PDA

View Full Version : MSNBC Analyst and a Newsweek Reporter Say Karl Rove Named in Matt Cooper Documents



Pages : [1] 2

RBA
07-02-2005, 07:46 PM
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972841

MSNBC Analyst and a Newsweek Reporter Say Karl Rove Named in Matt Cooper
Documents

By Greg Mitchell

Published: July 02, 2005 1:00 PM ET


NEW YORK Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to a federal judge, revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source or sources in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant. Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, now claims that at least two authoritative sources have confirmed that one name is top White House mastermind Karl Rove.

This afternoon, Newsweek's Michael Isikoff confirmed that Cooper did indeed talk to Rove for his story, but Rove's lawyer denied he was the key leaker in the case.

"The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper's sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House," Isikoff writes on the Newsweek web site. "Cooper and a Time spokeswoman declined to comment. But in an interview with Newsweek, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for the article. It is unclear, however, what passed between Cooper and Rove."

According to Isikoff, Luskin told Newsweek that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." Luskin declined, however, to discuss any other details. He noted that Rove had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him.

"He has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else," Luskin said. But one of the two lawyers representing a witness sympathetic to the White House told Newsweek that there was growing "concern" in the White House that the prosecutor is interested in Rove.

MSNBC's O'Donnell first offered the Rove revelation Friday night on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show. Today, he went beyond that, writing a brief entry at the Huffington Post blog:

"I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's e-mails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.

"McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis.

"Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow."

Here is the text of what O'Donnell said on Friday:

"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury--the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.

"I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."

Other McLaughlin Group panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper.

Besides his career at a TV journalist, O'Donnell has served as a producer and writer for the series "The West Wing."

According to published reports, Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the case, has interviewed President Bush and Vice President Cheney and called Karl Rove, among others, to testify before the grand jury.

"The breadth of Fitzgerald's inquiry has led to speculation that it has evolved into an investigation of a conspiracy to leak Plame's identity," the Chicago Tribune observed on Friday, "or of an attempt to cover up White House involvement in the leak."



Not the Key leaker? There was more than one?. Isn't more than one a conspiracy?

Dom Heffner
07-02-2005, 07:59 PM
Should be interesting to see what happens with this. We'll all be here to talk about it when it breaks, I am sure.

Falls City Beer
07-02-2005, 08:13 PM
Should be interesting to see what happens with this. We'll all be here to talk about it when it breaks, I am sure.

I don't know, Americans didn't seem to give a rat's behind that Robert Novak committed treason by revealing the identity of a CIA agent. I'm not sure they'll be moved by this.

RedsBaron
07-02-2005, 08:44 PM
If there is sufficient evidence that Rove broke the law, he should be indicted and prosecuted. If convicted, he should be punished within federal sentencing guidelines.

Unassisted
07-02-2005, 08:45 PM
I don't know, Americans didn't seem to give a rat's behind that Robert Novak committed treason by revealing the identity of a CIA agent. I'm not sure they'll be moved by this.The difference is the employer (Federal government vs. newsgathering entities) and the motivation (political gain vs. looking to break a big story). Going after Novak would have been an ugly, bloody legal slugfest with his attorneys claiming his First Amendment rights trump the need for secrecy.

I would question whether the reporters' notes constitute enough evidence for a case against Rove. That's what I see as the weakness that ultimately keeps Rove out of the courtroom and prison. Rove is at least 4 moves ahead of any of us in this chess game. He has had months to develop plausible deniability, and I'm sure we'll hear about that soon.

RFS62
07-02-2005, 08:52 PM
If there is sufficient evidence that Rove broke the law, he should be indicted and prosecuted. If convicted, he should be punished within federal sentencing guidelines.


Yep, I totally agree.

Unassisted
07-02-2005, 08:54 PM
Now I wonder if Rove's controversial remarks were designed and timed to motivate potential donors to his legal defense fund.

PickOff
07-02-2005, 08:56 PM
If there is sufficient evidence that Rove broke the law, he should be indicted and prosecuted. If convicted, he should be punished within federal sentencing guidelines.

If the President knew of the plan to reveal the identity of a CIA operative, should he be held to account as well?

RFS62
07-02-2005, 09:00 PM
If the President knew of the plan to reveal the identity of a CIA operative, should he be held to account as well?


Absolutely. If that's found to be the case, this is much worse than Watergate.

But don't lick your chops yet. Let's see how it plays out.

PickOff
07-02-2005, 09:10 PM
Absolutely. If that's found to be the case, this is much worse than Watergate.

But don't lick your chops yet. Let's see how it plays out.

I'm sure if Rove is prosecuted Bush will be well insulated. What I think is interesting though were his comments.



"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.

"I welcome the investigation. I am absolutely confident the Justice Department will do a good job.

