Has it occurred to you that Karl Rove is more important to you guys as a symbol of "evil" than he will ever be to mainstream America?
Most people really don't care about this issue. To mainstream America the results of the 2006 election is going to reflect the steady stream of anti-american and obstructionist statements made by those on the far left who have hijacked the Democratic party.
I know that this international liberalism seems popular in the papers, but national pride is real and you're going to feel it in the polls very soon.
thats certainly not what the polls reflect
despite the latest spin on joe wilson there are many factual signs to back up roves lies
there was no nuclear program anything like what the lies told
there were no wmd..and this is not about joe wilson..it's about the lies this administration told to the american people and the world to justify a war that didn't need to be fought and mike if you think the american people don't care that their children were sent to war on lies..you're very wrong
Posted by dennis at July 14, 2005 03:17 AMMike, excuse me, but who's party has been hijacked?
Posted by Judith at July 14, 2005 03:23 AMWe'll have Congressional elections in 2006 and then we'll see which party takes a beating.
Posted by at July 14, 2005 04:34 AMIf people reach the conclusion that they were lied to about the war and the other issues against Bush coming out begin to resonate, no hiding behind the flag will save the GOP in 2006. In fact, if the connection between dishonesty and psudo-patroitism becames too clear, all these related issues could haunt the GOP for several election cycles. Americans are a patroitic people, but if they find that their loyalty to country is being used for dishonest ends, woe be to the GOP.
Posted by argus at July 14, 2005 05:33 AMno..the horse isn't dead yet..i think we can beat this one for some time yet..especially if they're indictments forthcoming..which there most certainly are for somebody..and as far as boring goes..i think its great fun to watch liars when caught....and say no comment..pillars of virtue that they are....as far as did anybody breaking the law..bill clinton was impeached for lieing about something that wasn't a crime....lieing and manipulating national security to deceive the american people into a war seems a tad more serious then what monica did to bill...you followers of this administration are one amazingly group of gullible clowns...
Posted by dennis at July 14, 2005 05:52 AMMost people really don't care about this issue.
You'll notice, this is always the last effort of the administration. "No one cares." Republi-cons and neo-cons don't care, we do.
Why? If you haven't noticed, this is an issue of national security, and anyone who thinks it isn't is a fool. CIA operations were compromised, several agents and operatives died because of this, and a whole area of covert operations had to be closed down. You guys have the "Terra" president, and he's aiding and abetting "Terra" at every turn. Why? He gives a rats ass about making you safe. He supports his base, and I assure you that is neither you nor me.
Get it through your thick head: If Rove was the leaker he murdered American agents. Is that plain enough?
Posted by phidipides at July 14, 2005 07:13 AM
I'll get out my whip to beat the dead horse along with Dennis. I think eventually the world will demand an answer from BushCo, etc. as to why the war was begun in the first place -- the real reason. And it ain't gonna be an answer easily swallowed by most people. The Plume/Wilson affair is just one of the whip slashes that will eventually bring out the truth.
Bush, along with each and every member of his administration should be held accountable for their actions in this world just like any other government who uses aggression or military force for any reason. And Americans should DEMAND the truth at all times from our government, especially when it comes to the call of war. WE THE PEOPLE cannot allow our own government to use such words as "freedom", "democracy" and "liberty" as self-propaganda slurs, abusing their meaning by using these very precious words to back up lies. It is easy to rally Americans when they are told that their troops are fighting for their "freedom", their "liberty" and the spread of "democracy". If indeed we were fighting for these cherished reasons, it would be quite acceptable to go to war. But we are not. We are at war for some "other reason" (probably oil and the wealth that it will bring to a few chosen persons). And that is the root problem here.
The point to be taken seriously is that these lies have cost American lives. And that count is getting close to the number lost in the 911 attacks themselves. Now it is not known how many lives were lost due to this identity leak. All due to a lie and another lie to cover up the lie. How many more Americans will have to die before the lying stops?
