soo what happens if the intial reports or true?

what do you guys think should happen to him?


I feel very strongly about this..

lets see what you guys have to say..

leaking operatives cover is treason.

Should be put away for eva! Just like this jackhole
http://www.i-club.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=31848

http://www.i-club.com/forums/showpost.php?p=781176&postcount=2

Did Douchbag of Liberty Novak even get a slap on the wrist? Apparently it's ok to disclose identities of CIA agents these days. :rolleyes: Has the CIA been neutered or something? Aren't they supposed to "disappear" *******s like this?

Aren't they supposed to "disappear" *******s like this?
I wish

This idea has been floating around for awhile. I say punishment is in order for whoever it was.

When I recently searched for news on Karl I found a couple anti-American sources. It's just funny reading an article that actually has a pro-CIA flare just to discredit another member of the big bad Bush machine. :rolleyes: Idiots would jump off a bridge simultaneously if it was the only way to conform with like-minded individuals.

Want to know what will happen?

Whenever "Berger" is mentioned in this article feel free to replace is with "Rove." :p

http://www.nationalledger.com/commentary/article_1588.shtml

You know it. ;)

Not to put on a tinfoil hat but I talked about this before and with subaruguru in person.

What the hell happened with Berger? He literally got a slap on the wrist for a cramming classified documents of national security down his pants! But why so lenient? Could it have been because the information he snagged was damning to the White House in general? We may just see this mess with Rove "disappear" because the conservatives have an Ace up their sleeve.

Just a theory. Pay no attention. ;)

Take 'em both out back & put a slug in their heads.
Burn the bodies & scatter the ashes.
Time will take care of the rest.

Rove is your man....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/

Matt Cooper's Source

What Karl Rove told Time magazine's reporter.

July 18 issue - It was 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003, and Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. "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.

Last week, after Time turned over that e-mail, among other notes and e-mails, Cooper agreed to testify before a grand jury in the Valerie Plame case. Explaining that he had obtained last-minute "personal consent" from his source, Cooper was able to avoid a jail sentence for contempt of court. Another reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, refused to identify her source and chose to go to jail instead.

It will be interesting to hear the President's reaction to the news. He has stated in the past "If there's leaks out of my administration, I want to know who it is, and if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of."

We shall see.

And the Spin begins....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8504290/

Rove told reporter about Plame’s role at CIA
But Bush aide didn’t identify covert agent by name, attorney says

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified as a covert agent in a newspaper column two years ago, but Rove's lawyer said yesterday that his client did not identify her by name.

Rove had a short conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper on July 11, 2003, three days before Robert D. Novak publicly exposed Plame in a column about her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV. Wilson had come under attack from the White House for his assertions that he found no evidence Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger and that he reported those findings to top administration officials. Wilson publicly accused the administration of leaking his wife's identity as a means of retaliation.

I think it's funny how when this happened the WH was talking all big about how the leak would definately be fired, and it definately was not Karl Rove...

And now that we find out it most likely was him they won't touch those statements...:confused:

I mean let's be real here.....Rove is not going to get fired. He's Bush's main man, basically winning two elections with his strategies....There is no doubt the guy has a great political mind even though I think he is a total douchbag.....

Wishful thinking to think the guy will get fired though.....

Great quote from Keith Olbermann's BLOG if the info on Rove is true (which all indications are that it is)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8085423/#050711a

Karl Rove: Soft on terror (Keith Olbermann)

SECURED UNDISCLOSED LOCATION -- Karl Rove is a liability in the war on terror.

Rove -- Newsweek’s new article quotes the very emails -- told a Time reporter that Ambassador Joe Wilson’s trip to investigate of the Niger uranium claim was at the behest of Wilson’s CIA wife.

To paraphrase Mr. Rove, liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers; conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared to ruin the career of one of the country’s spies tracking terrorist efforts to gain weapons of mass destruction -- for political gain.

Politics first, counter-terrorism second -- it’s as simple as that.

But Bushie is still backing up his puppeteer:


White House: Bush Has Confidence in Rove

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
(07-12) 11:04 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

After two days of questions, the White House said Tuesday that President Bush continues to have confidence in Karl Rove, the presidential adviser at the center of the investigation into the leak identifying a female CIA officer. Meanwhile, prominent Democrats are calling for Rove to be fired.

Bush did not respond to a reporter's question Tuesday about whether he would fire Rove, in keeping with a June 2004 pledge to dismiss any leakers of Valerie Plame's identity.

At a White House briefing afterward, spokesman Scott McClellan was pressed about Rove's future.

"Any individual who works here at the White House has the confidence of the president. They wouldn't be working here at the White House if they didn't have the president's confidence," McClellan said.

The White House said two years ago that Rove wasn't involved in the leak. According to a July 2003 e-mail that surfaced over the weekend, Rove told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper that the woman "apparently works" for the CIA. It added that the woman had authorized a trip to Africa by her husband, U.S. Ambassador Joe Wilson, to check out allegations that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger for nuclear weapons.

Bush is screwed...if he doesn't fire Rove, he'll be a hypochrit and be publically roasted. But if he does fire Rove, he'll be a puppet without a puppet master...oh the dilema.

But Bushie is still backing up his puppeteer:


White House: Bush Has Confidence in Rove

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
(07-12) 11:04 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

After two days of questions, the White House said Tuesday that President Bush continues to have confidence in Karl Rove, the presidential adviser at the center of the investigation into the leak identifying a female CIA officer. Meanwhile, prominent Democrats are calling for Rove to be fired.