"I want to know the truth," the president continued. "Leaks of classified information are bad things."

He added that he did not know of "anybody in my administration who leaked classified information."

Bush said he has told his administration to cooperate fully with the investigation and asked anyone with knowledge of the case to come forward.



Not exactly tough talk here. Not putting himself in any corners as to punishment for the offender.

RFS62
07-02-2005, 09:14 PM
I'm sure the lessons of Watergate are well known.

The breakin didn't bring Nixon down, it was the coverup. He thought he was being a good soldier and protecting his people. Plus, he never dreamed it would turn into the witch hunt it became.

"What did you know, and when" became permanently etched in political history.

RedsBaron
07-02-2005, 09:32 PM
Absolutely. If that's found to be the case, this is much worse than Watergate.

But don't lick your chops yet. Let's see how it plays out.
Yep, I totally agree.

RBA
07-02-2005, 11:45 PM
Rove's Lawyer goes on the defense for Kriminal Karl.........

Lawyer says Rove talked to reporter, did not leak name


By Carol D. Leonnig
The Washington Post



WASHINGTON ó Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, spoke with Time magazine's Matthew Cooper during a critical week in July 2003 when Cooper was reporting on a public critic of the Bush administration who was also the husband of a CIA operative, his lawyer confirmed today.

Rove is identified in Cooper's notes from that time period, which Time turned over Friday to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald ó under court order. Fitzgerald is investigating whether senior administration officials leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to reporters in July 2003 as retaliation after her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly accused the Bush administration of twisting intelligence to justify a war with Iraq.

Rove's lawyer said Rove never identified Plame to Cooper in those conversations. More significantly, Robert Luskin said, Fitzgerald assured him in October and again last week that Rove is not a target of his investigation.

"Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn't disclose Valerie Plame's identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else," Luskin said. Luskin said the question remains unanswered: "Who outed this woman? ... It wasn't Karl."

Cooper has said that more than one confidential source is identified in his e-mails and the notes of interviews he conducted in July 2003 after Wilson's opinion piece appeared in the New York Times. Reporters were calling the White House with questions about Wilson's assertions, which senior government officials tried to discredit.

Plame's name first appeared in Robert D. Novak's syndicated column in July 2003, eight days after Wilson's opinion piece critical of the Bush administration appeared in the Times. Wilson was sent by the CIA in 2002 to investigate allegations that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in the African nation of Niger, and he reported that he found no proof. His opinion piece accused the administration of twisting intelligence to justify going to war with Iraq

After the Novak column, Wilson said the White House had damaged his wife's career and had put all her contacts in jeopardy. He initially accused Rove of being behind the leak, then retracted that statement. It is a felony to knowingly identify a covert operative.

Rove answered questions under oath for about two hours before a grand jury on Oct. 15 as part of the special prosecutor's investigation. According to Luskin, the prosecutor said he believes Rove was candid and forthcoming about his contact with reporters.

"I've been assured by the prosecutor they have no reason to doubt the honesty of anything he's said," Luskin said. Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller face four months in jail as early as Wednesday for defying Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan's order to cooperate with Fitzgerald's investigation. The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the reporters' appeals of Hogan's order.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2002356167&zsection_id=2002107549&slug=webrove02&date=20050702

BUTLER REDSFAN
07-03-2005, 05:14 AM
if this is mainly a cincinnati based website-and cincy being known for being conservative how do so many bush haters get on here--someone says something remotely bad but honest about adam dunn and you would've thought you shot someone but bash bush all you want and that is fine????

GAC
07-03-2005, 11:29 AM
Regardless of whether or not this is found out to be true about Rove or not - this bothers me more then anything else...

Bad choice: Giving up source or giving up freedom

By Paul K. McMasters
First Amendment Center

Last week, the courts delivered a one-two punch to journalists' ability to protect their sources ó and to the public's right to know about federal officials abusing a public trust in one instance and the disappearance of nuclear secrets in another.

On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to review a lower court's jail sentence for two reporters who refused to give up confidential sources. A day later, a federal appeals court put four other reporters in a different case on the same path to incarceration.

Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times had asked the nation's court of last resort to review their contempt convictions for refusing to reveal their confidential sources. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald sought their names as part of his investigation into the leaking of a covert agent's identity to columnist Robert Novak by senior White House officials.

In the other case, four reporters refused to divulge their sources in a civil lawsuit by former nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee, seeking to find out who in the federal government leaked information about the scientist to the press in possible violation of the Privacy Act. The leaks occurred during an investigation of whether Lee mishandled nuclear-weapons information.

None of the reporters in these two cases actually committed a crime. Instead, jail time ó or the threat of it ó is viewed by prosecutors, plaintiffs' attorneys and judges as a way to coerce information from reluctant journalists.

The Supreme Court's rejection of the reporters' petitions for review was particularly dismaying for press advocates and others for a number of reasons.