Americans do care that our highest officials in the WH would stoop to such low-life actions as to compromise a covert CIA operation in order to try to smooth over a screw-up or to spin a lie. Because such actions lead to deaths of American agents and soldiers. Does the WH realize what they have done and/or do they care? Obviously not.
If solving this riddle seems boring to some, then so be it. Our judicial system wasn't designed around "entertaining the people." If boredom is necessary to save our young servicemen and serivcewomen's lives, then I know I can sit around and wait it out...
We know that the Bush Lie Machine was well oiled when this all began; now we here on the Left have beat this machine with enough sledge hammers that it now needs a serious service call. Interesting to see who the repairman will be....???
WolfmanSpike
Howlin' at the World from the Left Side of the Planet
One hundred years ago, TR meant Theodore Roosevelt, and "bully" was praise.
Nowadays TR means "Treason Roving", and "bully" is all Republicans are good at.
How far the GOP has sunk.
Rove must have his security clearance removed and step down until the inquiry and following criminal trial are complete. No single man is worth more than the nation. Continued delayed by the administration and its mouth pieces serve to lay the ground work for conspiracy charges, and to those in the mouths in the "press" who are "seemingly safe" from conspiracy charges, look at where Judy has found herself.
On the matter of Sommersby.
It is clear Sommersby is cherry picking his information. The real question is why? The answer: people he supports within the dem organization would like this whole thing to go away. It is a shame because sommersby can be uncannily accurate when he chooses to do so. This time he is very wrong, and therefore must have intentionally chosen this approach. It is more useful to find those foolish dems who feel the need to hide behind republicans.
To the Sommersby Dems: Know at this point, since you have obviously been living in a state of willful self denial since November, Team Bush can't pay its bills, now or in the future. Now more than ever its time to cut the losses and move on, before you yourself are called in by Team Bush as an offering on its behalf. We look for a Soomersby correction on Friday, as he looks deeper into the reality behind the 8 dem votes on the comittee on which he has hung his hat. For a man that can look into the footnotes of Slander, its amazing he didn't look further into the "findings" he is quoting.
Posted by patience at July 14, 2005 08:05 AMWho cares who sent who, who called who first, who went where and why. This means nothing to the bottom line. Did he or did he not break the law? The only piece of evendice we have is the damn email & phone call.
If you find a body riddled with bullets, you know a crime has taken place. Valerie Plame's name and job became public knowledge, which means a crime has taken place. The CIA says a crime has taken place. Are we done yet with the idea that we don't know whether a crime has taken place?
So far the only evidence that has surfaced to connect anyone to the crime has Karl Rove's name on it. How bad an investigator would you have to be not to want to know why he was communicating this information to reporters, and to want to know how he came by such carefully guarded information? If Rove is not a criminal, someone else in the White House is, so why would Rove and Bush protect such a person?
If you think Karl Rove is innocent, tell me why he isn't all over the talk shows proclaiming it? Why does the GOP have to issue patently false "talking points?" Why isn't the truth good enough? Why isn't Rove challenging Wilson to appear with him to discuss the case? I know I would be. Wilson seems ready to discuss it with anyone. Why isn't Rove?
Posted by Repack Rider at July 14, 2005 08:10 AM(CIA operations were compromised, several agents and operatives died because of this, and a whole area of covert operations had to be closed down)
I must of missed class that day. When did this happen? I thought the problem is he leaked the name of one CIA agent.
Plame's "cover" was a front company run by the Agency. Once her status was revealed, the front company was exposed also. This negated years of effort on the part of the CIA to set up the cover company, and compromised everyone known to have done business with the company. All the work done by the company in previous years went up in smoke.
Revealing Plame's identity is treason.
Is that clear enough?
Posted by Repack Rider at July 14, 2005 08:17 AMI was wondering where all these dead agents are coming from that phidipides was referring to.
Go to the CIA and look at the anoymous stars for dead agents and the operations they were in. Want us to disinter one and mail it to you?