Bush did not respond to a reporter's question Tuesday about whether he would fire Rove, in keeping with a June 2004 pledge to dismiss any leakers of Valerie Plame's identity.

At a White House briefing afterward, spokesman Scott McClellan was pressed about Rove's future.

"Any individual who works here at the White House has the confidence of the president. They wouldn't be working here at the White House if they didn't have the president's confidence," McClellan said.

The White House said two years ago that Rove wasn't involved in the leak. According to a July 2003 e-mail that surfaced over the weekend, Rove told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper that the woman "apparently works" for the CIA. It added that the woman had authorized a trip to Africa by her husband, U.S. Ambassador Joe Wilson, to check out allegations that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger for nuclear weapons.

See post 12.....

He won't get fired.....The republicans love this guy. Every string will be pulled to save his ass.

I don't know about that. I think it's being kept under the table in order to make an already embarrassing incident seem insignificant. This is not a partisan issue. It's gotten to the point where the executive branch is trying to save face. I'm sure there's a lot going on behind the scenes with Rove and Bush. I'm sure he's being told to resign.

If nothing happens then it's complete BS.

Not a partisan issue? Thats kinda funny....

The guy ruined the career of one of the country’s spies working against terrorists that were trying to gain weapons of mass destruction all for the sake of revenge and political gain.

Maybe I'm just a pessimist.....If it were you or I that were the leak we would be looking at felony time but this guy may just lose his job.

It's a joke.....

What's happening now is NOT a partisan issue whatsoever. By that I mean if this happened in any other cabinet it would not be public. Again, I believe they are trying to save face with this incident for the sake of the executive branch. What are you expecting? Bush to fire Rove like Donald Trump on the apprentice? Maybe the dems can make millions if they air it on pay-per-view. If anything, it will be a discrete resignation on Roves part. If nothing happens then it's horsecrap.

Maybe I'm just a pessimist.....If it were you or I that were the leak we would be looking at felony time but this guy may just lose his job.

It's a joke.....


I agree. Far worse. Same thing would have happened if you replaced an average citizen with Berger. They would have disappeared.

White House: Bush Has Confidence in Rove

WASHINGTON - After two days of questions, the White House said Tuesday that President Bush continues to have confidence in Karl Rove, the presidential adviser at the center of the investigation into the leak identifying a female CIA officer. Meanwhile, prominent Democrats are calling for Rove to be fired.

Bush did not respond to a reporter's question Tuesday about whether he would fire Rove, in keeping with a June 2004 pledge to dismiss any leakers of Valerie Plame's identity.

At a White House briefing afterward, spokesman Scott McClellan was pressed about Rove's future.

"Any individual who works here at the White House has the confidence of the president. They wouldn't be working here at the White House if they didn't have the president's confidence," McClellan said.


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=3&u=/ap/cia_leak_investigation


This reminds of the scene in Erik The Viking where that island is sinking into the sea, and even as the water is up to their necks the inhabitants are insistent that everything is peachy and burst into song about how wonderful things are.

I agree. Far worse. Same thing would have happened if you replaced an average citizen with Berger. They would have disappeared.

Exactly.....It just pisses me off.....

What makes this a partisan issue:
-Rove got Bush elected in Texas and twice for President (most conservatives agree that he was the reason behind all the campaings)
-during the same time, Rove used his political clout to get personal and political revenge on someone by doing something very illegal (so clearly he's not moraly opposed to cheating to win)
-when you add those two things together you realize that Rove's motivation, and therefore the reason Bush got the presidency (or the reason he was convinced to run in the first place; either way), is personal monitary and personal political gain for Karl Rove, not the best interests of the country.



If Bush loves Rove so much and 'has confidence' in him even after this all goes down, then Bush is responsible for Rove and should go down with him.

July 12, 2005, 4:26 p.m.
Lawyer: Cooper “Burned” Karl Rove
Rove’s attorney talks to NRO.



The lawyer for top White House adviser Karl Rove says that Time reporter Matthew Cooper "burned" Rove after a conversation between the two men concerning former ambassador Joseph Wilson's fact-finding mission to Niger and the role Wilson's wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, played in arranging that trip. Nevertheless, attorney Robert Luskin says Rove long ago gave his permission for all reporters, including Cooper, to tell prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald about their conversations with Rove.

In an interview with National Review Online, Luskin compared the contents of a July 11, 2003, internal Time e-mail written by Cooper with the wording of a story Cooper co-wrote a few days later. "By any definition, he burned Karl Rove," Luskin said of Cooper. "If you read what Karl said to him and read how Cooper characterizes it in the article, he really spins it in a pretty ugly fashion to make it seem like people in the White House were affirmatively reaching out to reporters to try to get them to them to report negative information about Plame."

First the e-mail. According to a report in Newsweek, Cooper's e-mail to Time Washington bureau chief Michael Duffy said, "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation..." Cooper said that Rove had warned him away from getting "too far out on Wilson," and then passed on Rove's statement that neither Vice President Dick Cheney nor CIA Director George Tenet had picked Wilson for the trip; "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip." Finally — all of this is according to the Newsweek report — Cooper's e-mail said that "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly that there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger..."

A few days after sending the e-mail, Cooper co-wrote an article headlined "A War on Wilson?" that appeared on Time's website. The story began, "Has the Bush administration declared war on a former ambassador who conducted a fact-finding mission to probe possible Iraqi interest in African uranium? Perhaps."

