rove defense...depends on what the meaning of the word is...is
Posted by dennis at July 11, 2005 09:26 AMain't life grand
Posted by dennis at July 11, 2005 09:27 AMlet's point out another interesting issue. Joe Wilson was a diplomat and ambassador for the United States for years, all the way back to Bush One. As a matter of fact, Wilson was the last US diplomat to speak with Saddam prior to the 1991 Gulf War presided over by Old Man Bush. He, no doubt, knows alot about Saddam, Iraq, and WMD. But more than that, he probably knows where a lot of skeletons are closeted regarding the ongoing support of Saddam's regime by the US Government, including the tacit approval given Saddam by the US Ambassador at the time, that we would not react to the invasion of Kuwait. Bush the Junior likely has many reasons to want Wilson discredited, if not totally ruined. Between he and his wife, the Wilson's probably had more knowledge of the LACK of WMD in Iraq than anyone.
Posted by T2 at July 11, 2005 09:34 AMAnd it's quite interesting that, with the Rove story breaking, it would appear that Fuck-you Cheney lied to the Grand Jury. You think the Feds will take it easier on him than they did Martha Stewart?
Damn. They could have just had oral sex and been done with it. And speaking of the same, I wonder what role Guckert is playing in this? With Bushco throwing him to the wolves after he was outed he appears to have gotten awfully hungry. I wonder how much arm twisting/money it would have taken to get the story out of him? If it's one thing about these people (trolls included), they would have sex with their Grandmothers if it would make them a dollar.
Posted by phidipides at July 11, 2005 09:41 AMI see it this way, if they had positive irrefutable proof of anything even remotely supporting this bogus allegation they would have put it in front of the UN and it would be used as a sourced document for the Whole WORLD to see back then and now. They haven't done that because they can't! Everyone and their brother with even half a brain knows that.
Their game is to throw bs and muddy the waters...confuse enough of the masses (and of course the "liberal" media that falls for and reports on this crap hook,line and sinker every single time. (NO offense to you eriposte but why are they so easily duped all the time?)That is the only tactic they know because real facts and authentic documents are things they lack.
I say Game Over because Fitzpatrick has the goods on this whole treasonous charade.
Posted by emal at July 11, 2005 09:47 AMHe didn't leak the name, maybe. He leaked who she was married to. The statute in question specifies information that serves to identify covert agents; it does not require the leak of a name. If that's the best defense they've got, Rove is going to need a pardon.
That's why there's something much bigger going on here. If it were just a question of Rove, the only answer would be to hang Rove out to dry and pardon him in 2007--even Rove would tell you that. No, the stonewalling they're doing now results from the fear of significantly more damaging revelations.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 11, 2005 10:12 AMpower corrupts..and absolute power corrupts absolutely
this is playing out like a shakespearian drama..they thought they could do anything
Posted by dennis at July 11, 2005 10:27 AMYou're right. Somerby was wrong on this one. he forgot the basic logic that you can't assume that there is additional evidence.
Posted by Samuel Knight at July 11, 2005 10:39 AMNobody really cares about this issue right now.
Posted by at July 11, 2005 11:47 AMNobody really cares about this issue right now.
LOL Oh, really. Maybe you, but millions of others are very interested.
Posted by at July 11, 2005 12:01 PMMan, when the indictments come down--and it sure as hell looks like there will be indictments--it will be interesting to hear what the spin becomes.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 11, 2005 12:49 PMT2. You've summed it up very nicely and this whole affair needs to consistenly be described as a "conspiracy" involving coordinated criminal activity; forged documents, fixed intelligence, compromised intelligence assets, lying to investigators, etc.
Treasongate is a conspiracy that Rove is just one of the traitors.
Posted by Jesusland Joe at July 11, 2005 12:55 PM
could it be that the prince of darkness himself..dick cheney is involved..??..scooter libby sure as hell is..
Posted by dennis at July 11, 2005 01:03 PMyou libruls are lying once again:
Rove did *not* name Valerie Plame...he only mentioned Joe Wilson's wife!
sheesh, leave it to the lefty media to wildly exaggerate a story...
Posted by David Witt at July 11, 2005 01:07 PMTreasongate is a conspiracy that Rove is just one of the traitors.
See, this is what makes it so scary for the conspirators: If Fitzgerald is to get Rove convicted, he'll need to prove intent. How will he do that? He'll start looking at motive.
No plausible discussion of Rove's motives could possibly exclude other elements of the conspiracy. He just outed her for the hell of it? Pure viciousness? Rove is vicious, I'll grant you, but a prosecutor who actually wanted a conviction--and Fitzgerald seems to me like a prosecutor who really likes getting high-profile convictions--would probably want to tie his motive instead to, say, efforts to conceal other elements of the conspiracy.
This means that their only hope is that Fitzgerald can't get an indictment, because if Rove goes to trial, very, very bad things will come to light.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 11, 2005 01:18 PMMatt, you've got it exactly right and it probably all leads to Nixon's 'chip off the old dick' Cheney as lead conspirator with Rove, Bolton, Gannon, et al., starring as co-conspirators. Which begs Howard Baker's question, "what did the president know and when did he know it?"
Posted by Jesusland Joe at July 11, 2005 01:37 PMDavid Witt - ahahahaha, good one!
Wait, you mean you're serious??
Even funnier! ahahahahaha
Posted by iamcoyote at July 11, 2005 01:42 PMjust working on my wingnut impersonation for Halloween;>
Posted by David Witt at July 11, 2005 01:57 PMGiven the administration's inconsistent acts, I am somewhat confused as to why Iraq obtaining "yellowcake" would be so ruinous as to be construed as a casus belli. Pakistan clearly provided Iran with nuclear secrets and materials and still enjoys their status as our ally. Why has the administration not pressed the UN Security Counsel for sanctions to Pakistan?
North Korea takes great pride in reminding us again and again that they have a nuclear weapons program (or something that can produce a mushroom cloud 2.5 miles in diameter). Not only that but it has a missile program as well. All in all North Korea is more provactive than Saddam's ever was.
Why did this administration fail to negotiate a disarmament treaty with North Korea for all these years and allow them to further develop the range of their missiles and arm them with nuclear warheads? Why is Pakistan our ally after possibly allowing North Korea to test its weapons capability on their soil and giving nuclear secrets to Iran? Why are we no longer able to fight a two front war?
If the President wants his to assume the mantle of the nation's protector, he must answer these questions with deeds and not words. His words mean nothing any longer.
Posted by obelus at July 12, 2005 02:06 PMfor your PS above, specific facts are laid out in the second section of this diary refuting the Niger PM story and others.
Posted by dr z at July 13, 2005 08:54 PMIsn't this particular issue (intel being used by the Administration) something which the Select Committee on Intelligence is still looking into?
Didn't the White House successfully get this Committee to split their work in two separate phases: 1) the Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, and 2) the Use of that Intelligence by senior policymakers? And didn't the White House do so to avoid the complete report to be released before the 2004 Elections?
The RNC is continuously referring to the already published report on Phase 1, but shouldn't this issue really be covered by Phase 2, which still isn't finished yet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_of_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq
Posted by ElGringo at July 14, 2005 01:27 PM> Which begs Howard Baker's question, "What did the President know and when did he know it?"
Remember the title of John Dean's book, "Worse than Watergate".
So the question to be asked is,
"What did the President know and when did he first LIE about it?".