Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-22-2019 2:34 PM
36 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 851,852 Year: 6,889/19,786 Month: 1,430/1,581 Week: 252/393 Day: 75/110 Hour: 6/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   Karl Rove: Traitor?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3957 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 3 of 271 (221430)
07-03-2005 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by berberry
07-03-2005 3:06 AM


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."

If facts pan out then he would not only be guilty of a felony act, but it appears he would also be guilty of conspiracy to commit as well as hide that act. That is in addition to lying to a Grand Jury.

If the facts pan out and this man cannot be removed, yet Clinton was impeached for so much less important issues, then this nation is really owned lock, stock, and barrel by the Bush administration and its apologists. And it will reveal their traitorous dimension.

I can only hope that the news will go public and people give a damn about it, more than they have with other issues of perhaps even greater import. Actually if they'd give it as much attention and concern as Janet's nipple it'd be a relief to me.


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 1 by berberry, posted 07-03-2005 3:06 AM berberry has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 07-04-2005 1:31 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3957 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 5 of 271 (221601)
07-04-2005 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Chiroptera
07-03-2005 9:51 AM


You forgot:

911 changed everything.

Iraq is the front line against the terrorists who attacked us.

And Karl Rove supports our troops.


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 4 by Chiroptera, posted 07-03-2005 9:51 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3957 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 28 of 271 (222195)
07-06-2005 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Tal
07-06-2005 1:02 PM


Re: This story is growing legs
Get to the part where you think Rove is involved and why?

I think you are jumping the gun on this. The OP itself does not suggest that Rove must be, only that Rove is clearly implicated, and if that turns out to be true... what is he? You seem to be jumping to the idea that everyone here would be unwilling to believe anyone else could be found guilty, or hold them accountable. That is not true.

As far as degree of implication, it is rather high. For a guy that still believes WMDs existed in Iraq, it amazing to see your doubt with respect to this case.

He is on a list of sources, but I do not believe it is in the hundreds. And what is more important for figuring out this caper, the person named on the list would also have to have knowledge of CIA agents, and a MOTIVE for outing one of them. There are very very few who might have had the knowledge of covert CIA agents, especially with regard to what their missions might have been. Rove would be one of that incredibly minute number. He is also about the only one that would have a motive.

Isn't that pretty telling to you?

As far as what he is, hero or traitor, I am still not sure he is technically commiting treason, but his act certainly would have been traitorous.

Deep Throat did not come close to commiting treason at all, and his actions were what are protected today under law... the whistleblower law. That is we recognized that some people need to be able to come forward and give testimony of criminal activity, which might result in sanctions against them in normal cricumstances.

DT did not do something which was criminal because he wanted to gain something, he was witness to a criminal activity other were commiting and tried to find a way to get the info out.

Rove, or whoever outed Plaime, was not uncovering a crime. What they were doing was broadcasting the identity of a secret agent, and putting at risk not only her life and career, but everyone she had ever been in contact with (including more agents in the field). And this was done solely to ruin that agent and her husband for private gain.

If Michael Moore began broadcasting US positions and strengths on Al Jazeera, my guess is you would not only find that unbelievably treasonous, but clearly different than if Rumsfeld leaked that he discovered certain Senators were taking kickbacks to push a certain arms deal.

I mean you can see the difference, right?

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

Yes, but then we'd never be able to reply to your posts.


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 25 by Tal, posted 07-06-2005 1:02 PM Tal has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3957 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 37 of 271 (223320)
07-12-2005 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by berberry
07-11-2005 5:47 PM


Re: Mainstream Media Finally Confronts the White House
FYI, they have a WMV and QT file of it over at michaelmoore.com.

I think the email contents recently revealed by Cooper are pretty damning in and of themselves. I am glad to see the heat for anything is finally starting to hit the White House.