The story continued:

Some government officials have noted to Time in interviews (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein's government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore, sometimes referred to as yellow cake, which is used to build nuclear devices.

Plame's role in Wilson's assignment was later confirmed by a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation.

Luskin told NRO that the circumstances of Rove's conversation with Cooper undercut Time's suggestion of a White House "war on Wilson." According to Luskin, Cooper originally called Rove — not the other way around — and said he was working on a story on welfare reform. After some conversation about that issue, Luskin said, Cooper changed the subject to the weapons of mass destruction issue, and that was when the two had the brief talk that became the subject of so much legal wrangling. According to Luskin, the fact that Rove did not call Cooper; that the original purpose of the call, as Cooper told Rove, was welfare reform; that only after Cooper brought the WMD issue up did Rove discuss Wilson — all are "indications that this was not a calculated effort by the White House to get this story out."

"Look at the Cooper e-mail," Luskin continues. "Karl speaks to him on double super secret background...I don't think that you can read that e-mail and conclude that what Karl was trying to do was to get Cooper to publish the name of Wilson's wife."

Nor, says Luskin, was Rove trying to "out" a covert CIA agent or "smear" her husband. "What Karl was trying to do, in a very short conversation initiated by Cooper on another subject, was to warn Time away from publishing things that were going to be established as false." Luskin points out that on the evening of July 11, 2003, just hours after the Rove-Cooper conversation, then-CIA Director George Tenet released a statement that undermined some of Wilson's public assertions about his report. "Karl knew that that [Tenet] statement was in gestation," says Luskin. "I think a fair reading of the e-mail was that he was trying to warn Cooper off from going out on a limb on [Wilson's] allegations."

Luskin also shed light on the waiver that Rove signed releasing Cooper from any confidentiality agreement about the conversation. Luskin says Rove originally signed a waiver in December 2003 or in January 2004 (Luskin did not remember the exact date). The waiver, Luskin continues, was written by the office of special prosecutor Fitzgerald, and Rove signed it without making any changes — with the understanding that it applied to anyone with whom he had discussed the Wilson/Plame matter. "It was everyone's expectation that the waiver would be as broad as it could be," Luskin says.

Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller have expressed concerns that such waivers (top Cheney aide Lewis Libby also signed one) might have been coerced and thus might not have represented Rove's true feelings. Yet from the end of 2003 or beginning of 2004, until last Wednesday, Luskin says, Rove had no idea that there might be any problem with the waiver.

It was not until that Wednesday, the day Cooper was to appear in court, that that changed. "Cooper's lawyer called us and said, "Can you confirm that the waiver encompasses Cooper?" Luskin recalls. "I was amazed. He's a lawyer. It's not rocket science. [The waiver] says 'any person.' It's that broad. So I said, 'Look, I understand that you want reassurances. If Fitzgerald would like Karl to provide you with some other assurances, we will.'" Luskin says he got in touch with the prosecutor — "Rule number one is cooperate with Fitzgerald, and there is no rule number two," Luskin says — and asked what to do. According to Luskin, Fitzgerald said to go ahead, and Luskin called Cooper's lawyer back. "I said that I can reaffirm that the waiver that Karl signed applied to any conversations that Karl and Cooper had," Luskin says. After that — which represented no change from the situation that had existed for 18 months — Cooper made a dramatic public announcement and agreed to testify.

A few other notes: Luskin declined to say how Rove knew that Plame "apparently" (to use Cooper's word) worked at the CIA. But Luskin told NRO that Rove is not hiding behind the defense that he did not identify Wilson's wife because he did not specifically use her name. Asked if that argument was too legalistic, Luskin said, "I agree with you. I think it's a detail."

Luskin also addressed the question of whether Rove is a "subject" of the investigation. Luskin says Fitzgerald has told Rove he is not a "target" of the investigation, but, according to Luskin, Fitzgerald has also made it clear that virtually anyone whose conduct falls within the scope of the investigation, including Rove, is considered a "subject" of the probe. "'Target' is something we all understand, a very alarming term," Luskin says. On the other hand, Fitzgerald "has indicated to us that he takes a very broad view of what a subject is."

Finally, Luskin conceded that Rove is legally free to publicly discuss his actions, including his grand-jury testimony. Rove has not spoken publicly, Luskin says, because Fitzgerald specifically asked him not to.

— Byron York, NR's White House correspondent, is the author of the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.

Even if Rove was 'baited' into giving secret info, and even if that info was implied and not explicitly said, he outed a CIA spy. So he should have known better, and it is his fault (in other words, he was burned by himself not some reporter).

I just re-read the article several times. I still say that Rove messed up big time and is now trying to get out of it by using a bunch of misleading, irrelevant legal crap to weaken the case against him to the point that he will be found not-guilty (even though everyone involved, by the end of the trial, will see that he is guilty but they will have no way to convict him...like when the DNA against OJ was thrown out because of a police f***up). Furthermore, I don't give a damn about what the CIA person's role in the CIA was, because regardless of what role it was noone was supposed to know that she performed that role.

Rove is a coniver. He went to 6 colleges and never got a degree, but somehow he still 'guest lectures' on politics. He gets republicans into office because he knows he can't get himself into office because he's badly underqualified. He became a republican because when he was 6 or so, a 14 year old girl who said she was a democrat knocked his a$$ out. Anyone who likes the republican party and what it stands for should disown Karl Rove (and by association, GWBush).