The relevant Supreme Court decision on this subject, Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), though quite clear to some, created a muddle. The sharply divided opinion essentially left press lawyers and courts to parse the brief and somewhat inscrutable concurring opinion by Justice Lewis Powell for guidance.

Not surprisingly, lower courts have come up with differing interpretations on the scope of the reporter's privilege.

On their own, 49 states developed common-law or statutory shields to help reporters protect their sources. There is no federal law providing such protection, however.

The Justice Department developed guidelines that for some time helped balance the administration of justice and the First Amendment rights of the public and press, but in recent years the DOJ appears to have come unhinged from those guidelines.

As a result, more than two dozen journalists are now caught up in criminal and civil cases at the federal level. Whistleblowers with vital information to share with the public are more leery of confiding in journalists who may be forced to choose between protecting their identities and going to jail.

Rather than embrace the opportunity to reconcile and clarify this field strewn with conflict, confusion and contradictions, however, the Supreme Court turned away.

That leaves journalists with a wrenching choice: Go to jail, or give up their sources, thus violating one of journalism's most urgent principles, driving away future sources and depriving the public of something other than the official version of government policy and actions.

The Cooper and Miller case would be a travesty even if it had been clear that a federal crime had been committed, that all the relevant facts were known, and that two journalists really did stand in the way of justice. But none of that is clear.

In a hearing for Cooper and Miller on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan said from the bench that the case was getting "curiouser and curiouser."

Indeed.

A federal investigation stretching over two years and costing taxpayers millions of dollars apparently found no violation of the 1983 Intelligence Identities Act of 1983. That part of the investigation apparently ended last October. Then the investigation appears to have morphed into a quest to put the thumbscrews on two journalists, but not the one who actually outed the agent. That journalist, Novak, who wrote the column where it all began, remains silent and, as far as we know, untouched.

Further, in court, Cooper and Miller and their lawyers were at a real disadvantage. The law was a muddle. The special prosecutor was on a mission. The judge was sympathetic. And much of the legal communication between the prosecutor and the judge was secret.

Finally, this wrinkle: Over Cooper's objections, his employer, Time Inc., announced Thursday that it would turn over documents, including the reporter's notes, to the court ó a remarkable move, apparently without precedent in modern press history.

It wasn't immediately clear how that development would affect Miller's case.

As compelling as the plight of the journalists in such cases may be, many Americans might be inclined to greet all this with a sneer or a yawn. That would be curious, indeed.

In fact, ordinary citizens have more of a stake in the issue than they might imagine. At risk is their ability to fully and effectively monitor government policy, hold public officials accountable, and participate more knowledgeably and effectively in civic affairs.

Falls City Beer
07-03-2005, 11:39 AM
Regardless of whether or not this is found out to be true about Rove or not - this bothers me more then anything else...

Bad choice: Giving up source or giving up freedom

By Paul K. McMasters
First Amendment Center

Last week, the courts delivered a one-two punch to journalists' ability to protect their sources ó and to the public's right to know about federal officials abusing a public trust in one instance and the disappearance of nuclear secrets in another.

On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to review a lower court's jail sentence for two reporters who refused to give up confidential sources. A day later, a federal appeals court put four other reporters in a different case on the same path to incarceration.

Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times had asked the nation's court of last resort to review their contempt convictions for refusing to reveal their confidential sources. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald sought their names as part of his investigation into the leaking of a covert agent's identity to columnist Robert Novak by senior White House officials.

In the other case, four reporters refused to divulge their sources in a civil lawsuit by former nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee, seeking to find out who in the federal government leaked information about the scientist to the press in possible violation of the Privacy Act. The leaks occurred during an investigation of whether Lee mishandled nuclear-weapons information.

None of the reporters in these two cases actually committed a crime. Instead, jail time ó or the threat of it ó is viewed by prosecutors, plaintiffs' attorneys and judges as a way to coerce information from reluctant journalists.

The Supreme Court's rejection of the reporters' petitions for review was particularly dismaying for press advocates and others for a number of reasons.

The relevant Supreme Court decision on this subject, Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), though quite clear to some, created a muddle. The sharply divided opinion essentially left press lawyers and courts to parse the brief and somewhat inscrutable concurring opinion by Justice Lewis Powell for guidance.

Not surprisingly, lower courts have come up with differing interpretations on the scope of the reporter's privilege.

On their own, 49 states developed common-law or statutory shields to help reporters protect their sources. There is no federal law providing such protection, however.

The Justice Department developed guidelines that for some time helped balance the administration of justice and the First Amendment rights of the public and press, but in recent years the DOJ appears to have come unhinged from those guidelines.

As a result, more than two dozen journalists are now caught up in criminal and civil cases at the federal level. Whistleblowers with vital information to share with the public are more leery of confiding in journalists who may be forced to choose between protecting their identities and going to jail.