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 31 by berberry, posted 07-11-2005 5:47 PM berberry has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3957 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 39 of 271 (223335)
07-12-2005 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Tal
07-12-2005 8:25 AM


Re: This story is growing legs
Exposing a criminal illegally and protecting a criminal illegally are both...well, illegal

What did Deep Throat do which was inherently illegal, and especially that which is not currently understood to be acceptable given our current protections for whistle blowers?

Protecting a criminal illegally is an additional crime, called conspiracy, obstructing justice and aiding and abetting a crime.

I notice you never responded to my concrete hypothetical parallel between moore giving info on troop position, and rumsfeld leaking info on graft by senators... which is worse and would either be protected?

BTW, is the evidence starting to become clearer for you regarding Rove's culpability?

This message has been edited by holmes, 07-12-2005 08:35 AM


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 38 by Tal, posted 07-12-2005 8:25 AM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Monk, posted 07-12-2005 9:14 AM Silent H has responded
 Message 41 by Tal, posted 07-12-2005 9:18 AM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3957 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 42 of 271 (223347)
07-12-2005 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Monk
07-12-2005 9:14 AM


Re: ...but the legs seem a little stubby
Im not very clear on this.

I'm not suggesting any air tight case has been revealed to the media yet, or exactly what did happen. My question was a response to Tal's apparent dismissal that there was any evidence beyond his name being on the list. I explained that it was his position and motive which moved him to the top of the supsect list given that he was on the sources list.

Now I am asking if it is any clearer for him why he would be suspected of culpability.

As for your questions:

We do not know if he explicitly gave the name "Plame" to Cooper, but that seems a bit besides the point when he identified exactly who she was. Wilson had only one wife.

Is Rove the source for the Novak article? After all, it was the Novak article that outed Plame.

That is an interesting question, though it is also a bit irrelevant to the issue. She was outed as soon as her identity as a CIA operative was revealed. It was only more publically revealed by Novak. I am curious as to what Novak has done to get a special deal with the prosecutor. It could very well turn out that Novak has already revealed Rove to be the perp, but the other journalists are being investigated to gather evidence Rove was spreading such info throughout the media.

Has it been shown that Plame is a covert CIA agent or was she a CIA analyst whose employer and job description was widely known inside the beltway? Wouldnt that make a difference as to whether there was a crime?

It is freely admitted that she was a covert CIA agent. The question is whether she was both a covert operative and an overt CIA employee and he was only making reference to the overt position she held.

That might make a difference, if it could be shown that he had no knowledge that she was covert, or that the "signoff" he claims she gave on a mission was not in her role as covert agent. Either sound like complete BS to me. They wouldn't be aware of the only CIA agent on a mission, or running a mission, to uncover whether certain evidence that would make or break one of the top issues they were facing?

That is especially true once Wilson went public and they were then moving forward to try and discredit the story. They did no reference checks on who his wife was, besides the person who "wrote off" his mission?

All this would suggest is a move from intentional misconduct to gross criminal negligence.

And I am still a bit confused for all those seeking to support Rove and Bush and Co in this whole affair. Let's say for a second Rove is innocent of intentionally revealing a covert operative. What exactly did he do?

He is now on record as having stated that wilson's info should be dismissed as biased because the white house did not order an investigation to corroborate a key piece of evidence, wilson's wife (a lower operative) did. Isn't that an explicit indictment of the white house? That means they were not looking into evidence, and were trying to prevent any evidence from being properly investigated.

It seems to me everyone from Rove on up is in deep trouble at this point. Of course the Reps have to care about that for anything to happen. But we'll see.


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 40 by Monk, posted 07-12-2005 9:14 AM Monk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Monk, posted 07-12-2005 10:52 AM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3957 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 43 of 271 (223348)
07-12-2005 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Tal
07-12-2005 9:18 AM


Re: This story is growing legs
He ordered the break-in of Vietnam protesters' offices, Weather Underground. He was convicted, later pardoned for this.