I should have realized that you defending Rove is not worth addressing. Because you're the only one on the board (regardless of political leaning) that doesn't think he deserves to take a fall for this. He's a first class loser that uses people and our political system for his own personal gains.





Besides, the story about the girl kicking his ass has some truth to it. He liked Nixon, an older girl liked Kenedy, and she kicked his a$$. Since then he's hated democrats. Talk about petty childish behavior.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect/rove/cron.html

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y78/vb11/Politics/karl.jpg

Was this the girl who kicked his ass? :rotfl:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y78/vb11/Politics/rove.jpg

The drivel in your post is not even worth addressing.....like any democrat could knock someone out...HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Not only was it a democrat, but a girl democrat. That must really sting....

The guy deserves to be fired and tried just like any other citizen in the same situation would be. I find it funny that you would try so hard to defend this clown. Even HellaDumb hasn't touched this one with a ten foot pole....

Typical...

Nice article too. :rolleyes: I really like the other works the NRQ guy has done such as:

— Byron York, NR's White House correspondent, is the author of the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.

Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, said Rove did not disclose Valerie Plame's name, a point that Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., called a distinction without a difference.

"The fact that he didn't give her name, but identified the ambassador's wife ... doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who that is," Biden said on CNN's "Inside Politics." "If that occurred, at a minimum, that was incredibly bad judgment, warranting him being asked to leave."

Looks like he may get off on a technicality. Regardless, I think Bush should encourage him to resign. But if he doesn't push his resignation (fire him) and allows Rove to stay, then I don't believe he did anything legally wrong based that very technicality.

It's all political BS in the end. The exact same thing would happen if a Democrat was in office with a equally dem/liberal Rove. It's best to not let this situation go to your head as you watch it unfold from the sidelines.

The exact same thing would happen if a Democrat was in office with a equally dem/liberal Rove.

Conjecture, your Honor. Move to have point dismissed



:D

But if he doesn't push his resignation (fire him) and allows Rove to stay, then I don't believe he did anything legally wrong based that very technicality.


I dont agree. You do not need to give an exact name to reveal an identity. This is more than political BS... this is another sordid lie coming from the Bush machine.

great article from the NY Times.

The New York Times
July 13, 2005
Rove Case May Test Bush's Loyalty to His Closest Aides

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/politics/13memo.html?ei=5065&en=bbcc8eac3bd93777&ex=1121918400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

So let me get this straight...Karl Rove is a hero? :confused:

Well shiet why didn't the White House just come out two years ago and take that stance instead of saying how "serious of a issue that was and the leaker will definately be fired and dealt with?" :rolleyes:

"Oh and by the way, Karl Rove definetly had nothing to do with it?" :rolleyes:

Give me a break....Damn SVX you're stuff is getting as good as HellaDumb.....

Good job....

Naw because I don't have any confidence in our legal system. Like Salty said and I have said all along, the guy is probably gonna get off on a technicality. Still doesn't make it right....

Does alot to show you how corrupt government can be though....If that were you or I we would already be in jail or worse....

Want to make a bet on the decision of the special prosecutor?


You don't understand what 'technicality' means, do you. As in: "The defendant was obviously guilty, but the jury was unable to deliver a verdict of guilty because of a legal technicality."

You don't understand what 'technicality' means, do you. As in: "The defendant was obviously guilty, but the jury was unable to deliver a verdict of guilty because of a legal technicality."

Don't try the reason card man....He could be HellaDumb with a different username... ;)

Was it a crime when Joe Wilson leaked the contents of his own report to the CIA--in the pages of the New York Times!--only he lied about his own report. He "peddled disinformation," falsely claiming to have found no evidence of an Iraqi effort to buy uranium from Niger, in order to "harm a political adversary," President Bush. The Times didn't mind that particular disinformation, however, since it fit the paper's political agenda. In fact, the Times has never issued a correction of the misstatements in Wilson's op-ed. Even after it has been found to be fraudulent by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee!


So Wilson desearves to be punished too. But this thread is not about Wilson, it's about Rove, and Wilson's mistake does not excuse Rove from his responsibility to the country.

Knowing/pointing out that someone else did a crime does not excuse one from crimes they may commit in the act of exposing the first crime.

Not to mention the most important point of the whole situation: OUR PRESIDENT SAID IT WAS A CRIME (before he knew his buddy did it) AND SAID HE WOULD FIRE THE PERP!!! Anything you bring up now either makes Bush a lier and accomplise to the crime, or a complete bumbling bafoon. You decide.

So Wilson desearves to be punished too. But this thread is not about Wilson, it's about Rove, and Wilson's mistake does not excuse Rove from his responsibility to the country.

Knowing/pointing out that someone else did a crime does not excuse one from crimes they may commit in the act of exposing the first crime.

Thanks..

Beat me to it! ;)

hmmm... ownage

Re-read the article. Also could you post some sources that talk about Plame's role at the CIA....she was no James Bond


ill put 100 bucks on the line that says you have no ****ing clue about the CIA and the different posistions that lie within it.

The drivel in your post is not even worth addressing.....like any democrat could knock someone out...HAHAHAHAHA!!!


funny i feel the same way about all your posts in this thread..

so keep it simple, remove your retard bias or i will remove it for you.

Discuss facts, if you do not understand the concept of a fact that is fine. I will just do what i have to in order to make this forum a proper discussion area on the topic of this thread.