Rather than embrace the opportunity to reconcile and clarify this field strewn with conflict, confusion and contradictions, however, the Supreme Court turned away.

That leaves journalists with a wrenching choice: Go to jail, or give up their sources, thus violating one of journalism's most urgent principles, driving away future sources and depriving the public of something other than the official version of government policy and actions.

The Cooper and Miller case would be a travesty even if it had been clear that a federal crime had been committed, that all the relevant facts were known, and that two journalists really did stand in the way of justice. But none of that is clear.

In a hearing for Cooper and Miller on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan said from the bench that the case was getting "curiouser and curiouser."

Indeed.

A federal investigation stretching over two years and costing taxpayers millions of dollars apparently found no violation of the 1983 Intelligence Identities Act of 1983. That part of the investigation apparently ended last October. Then the investigation appears to have morphed into a quest to put the thumbscrews on two journalists, but not the one who actually outed the agent. That journalist, Novak, who wrote the column where it all began, remains silent and, as far as we know, untouched.

Further, in court, Cooper and Miller and their lawyers were at a real disadvantage. The law was a muddle. The special prosecutor was on a mission. The judge was sympathetic. And much of the legal communication between the prosecutor and the judge was secret.

Finally, this wrinkle: Over Cooper's objections, his employer, Time Inc., announced Thursday that it would turn over documents, including the reporter's notes, to the court ó a remarkable move, apparently without precedent in modern press history.

It wasn't immediately clear how that development would affect Miller's case.

As compelling as the plight of the journalists in such cases may be, many Americans might be inclined to greet all this with a sneer or a yawn. That would be curious, indeed.

In fact, ordinary citizens have more of a stake in the issue than they might imagine. At risk is their ability to fully and effectively monitor government policy, hold public officials accountable, and participate more knowledgeably and effectively in civic affairs.

You put the rights of a few a journalists and a handful of citizens above the SAFETY and LIVES of a covert CIA agent and her multitude of contacts plus the national security of these United States?

Wow. That's amazing.

RBA
07-03-2005, 11:56 AM
Regardless of whether or not this is found out to be true about Rove or not - this bothers me more then anything else...

Bad choice: Giving up source or giving up freedom

By Paul K. McMasters
First Amendment Center

Last week, the courts delivered a one-two punch to journalists' ability to protect their sources ó and to the public's right to know about federal officials abusing a public trust in one instance and the disappearance of nuclear secrets in another.

On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to review a lower court's jail sentence for two reporters who refused to give up confidential sources. A day later, a federal appeals court put four other reporters in a different case on the same path to incarceration.

Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times had asked the nation's court of last resort to review their contempt convictions for refusing to reveal their confidential sources. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald sought their names as part of his investigation into the leaking of a covert agent's identity to columnist Robert Novak by senior White House officials.

In the other case, four reporters refused to divulge their sources in a civil lawsuit by former nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee, seeking to find out who in the federal government leaked information about the scientist to the press in possible violation of the Privacy Act. The leaks occurred during an investigation of whether Lee mishandled nuclear-weapons information.

None of the reporters in these two cases actually committed a crime. Instead, jail time ó or the threat of it ó is viewed by prosecutors, plaintiffs' attorneys and judges as a way to coerce information from reluctant journalists.

So, protecting a person who has conducted "treasonous" activity of revealing a covert CIA agent which has caused the death of at least 20 associates is not a crime? It's at least an accessory to the crime.


The Supreme Court's rejection of the reporters' petitions for review was particularly dismaying for press advocates and others for a number of reasons.

The relevant Supreme Court decision on this subject, Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), though quite clear to some, created a muddle. The sharply divided opinion essentially left press lawyers and courts to parse the brief and somewhat inscrutable concurring opinion by Justice Lewis Powell for guidance.

Not surprisingly, lower courts have come up with differing interpretations on the scope of the reporter's privilege.

On their own, 49 states developed common-law or statutory shields to help reporters protect their sources. There is no federal law providing such protection, however.

The Justice Department developed guidelines that for some time helped balance the administration of justice and the First Amendment rights of the public and press, but in recent years the DOJ appears to have come unhinged from those guidelines.

As a result, more than two dozen journalists are now caught up in criminal and civil cases at the federal level. Whistleblowers with vital information to share with the public are more leery of confiding in journalists who may be forced to choose between protecting their identities and going to jail.

So, now the person who disclosed the name of a covert CIA agent is nothing more than a "Whistle Blower". What was he blowing the whistle on? A CIA covert operation?


Rather than embrace the opportunity to reconcile and clarify this field strewn with conflict, confusion and contradictions, however, the Supreme Court turned away.