Posted by phidpides at July 14, 2005 08:35 AMI never thought I'd live to see the day when the Lefties were one hundred ten percent behind the CIA and its covert operations and standing against treason and leaking of classified information. Hey, what's that outside my window? Pigs flying over a guy with horns in a red suit with a pitchfork complaining about the ice.
Posted by Mr Damage at July 14, 2005 08:40 AMnever thought i would live to see the day when a republican administration would blame the cia for "bad information" when in fact it was not the bad intelligence ..but the manipulation of that intelligence that led us to war...
Posted by dennis at July 14, 2005 08:48 AMI never thought I'd live to see the day when the Lefties were one hundred ten percent behind the CIA and its covert operations and standing against treason
I never thought I'd live to see the day when the Righties were one hundred ten percent behind a draft dodger and defending treason.
Oh, who am i kidding, the sympathy with chickenshits, indifference to US security and overt hostilty to the law has been this administration's MO from day one.
Posted by benjoya at July 14, 2005 09:26 AMHas it occurred to you that Karl Rove is more important to you guys as a symbol of "evil" than he will ever be to mainstream America?
Has it occurred to you that Karl Rove the symbol of evil is a traitor, and that mainstream America wants traitors out of our government, no matter what their political affiliation.
Vote Republican the Pro-Traitor Pro-Treason Party!
Posted by emal at July 14, 2005 09:30 AMI want to know who were the other approximately six journalists who where given the same information as Bob Novak but declined to publish it. Are they afraid that they, too, will be called before the Grand Jury to testify? And what is Novak's role in all of this? What kind of deal might he already have made with the prosecutor?
Posted by Annie at July 14, 2005 11:00 AM"I see how deep this thing goes now. I was under the assumption it only affected this one agent. BUT, you are still assuming agents were killed." - Senseless.
Different circus, same clown. It's clear you just spout things out your butt before you remember your head is firmly wedged up inside your butt-cheeks. Obviously you've asphyxiated what little bit of brain cells you ever possessed. (:>
Posted by Donald Cormac at July 14, 2005 01:10 PMMenstral humor?
Very low brow.
Posted by muckcat at July 14, 2005 01:55 PMFurther Proof: the Jeff Gannon interview with Wilson (remember that?)
(http://tinyurl.com/bynaf)
What Wilson said back in 2003:
"TN: Did the White House have any advance notice that you were going on this mission?"
"WILSON: I doubt it. The way that this works is that the vice president is acknowledged as asking the CIA briefer if he has anything on this subject. That is taken by the CIA briefer as a tasker. The CIA briefer goes back and tasks it at the operational level. The operators then decide how best to answer the question and in this case they did a number of things that I am aware of. One, they had this meeting at which they tried to fill in all information gaps they had, and two, they asked me if I would clear my schedule to go, and three, after I said that I might be prepared to do that, we gamed out what might be gained by my going out there. ..."
Is everyone overlooking what to me is the most damning fact of all for Rove: if he was merely correcting Wilson's alleged falsehoods, then why did he request anonymity from Cooper?
In general I think this is the most under-explored part of the whole thing.
It has already been established that Rove revealed Plame's identity; that's no longer in question because of Cooper's e-mail. The only questions now are did Rove KNOW Plame was covert and WHY did he disclose her identity. Well, if Rove revealed Plame's identity COMPLETELY INNOCENTLY (that is, if 1. he didn't know Plame was undercover, and 2. he innocently mentioned her job in passing while in the process of countering Wilson's "false" allegations), then why did he request and receive complete anonymity -- and not just this one time with Cooper, but every time (after the Novak column came out) that Rove repeated the information? If he had no intent other than correcting Wilson's "falsehoods" and no inkling that what he was saying might be classified information, then why all along did he request anonymity from everyone he passed the info. to?
Cooper's e-mail highlights the fact that the info. about Plame was known to be controversial:
"Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation ..." Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, "please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]" and suggested another reporter check with the CIA.
That makes no sense if Rove was acting completely innocently. What do you think? Am I missing something?