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006955

From the WSJ

Karl Rove, Whistleblower
He told the truth about Joe Wilson.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying for Karl Rove's head over his role in exposing a case of CIA nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. On the contrary, we'd say the White House political guru deserves a prize--perhaps the next iteration of the "Truth-Telling" award that The Nation magazine bestowed upon Mr. Wilson before the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed him as a fraud.

For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real "whistleblower" in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He's the one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility. He's the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove.

Media chants aside, there's no evidence that Mr. Rove broke any laws in telling reporters that Ms. Plame may have played a role in her husband's selection for a 2002 mission to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking uranium ore in Niger. To be prosecuted under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Mr. Rove would had to have deliberately and maliciously exposed Ms. Plame knowing that she was an undercover agent and using information he'd obtained in an official capacity. But it appears Mr. Rove didn't even know Ms. Plame's name and had only heard about her work at Langley from other journalists.

On the "no underlying crime" point, moreover, no less than the New York Times and Washington Post now agree. So do the 36 major news organizations that filed a legal brief in March aimed at keeping Mr. Cooper and the New York Times's Judith Miller out of jail.

"While an investigation of the leak was justified, it is far from clear--at least on the public record--that a crime took place," the Post noted the other day. Granted the media have come a bit late to this understanding, and then only to protect their own, but the logic of their argument is that Mr. Rove did nothing wrong either.

The same can't be said for Mr. Wilson, who first "outed" himself as a CIA consultant in a melodramatic New York Times op-ed in July 2003. At the time he claimed to have thoroughly debunked the Iraq-Niger yellowcake uranium connection that President Bush had mentioned in his now famous "16 words" on the subject in that year's State of the Union address.

Mr. Wilson also vehemently denied it when columnist Robert Novak first reported that his wife had played a role in selecting him for the Niger mission. He promptly signed up as adviser to the Kerry campaign and was feted almost everywhere in the media, including repeat appearances on NBC's "Meet the Press" and a photo spread (with Valerie) in Vanity Fair.

But his day in the political sun was short-lived. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report last July cited the note that Ms. Plame had sent recommending her husband for the Niger mission. "Interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD [Counterproliferation Division] employee, suggested his name for the trip," said the report.

The same bipartisan report also pointed out that the forged documents Mr. Wilson claimed to have discredited hadn't even entered intelligence channels until eight months after his trip. And it said the CIA interpreted the information he provided in his debrief as mildly supportive of the suspicion that Iraq had been seeking uranium in Niger.

About the same time, another inquiry headed by Britain's Lord Butler delivered its own verdict on the 16 words: "We conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded."

In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know.

If there's any scandal at all here, it is that this entire episode has been allowed to waste so much government time and media attention, not to mention inspire a "special counsel" probe. The Bush Administration is also guilty on this count, since it went along with the appointment of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in an election year in order to punt the issue down the road. But now Mr. Fitzgerald has become an unguided missile, holding reporters in contempt for not disclosing their sources even as it becomes clearer all the time that no underlying crime was at issue.

As for the press corps, rather than calling for Mr. Rove to be fired, they ought to be grateful to him for telling the truth.


hahaha i love how you try and state an OPED from OPININJOURNAL.COM as the truth..

douche.. keep it up and i will ****ing do my damndest to make you leave on your own tuition.

Ask helladumb about my special club of love.

again

Stick to facts, act mature, dont be a retard.

Want to make a bet on the decision of the special prosecutor?


you do know the special prosecutor isnt investigating rove directly correct?

GOP on Offense in Defense of Rove

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 13, 2005; A01

Republicans mounted an aggressive and coordinated defense of Karl Rove yesterday, contending that the White House's top political adviser did nothing improper or illegal when he discussed a covert CIA official with a reporter.

With a growing number of Democrats calling for Rove's resignation, the Republican National Committee and congressional Republicans sought to discredit Democratic critics and knock down allegations of possible criminal activity.

"The angry left is trying to smear" Rove, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, a Rove protege, said in an interview.

A federal grand jury is investigating whether anyone in the Bush administration unlawfully leaked the name of a CIA official, Valerie Plame, to the news media. Although the White House has previously said Rove was not involved in the episode, a recently disclosed internal Time magazine e-mail shows that Rove mentioned Plame, albeit not by name, to reporter Matthew Cooper before her name and affiliation became public in July 2003. The grand jury is scheduled to hear from Cooper today.

The emerging GOP strategy -- devised by Mehlman and other Rove loyalists outside of the White House -- is to try to undermine those Democrats calling for Rove's ouster, play down Rove's role and wait for President Bush's forthcoming Supreme Court selection to drown out the controversy, according to several high-level Republicans.

The White House said Bush retains full confidence in Rove, but for a second day officials would not answer a barrage of questions about Rove's role in the leak scandal on the grounds that the investigation is not complete. But the RNC -- effectively Bush's political arm -- weighed into the controversy in a major fashion.

Mehlman, who said he talked with Rove several times in recent days, instructed GOP legislators, lobbyists and state officials to accuse Democrats of dirty politics and argue Rove was guilty of nothing more than discouraging a reporter from writing an inaccurate story, according to RNC talking points circulated yesterday.

"Republicans should stop holding back and go on the offense: fire enough bullets the other way until the Supreme Court overtakes" events, said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.).

Rove has not been asked by senior White House officials whether he did anything illegal or potentially embarrassing to the president and he spent most of the day strategizing on Bush's Supreme Court nomination, aides said.

