Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Rove: "I've Already Said Too Much"

Top News Valerie Plame Rove Grand Jury testimony Matthew Cooper Time Magazine 2005

  • Please log in to reply
158 replies to this topic

#21 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 18 July 2005 - 05:48 PM

RuReddy1, on Jul 18 2005, 10:18 PM, said:

Quote

Spectacles Posted Today, 03:08 PM
Gee, I wonder what the CIA was thinking when they asked for the special prosecutor to investigate. Do you think Tenet (who requested the probe) is Joe Wilson's flunkie? Do you think Tenet would have requested it had it appeared that there was no problem with blowing Plame's cover?

Look, obviously, the CIA thought there was enough of a problem to warrant an investigation. Whether or not Rove was the leaker is for the grand jury to decide.
They'll also have to decide whether or not there was a cover-up, perjury, obstruction of justice. What they'll find, I have no idea. We'll just have to wait and see.

Gee, I wonder what the CIA was thinking when,  Robert Novak called the CIA to tell them he was going disclosed Plame's identity in his column?  They did nothing stop him or did not put any effort into stopping him?  The CIA did nothing to protect her or to continue protecting her identity.  They just allowed her name get printed. I wonder why?

RuReddy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Was the CIA supposed to hit Novak with their orbital mind-wipe laser?  By Novak's own account (and he's the only public source on this), the CIA asked him not to publish and he did anyway.  His lame excuse is that they didn't ask him hard enough.  Yeah, right.   And again, the CIA, the Special Prosecutor, the Grand Jury, and several judges overseeing the case have all determined that wrongdoing was committed.  Whether Valerie Plame was covert or not only an issue in the minds of Rove's increasingly frantic defenders.

But by all means, keep digging, boys.  There's got to be a pony in there somewhere!
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#22 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 18 July 2005 - 05:57 PM

RuReddy1, on Jul 18 2005, 06:18 PM, said:

...
Gee, I wonder what the CIA was thinking when,  Robert Novak called the CIA to tell them he was going disclosed Plame's identity in his column?  They did nothing stop him or did not put any effort into stopping him?  The CIA did nothing to protect her or to continue protecting her identity.  They just allowed her name get printed. I wonder why?

RuReddy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Look wonder all you want, The CIA’s slowness, to seek prosecution, does not make the dissemination of secret information any less a crime.  Jaw Jack all you want, in a CNN poll 75% of Americans across the board find the leaking of secret information, to be a very serious problem. On a number of levels supporters of this leaking have lost big time with the American public. The next few Novembers are going to be very interesting. The attention span of the American public is a hell of a lot longer then the political pundits, and television executives, think it is, as they are about to find out.
Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#23 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 18 July 2005 - 06:10 PM

RuReddy1, on Jul 18 2005, 08:36 PM, said:

If the Democrats are so damned certain of Rove's criminal guilt, why are they demanding more investigations? Why are they calling for his clearance to be pulled? Why are they calling for his resignation?

RuReddy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I do believe in an investigation of this sort [ooh flashback time:  Watergate] more investigations are status quo.

And he should resign or be fired and his clearance should definitly be pulled that is sop.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#24 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 18 July 2005 - 06:18 PM

I think that anyone who wants to find a rebuttal to the pro-Rove talking points can find them here.  Enjoy!   :lol:
Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#25 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 18 July 2005 - 07:51 PM

I'm still of the opinion if he is proven guilty then he should receive the penalty - regardless of his political affiliations.  I'm willing to let him do his explaining and have his attorney put on his defense and let them that have all the facts, not just the pieces that fit the agenda of whomever is reporting, make a decision on what happened.  If it turns out Rove outed Plame but there are loopholes that he wiggles through, I still want him fired or demoted and his security clearance pulled.  I may still want him fired because he has known about these allegations for two years and has left people out to dry for defending him and those people have enough credibility issues to deal without this lame thing.  And, if Rove is found not guilty, then I'd like for it to be done with and not fumed over for the next 3 years even though it will be.

#26 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 18 July 2005 - 08:23 PM

The most likely charges against Rove, given what's public now, are perjury, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.  Though there is no doubt that Valerie Plame was a covert agent and that someone in the White House blew her cover, it may be difficult to prove all the elements required under the Covert Identities law.  On the other hand, those charges may allow Fitzgerald to cast a far wider net, since there were clearly a good many more people who a. knew Plame's identity and b. had reason to know/suspect Rove and Libby of leaking it, and who made no effort to bring those facts to the attention of the proper authorities.  By the time this plays out, it may well be a larger and more serious scandal than Watergate.
Posted Image

#27 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 18 July 2005 - 09:15 PM

^Yep.

Now the other question is-who is Miller's Source?

She is so afraid of whomever it was that's she's willing to go to jail.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#28 Nonprofit

Nonprofit
  • Islander
  • 2,163 posts

Posted 18 July 2005 - 10:24 PM

Quote

waterpanther Posted Today, 08:23 PM

Though there is no doubt that Valerie Plame was a covert agent and that someone in the White House blew her cover, it may be difficult to prove all the elements required under the Covert Identities law.