And consider the anonymity question while reading the following from a Washington Post article:
“A senior administration official said that before Novak’s column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson’s wife.... ‘Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge,’ the senior official said of the alleged leak.”
If it can be confirmed that two officials contacted six journalists and each time not only used words that disclosed Plame's identity, but every single time also requested anonymity, then it is beyond reasonable doubt that they knew what they were doing was suspect.
"The alleged crime at the heart of a controversy that has consumed official Washington -- the outing of a CIA officer -- may not have been a crime at all under federal law, little-noticed details in a book by the agent's husband suggest," USA Today reports.
In "The Politics of Truth", former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. That's six years before Robert Novak's column identified Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame.
"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." Courtesy of our friends at "politicalwire.com"
RE: ROVE ,;TO THOSE OF YOU WHO BELIEVE HE IS GUILTY,I COMMEND. I BELIEVE HE IS THE BIGGEST RAT SINCE BUSH'S "POPPY" WAS REMOVED FROM OFFICE.AND WE WILL EVENTUALLY TIE HIM IN AS THE RING LEADER OF 911. JUST LOOK AT ALL THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN HIS ADMINISTRATION, AND THEIR RELATIONS WITH NEO-CONS(WHATEVER THAT MEANS) WE ALL KNOW WHO HOLDS HANDS WITH SAUDI ARABIA AND AT THE SAME TIME KOWTOWS TO ISRAEL ... THANK YOU. ALL ,I AM NOT AN INTELLECTUAL ,SO I WILL USE MY FOUR LETTERED WORDS THAT I HAVE MASTERED (NOT)
Posted by JOE BELL at July 17, 2005 10:34 AMI apologize for the late hit, but in the course of working on something else I came across this "Hardball" vignette, from src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
">July 9, 2003
I call your attention to the repeated use of "behest" made famous in this context when Nick Kristof wrote (June 13, 2003) that Wilson went at the behest of Cheney's office. Well, you knew that.
Here we go:
MATTHEWS: Let me go back to David Gergen on the question of who may be culpable here, because we do have a paper trail, thanks to Joe Wilson, the ambassador. He said he was sent to Niger, the government in Africa that is in question here. There we have a picture of him. He was on "MEET THE PRESS". He also wrote a letter, an op-ed piece for the "New York Times" this weekend.
He made it very clear he was sent down there at the behest of the vice president's office last year. Months, almost a year before the president's State of the Union Address, he came back with the information that there was, in fact, no deal. Isn't vice president's office responsible, right now, to come out and say why they didn't act on that information? Why the CIA, which also must sign off on presidential speeches, they didn't come out with the information and clear the president so that he wouldn't have to, in his own words, by the way, to use his words, revise history as he seems to be doing, saying that this was not a mistake.
GERGEN: Chris, it was my understanding that he went to the -- to Africa at the request of the CIA, not the vice president's office. Vice president's office was...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: At the behest of the vice president's office, the CIA was tasked by the vice president's office to do it. Senator, isn't that right?
ROCKEFELLER: That is correct.
GERGEN: Well, I thought what he said in "The New York Times" was -- in his piece, was that he was asked by the intelligence agencies for whom he had worked, they paid his way. He went pro bono in terms of his...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: At the request of the vice president's office. Right, Senator?
ROCKEFELLER: Absolutely correct.
GERGEN: Well, if that's the case, if there is a paper trail back to the vice president's office and if there were papers filed with the vice president's office, that's one thing. If it was filed with the CIA, that's quite another. And I think we should be -- I certainly accept Senator Rockefeller's characterization of the facts here, but I -- my understanding was that he was a former head - that he was a former state department person...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: True...
GERGEN: ... who had done CIA work...
MATTHEWS: ... he was a former (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
GERGEN: ... and he was reporting to...
MATTHEWS: That's technically how it happened. Let me ask you the big question, gentlemen. I want to get into a very important -- A lot of people watching right now may say, so what. A lot of people may say this is wild, especially the critics of the war. But, those who supported the war, what does it say to them? Senator?
Don't bore Matthews with what Wilson wrote!