I meant what did he do that was illegal by leaking the info he had to the press. That is the comparison under discussion.

He could have resigned from the FBI and gone to the US Attourney's office (who by the way was already investigating all of that) with his evidence instead of leaking secret information to the press.

You mean "secret information" of a crime, which is why it was "secret". It was not legitimately "classified information".

Yes he could have, and should have done the above. What does that matter when we are discussing what he did do. Is what he did illegal in the same way that leaking the identity of a covert agent not engaging in criminal activity is?

I do want to get this on record then... If it turns out Rove is guilty, then you would want anyone else who knew what he had done and kept silent brought to justice?

I might add that this means you believe Novak, Cooper, and the other journalist should have come forward to identify their sources within the administration to authorities because that action was a crime?

I help the enemies of democracy get stronger by telling them laws dont matter

So your contention is that friends of democracy are in support of more and stricter laws? What exactly does the RNC stand for these days?


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 41 by Tal, posted 07-12-2005 9:18 AM Tal has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3957 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 47 of 271 (223376)
07-12-2005 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Monk
07-12-2005 10:52 AM


Re: ...but the legs seem a little stubby
it seems doubtful that Rove will be prosecuted according to Lanny Davis. Lanny was a special counsel that helped Clnton through his debacles.

Yes, that is exactly what I want to see. I want to see Republicans quoting someone that defended Clinton as for why they may have a legal way out of trouble.

As far as his criteria goes, it seems ludicrous to me that anyone in the White House could not have known her status, before they leaked any info. They wouldn't run that by anyone before speaking? As I said, that only shifts the issue to criminal negligence.

They clearly intentionally disclosed that fact. Unless what is meant that that's all they wanted to disclose.

And the idea that the CIA doesn't want it's covert officer's identities secret is the height of absurdity. That is what covert means.

Do you agree that his comments, even if he is not guilty, indict the entire white house for mismanagement of handling intel in general? That it showed they had a disregard (apparently a sneering disregard) for analyzing key data?

After all Bush cited the yellow cake issue. That Rove would say to the press that they didn't authorize an investigation into the accuracy of that data and people who were interested in doing so should be considered suspect... that seems pretty bad to me.


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 45 by Monk, posted 07-12-2005 10:52 AM Monk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Monk, posted 07-12-2005 12:02 PM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3957 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 48 of 271 (223388)
07-12-2005 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Monk
07-12-2005 11:06 AM


Re: ...but the legs seem a little stubby
Watergate was the cover-up of a crime, albeit a low level burglary.

That is not accurate, jar's comparison is correct.

Watergate began as an investigation of a small crime, and perhaps a small cover-up. But it was actually an investigation stemming from that to potential other crimes which were not initially known which broke open the Nixon administration. It involved slush-funds and things like that.

In this case a crime or major mistake is known. Whether it is gross incompetence and so a mistake or an outright crime may be there, but that is small difference. It is known that a covert operative has had her identity blown. It appears to be leading to something greater, just as the watergate investigation had.

One must also keep in mind that this leak was not in some vacuum, it had a specific motive regarding contrary evidence to white house claims. That itself points to wrongdoing, even if it does not rise to actual conviction.

One would think the crew that got upset that Clinton didn't admit a blowjob to a Grand Jury supposedly investigating financial scandals, would understand there is something pretty wrong here.

They seem to be going out of their way to avoid the perception of a cover-up.

Not really. Their adamant defence of Rove, including using their own press liason to defend Rove, and then retreat to complete silence when the evidence is looking bad, does look like a cover-up. Perhaps not as great... but how great was lying about a blowjob?


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 46 by Monk, posted 07-12-2005 11:06 AM Monk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Monk, posted 07-12-2005 12:14 PM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3957 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 52 of 271 (223402)
07-12-2005 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Monk
07-12-2005 12:02 PM


Re: ...but the legs seem a little stubby
The CIA employs thousands of civilians, many of them are analysts who are not classified as covert operatives.