A covert agent under the act has to be someone who has deep cover, who is working abroad. Not just traveling abroad, but is stationed and working abroad sometime within the last five years.

And USA Today reported that Joe Wilson's book has even made -- if you do the timeline, the Wilsons were married in 1998. There's some question whether she was even abroad during the last five years.

She really had a desk job at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia and was driving in and out of the CIA every day. That's not exactly deep cover.

There is no doubt she was 'not covert' by the standards required by "The 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act ".  

http://www.usatoday....ia-wilson_x.htm

Quote

CIA 'outing' might fall short of crime

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.

<snip>

Though that key law may not have been broken in leaking the name, Fitzgerald must still be pursuing evidence of some type of wrongdoing, said Victoria Toensing, another of the attorneys who helped draft the 1982 act (Sanford being the other). Like Sanford, she doubts Valerie Wilson, as she now refers to herself, qualified as a "covert agent" under that law. She and Sanford also doubt Fitzgerald has enough evidence to prosecute anyone under the Espionage Act. That law makes it a crime to divulge "information relating to the national defense" that "the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury" of the nation.

But, Toensing said, "reading between the lines, I'd say he's got a 'Martha Stewart case' " involving perjury or obstruction of justice. In other words, though a crime may not have been committed at the start, one may have occurred during the investigation when someone lied to Fitzgerald or to a federal grand jury.

Can't get 'em on the The 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act  nor the Espionage Act....   :lol:  

RuReddy

#29 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 18 July 2005 - 10:24 PM

Anyone happen to catch a glance at the official website of the Democratic National Committtee?

http://dnc.org

It's interesting that with our soldiers fighting a global war on terror, this is the most pressing issue for the Democratic party in their quest to return to power. Could it be... politics?

I've seen Bush's opponents disappointed so many times since 2000. I wonder what the reaction will be when Karl Rove is not fired, and does not step down, and is not charged with a single crime on anything? The reaction won't be pretty. But it is entirely predictable.

-Ogami

#30 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 18 July 2005 - 10:30 PM

Quote

There is no doubt she was 'not covert' by the standards required by "The 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act ".

Perhaps you will share this information with the CIA, since they seem to be quite firmly under the impression that she was.
Posted Image

#31 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 18 July 2005 - 10:33 PM

In an ABC News poll, most Republicans want Karl Rove fired if it turns out he leaked classified information.  Seventy-one percent of Republicans, in fact.

The fact is, the issue cuts across party lines.  Any American that cares about his/her country would be horrified at the thought that anyone would jeopardize this country's security by outing a CIA agent--especially an agent whose expertise is WMDs.

This is not a Republican/Democrat issue.  This is an issue of right or wrong.  I'm afraid Rove's defenders just don't get it.  There are lots of links posted upthread that can clear all this up for anyone who has any doubt about this case.

It's a little early to say whether or not Rove can be indicted on the Espionage act or the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.  There's a possibility that someone else will fall on his sword in all this.  But still, it does not make Rove look good.  Not even to his fellow Republicans.   Rove's defenders are a small minority even within the GOP.  :lol:   :lol:

Edited by Call Me Robin, 18 July 2005 - 10:36 PM.

Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#32 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 18 July 2005 - 10:37 PM

It seems as though the blossom has wilted, leaving just the -- uhm-- cow pattie.
Posted Image

#33 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 18 July 2005 - 10:37 PM

waterpanther, on Jul 19 2005, 03:30 AM, said:

Quote

There is no doubt she was 'not covert' by the standards required by "The 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act ".

Perhaps you will share this information with the CIA, since they seem to be quite firmly under the impression that she was.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Funny, I always thought that agents with WMD expertise would naturally be covert.   :lol:
Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#34 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 18 July 2005 - 10:44 PM

Call Me Robin quotes:

In an ABC News poll, most Republicans want Karl Rove fired if it turns out he leaked classified information.

So if I was asked, "If Karl Rove leaked classified information, should he be fired?", I'd probably say yes too.

That's not the same as saying he's guilty and a devil, which is the refrain from the critics.

Great example of the partisan news media presenting Editorials as Polls. We in the partisan press hate Rove, so you should too, is the message from ABC and the rest.

-Ogami

#35 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 18 July 2005 - 11:08 PM

emsparks, on Jul 18 2005, 01:08 PM, said:

What I find most disturbing to this whole thing is the damaged done to the good order and discipline of the clandestine services. If Mr. Rove and the other person identified in the administration get away with this, it says to all American operatives the world over that their cover, or that of a family member, can be blown a the whim of some political hack working for the President, or Vice President.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Those covers take a lot of time and effort to build, and are hard enough to maintain without this kind of petty political nastiness.