That leaves journalists with a wrenching choice: Go to jail, or give up their sources, thus violating one of journalism's most urgent principles, driving away future sources and depriving the public of something other than the official version of government policy and actions.

The Cooper and Miller case would be a travesty even if it had been clear that a federal crime had been committed, that all the relevant facts were known, and that two journalists really did stand in the way of justice. But none of that is clear.

In a hearing for Cooper and Miller on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan said from the bench that the case was getting "curiouser and curiouser."

Indeed.

A federal investigation stretching over two years and costing taxpayers millions of dollars apparently found no violation of the 1983 Intelligence Identities Act of 1983. That part of the investigation apparently ended last October. Then the investigation appears to have morphed into a quest to put the thumbscrews on two journalists, but not the one who actually outed the agent. That journalist, Novak, who wrote the column where it all began, remains silent and, as far as we know, untouched.


The author makes some assumptions. The investigation is ongoing and these reporters/traitors are standing in the way of the investigation.


Further, in court, Cooper and Miller and their lawyers were at a real disadvantage. The law was a muddle. The special prosecutor was on a mission. The judge was sympathetic. And much of the legal communication between the prosecutor and the judge was secret.

Finally, this wrinkle: Over Cooper's objections, his employer, Time Inc., announced Thursday that it would turn over documents, including the reporter's notes, to the court ó a remarkable move, apparently without precedent in modern press history.

That's the problem when you have global media companies beholden to the stockholders.


It wasn't immediately clear how that development would affect Miller's case.

As compelling as the plight of the journalists in such cases may be, many Americans might be inclined to greet all this with a sneer or a yawn. That would be curious, indeed.

In fact, ordinary citizens have more of a stake in the issue than they might imagine. At risk is their ability to fully and effectively monitor government policy, hold public officials accountable, and participate more knowledgeably and effectively in civic affairs.

When reporters and Government officials team up to tear down an individual is what most Americans should fear. This case is proving that the present government has the media in its back pocket and that is one scary thing. Does 30's Germany ring a bell to anyone?

RedFanAlways1966
07-03-2005, 12:19 PM
Does 30's Germany ring a bell to anyone?

NO. Do you know much about the Nazi rise to power in Germany? By some of your comments, I'd guess that you do not. But I must say it is par for the course.... to comapre our gov't with Nazi Germany (Rangel & Durbin wannabe?). Afghanistan was going to be the next Vietnam... remember? We'd be bogged down just like the Russians... remember? How soon we forget our ridiculous, non-factual comments. Anyone here make those comparisons? Discuss.

Send an e-mail to Oliver Stone. Perhaps he will make a movie about it. I am sure Michael Moore is already on it... truth be damned.

W. Mark Felt... anyone want to comment on him after some of the above-comments? Please feel free to share and not be hypocritical.

BTW... the "evidence" against Mr. Rove seems awful flimsy to me. But God forbid that I get in the middle of elitist-talk and a feeding frenzy. Have at it, boys. I'll wait for the news that Mr. Rove is cleared and read all the conspiracy theories here... with pleasure.

RBA
07-03-2005, 12:29 PM
Most of us were for going to that country and weeding out the terrorist camps and all that harbor them. But somehow soon afterwards we were led on a wild goose chase to Iraq. Taking valuable Military Assets out of Afghanistan at an inappropiate time. The job wasn't finish then and it isn't finish now. American lives have been jeapodized in Afghanistan because of the Iraq Follie.

RBA
07-03-2005, 12:35 PM
W. Mark Felt... anyone want to comment on him after some of the above-comments? Please feel free to share and not be hypocritical.

Seems like there is a big difference in someone who is a whistle blower and someone who outs a CIA operative. Nothing hypocritical about that.

RedFanAlways1966
07-03-2005, 12:38 PM
But didn't you and others predict the "next Vietnam" in Afghanistan? Tell the truth!

This whole Rove thing is flimsy as all get out. To see people go bonkers and wish for a man's demise is insane. Why? Is it b/c he was vital in 2 White House wins for the Repub party? That makes people want to see the man lose everything and possibly go to jail? I do not understand this way of thinking. And we just hear stories... no facts as of yet. Yet some people act like the judge, jury... and executioners (and have an evil smile as they let the gallows floor drop). If he is proven guilty, then he gets what is coming. There is no proof of anything... but read the closed thread and this thread. Why bother with anything else... he has been found guilty and should hang. That according to the experts here. The shame...

As I said, I'll wait for the end result before passing judgment. That is the American way. Some here behave like the old Iraq (ya know, when Saddam was still in power) and are ready to execute before a trial. I think the Taliban did that sort of thing too. Shameful.... really.

Let the truth and facts be told. Let the man have a fair trial (if it comes to that). That is the AMERICAN WAY.