That is not what I was referring to. You said...

and know that the CIA wanted her covert status kept secret.

If she was not covert that is one thing, or a mix and they did not mind her mere analyst position mentioned is another. Totally on a different plain than those two issues is whether the CIA wanted her covert status kept secret.

Also, if you look at the context of the conversation between Rove and Cooper. The Plame subject enters at the end of a long conversation Cooper and Rove were having on a variety of other issues. It didnt seem to be the focus.

I am only privvy to the excerpts of the email which have been made public. I am not sure how you can pull how long the conversation was and what place it took part in that conversation, from his email of just the basic info he got to his boss.

Tenet cleared the Niger story and paid the price.

How did he pay the price, when he was allowed to resign and then got decorated with this nation's top honor? Wow, someone take me out that way. The point is he cleared the niger story because he did not have it investigated. The White House did not pressure him to do so either, which seems ridiculous (and in my view negligent).

Rove's commentary as described by Cooper was that the White House was not interested and Wilson's trip only happened because his wife signed off on it.

BTW, it is rather unlikely that an analyst is going to be signing off a mission to gather intel, that's usually the work of ops agents.

When did Rove say anything about not authorizing an investigation?

The question Cooper raised was whether the wilson investigation... which was the only investigation carried to that location... was at the request of the CIA and so the White House. Rove was denying that it had the backing of the White House or CIA, and that it had only been cleared by wilson's wife.

Can you think what reason the White House and or CIA should NOT have backed the trip? Or why they should deny its results, just because (and if) it had not been initiated from the top levels?

In fact, shouldn't the White House have been congratulating that employee on her initiative which would have spared the administration undue embarassment, rather than trying to undercut that successful employee and the results she obtained?

I mean we are not in the dark here. Her endeavour was a good one, it was highly successful, and delivered accurate info. The only problem is that it did not fit the answer they wanted. That is the only reason for it to be discredited.

Why are you not stomping the guts out of Rove and the administration for undercutting successful operatives who delivered 100% accurate info, at this point in time?

To defend any of these actions is to be honoring falsification of evidence and arguing that discrediting hard work and good intel is okay as long as it was "legal".


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 49 by Monk, posted 07-12-2005 12:02 PM Monk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Monk, posted 07-12-2005 12:50 PM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3957 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 53 of 271 (223403)
07-12-2005 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Monk
07-12-2005 12:14 PM


Re: ...but the legs seem a little stubby
Just because Watergate involved slush funds and a whole host of other illegal activities doesnt mean the same is true for the Bush Admin. Its wishful thinking on the part of Dems.

I'm not a Dem, and I was not meaning to suggest a 1-1 analogy and that this would involve things like slushfunds.

My point was that both started as an investigation into something that was not known if it was a truly criminal act. In this case it is the outing of an agent. The other it was looking into things like slush funds. You are confused if you think that watergate was simply and investigation into break ins.

it hasnt been shown that a covert operative has had her identity blown.

There is no question that a covert agent had her identity blown. Even Bush has admitted this, which is why there is so much heat. The only question is if the blowing was intentionally done.

Hahaha, looks like blowjobs may threaten two administrations after all.


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 50 by Monk, posted 07-12-2005 12:14 PM Monk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Monk, posted 07-12-2005 12:55 PM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3957 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 60 of 271 (223436)
07-12-2005 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Monk
07-12-2005 12:50 PM


Re: ...but the legs seem a little stubby
You are really butchering my post. Actually, I quoted Lanny Davis who said that one of the conditions to proving a crime is the condition that the CIA must have wanted to keep a CIA employees status covert to be considered a crime

No, you misunderstood me. I know I was referring to Lanny's comments. Whether he said them or anyone else said them, that would be ridiculous. It is pure lawyer-speak. I'm sure a defense lawyer would love to pretend that there is the possibility that a covert agent is not supposed to be covert, and so someone has an extra dodge.