"No one has asked him what he told the grand jury. No one has deemed it appropriate," said a senior White House official, who would discuss the Rove case only on the condition of anonymity. "What you all need to figure out is, does this amount to a crime? That is a legitimate debate." Still, some aides said they were concerned about the unknown. "Is it a communications challenge? Sure," the official said.

Privately, even Rove's staunchest supporters said the situation could explode if federal prosecutors accuse Rove or any other high-level official of committing a crime. William Kristol, a conservative commentator with close White House ties, said it would be hard to imagine a prosecutor conducting an investigation that has landed one reporter in jail and challenged the constitutional rights of the journalism profession without indicting someone. Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald "is the problem for the White House, and we have no idea what he knows," Kristol said.

Bush has said if any White House officials were involved, they would be fired. The president yesterday twice refused to answer questions on whether Rove should be dismissed.

The controversy involves former U.S. diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV, who had been sent by the CIA in February 2002 to Niger to investigate allegations that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was attempting to buy nuclear material. Wilson subsequently became a critic of administration policy in Iraq and after the invasion in March 2003 questioned whether Bush had exaggerated the threat from Hussein.

After Wilson went public with his concerns, columnist Robert D. Novak reported that he had been told by two administration officials that the Niger trip had been suggested by Wilson's wife, Plame. It is a federal felony to knowingly identify an active undercover CIA officer, but legal experts said such a crime is very difficult to prove.

Whatever the legal considerations in the case, the emerging record suggests that the administration was involved in an effort to discredit Wilson after he went public with his criticism.

According to the Time magazine e-mail, the conversation between Cooper and Rove took place a few days before Novak's column appeared in July 2003. Cooper says Rove raised questions about Wilson's credibility, offering a "big warning" not to "get out too far on Wilson," Newsweek has reported.

The e-mail comports with a previously reported conversation between a Washington Post reporter and an administration official two days before the Novak column ran. The administration official, who has not been identified, described the Wilson trip as a boondoggle that was set up by his wife and was not being taken seriously by the White House.

Rove has maintained he neither knew Plame's name nor leaked it to anyone. In an interview yesterday, Wilson said his wife goes by Mrs. Wilson, so it would be clear who Rove was talking about, and noted how Rove attends the same church as the Wilson family. Wilson said Rove was part of a "smear campaign" designed to discredit him and others who undercut Bush's justification for war.

Wilson was a chief target of the new GOP offensive designed to take some pressure off Rove. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said the White House did not have to discredit Wilson. "Nobody had to do that," he said, adding that "he discredited his own report" by including unfounded allegations. The RNC talking point memo included a list of anti-Wilson lines.

"In all honesty, the facts thus far -- and the e-mail involved -- indicate to me that there is not a problem here," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). "I have always thought this is a tempest in a teapot."
© 2005 The Washington Post Company


yes slandering the opposing side while claiming they are slanderous is the answer!!

goo goo gadget retard!

**** after reading this it make a WHOLE HELLUVA ALOT OF SENSE why rove would want to leak wilsons wife as a NOC..

Valerie Plame's career (at least the covert part) instantly ended. The actual damage caused by that leak has never been fully appreciated

Not only was Plame's cover blown, so was that of her cover company, Brewster, Jennings & Associates. With the public exposure of Plame, intelligence agencies all over the world started searching data bases for any references to her (TIME Magazine). Damage control was immediate, as the CIA asserted that her mission had been connected to weapons of mass destruction. However, it was not long before stories from the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal tied Brewster, Jennings & Associates to energy, oil and the Saudiowned Arabian American Oil Company, or ARAMCO. Brewster Jennings had been a founder of Mobil Oil company, one of Aramco's principal founders.

According to additional sources interviewed by Wayne Madsen, Brewster Jennings was, in fact, a well established CIA proprietary company, linked for many years to ARAMCO. The demise of Brewster Jennings was also guaranteed the moment Plame was outed. It takes years for Non-Official Covers or NOCs, as they are known, to become really effective. Over time, they become gradually more trusted; they work their way into deeper information access from more sensitive sources. NOCs are generally regarded in the community as among the best and most valuable of all CIA operations officers and the agency goes to great lengths to protect them in what are frequently very risky missions. By definition, Valerie Plame was an NOC. Yet unlike all other NOCs who fear exposure and torture or death from hostile governments and individual targets who have been judged threats to the United States, she got done in by her own President, whom we also judge to be a domestic enemy of the United States. Moreover, as we will see below, Valerie Plame may have been one of the most important NOCs the CIA had in the current climate. Let's look at just how valuable she was. ARAMCO According to an April 29, 2002 report in Britain's Guardian, ARAMCO constitutes 12% of the world's total oil production; a figure which has certainly increased as other countries have progressed deeper into irreversible decline. ARAMCO is the largest oil group in the world, a stateowned Saudi company in partnership with four major US oil companies. Another one of Aramco’s partners is Chevron-Texaco which gave up one of its board members, Condoleezza Rice, when she became the National Security Advisor to George Bush. All of ARAMCO’s key decisions are made by the Saudi royal family while US oil expertise, personnel and technology keeps the cash comin