But Gergen is unrelenting. A bit later:
GERGEN: Chris, can I add one thing? I want to quote from the "New York Times" piece that Joe Wilson wrote. In February, 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions. It strikes me from that piece -- what I understood that piece to say, was the agency was the one who requested Wilson to go make this report, not the vice president's office directly. It came from the vice president's office to the agency then to Wilson.
MATTHEWS: The vice president went to the CIA to get some answers, and they used Mr. Wilson to get the facts.
GERGEN: Exactly.
MATTHEWS: I think that's the chain.
ROCKEFELLER: If I can interject...
MATTHEWS: Yes, Senator.
ROCKEFELLER: I don't think there is any question but the vice president asked the CIA to send him over. And this is a man who had served as an ambassador under Clinton as well as President Bush.
MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and David Gergen, an expert on the presidency.
Don't vex me with what he wrote, I know what he said. At the behest!
Let's put it this way - regardless of what Wilson didn't say, the White House did seem to have a reasonbable belief that the perception that Cheney authorized the trip was out there, and needed to be rebutted.
We can all ponder the odd coincidence of the use of the word "behest", first used in this context by Kristof, based on an anonymous leak from Wilson (who never siad Cheney's office sent him!)
Posted by Tom Maguire at November 1, 2005 07:09 AMI apologize for the late hit, but in the course of working on something else I came across this "Hardball" vignette, from July 9, 2003, just after Wilson's op-ed.
I call your attention to the repeated use of "behest" made famous in this context when Nick Kristof wrote (June 13, 2003) that Wilson went at the behest of Cheney's office. Well, you knew that.
Here we go:
MATTHEWS: Let me go back to David Gergen on the question of who may be culpable here, because we do have a paper trail, thanks to Joe Wilson, the ambassador. He said he was sent to Niger, the government in Africa that is in question here. There we have a picture of him. He was on "MEET THE PRESS". He also wrote a letter, an op-ed piece for the "New York Times" this weekend.
He made it very clear he was sent down there at the behest of the vice president's office last year. Months, almost a year before the president's State of the Union Address, he came back with the information that there was, in fact, no deal. Isn't vice president's office responsible, right now, to come out and say why they didn't act on that information? Why the CIA, which also must sign off on presidential speeches, they didn't come out with the information and clear the president so that he wouldn't have to, in his own words, by the way, to use his words, revise history as he seems to be doing, saying that this was not a mistake.
GERGEN: Chris, it was my understanding that he went to the -- to Africa at the request of the CIA, not the vice president's office. Vice president's office was...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: At the behest of the vice president's office, the CIA was tasked by the vice president's office to do it. Senator, isn't that right?
ROCKEFELLER: That is correct.
GERGEN: Well, I thought what he said in "The New York Times" was -- in his piece, was that he was asked by the intelligence agencies for whom he had worked, they paid his way. He went pro bono in terms of his...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: At the request of the vice president's office. Right, Senator?
ROCKEFELLER: Absolutely correct.
GERGEN: Well, if that's the case, if there is a paper trail back to the vice president's office and if there were papers filed with the vice president's office, that's one thing. If it was filed with the CIA, that's quite another. And I think we should be -- I certainly accept Senator Rockefeller's characterization of the facts here, but I -- my understanding was that he was a former head - that he was a former state department person...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: True...
GERGEN: ... who had done CIA work...
MATTHEWS: ... he was a former (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
GERGEN: ... and he was reporting to...
MATTHEWS: That's technically how it happened. Let me ask you the big question, gentlemen. I want to get into a very important -- A lot of people watching right now may say, so what. A lot of people may say this is wild, especially the critics of the war. But, those who supported the war, what does it say to them? Senator?
END
Don't bore Matthews with what Wilson wrote!
But Gergen is unrelenting. A bit later:
GERGEN: Chris, can I add one thing? I want to quote from the "New York Times" piece that Joe Wilson wrote. In February, 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions. It strikes me from that piece -- what I understood that piece to say, was the agency was the one who requested Wilson to go make this report, not the vice president's office directly. It came from the vice president's office to the agency then to Wilson.