Its kind of like the definition of is "is" thing.

But back to reality there is no reason that the CIA would be wanting its covert operative's identities made public. That is the definition of covert, not public.

But where did Rove say to the press that they didn't authorize an investigation into the accuracy of that data

The question was about the only investigation ever mentioned into that subject. If Rove was saying that they did not authorize that investigation then by necessity of reality they didn't authorize any. By now the press would be out if there had been any other. Indeed it would be in the Congressional Report.

There could be any number of legitimate reasons why the trip was not sanctioned. That doesnt lead to or imply criminal behavior.

Remember that it was approved, and that they were attempting to dismiss it at a critical juncture simply because it was not sanctioned at the highest levels. We now know with 20/20 vision that it was the only, and if not only then only accurate mission on that subject.

So they did not enjoy, and wanted to kill the only well run operation on intel in that issue... and you don't see a problem with it?

Well, there is reason to take a close look at that report. Joe Wilson was a former high ranking official in Clintons National Security Council and advisor to the Kerry campaign.

Ad hominem and guilt by association? That's the reason to discredit the report? Oh by the way you said "look closer", that's exactly what they didn't want anyone else to do.

I think this is hilarious that you try to discredit, even at this date, his report. And you do it based on wording he used against Rove after his wife was ruined by Rove, as well as connection to a campaign against Rove/Bush.

Hey, you know what else he said? The Niger sale wasn't real. You know where he said it? The report.

You know what Bush and Co said? The Niger sale was real. You know where they said that? All over the place? What did they say when actual intel as seen in that report was presented? Don't believe him because his wife authorized the trip.

If you can't see in light of all the following events who comes out smelling like roses and who needs their ass stomped, then you are blinded by partisanship.

So its obvious that Wilson is a bitter partisan who hates Rove and the Bush Admin. Shouldnt this factor into the credibility of the report?

Yes, if the report somehow said it couldn't have been because Rove and Bush are bad guys then we might say it is less than credible. But that's not what it said. It actually had facts. Indeed that's not why they said his report had to be looked at closer with regard to facts, they stated that it had to be ignored altogether.

And again I laugh. Rove and Bush were bitter partisan guys who hated Wilson. Shouldn't that have factored into their credibility? Turns out to be yes, as they were wrong.

Can't you fit the pieces of the puzzle together? We know who was right and who was wrong. We know what investigations happened and which bore good fruit. We know which parties tried to bury the good data. Don't we?


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 54 by Monk, posted 07-12-2005 12:50 PM Monk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Monk, posted 07-12-2005 3:15 PM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3957 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 61 of 271 (223438)
07-12-2005 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Monk
07-12-2005 12:55 PM


Re: ...but the legs seem a little stubby
I never said this nor did I imply it as you well know.

No. You said it is not the same because watergate started with investigating a crime and this one is of a potential crime. Unless the investigation was simply that of the break ins, then you are wrong. And you are wrong as the serious investigation was of potential crimes... the break ins were known, and old/nothing news.

Where did Bush admit this? Source please?

Here is a source reporting that he acknowledged a covert agents identity had been blown.

In June 2004, President Bush pledged that any administration official who broke the law by leaking a covert officer's identity would be prosecuted and fired.

And as an added bonus here is the newspaper confirming the fact that she was covert...

Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert officer at the CIA.

So I hope we are clear now. She was a covert CIA agent, even if she also may have worked as an analyst, and everyone gets that her cover was in fact blown. The only question is who did it, and in doing it were they knowingly doing that and so commiting a crime.

The only defense is whether a crime was commited doing the act, not whether it was done. Otherwise there wouldn't be an investigation.


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 55 by Monk, posted 07-12-2005 12:55 PM Monk has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3957 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 64 of 271 (223465)
07-12-2005 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Monk
07-12-2005 3:15 PM


Re: ...but the legs seem a little stubby
Where is the source that Bush admitted this? or were you just blowing smoke?