All of ARAMCO’s key decisions are made by the Saudi royal family while US oil expertise, personnel and technology keeps the cash coming in and the oil going out. ARAMCO operates, manages, and maintains virtually all Saudi oil fields – 25% of all the oil on the planet. It gets better. According to a New York Times report on March 8th of this year, ARAMCO is planning to make a 25% investment in a new and badly needed refinery to produce gasoline. The remaining 75% ownership of the refinery will go to the only nation that is quickly becoming America's major world competitor for ever-diminishing supplies of oil: China. Almost the entire Bush administration has an interest in ARAMCO. Page -12- The Boston Globe reported that in 2001 ARAMCO had signed a $140 million multi-year contract with Halliburton, then chaired by Dick Cheney, to develop a new oil field. Halliburton does a lot of business in Saudi Arabia. Current estimates of Halliburton contracts or joint ventures in the country run into the tens of billions of dollars. So do the fortunes of some shady figures from the Bush family's past. As recently as 1991 ARAMCO had Khalid bin Mahfouz sitting on its Supreme Council or board of directors. Mahfouz, Saudi Arabia's former treasurer and the nation's largest banker, has been reported in several places to be Osama bin Laden's brother in law. However, he has denied this and brought intense legal pressure to bear demanding retractions of these allegations. He has major partnership investments with the multibillion dollar Binladin Group of companies and he is a former director of BCCI, the infamous criminal drugmoney laundering bank which performed a number of very useful services for the CIA before its 1991 collapse under criminal investigation by a whole lot of countries. As Saudi Arabia's largest banker he handles the accounts of the royal family and - no doubt - ARAMCO, while at the same time he is a named defendant in a $1 trillion lawsuit filed by 9/11 victim families against the Saudi government and prominent Saudi officials who, the suit alleges, were complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Both BCCI and Mahfouz have historical connections to the Bush family dating back to the 1980s. Another bank (one of many) connected to Mahfouz - the InterMaritime Bank - bailed out a cash-starved Harken Energy in 1987 with $25 million. After the rejuvenated Harken got a nobid oil lease in 1991, CEO George W. Bush promptly sold his shares in a pump-and-dump scheme and made a whole lot of money. Knowing all of this, there's really no good reason why the CIA should be too upset, is there? It was only a long-term proprietary and deep-cover NOC - well established and consistently producing "take" from ARAMCO (and who knows what else in Saudi Arabia). It was destroyed with a motive of personal vengeance (there may have been other motives) by someone inside the White House. From the CIA's point of view, at a time when Saudi Arabia is one of the three or four countries of highest interest to the US, the Plame operation was irreplaceable.

Damn man, lay off the adderall! :D
You should apologize for those multiple posts... ;)





As for my take on this, I'm just sitting back and watching the show.

Svxr8dr, you're arguing symantics (and have been this entire thread). Regardless of the outcome of Rove's trial, I will always see him as a liar because he is. If he lies enough to get off the hook for lieing, he's even worse. And I'll reiterate a point that you seem to be missing: it doesn't matter what Wilson did. It matters what Rove did. And it doesn't matter how you catagorize the CIA person, because she was supposed to be unknown no matter what her role or label. See, these are what most people call symantics because they have no real bearing on the issue at hand. Maybe they can help Rove get out of legal trouble because of the way our legal system works, but the legal system cannot really make a man innocent. They can just find him not guilty for lack of evidence or some other symantical issue.

It doeesn't matter how you see him, as a member of the side out of political power at the moment you are grasping at straws here. The only way your side will get back in power will have nothing to do with your eltism, dislike of Karl Rove, Anger towards organized religion in the U.S., or even the accusations of Bush lying about WMD's. Until you have a platform with real issues that can resonate with the majority of American's your side is doomed. Every time I hear the whining about Rove or a speech by Dean, I feel secure in the fact that the dems won't control the White House or Congress any time soon.


Wow, if I'm the one that's doomed why are you the one that's all pissy and defensive? And who the hell brought up 'sides' again? I was just discussing the end of Karl Rove's career because he fumbled.

I'm not being pissy, why are you pinning all your hopes on Roves downfall. It's doubtful it will happen and when the special prosecutor is said and done, then what do you have?


Dude, I haven't pinned any hopes on Rove. I actually think he will get off the hook (even though it's fairly clear that he's guilty).

The reason I am discussing Rove and his guilt is because this is a FORUM. And in this THREAD in the FORUM we are currently discussing (or we were before you started getting all crazy) Karl Rove and the mistake he made. Welcome to the thread. If you don't like the topic of this thread, you can find a different one. But coming out of left field with comments that only imply the futility of being a democrat (rather than discussing the topic at hand) is not cool.

saw that as well :)

again.. before you run off at the mouth saying that wilson was lieing and this or that please explain to me why the STATE DEPARTMENT, US EMBASY IN NIGER, the EU COMMANDER all felt the same way wilson did..

so are you trying to tell me that the blatently bias POLITICANS who sat down to try and support their politico buddies are the ones who are right? and the people in the field are in the wrong?

i didnt see a single senator talk about how he went off to niger to verify ****..

i trust those in the field, not the bull**** politicos who are forced around by what ever political pressure they are forced to dance to that day...

make sense?

im not threating to ban you for disagreeing with you..

Im threating to make your life a living hell as you have (with the expection of the last post) not posted a single damn fact to back up any of your "claims"..

so learn to play by the rules or i kick you the **** out of the island.. simple as that..

this is treason, it attacks the very foundation that provides those people who put their lives on hold (and on the line) the ONLY security they can count on. SECRECY

Um, dude? Where are your facts that anyone actually committed treason?