RBA
07-03-2005, 12:41 PM
No, I did not predict another Vietnam in Afghanistan. I was all for going to war in Afghanistan. I do remember pissing off my Father (something I'm not proud of) as I told him we needed to go in there and kill the terrorist.

RedFanAlways1966
07-03-2005, 12:55 PM
No, I did not predict another Vietnam in Afghanistan. I was all for going to war in Afghanistan. I do remember pissing off my Father as I told him we needed to go in there and kill the terrorist.

Fair enough. I wonder if others here will admit to that erroneous comment? I'd hate to have to search for their comments.

Speaking of fair... let the system do it's thing on Mr. Rove. That is fair too. I know that he is not Mr. Popular on the left side. But it really is shameful to read some of the comments made on this forum. It really has to do with him helping to guide two successful wins for president.

Personally I would not wish these things upon people on the other side (not even Ted!). If you break a law, then you get what you deserve. I firmly believe that. However, there is not much evidence out there on this matter w/ Rove. Let's wait and let the cards be played before we start delivering Final Justice.

Maybe FCB will help Mr. Rove find employment someday? Wouldn't that be the irony of the century?!? That is... IF the man is guilty. :)

RBA
07-03-2005, 01:04 PM
07.03.2005 Lawrence O'Donnell (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/update-on-rove_3584.html)

Update on Rove (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/update-on-rove_3584.html)

On Friday, I broke the story (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/its-rove_3556.html) that the e-mails that Time turned over to the prosecutor that day reveal that Karl Rove is the source Matt Cooper is protecting. That provoked Roveís lawyer, Robert Luskin, to interrupt his holiday weekend to do a little defense work with Newsweek (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/) and the Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove3jul03,1,2388418.story). On Saturday, Luskin decided to reveal that Rove did have at least one conversation with Cooper, but Luskin told the Times he would not ďcharacterize the substance of the conversation.Ē

Luskin claimed that the prosecutor ďasked us not to talk about what Karl has had to say.Ē This is highly unlikely. Prosecutors have absolutely no control over what witnesses say when they leave the grand jury room. Rove can tell us word-for-word what he said to the grand jury and would if he thought it would help him. And notice that Luskin just did reveal part of Roveís grand jury testimony, the fact that he had a conversation with Cooper. Rove would not let me get one day of traction on this story if he could stop me. If what I have reported is not true, if Karl Rove is not Matt Cooperís source, Rove could prove that instantly by telling us what he told the grand jury. Nothing prevents him from doing that, except a good lawyer who is trying to keep him out of jail.

Posted at 10:29 AM | email this post to a friend (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/update-on-rove_3584.html#emailthispost)| permalink (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/update-on-rove_3584.html)| comments (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/update-on-rove_3584.html#comments)
author bio (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/contributors/bio.php?nick=lawrence-odonnell&name=Lawrence%20O%27Donnell)

Falls City Beer
07-03-2005, 01:39 PM
Maybe FCB will help Mr. Rove find employment someday? Wouldn't that be the irony of the century?!? That is... IF the man is guilty. :)



Personal attack.

Hey I got suspended the other day for one of these. We'll see if the mods don't play partisan politics. This was totally uncalled for and uninstigated, btw.

RFS62
07-03-2005, 02:01 PM
What's the over/under on the amount of days before the mods close down all political and religious threads?

I give it 4.

Falls City Beer
07-03-2005, 02:11 PM
What's the over/under on the amount of days before the mods close down all political and religious threads?

I give it 4.

That would really stink, IMO. I love the heat, I love the venom. I just don't like personal attacks. I happen to think political and religious threads can get fiery without getting personal. But that's just my opinion.

And the point of my above post is not to shut down religious/political threads but for suspensions to be meted out fairly. I was suspended the other day for a non-personal attack, so I think a personal attack should warrant a suspension.

RFS62
07-03-2005, 02:20 PM
I just have a feeling that they won't want to deal with it much longer. Just a gut feeling on my part.

Falls City Beer
07-03-2005, 02:24 PM
I just have a feeling that they won't want to deal with it much longer. Just a gut feeling on my part.

It's their choice. Not mine.

WVRed
07-03-2005, 02:24 PM
if this is mainly a cincinnati based website-and cincy being known for being conservative how do so many bush haters get on here--someone says something remotely bad but honest about adam dunn and you would've thought you shot someone but bash bush all you want and that is fine????

Not all Reds fans on here are from Cincinnati.

RBA
07-03-2005, 02:26 PM
Maybe Cincinnatians (If that's the correct term) and other Americans have come to the realization they are not as Conservative as they thought they were or led to believe?

Johnny Footstool
07-03-2005, 02:37 PM
But didn't you and others predict the "next Vietnam" in Afghanistan?

I think a lot of us said we wanted to avoid Afghanistan becoming the next Vietnam. We hoped for a full commitment to victory on the part of the military.