I just gave you and article which dated when he discussed the blowing of a secret agent's cover. Unless you are going to argue that he was discussing some other case, that should have been good enough.

If you want I'll track down some more quotes where he talks about how serious this investigation is into whether a crime was commited in leaking this information. About the one thing that isn't debatable here is that someone who was covert, got their identity blown. The question is only who, and did they commite a crime in doing it.

I asked you where Rove said this, where was your source? Your response was:

It was in articles reviewing the emails released by Cooper. Do you have a hard time Yahooing or Googling for very recent info? Do you really need me to post recent articles on the subject?

So credibility factors in with Rove and Bush because they hate Wilson, but it doesnt factor in with Wilson who hates Rove and Bush. Im confused?

Ah, I get it. Full spin cycle of deny deny deny, and question question question. How funny that you apologists spend so much time being superskeptics on intel which might hurt you, and super gullible when it might husrt everyone else.

Let's try this again. You claimed that Wilson was biased against B&R. We'll forget for sake of argument that your "evidence" is personal comments by Wilson after he got screwed by B&R. Okay so this guy who might be biased delivers a review of certain intel which differs from that supplied by B&R.

On the flipside is B&R, and their review of the same intel, and they are potentially equally biased against Wilson. In order to sink Wilson they resort not to dealing with evidence, but only ad hominem and guilt by association arguments so as to pressure people to avoid looking at what Wilson says.

Now what can a neutral person make of this? Well we should decide to trust neither one implicitly and just go with the data. A neutral observer would note that Wilson certainly had more facts on his side at the time, than B&R. In fact before the war started he was totally backed by all world intel sources.

More interestingly is that he has been supported by all evidence after the invasion, while everything B&R said has fallen apart.

So what are we to make now (as neutral observers) of B&R having tried to quash good intel, to support bad intel? Your continued apologetics on this is really self-defeating. The facts are in and it is only accepting reality which seems to be taking some time.

Though I guess in this bizarro world you guys are operating you can claim Wilson was "rewarded" with a stab in the back, since you have already claimed Tenet was "punished" by getting full benefits and the nation's highest medal.


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 62 by Monk, posted 07-12-2005 3:15 PM Monk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Monk, posted 07-12-2005 11:43 PM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3957 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 68 of 271 (223559)
07-13-2005 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Monk
07-12-2005 11:43 PM


Re: Wilson's lies
Actually, you said Bush admitted that an agent had her identity blown, a declarative statement. Now you change it to say that Bush was discussing the blowing of an agents cover.

Is that what you are getting so worked up over? That I used "admission"? I was simply saying that even Bush has made public commentary which exhibits that he knows classified information had been leaked, and that it was a secret agent's identity (aka a covert agent's identity had been blown).

Bush said IF an administration official broke the law by leaking a covert officer's identity, THEN they would be prosecuted and fired.

You are putting emphasis in the wrong place. He is stating if an administration official "broke the law" by leaking a covert officer's identity, then they would be prosecuted and fired. The question he is leaving open is whether laws were broken, not if info was leaked.

Not even Rove's lawyer is arguing that she wasn't a covert agent who has now had her cover blown. It is about whether he intended to do that, whether he gave enough specifics to do that, and whether he even knew she was a covert agent at the time.

Bush has discussed the seriousness of the investigation

Check it out Monk, the investigation is who blew the agent's cover and if it was done in a way that it was a crime. Everyone understands that a covert agent's cover was blown.

No, its still debatable whether Plame was covert. If she wasnt covert, then she couldnt have gotten her identity blown.

Hey genius, I gave you a quote from the same article where it was explicitly stated that she was a covert agent. So put the clues together. She WAS a covert agent. Her identity was revealed through a leak of classified info. An investigation begins on that leak, which would only happen if a leak occured (if it wasn't the investigation would not have been going on for two years, more like two seconds), and Bush is discussing possible punishments if a crime were connected to the leaking of the info.

