The scandal swirling around Karl Rove continues to widen. As the GOP continues to mount a "defense" for Rove, it becomes apparent that without Rove to write the talking points, the party is in deep trouble.
The scandal swirling around Karl Rove continues to widen. As the GOP continues to mount a "defense" for Rove, it becomes apparent that without Rove to write the talking points, the party is in deep trouble. Each new Republican talking point seems to either strengthen the argument that Rove is intricately involved in this crime or implicate Rove and other Republicans for either conspiracy, perjury, or obstruction of justice.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - billy
yes i agree. and clearly this woman was covert. the cia admitted it. and hence, now the grand jury is looking into it. right wing blogs and opinion pieces making wild claims wont change that.
or i could just believe you. and then id have to believe that the grand jury is just there to play chess and read high times.
glad we got that out of the way.
27 - billy
gpw, dont be stupid, your main argument is based on something bush already retracted.
next time you try to win an argument try to cite something that bush hasnt already publicly admitted was a lie.
28 - GPW
Actually, my main argument is that there is no "underlying crime" in the Plame affair. Bush has not commented on whether there is an underlying crime or not, so he most certainly could not have retracted anything.
As for Iraq seeking uranium in Niger, the important issue is not whether Bush retracted the 16 words in his State of the Union address, but whether the British"whose intelligence Bush cited"have retracted their own conclusions. They have not, so the fact that Bush retracted his remarks is materially irrelevant, however politically embarrassing.
You still haven't responded to Saddam's possession of WMDs through the mid-1990s, the nearly universal belief leading up to the war that he still possessed them or the capability of making them, and the reasons for war other than WMD.
However, you've repeated your quip about grand juries playing chess and reading high times. Perhaps this is a projection of your own use of leisure time?
29 - harpo1973
What Bush has done is nothing short of treason during wartime.
All we have seen lately is:
Cowardly Coverup of Traitorious Treason.
IMPEACH and IMPRISON
30 - GPW
According to Harpo1973's website, which can be accessed by following the link, he/she has been "seeking the truth since May 13, 2005." One wonders if he/she was seeking a lie prior to that. Seeking a reasonable political stance in a complex moral environment certainly wasn't on his/her list of things to do, at least not if comment #29 is any indication. At any rate, the alliteration and assonance are downright sophomoric.
31 - Anthony Grande
Do you guys know why Rove did what he did?
Because this C.I.A. agent told the White House what Saddam was really up to and then came out and told the media that Saddam was up to nothing so Bush would look bad.
What she did sounds like treason to me.
32 - John Bambenek
GPW:
If you can't learn what treason is, please leave the discussion to the adults.
33 - richmtn
Thanks I believe you have a better handle of this issue than anyone on either side.
Rich
34 - leftwinger
Yes, noone thinks this is really treason. A crime has probably been committed by one or more persons but it is not treason so to speak. Rove would have to have picked up a machine gun an joined al qaeda and perticipated in another foiled 9-11 to be charged with that.
35 - Temple Stark
>>Actually, amicus curiae briefs filed by 36 mainstream press organizations (including the AP, New York Times, Washington Post, etc.) contend that there is "no underlying crime" in the Plame affair
The amicus briefs say no such thing. They are much more specific to the crime they are referring, too, which is KEEPING THE IDENTITY OF SOURCES SECRET.
None of these briefs addresses the law surrounding the revealing of a covert CIA agent.
Just because you read it somewhere on a blog or partisan publication - doesn't make it so.
Try here for the 40-page PDF of the briefs (1.3 MB). Just to give you a starting off point, search for the keywords in this phrase: ... a federal court should first determine whether a crime has been committed in the disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's name before prosecutors are allowed to continue seeking testimony from journalists about their confidential sources
"should first ... whether a crime has been committed. etc. etc. Nothing in the briefs says "no-crime has been committed."
I can't let such an obvious fact go unchecked by those who won't check.
36 - rbp0554
All the bickering here is hilarious. I'd love for GPW and Anthony to answer the following questions but without using the typical GOP lines that I don't accept as reasonable answers. I will place these answers next to each question, so come up with something else b/c I've already read these from all the GOP talking heads.