MATTHEWS: The vice president went to the CIA to get some answers, and they used Mr. Wilson to get the facts.
GERGEN: Exactly.
MATTHEWS: I think that's the chain.
ROCKEFELLER: If I can interject...
MATTHEWS: Yes, Senator.
ROCKEFELLER: I don't think there is any question but the vice president asked the CIA to send him over. And this is a man who had served as an ambassador under Clinton as well as President Bush.
MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and David Gergen, an expert on the presidency.
END
Don't vex me with what he wrote, I know what he said. At the behest!
Let's put it this way - regardless of what Wilson didn't say, the White House did seem to have a reasonbable belief that the perception that Cheney authorized the trip was out there, and merited a rebuttal.
We can all ponder the odd coincidence of the use of the word "behest", first used in this context by Kristof, based on an anonymous leak from Wilson (who never said Cheney's office sent him, and later explained that Kristof's column was misattributions and misquotes.)
Posted by Tom Maguire at November 1, 2005 07:11 AMThe rationale for bringing Wilson's wife into the picture is two-fold:
1. The fact that Wilson's own wife worked for the CIA meant that he could have found out whether or not Cheney got his report, or what the CIA thought of his report by having his wife ask around at work. In other words, this meant it was totally unnecessary for Wilson to go leaking to reporters about his mission in falsely implying that Cheney's office had overlooked his report. His claim was in effect, "they must have seen my report, so they must have known they were full of it." He could have found out that he was wrong about all of this by having his CIA wife poke around at work.
2. The role Mrs. Wilson played in the actual mission itself, and the fact that she suggested her husband for a gig back in 1999 is an important fact. It shows that Mrs. Wilson is by no means an innocent bystander in this affair, she was directly involved with him being sent over by the CIA. She offered up his name for the mission, as she did back in 1999. She convened the meeting he was present at over at the CIA, and she was present when he was debriefed at their home. This puts her squarely in the middle of Wilson's mission, and thus noting her involvement is relevant to the issue.
I think it is time that you people on the Left understand that Rove & Co. had no reason to "punish" Wilson by outing his wife. Surely they wanted to "punish" him, by rebutting some of the misinformation that came about by his unnecessary public leaking to the press. Outing his wife, though, wouldn't accomplish anything, and I think you have to admit that outing his wife was probably the last thing to have done if they wanted Wilson to shut up.
It appears from the indictment that Libby knew that she was from the Counterproliferation Division at the CIA, told to him by Cheney. He never repeated this information to any of the reporters he talked to, he never specified CPD. If he was really hell-bent on outing Wilson, he would have made sure to tell his reporters that she was CPD. Miller got it wrong, she wrote down WINPAC, suggesting that Libby was vague about where she worked, as was Rove.
The overarching fact here, that also the Left is disingenuously ignoring, is that in most cases, the press was calling Rove and Libby, and not the other way around. That seems like a really backwards way to conduct a leak.
Pincus was calling Libby to get a comment on Wilson's trip, and apparently never got one from him. In fact, Pincus was told by an unnamed source about Wilson's wife on July 12. If they were out to out Wilson's wife, why not tell Pincus when he was asking them on June 12?
Libby's Principal Deputy has testified that Libby told him not to talk about Wilson's trip to the press between June 19-23. (Could be BS, of course)
Libby then spoke about the Wilson trip with Judy Miller on June 23, almost 2 weeks after he was told about Wilson's wife, after not giving this information to Pincus after he was hounding Libby for comment...
And still, not once did they say anything other than the fact that Wilson's wife was instrumental in him going on the trip, which is still true to this day. Not once did they say she was a covert agent, not once did they say she worked at CPD, nor do they appear to have known that she had NOC, even though people working at CPD typically have some kind of cover.
It's time to bring everyone back into the middle, where the Truth resides and stop the partisan sniping.
Posted by Seixon at November 1, 2005 02:54 PM