Only extreme linguistic gymnastics and almost delusional apologetics, can get you to a point where you can question IF a covert agent's cover was blown.

Actually, I do because you are in the habit of posting long, posts filled with numerous points without source links that often conflict with previous statements made by you and are in many cases either off topic or just plain wrong

I do not post sources for easily obtainable info. It is a waste of my time to cut and paste links to info, you can just as easily tap a few words into Yahoo or Google to find. My posts do not conflict with previous posts. Only through linguistic twisting and turning are you capable of pretense that I have changed what I was stating in any of my posts. Unlike you I have solid positions I don't need to wriggle out of.

In this latest case you are simply trying to be a stickler for what "admission" must mean, rather than look at the context of what I was discussing.

No. Lets get the facts straight before we begin. Wilson was biased against Bush and Rove not because he was screwed as you put it. But because Wilson is a long time Democratic partisan who worked in the Clinton administration long before Bush and Rove entered the national scene.

Genius, I was accepting your position to move on with the argument. The only thing I said is that it takes me forgetting that your only "evidence" was stuff coming after he got screwed by Rove and Co. Tenet worked in the Clinton administration... so that kind of thing means nothing. Kerry's campaign and the election campaign came after he got screwed. But let me get very accurate for you...

DID PLAME HAVE HER COVER BLOWN?
You may go to this CNN page on the Rove story There is a "related" popup link further down the page (whose address I can't seem to cut and paste) which provides a timeline of the case. It is titled "Plame Case". So if you don't trust the wording within the article itself to note that she did, go to that link. There you will find:

A grand jury investigation into who leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame has targeted two reporters, threatening to jail them for refusing to name the source of the leak.

At the CIA's request, the Justice Department launches a criminal probe into the leak of Plame's identity. A 1982 law makes knowingly disclosing the identity of a covert agent a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Novak says he won't reveal his sources. He said the CIA asked him not to identify Plame, "but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else" if he did.

So, let's add this up. The grand jury investigation is part of the criminal probe initiated at the request of the CIA, into the leaking of a covert agent's identity. Novak is trying to stand behind the fact that the CIA didn't blow her cover when telling him not to publish her identity, as an excuse for why he didn't do anything wrong. Thus even he is not denying that her cover was blown, only that he couldn't know he was doing it.

Oh by the way you cited this source earlier to try and blackwash Wilson. In it you will find that your own source said:

Novak hasn't particularly supported the Iraq war, and his column essentially took Wilson's side. But the fact that Novak blew Plame's cover (in the course of relating that Wilson was sent at Plame's suggestion) gave The Nation's David Corn the opportunity to accuse the Bush administration of compromising national security, in violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.

Your article was very old and at that time was trying to question if Wilson's wife was truly a CIA agent, but understood that if she was then her cover had been blown. It is quite evident from above is it not? At the bottom of the article is an update/correction stating that the CIA has instructed the DOJ to start and investigation... end of story, a covert officer had her cover blown and even your source recognizes that the CIA recognizes that this is true.

What leg are you left to stand on?

WAS WILSON A BITTER PUBLIC PARTISAN HACK ABOUT ROVE BEFORE GETTING SCREWED?
Now I have no clue if in private this guy doesn't like Bush and Co, and maybe he is. But you tried to tie his public activity against them as indication he was obviously biased against them. I have noted that your evidence is all after he got screwed.

In both your source and the CNN timeline you will see that Wilson's mission was in 2002, and that his article in NYTimes was on July 6 2003. This led to Tenet's having to bite the bullet on July 11 2003. Novak writes his article on July 14, 2003, outing Wilson's wife and as we see now Rove had been contacting reporters during this time period with her identity. Intentional or not, Wilson just got a knife in the back for doing good service.