1) If Karl Rove did not think he was doing anything wrong why did Cooper's leaked e-mails to his editors at Time read "KR" "double supersecret"? Actually I have not seen a decent answer to this.
2) If all of this is completely above board, why was the White House's initial response a denial of any involvement and a promise that whoever was responsible would be fired? Have not seen a decent answer to this either. Other than a post hoc... "we meant only if there was an indictment".
3) If the White House is not genuinely concerned about possible legal trouble, why are they stone walling? B/c Fritzgerald has asked them not to talk... My Reply: True but his request is not legally binding, and I know if my reputation were on the line over something getting this much media attention, I'd sure defend myself if I did not have anything to hide or fear.
4) If the special prosecution has no evidence of wrongdoing, why is he putting his reputation on the line by strongarming and jailing reporters over a deadend case? Have not seen a decent reply to this either.
Don't strain your brains too hard, b/c the most parsimonious answer is that they do have something to fear and they know that they did something unethical if not illegal.
I will agree that the felonly conviction is unlikely; however, perjury is a real possibility.
- RBP
37 - billy
. . . "his request is not legally binding, and I know if my reputation were on the line . . .
good one. bush is the president of the US. if he wants to fire someone, comment on someone, or TAKE AN ACTION with regard to national security (i.e., revoke rove's clearance) he can do that no matter what the prosecutor says.
so Bush's inaction is telling.
38 - Dave Nalle
Hey, Ballet, since you know so much about GOP talking points, perhaps you could tell me where to get some. Actuually, I'm just curious about the whole 'talking points issue', so forward a copy of the email you get from moveon.org or the DNC which you use as the basis of your posts. That would work just as well.
Dave
39 - Temple Stark
That was circular "reasoning" at its finest.
40 - MalakaJoe
No matter what the legal ramifications are, remember that President Bush promised to fire anyone found to have leaked the information.
Argue all you want about the other stuff, but this promise was made. If it was a democrat, the GOP would send out a lynch mob for the person. Now that is Bush's "architect", should things be different?
Will Bush keep his promise? That is the big question.
41 - GPW
Temple Stark:
Did you even read the amicus curiae you directed my attention to? Page ii: "In this case, there exists ample evidence on the public record to cast serious doubt as to whether a crime has even been committed under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (the 'Act')in the investigation underlying the attempts to secure testimony from Miller and Cooper." Pages 5-12 of the brief document this claim.
So when you write, "None of these briefs addresses the law surrounding the revealing of a covert CIA agent," you're just plain wrong. Whether the Intelligence Identities Protection Act applies is the whole point of the brief. Indeed, the logic of the brief depends on the assumption that there is no "underlying crime" involved in the leak of Plame's name. Since there's no underlying crime, the brief argues, Miller and Cooper should not be forced to reveal their sources.
So, since either you have not read or do not understand the brief, don't lecture me with nonsense like, "Just because you read it somewhere on a blog or partisan publication - doesn't make it so." And reread--slowly and aloud--this sentence: "there exists ample evidence on the public record to cast serious doubt as to whether a crime has even been committed."
I can't let such an obvious misinterpretation of the brief go without comment.
42 - Dave Nalle
When the reasoning makes a circle, that's a sign that it's complete.
Dave
43 - balletshooz
I think a fair reading of the news as a whole, as well as the GOP talking points, which have been stated in the public record in both the House ands Senate will reveal a strategy by the GOP to:
1. Smear/Discredit Wilson; and
2. Claim no crime was committed.
Even a Republican probably agrees with this.
Today, a new prong was added, as indicated in Rush Limbaugh's artucle on the subject, for instance, which is to claim that Rove just got this info from a reporter, (i.e., he is not a leaker), and therefore this is much ado about nothing.
There are several others, check out this for all of them, but some are just too silly to mention, like "He didnt use her name".
44 - GPW
Bambenek:
In light of what you wrote in #19, and in light of the fact that we seem to agree on this issue, why are you busting my chops in #32?
45 - GPW
Balletshooz:
You're right about the GOP "talking points." That is the GOP strategy. Where you're wrong is thinking that Wilson is credible and that there's an underlying crime here.
46 - rbp0554
GPW,
Will you please respond to comment 36.