I think we were calling *Iraq* the next Vietnam. And even if we weren't calling it that back then, we're sure calling it that now.

Mutaman
07-03-2005, 02:46 PM
if this is mainly a cincinnati based website-and cincy being known for being conservative how do so many bush haters get on here--someone says something remotely bad but honest about adam dunn and you would've thought you shot someone but bash bush all you want and that is fine????

Bashing Bush is really hard work, and I would love to stop. If only the guy would do something in my interest or that I agree with. Just once, is that too much to ask?

pedro
07-03-2005, 02:53 PM
Fair enough. I wonder if others here will admit to that erroneous comment? I'd hate to have to search for their comments.

Speaking of fair... let the system do it's thing on Mr. Rove. That is fair too. I know that he is not Mr. Popular on the left side. But it really is shameful to read some of the comments made on this forum. It really has to do with him helping to guide two successful wins for president.

Personally I would not wish these things upon people on the other side (not even Ted!). If you break a law, then you get what you deserve. I firmly believe that. However, there is not much evidence out there on this matter w/ Rove. Let's wait and let the cards be played before we start delivering Final Justice.

Maybe FCB will help Mr. Rove find employment someday? Wouldn't that be the irony of the century?!? That is... IF the man is guilty. :)


Ted Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, Ted Kennedy... ;)

Remember what we talked about. :)

RBA
07-03-2005, 04:54 PM
We now return you back to the topic....


Newsweek: Rove spoke to reporter before leak

Bush adviser didn't reveal confidential information, attorney says

From Elaine Quijano
CNN Washington Bureau




WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Newsweek magazine is reporting that e-mails between Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and his editors show that Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, spoke to Cooper in the days before a CIA operative's identity was revealed in the media, but it wasn't clear what Cooper and Rove discussed.

Rove's attorney told CNN his client did not disclose any confidential information.

Attorney Robert Luskin confirmed that Cooper called Rove in July 2003 but said he's "not characterizing the subject matter of that conversation."

A special prosecutor is investigating whether senior Bush administration officials leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame to the media in retaliation after her husband wrote an opinion piece critical of the administration.

Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller face jail on civil contempt charges for refusing to reveal their sources to a federal grand jury. Judge Thomas Hogan has set a final hearing on Wednesday and will make a decision after that.

Time Inc. announced Thursday that it would hand over subpoenaed documents, including Cooper's notes, after the Supreme Court refused to hear the reporters' appeals in the case.

Cooper's attorneys argued that Time's decision "should obviate" the contempt citation against him because the material gives the grand jury the information and makes his testimony "duplicative and unnecessary."

Time Inc. is a unit of Time Warner, which is also CNN's parent company.

Luskin said prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "has confirmed repeatedly, most recently last week, that he (Rove) is not a target of the investigation."

Added Luskin, "Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn't disclose Valerie Plame's identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else ... Who outed this woman? ... It wasn't Karl."

Luskin said Rove "certainly did not disclose to Matt Cooper or anybody else any confidential information."

Rove has testified at least twice as part of the inquiry, but sources involved previously told CNN that while Rove acknowledged talking to reporters about the issue, he said he never knowingly disclosed classified information.

Luskin stressed that his client has cooperated fully with the government.

"I've been assured by the prosecutor they have no reason to doubt the honesty of anything he's said," he said.

The case stems from a July 14, 2003, column by Robert Novak in which he revealed Plame's identity as a CIA operative. Novak, who also is a CNN contributor, attributed the information to two senior administration officials.

Plame's husband is Joe Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Wilson charged that his wife's name was leaked to retaliate against him after he disputed Bush administration statements that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium in Africa.

Federal law makes it a crime to deliberately reveal the identity of a CIA operative.

The subpoena issued to Time sought documents relating to "conversations between Cooper and official source(s) prior to July 14, 2003, concerning in any way" Wilson, Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger, Plame, and any affiliation between Plame and the CIA.

Under federal law, civil contempt can carry up to 18 months in jail or the length of the grand jury's term, whichever is shorter. Hogan said the term of the grand jury in this case expires in October, so Miller and Cooper only face up to four months in jail.

As part of his probe, Fitzgerald subpoenaed a number of journalists to testify about their sources. Miller and Cooper and their news organizations decided to fight the subpoenas, although Cooper did reveal one unnamed source who released him from a confidentiality pledge.

Miller faces jail time for refusing to reveal sources she developed during her reporting, even though she never actually wrote a story on Plame or Wilson. But Novak -- who has refused to discuss the case on the advice of his attorney -- has not been held in contempt.

CNN's John King contributed to this report.



http://images.clickability.com/pti/spacer.gif
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/03/cooper.rove/index.html

Mutaman
07-03-2005, 05:42 PM
I am willing to bet that this story goes nowhere. The liberal media is to busy focusing on Aruba.