Would that make you a bit bitter? Not only did he have his credit shot for good service (we can agree on that, right?), but his wife's career was destroyed. It is AFTER THAT, on Aug 21 that he publically skewers Rove, and Rove in particular. It is after that that he works for the Kerry campaign. You need me to draw you a diagram or something?

If anything this totally make me respect Wilson. Not only did he get the Niger thing right, but he appears to have correctly identified who tried to backstab him and his wife. Someone give this man a job.

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 dated (July 10, 2004). 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.

Oh, I'll go look for it. What's funny is that it could be proven false, when the accuracy of the info has been proven since then.

He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

Senate Committee staffers asked how Wilson could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said.

Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. 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.

A bald face lie? Why is it a lie instead of a misstatement? Tell me something... did they turn out to be forgeries, and based on what indicators? Hint: everything Wilson said. He was likely misstating what he had personally found.

The bipartisan Senate intelligience report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying 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." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson

You are trying to run the other way now with language. What was the nature of rejecting Wilson's statements within the media. It was that no one but his wife had sanctioned the trip. That only his wife was responsible for sending him. The above clearly shows that THEY were lying. He was likely responding to the accusations that she was the only one who made up and signed off on the trip, when he was saying she was not responsible for the trip, or had nothing to do with it.

Clearly they had waited for confirmation from others higher up before going on the mission.

What I really don't get is where this attack is coming from. He was right, he was proven right. They were proven wrong. You are trying to use ad hominem and guilt by association, rather than look directly at who was right.

Did any of this make its way into the numerous articles written by Wilson in the New York Times and other media outlets? Of course not.

Why would it have to, when the object under discussion was whether the sale went through, as the administration was claiming it had?

Wrong again Holmes. A neutral person would conclude that Wilson is a Democratic partisan idealogue who eagerly wanted to get Kerry elected and saw trashing Bush by lying as the easiest way to do it. Then there's the money and fame. Wilson did NOT have more facts on his side and he was NOT backed by all world intel sources.

Oh watson, look at your poor logical ability. How could a neutral person conclude that at all? The question is was his report accurate regarding the subject under discussion which was the sale of material. His info was accurate about that. Whether Iraq was interested is not the same as saying it was going through.

What's ridiculous is that you can't even use hindsight to build the case. We have the facts and they are in. Wilson was right about the Niger claim and they were wrong. His article is what forced the admission by Tenet that the administration was wrong. A few days later someone attempts to discredit Wilson from within the administration.

The idea that Bush and Rove might be the political idealogues seems to have slipped your mind completely.

Why should we believe anything these two say? Why should we believe she was involved in covert operations? Because she says so?

Whether they decided to cash in on their misfortune AFTER the backstabbing is irrelevant to what happened from 2002 to 2003. Certainly one could not have used it to make judgements about his claims in 2003.

If you think Rove and Bush have not been cashing in on all of this, then you are simply denying reality. They were up for a loss and obviously attempted to punish someone raining on their bad intel. They went on to decorate the guy who had the bad intel... ever going to back up your assertion he got punished?

I never said Wilson was a perfect individual, and neither did I say Plame was. The questions are:

1) Was he right on Niger? He was, confirmed before his own article by UN officials on proliferation, and the White House iced him for it. If he wasn't then Tenet would never have had to come clean. That is motive for revenge. The timing couldn't be sweeter for any investigation.

2) Was he right on Rove? Apparently he was. And this makes things even more strained for you. If you are saying the White House should have dismissed Wilson because they knew about Wilson and his wife and what type of people they were, then how did they not know she was a covert agent when they leaked it?

3) Was she a covert agent? As I have shown above, your own sources admit it, and so does the CIA... which is why an investigation was started.

You are spinning spinning spinning, on this one, and getting nowhere.


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 66 by Monk, posted 07-12-2005 11:43 PM Monk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Monk, posted 07-13-2005 1:21 PM Silent H has responded

    
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019