- RBP
47 - GPW
1) If Karl Rove did not think he was doing anything wrong why did Cooper's leaked e-mails to his editors at Time read "KR" "double supersecret"? Actually I have not seen a decent answer to this.
Of course, on the logic of this question, anyone who leaks any information thinks he has done something wrong. Why else would the leaker desire to keep his/her identity secret? Try coming up with a question that doesn't have such a ridiculous premise.
2) If all of this is completely above board, why was the White House's initial response a denial of any involvement and a promise that whoever was responsible would be fired? Have not seen a decent answer to this either. Other than a post hoc... "we meant only if there was an indictment".
Well, if as today's news reports suggest, Bob Novak told Karl Rove about Valerie Plame and not the other way around, then technically, Rove didn't leak anything. And given the scandal-prone Washington DC climate, I'd chalk up Bush's promise to fire the leader to his swaggering Texas bravado.
3) If the White House is not genuinely concerned about possible legal trouble, why are they stone walling? B/c Fritzgerald has asked them not to talk... My Reply: True but his request is not legally binding, and I know if my reputation were on the line over something getting this much media attention, I'd sure defend myself if I did not have anything to hide or fear.
Given that Rove has testified before the grand jury, I'm not sure in exactly what sense the WH is stonewalling this investigation. Would you please give me an example of the alleged stonewalling?
4) If the special prosecution has no evidence of wrongdoing, why is he putting his reputation on the line by strongarming and jailing reporters over a deadend case? Have not seen a decent reply to this either.
Umm, only one reporter (Judith Miller) has been jailed. And perhaps the prosecutor jailed her because she, unlike Matthew Cooper, refused to identify her source, despite a lawful subpoena ordering her before the grand jury to do so. I'm not lawyer, but I hear that people are often jailed for contempt of court.
48 - rbp0554
Re 1) The premise is not that the leaker has done something wrong (perhaps my wording was poor). It's that they have something to hide. In this case, What is Mr. Rove trying to hide and why? Is it b/c he did something wrong (not nesc. illegal but still something that he knew would bring political heat).
Re 2) This is a very weak answer. Why are they changing their tone now (i.e., now in "no comment" stage)?
Re 3) Do you live in a vacume? Have you not seen McClellan's recent interactions with the press. Let's be realistic.
Re 4) Maybe, but these people are not often reporters with a legitimate reason for not testifying. If Fritzgerald has sent Miller to jail and strongarmed Cooper in to testifying but does not get an indictment, his reputation will be damaged. Once again you have given a weak answer.
- RBP
49 - Temple Stark
RE: amicus
It gets technical, so I'm not going to debate it as there would be no convincing. It's for the sake of the general readers who may want facts on their side. However, the key phrase in the page ii introduction quote you cited is "in the public record."
The briefs are being filed for the sake of maintaining confidential sources. It's obvious. The other thing being said is that the prosecutor hasn't proved enough of s case or yet proved a crime has been committed to compel reporters to reveal their sources. To my educated but untrained and non-lawyerly mind it's a weak argument. The prosecutor only needs to prove to a judge that he has exhausted all other potential sources for the information he seeks. That decision had already been made, though of course there are appeals.
The briefs are not being filed in the case against Rove.
50 - Tao Jonez
yo GPW and peeps like him. not to bust yer chops or nuthin, but Maynard nailed yer whole "there is no crime" schtick way up at the beginning with this linky dink
now scope that a sec, and ya will find the the Justice department, under Bush, already stated how ta persecute those that leak shit, what laws they would use
and everything.
poor fool that leaked somthin that Bush didn't like wuz up on charges coulda got him 500 years! now, he didn't do that much crime, so he did much less time.
but then the five oh bragged about, this wuz how they did leaks, and these were the laws that leakers could be busted on
the bit wuz written by John Dean, and he knows a bit of somthin somthin about leaks and republicans and the Honky House
you been served
51 - Doug
From Yubanet:
A fact sheet released today by Rep. Waxman explains that the nondisclosure agreement signed by Karl Rove prohibited Mr. Rove from confirming the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Wilson to reporters. Under the nondisclosure agreement and the applicable executive order, even "negligent" disclosures to reporters are grounds for revocation of a security clearance or dismissal.