Call Me Robin, on Jul 18 2005, 01:21 PM, said:

Let's not forget that the outing of Valerie Plame endangered the work and the lives of her many contacts in the CIA.  It endangered national security, since Plame's expertise was WMDs.  Someone in the administration was willing to jeopardize the security of this country and the work of the CIA. 

IMO, the Bush adminsitration could not care less about the welfare of the American people or the security of the world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree.   :angry:

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#36 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 18 July 2005 - 11:13 PM

Emsparks wrote:

What I find most disturbing to this whole thing is the damaged done to the good order and discipline of the clandestine services.

Funny how prior to this, the Democratic party never had a good thing to say about the CIA or its operatives? Yet they go to bat here for this non-secret agent, because we can "get" Rove!

I guess some Deep Throats are more beloved than others.

-Ogami

#37 Nonprofit

Nonprofit
  • Islander
  • 2,163 posts

Posted 18 July 2005 - 11:48 PM

Quote

waterpanther Posted Today, 10:30 PM

Quote

RuReddy
There is no doubt she was 'not covert' by the standards required by "The 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act ".
Perhaps you will share this information with the CIA, since they seem to be quite firmly under the impression that she was.

According to the writers of the "The 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act " whom I'm very sure they know what they are talking about since they drafted the law.  She does not fall under this law as 'covert'.  Just becasue you want to believe it, it's not going to happen.  

Do you have some proof that this is the law they will be using when they do draw up charges if they in fact ever get that far?  Which I doubt.   I would like to see some articles, proof, anything beside your opinion.  Do you have any proof that Plame was stationed out of the country in the last five years? Links please.

RuReddy

#38 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 19 July 2005 - 06:15 AM

I tend to agree with Victoria Toensing:

Quote

From the USA Today article posted by RuReddy: But, Toensing said, "reading between the lines, I'd say he's got a 'Martha Stewart case' " involving perjury or obstruction of justice. In other words, though a crime may not have been committed at the start, one may have occurred during the investigation when someone lied to Fitzgerald or to a federal grand jury.

It's awfully hard to convict someone of deliberately outting an agent. The law seems to be written in such a way as to narrow its application to cases in which someone knows the agent is undercover and knows that revealing the identity is wrong.

So I'll be surprised if Rove or Libby is convicted of that particular crime. It might happen, sure. But I think chances are greater that the prosecutor is looking at perjury and obstruction of justice.

Fact is, we just don't know all the facts. What's available in the public record is being spun this way and that, but we won't know the entire story until after the special prosecutor files his report. And then that will be spun.

So partisans on both sides of the issue should probably not make any fast and firm predictions. This is one matter that won't be tried solely in the court of public opinion. (Which is probably why Rush Limbaugh sounds particularly apoplectic  these days. ;) )


By the way, Jon Stewart did a hilarious bit on the phrase in this thread's title. He played a clip of Cooper saying that he didn't know what Rove meant by "I've said too much," that he could have meant that he had to rush off to a meeting. The camera flashes back to Stewart looking skeptical. Then Stewart says something like "Oops. There's my bus. I'VE SAID TOO MUCH!"  :D

Edited by Spectacles, 19 July 2005 - 06:16 AM.

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#39 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 19 July 2005 - 06:30 AM

The BBC reports that Bush has publicly said he'll fire anyone in his administration who was involved with this and has committed a crime.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#40 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 19 July 2005 - 06:31 AM

Dear Ogami And RuReddy1,

Have either one of you held security clearances; you don’t talk like most of the people I know who have held them. We who have been given the trust of the nation take our oaths very seriously, democrat or republican.

We do not talk to people that do not have clearances, and we do not talk to people that have clearances, but don’t have “the need to know,” about anything secret. If Mr. Rove has not broken the law, he has by his own admission of even hinting of things secret broken the faith of the national security community, and given our enemies actionable intelligence against us.

Valerie Plame’s current status is not the point here, Valerie Plame as a vector to the status of other people is the issue. But the damage has already been done. We talk about needing intelligence to fight this war on terror, and then a major white house player renders some of the sources of that intelligence useless to the nation. While very possibly exposing current undercover operators, who where associated with Valerie Plame’s fieldwork. As to time frame, many intelligence operations go on for decades, so a five-year rule of thumb is garbage.

There is not an operator, analyst, or contract employee with a clearance, past or present that will ever trust that man again. There are many legal analysts, which believe that Mr. Rove can be charged under the espionage act. Whether or not Mr. Rove is convicted, in the eyes of a majority of the American public, like Jane Fonda, Mr. Rove is damaged goods.

A comparison between “Valerie Plame” and “Deep Throat,” is a complete and total non sequitur. I am somewhat disappointed I would have expected a more cogent argument, then it’s a democratic trick. Especially when it comes to this nation security.
Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Top News, Valerie Plame, Rove, Grand Jury testimony, Matthew Cooper, Time Magazine, 2005

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users