing but winning?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Monk, posted 07-14-2005 5:43 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Monk, posted 07-14-2005 8:07 PM FliesOnly has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 100 of 271 (223826)
07-14-2005 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by FliesOnly
07-14-2005 7:34 PM


Re: The Public Flagellation of Holmes
FliesOnly writes:
Look, I don't pretend to know everything that is going on with regards to who talked to who...but it is my under standing the Rove spoke to more than one person. If I am wrong about that then I am wrong. It still doesn't change the FACT that Rove did leak the name to Cooper...so the President still needs to fire him...correct?
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?
If you truly think that the President has no need to fire Rove, regardless of whether or not a crime was committed, I would like to understand why you feel that way. Integrity means nothing to you? Ethics? Being a complete prick is ok for a senior member of the White House Staff?
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.
I’ll let you and Holmes debate the Senate report. My questions area bit easier. How can you possibly defend what Rove did? I don’t want some crap about we (the Public) not really knowing what he did. I am talking about simple right and wrong. You and I both know he leaked to name. You and I both know he did it for purely political reasons. You can pussy foot around all you want, but you know he did it and you have to agree that he should, at the very least, be fired for it. Am I correct, or are you just a partisan hack who cares about nothing but winning?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by FliesOnly, posted 07-14-2005 7:34 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by FliesOnly, posted 07-15-2005 8:46 AM Monk has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 101 of 271 (223866)
07-15-2005 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Monk
07-14-2005 5:53 PM


Simple answers from Holmes
I want to start by saying I had missed your post which included the question about Fitzgerald's report. I apologize for missing it, and giving rise to some belief I was dodging that very simple question...
1) Will you agree with Fitzgerald's final report or not?
I cannot agree to a report before I see it. No one can, where they do not know the people involved, nor have control over the writing process.
What I can say is I have no feelings that it must contain a criminal indictment of Rove. Remember I was the one that was quashing the "treason" talk going on at the beginning of this thread. Tal has just added some interesting evidence which might very well mean she was not in covert standing, and not by using a weasely "she got outed by another criminal act first" excuse. I have also admitted that Rove may not have known her true status, though I have voiced my skepticism on such an idea.
Thus I will not be against F's decision solely on whether he brings some criminal charge against Rove. It may be that he can escape that. I have already stated that that may be the case.
My main point throughout this thread has been that it does appear Rove could be brought up on charges, but even if he's not: he still did something wrong. The best case scenario is not that he is not a criminal and so he did nothing wrong.
The best case scenario is that he skirted a legal edge to avoid criminal prosecution, while attempting to discredit an administration critic, by making false statements and leaking info that could be damaging to that critic's relative. And this isn't just some nobody, it is an administration official.
I mean really. We had an impeachment over a guy that misled a Grand Jury, supposedyly focused on financial misdealings, when asked about a blowjob. And then we are going to let this "moral issue" pass?
2) If not, will you seek to discredit him?
Well I won't discredit him in any case. I am not researching this guy now, and am unlikely to be motivated to regardless of his decision. If sufficient evidence gets out that there was something funny going on, then I might mention it if the subject comes up.
But I have to say... and this is purely in defense of F at this time... if there was something strange going on, then I think the CIA or at the very least Wilson would be complaining more publicly.
If they have confidence in him, then it would seem the most interested parties have confidence in him, and why should I think otherwise? I will wonder why they complain if it does not go "in their favor" (whatever that might be), and have inherent skepticism toward them, rather than F.
As a note, since I missed your previous post, I will be adding my response to points you made in it, in a separate post where I detail a list of simple questions for you.
Thus we can create two subthreads, one where you answer my outstanding questions and another where I answer yours. Let me know if there is anything you need clarification on.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Monk, posted 07-14-2005 5:53 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Monk, posted 07-18-2005 4:45 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 102 of 271 (223869)
07-15-2005 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Tal
07-14-2005 2:08 PM


Tal scores a point... maybe.
The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a "covert agent" must have been on an overseas assignment "within the last five years." The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say. Wilson's book makes numerous references to the couple's life in Washington over the six years up to July 2003.
You did not source where you got this info from. If it turns out to be as shoddy as the Schmidt article then it's lights out.
If not then this certainly will be a valid defense for Rove against a criminal charge regarding the IIPA issue for Plame. Of course there may be other criminal issues, perhaps against others, but this one would seem to be locked.
My next question is, does that make what he did right, and so should be held unaccountable for his actions? It was my understanding that Reps did not like political shenanigans, covered by legal edge tracing. It was also my understanding that they were very particular about protecting our nation's national security and backing its members.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Tal, posted 07-14-2005 2:08 PM Tal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2005 7:49 AM Silent H has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 103 of 271 (223880)
07-15-2005 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Silent H
07-15-2005 5:05 AM