52 - Tao Jonez
oh man, and now doug nailed yer nads to the table with the ten penny from hell
nice linkage Doug
w00t
53 - Dave Nalle
Yep, Doug confirms there's no way Rove did it. Not if he signed that NDA.
Dave
54 - Dave
Tao Jonez, is that supposed to be in English?
55 - bhw
Everyone, please use hyperlinks to point to outside sources. Thanks!
56 - Marc
The more this moves along the more it appears as thoughn the [Dim]ocrats have been outfoxed by Rove again.
So what does it all mean?Case in point:
Just as a few, a very few, in this thread have pointed out Rove was on the recieving end of this leak. Rove knew the score a year ago, knew where the guilty resided and as soon as the investigation started he alerted WH Security and turned over the Email.
This also kills the current Leftist meme of "well if Rove is so innocent why haven't they cleared his name earlier."
Because they did a year ago and as the investigators have said Rove isn't the target.
Besides it's more fun from the WH perspective to watch the [Dim]ocrats chase their tails over this non-issue and make fools of themselves.
57 - Marc
So as I don't leave you hanging with no solution to this sordid tale, here are the possible candidates that may have leaked info to "Dame" Miller who currently resides in the ironbar hotel for not telling who her source was.
George Tenet, Colin Powell or Ari Fleischer.
My money is on Tenet.
58 - John Bambenek
Why would the administration leak a name to discredit someone who has no credibility to begin with? Doesn't make sense.
But you could interpret this as a whistleblower action. In the government you are not supposed ato get your spouses jobs ESPECIALLY when they aren't qualified.
59 - John Bambenek
Bush's inaction?
You mean calling for an investigation and waiting for the results? You mean having something like, **gasp** due process?
60 - rbp0554
Two points:
1)Nobody in the GOP camp of this discussion has addressed in a meaningful way why the Bush Administration has gone from emphatic denials to "no comment" with respect to the press (not the investigation as GPW did earlier in a textbook example of bait-and-switch)
2) Note that Bush did not call for an indpendent investigation nor has the republican congress. This investigation is under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department which is run by Bush appointee Alberto Gonzales.
Let's be intellecutally honest with each other. For and example of intellectual dishonesty, see GPW's comments above about no stonewalling (comment 47) and my reply (comment 48).
- RBP
61 - John Bambenek
rpd:
No idea, I'm not in the White House and it doesn't matter. Maybe they are being quiet to let you guys make fools of yourselves and when the investigation is completed you'll just go back to blaming DeLay.
I call having the AG step down and appointing an indifferent prosecutor to investigation an exampe of an independent investigation. Not every employee of the DoJ are GOP cronies you know.
But you do know the the prosecutor has asked them all to shut up and let him do his job?
62 - Tao Jonez
now, let's hop inta the "wayback" machine a sec. last regime, there wuz some shit, and the prez set up an independant prosecutor, some bigtime partisan from the opposition party.
and this time? is this Fiotz dude some rabid dem with an open mandate and over 47 million ta spend on it?
nah.
but give da boyee time,and see what he does before we bitch.
just remember where he came from.
63 - Shark
Bambineck: "I'm not in the White House..."
Wow. I'm shocked!
Judging from your jingoisms and the fact that you write like English is a second language, I would have thought you were President Bush.
======
The great irony of the Rove affair is that the apologists (many on the above thread) are reduced to a sorta Clintonian "depends on what your interpretation of is is".
AHAHAHA. Apparently, there is a God.
64 - rbp0554
Once again, LET'S BE INTELLECUTALLY HONEST. Check out this link.
1) Bush appointed Fitzgerald in 2001
2) The Bush Justice Dept. appointed Fitzgerald as special prosecutor during the Bush/Kerry Campaign.
- RBP
65 - hst
After 9/11 'National Security' has risen to the front of all major decisions. From the Afganistan campaign, the Iraqi Invasion, even to GITMO, and the Patriot Act.
And even now when the political pundits continue to defend Karl Rove and demean Valerie Plame. Wow, you just have to wonder about the mental conditions of these folks.
The ones who wrapped themselves in god, flag, country, national security, during the last election. The ones today who continue their treasons of rationalization, by defending the 'outing' of the CIA.