Jeez people, why're people being threatened, it's a frickin' car forum. Nobody yet really knows what happened, until then all panties should be ironed.

And what's up with the cross linked sticky? :rolleyes:

Jeez people, why're people being threatened, it's a frickin' car forum. Nobody yet really knows what happened, until then all panties should be ironed.

+1 :D

From Howard Dean and the DNC:

In June of 2003, while Joe Wilson was providing background information to reporters and congressional staffers on failures in prewar intelligence, the State Department compiled a classified memo on Wilson's mission that included the fact that Wilson's wife was a CIA operative - and made it clear that information was not to be made public. That memo found its way onto Air Force One in July of 2003 on a transatlantic flight to Africa, and was seen in the hands of at least two members of the Administration: Colin Powell and Ari Fleischer. According to witnesses, the special prosecutor has focused on this memo and its possible recipients in the belief that it was circulated widely among the Bush staff. The Administration could end all speculation by releasing the memo's distribution list.
BUSH ADMINISTRATION READIES AMMUNITION ON WILSON

The State Department Compiled a Memo on Joe Wilson in June of 2003. On June 10, 2003 the State Department's Office of Intelligence and Research compiled a memo for Marc Grossman, then the Under Secretary of State for political affairs, on Joe Wilson's mission to Niger. The memo included the fact that Wilson's wife was a CIA operative working on WMD issues. At the time Wilson was criticizing the Administration's justification for the war, specifically discrediting the charge that Iraq was attempting to purchase yellow cake uranium. [Newsweek, 7/25/05; New York Times, 7/16/05]

State Department Memo Was Marked as Containing Sensitive Information. According to officials familiar with the case, the memo compiled by the State Department's Office of Intelligence and Research, was marked as sensitive information. The section of the document pertaining to Plame's role in the trip to Niger was marked as especially sensitive. According to the Wall Street Journal, "the paragraph in the memo discussing Ms. Wilson's involvement in her husband's trip is marked at the beginning with a letter designation in brackets to indicate the information shouldn't be shared, according to the person familiar with the memo. Such a designation would indicate to a reader that the information was sensitive." [Bloomberg, 7/18/05; Wall Street Journal, 7/19/05]
ONCE JOE WILSON CRITICIZED THE ADMINISTRATION...

Wilson Appeared On Meet The Press, Wrote New York Times Op-Ed Critical of Administration's Iraq Uranium Claims. In July of 2003 Wilson went on the record with his concerns about the Administration's claims that Iraq had attempted to acquire Uranium from Niger. Wilson wrote an Op-Ed in The New York Times and appeared on Meet the Press to voice his concerns, up until this point Wilson had only been commenting on background. [Newsweek, 7/25/05]
...THE BUSHIES REVVED UP THE SMEAR MACHINE

State Department Memo Was Sent to Powell After Wilson's Op-Ed Critical of the Administration's Uranium Claim. When Mr. Wilson's Op-Ed article appeared on July 6, 2003, a Sunday, Richard L. Armitage, then Deputy Secretary of State, called Carl W. Ford Jr., the Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Research, at home, a former State Department official said. Mr. Armitage asked Mr. Ford to send a copy of the memorandum to Mr. Powell, who was preparing to leave for Africa with Mr. Bush, the former official said. Mr. Ford sent it to the White House for transmission to Mr. Powell. [New York Times, 7/16/05]

Top Bush Administration Officials Were Seen Reading State Department Memo. During the July 2003 trip to Africa by Bush and his staff high ranking Administration officials were seen with the State Department memo. According to a person involved in the case, then Secretary of State Colin Powell and former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer were both seen walking around Air force One with the memo. According to individuals connected to the case, the Special Prosecutor, Peter Fitzgerald believed "that a printout of memo was in the front of Air Force One" during the trip, making it available to various members of the Bush staff. [Washington Post, 7/17/05; Bloomberg, 7/18/05]

State Department Memo May Have Been Used to Brief Bush Administration Officials for Sunday Shows. "Meanwhile, in transatlantic secure phone calls, the message machinery focused on a crucial topic: who should carry the freight on the following Sunday's talk shows? The message: protect Cheney by explaining that he had had nothing to do with sending Wilson to Niger, and dismiss the yellowcake issue...Condi Rice, the ultimate good soldier. She was on the Africa trip with the president, though, and wouldn't be getting back until Saturday night. To allow her to prepare on the long flight home to D.C., White House officials assembled a briefing book, which they faxed to the Bush entourage in Africa. The book was primarily prepared by her National Security Council staff. It contained classified information - perhaps including all or part of the memo from State. The entire binder was labeled TOP SECRET." [Newsweek, 7/25/05]

Administration Officials Pushed Information That Was Contained in Memo. During the Bush Administration's trip to Africa Fleischer and Dan Bartlett urged reporters to look into the origins of Wilson's trip. The fact that Plame had been involved in the initial meetings on Wilson's trip was contained in the State Department Memo and was in the section marked "sensitive." [Wall Street Journal, 7/19/05; Newsweek, 7/25/05]

Novak Attempted to Contact Fleischer While He was On Air Force One. According to sources close to the investigation, Air Force One call logs show that Bob Novak attempted to get in contact with White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer while he was on Air Force One during the White House's Trip to Africa. The Special Prosecutor in the case, Patrick Fitzgerald has subpoenaed the phone and fax records of Air Force One, and Fleischer has testified in front of the Grand Jury already. [Los Angeles Times, 7/18/05]