Re: Tal scores a point... maybe.
You might want to check the wording on the law. I just saw a reference that said that naming the person was not required, just supplying enough information to identify the person: Rove's comment as recorded in the memo does that (if we can trust the memo to accurately reflect the conversation - I find it interesting that no-one has questioned whether Rove said "apparantly" or whether that was inserted by Cooper).
Keep up the battle.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Silent H, posted 07-15-2005 5:05 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Silent H, posted 07-15-2005 8:06 AM RAZD has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 104 of 271 (223881)
07-15-2005 7:58 AM


10 not completely simple Questions for Monk
In another post you suggest the only "just" thing to do is wait for a report, and to accept the findings of a report.
Yet you do not seem to feel this applies to you as you certainly dismiss and indeed reverse the findings of an old report, and while telling everyone else to wait on this new report, continue to submit evidence which could be used to exonerate Rove.
Now I am fine with an ultimate wait and see approach. I backed this quite vocally in the MJ thread. Indeed all I have done in this thread is give conditionals and suggest criticism on some of the legal loopholes proRovers have been suggesting.
That is until Wilson himself began to get slammed as if that mattered one bit as to whether Rove did or did not do something wrong. That is when I have become quite proactive, and feel there were many mistatements made for which you have not come clean. Here are some very simple claims you made, and the questions I put to you:
1) Claim: Wilson is a long time Democratic partisan who worked in the Clinton administration long before Bush and Rove entered the national scene.
Q1a: Did Wilson also work for Republican administrations, including for Bush Sr to great acclaim and in defiance of Saddam Hussein, risking his life to save Americans, as well as supporting Republican candidates as late as 2000?
Q1b: If so, how does that suggest he is a partisan likely to lie to the CIA?
Q2c: Why would he bother working for the CIA if he felt it was for a republican cause, instead of just refusing the job?
Q2d: Why, after going on the mission, would he feel he'd have to lie to stop a war he would eventually oppose, if in fact the war had not been proposed yet by the administration, and he could not have known that this was going to be one of the arguments for the war?
2) Claim: It was Wilson who launched the media blitz criticizing Bush in the run up to the election campaign by writing several articles critical of the Bush administration. This was long before Rove was involved in anything.
Q2: Has it been shown that Rove was involved in attempting to undercut Wilson, directly after Wilson's statements and not "long" after?
3) Claim: Wilson didn’t deliver a review of certain intel different from that supplied by B&R as you suggest.
Q3a: Has it been shown that his intel was different than what B&R promoted, and that the CIA had tried to correct them several times on the matter?
Q3b: If it was not different, then why attempt to discredit Wilson by suggesting his wife authorized the project herself, and suggest it had nothing to do with Cheney or the CIA, instead of simply pointing out that his media article conflicted with his intel report which backed their proposition?
4) Claim: Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were proven false in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report... (This also covers your additional claims of "said Wilson provided misleading info", and other Wilson negative language)...
Q4a: Has it been shown that, in fact, the Senate did not mention any sort of qualitative statements regarding Wilson or his intel (besides noting some discrepencies which existed across all intel reports generated), indeed suggesting that his report was valid including for interpretations that the sale, or attempted sale, was unlikely?
Q4b: Has it been shown that, in fact, the Senate criticized CIA handling of the intel, biasing it in favor of certain analyst's interpretations (which were based on initial erroneuos assumptions), and not reporting Wilson's findings accurately to Cheney?
Q4c: If either one is not true, please cite actual quote from the Senate, and include page reference from the report, to back your initial claim. (Note: This does not include their questions about the claim that he identified the Niger forgeries which was not in his report, and is already agreed he spoke incorrectly about.)
5) Claim: The Senate panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, actually bolstered the case.
Q5: Has it been shown that Wilson's intel did not bolster "intelligence" on the sale, showing instead that while most CIA analysts used it to corroborate their theory (which at that point was already errant), INR analysts (who are equally "intelligence") in contrast found it disproving?
Q5b: If not, please provide full Senate statement with page number(s).
6) Claim: Contrary to Wilson's assertions, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
Q6: Has it been shown that, in fact, the CIA had many qualms about the reliability of the Intel and had tried to get the White House to remove such references? (Note: It is true that the CIA did not fully divulge the source nor the nature of the disqualification, and the Senate rebuked the CIA for that, but they had certainly expressed doubts on the reliability of the intel).
7) Claim: Of course it wasn’t Cheney’s office that had questions. The only CIA official he was contacted by was his wife, Plame... (this also covers all claims about Plame being responsible for Wilson's trip, and his denial of her responsibility)...