So much for the Republican Party defending 'National Security'. Especially when their 'wonder boy' Karl Rove is involved. Such hypocrisy.
66 - John Bambenek
Bah, one, there has been no indication whatsoever that outing Valerie Plame caused any problems for national security, especially in the light she and her husband where quite free about her employment BEFORE this came down.
Two, it doesn't appear at all that Rove "leaked" this. When you leak something you don't wait for a reporter to call you about a welfare article. Loose tounge maybe.
Three, Judith Miller is in jail for protecting a source. It isn't Karl Rove because he waived confidentiality 2 years ago.
Four, Rove gave all documents and testified freely in front of the Grand Jury.
Five, Valerie Plame committed a huge breach of ethics getting her unqualified husband a job he wasn't qualified for to do a hatchet job on the President that was proven wrong on all accounts. He even lied publicly about how he was chosen.
Six, you guys STILL don't know what treason is.
Seven, even Pelosi is backing off of Rove now that it's quite clear he committed no crime.
Eight, she was not a covert agent. Covert agents don't work at Langley.
Nine, if you guys have to resort to so much distortion to prove you case, it is more likely you don't have one.
67 - rbp0554
Hi Folks:
The real point I'm making with the "why have they changed their story" (i.e., emphatic denial to "no comment") goes beyond PlameGate. This administration has a huge credibility issue. Here is an incomplete list of topics where, at the very least, there has been considerable dispute.
1) WMDs
2) Saddam and Al-Qaida
3) John McCain's black baby
4) PlameGate
5) "Major combat operations are over"
6) Faith based initiatives
7) Torture of prisoners
a) GITMO
b) Abu Graib
8) No bid contracts
9) Executive privledge on energy
meetings
10) "They will welcome us as liberators"
etc., etc., etc.
I'm sorry to get off topic, but this is far from an isolated problem. The real question central to PlameGate is inter-related to the problems listed above and many others... Does this adminstration struggle with the truth? As is usually true in politics, it is likely that the coverup surrounding PlameGate is where the crime resides if indeed there is one at all. The problem is not so much a legal one as it is a credibility one.
I'm not looking to hang these guys or be partisan... It's just after over four years of service they have not EARNED my trust. Therefore, I see no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt when they act suspiciously (see my comments above) with regard to PlameGate.
- RBP
68 - Tao Jonez
holla holla, scope the link in comment 50
lot more than what the repub's is sayin. da truth will set ya free, my peeps.
69 - DrPat
Turning off italics until bhw can get to it!!
70 - rbp0554
Tao:
You are right. I read the Dean article yesterday, and it is a good one. The difference is that then the Justice Dept. wanted to throw the book at someone.
Nevertheless, the blueprint on how to legally sodomize somebody over a leak is there.
- RBP
71 - Tao Jonez
yo, thanx RBP. tryin ta do my bit. on the flip side, one of da repub talking points has been ta keep shouting Plame ain't covert. I wanna know who knows more about that, them or the CIA, which brought it up in da first place, hence the grand jury and secial prosecutor?
I'll just wait and see how Fitz does, but liek i spoke out about before, he ain't no independant type picked form the opposing side, like Ken Starr wuz, he wuz appointed by the very same peeps he is supposed ta investigate in 2001 ta da Justice dept, and now he is supposed ta be independantly scoping this mess?
like havin' Michael Corleone investigate the mafia
know what i'm sayin?
72 - rbp0554
Hi Tao:
I know what you're saying. See my comment 64.
- RBP
73 - John Bambenek
rpd:
Faith Based Initiatives?
I can understand the WMD (although every world government accepted it as fact before we started about going in including the UN) and Al Qaeda (though I'd refer you to some of the latest stuff by Stephen Hayek), but Faith based Initiatives?
And what the heck does John McCain's alleged kid have to do with anything?
74 - Tao Jonez
yo Bambenek, it all goes ta show how some peeps got a history and habit of bringing the bullshit instead of keeping it real
but hatah's like you want everybody ta be all kinds of ADD and scope nothing but short attention span theatre.
too bad, so sad, there's brains all over the place
75 - Dave Nalle
John McCain has a black baby? Tell me more. Sounds like he's a shoe-in to steal lots of Dem votes in 08 now.
Dave