Q7: Has it been shown that, in fact, Cheney's questions drove the CIA to create the investigation and that Wilson had mutiple contacts with CIA regarding that investigation outside of his wife, indeed that she had no control over the decision to send him at all?
Q7b: If not, please post the full Senate description of the Niger trip, and indicate the exclusivity of Plame and Wilson, as well as that Cheney was not the initiator of the need for that information. You may edit unnecessary "detail" info.
8) Claim: Wilson actually corroborated the intel that Iraq wanted to buy uranium in Niger.
Q8: Has it been shown that the trip was, in fact, meant to discover the accuracy of intel regarding a specific attempt, and the possibilities of its success, and that this put in question that event, both that it occured and that it could have ever succeeded?
Q8b: If not, please cite the Senate finding and list page #.
9) Claim: (paraphrased) Plame's identity was leaked by an analyst at CIA and so she was already outed.
Q9: While you cited this article from Cloud, which indicates a 2002 memo could be used to track the source of the leak (as the source used info from that memo), how does that raise any issue that it had been released publicly prior to the Novak article, as the article does not discuss that possibility at all?
Q9b: Why are you suggesting Cloud was leaked that memo such that it indicates it had been circulating when Rove made his comments, as Cloud's article was made after the CIA asked for an investigation and Cloud suggests where he learned of the memo (two people familiar with the memo, who might be related to the investigation)?
Q9c: Do you agree with the contents of Cloud's article which clearly show Plame was not "responsible" for the trip, that the trip was initiated by Cheney and CIA questions about a particular incident, and that the conclusions were negative on that point?
Q9d: While you go on to say...
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.
..., doesn't the article actually rebut your own assertion by arguing that Cloud was the first person outside of Novak to mention a memo, that it was clearly not from direct information, and that the next journalist to mention it as a source was Gannon?
Q9e: Does this article also go on to argue that the logical conclusion is that the only people which might have been leaked the memo are Novak and Gannon, and most importantly this was all concurrent with the Rove-Novak connection and not vastly prior to Novak's column?
Q9f: Does this article, in fact, conclude that...
Jeff Gannon was planted by the administration to disseminate their talking points unfettered by any journalism ethics or investigation shortly after the Iraq war, when the failure to find WMDs was becoming apparent. He became incredibly useful in L'Affaire Plame to continue to push the dual stories that a) Plame's name was already common knowledge and therefore `outing' her was not a crime and b) to continue to help discredit the CIA and Wilson.
Based on the evidence, I believe the 2002 CIA memo was leaked to Gannon when Novak became unusable and when the `mainstream' reporters with CIA contacts were not pushing the WH's preferred story line. They needed cover, and they got it.
... and so wholly rebut your position?
10) Claim: (paraphrased) Rove is being hounded needlessly by Bush opponents.
Q10: Even if Rove is found to not be chargeable, or beats charges of outing a covert officer, aren't there good reasons for people to be concerned that Rove, an administration official, attempted to discredit an administration critic by making false statements to the press regarding that critic, in order to bolster their (at this point) proven erroneous claims against his proven accurate claims?
Q10b: Don't you think such a person and those connected with that action should pay some very real price, like removal from office?
Q10c: If Rove is convicted, should Bush be held accountable for backing this person using White House assets, and not removing him from duty when he is clearly being investigated for improper if not criminal activity as an official?
Q10d: Don't you think, given the evidence in support of Wilson's claims, that perhaps he is the one who is the target of Bush idealogues, and should be given a break?
This message has been edited by holmes, 07-15-2005 08:12 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Monk, posted 07-19-2005 3:08 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 105 of 271 (223883)
07-15-2005 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by RAZD
07-15-2005 7:49 AM


Re: Tal scores a point... maybe.
I just saw a reference that said that naming the person was not required, just supplying enough information to identify the person
It does seem that the law would not require "naming" a person literally. Especially given the clandestine nature of covert ops, a person pointing out a person using no words at all would be sufficient to blow a cover.
According to this idea Michael Moore could send pictures of all of our top secret agents to Al-Jazeera for broadcast all over the world, and these guys wouldn't think it's illegal... yeah, right.
I find it interesting that no-one has questioned whether Rove said "apparantly" or whether that was inserted by Cooper
It is interesting. Even I caveat how much I can know about what was actually related to Cooper by Rove as all we have so far is Cooper's email relating general facts which came out of their conversation. It appears all we know is Rove was the source who identified Plame.
I'll be checking into the law regarding the five year criteria. I'd love to see Rove skate on the fact that it was 6 years rather than 5, despite the fact that the CIA told Novak not to identify her at all. Clearly someone cared, shouldn't Rove?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2005 7:49 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2005 6:53 PM Silent H has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024