Johnny Footstool
07-03-2005, 06:49 PM
The liberal media is to busy focusing on Aruba

Not just the liberal media. Fox News would be running cooking shows if it weren't for the kidnapping in Aruba.

dsmith421
07-03-2005, 06:51 PM
if this is mainly a cincinnati based website-and cincy being known for being conservative how do so many bush haters get on here--someone says something remotely bad but honest about adam dunn and you would've thought you shot someone but bash bush all you want and that is fine????

Hamilton County went for Bush in the last election by approximately 5% of the vote. Even if you include the conservative suburbs, I bet the metro area is still 35-45% liberal/Democratic-leaning.

If you read the political threads on here regularly you will notice that there are a few loud liberals and a few loud conservatives and a few people in the middle who poke their heads in. The fact that the dominant news story of the day involves the architect of Bush's presidency possibly committing treason or another federal crime means that naturally more left-leaning folks are going to throw in their two cents. Next week, when some Democrat does something stupid or corrupt, the roles will be reversed.

So, about half of us hate Bush and half of us like him, give or take. But all of us love Adam Dunn.

Falls City Beer
07-03-2005, 06:52 PM
Just as I said in my first post in this thread: Americans weren't up in arms about the treasonous behavior of Novak then, they won't be with Rove now.

This story is DOA. And the chicken-hearted media won't say a thing.

KittyDuran
07-03-2005, 07:49 PM
So, about half of us hate Bush and half of us like him, give or take. But all of us love Adam Dunn. :laugh: :thumbup:

GAC
07-03-2005, 07:57 PM
You put the rights of a few a journalists and a handful of citizens above the SAFETY and LIVES of a covert CIA agent and her multitude of contacts plus the national security of these United States?

Wow. That's amazing.

No -I don't. You and RBA have completely missed my point. It's not about Rove (I've already stated my position on this on the other closed thread). I look at the bigger picture. If the courts are gonna jail journalists, and take away their ability to protect their sources (who want anonymity/protection), then just as the article states "How can you jail reporters who commited no crime?"

Is there a line when it comes to the public's right to know? Sometimes their right to know will also compromise security. It simply depends on the situation.

Also...


Whistleblowers with vital information to share with the public are more leery of confiding in journalists who may be forced to choose between protecting their identities and going to jail.

That leaves journalists with a wrenching choice: Go to jail, or give up their sources, thus violating one of journalism's most urgent principles, driving away future sources and depriving the public of something other than the official version of government policy and actions.

But if the courts had practiced this 30 years ago, we may not have discovered Watergate. ;)

GAC
07-03-2005, 08:06 PM
So, protecting a person who has conducted "treasonous" activity of revealing a covert CIA agent which has caused the death of at least 20 associates is not a crime? It's at least an accessory to the crime.

We don't know yet that he has RBA. Can we at least let there be a thing called "due process"? ;)



The author makes some assumptions. The investigation is ongoing and these reporters/traitors are standing in the way of the investigation.

These reporters are traitors? Are are you referring to Rove? Again - due process fellow.



When reporters and Government officials team up to tear down an individual is what most Americans should fear. This case is proving that the present government has the media in its back pocket and that is one scary thing. Does 30's Germany ring a bell to anyone?

More Nazi references? :rolleyes:

C'mon. You're being ridiculous and jumping to conclusions. When did this story break again? Let the investigation proceed. You, simpy for partisan reasons, want a witch hunt and lynching. Lets storm Rove's home and rag him out into the streets. That sounds like 30's Germany. ;)

RedFanAlways1966
07-03-2005, 08:34 PM
Personal attack.

Hey I got suspended the other day for one of these. We'll see if the mods don't play partisan politics. This was totally uncalled for and uninstigated, btw.

It was called a joke. I am sure that was obvious to almost everyone here. I am sorry that you are this sore over this suspension that you got. I do not need to resort to personal attacks or "witch hunts".

pedro... I threw the Ted-thing in there as a joke as well. And (non-joking) I would not wish bad things upon Ted (as I have read here regarding Rove). As blind as I may be, I like to think that our gov't officials have the best intentions in mind. They all play politics at times, but I do not wish to see any of them break the law or compromise security. I'd also hate to see any of them throw away a successful career by ending up in jail.

Redsfaithful
07-03-2005, 08:38 PM
I think we were calling *Iraq* the next Vietnam. And even if we weren't calling it that back then, we're sure calling it that now.

Bingo. I was gung ho about Afghanistan. I wouldn't have been opposed to going in there in the mid 90s, but we just didn't have a strategic reason. I remember reading in the paper about the Taliban coming to power one summer in my teens and wondering why America wasn't doing anything about it.

But yeah, Iraq and Vietnam are looking more and more like peas in a pod.

Falls City Beer
07-03-2005, 08:38 PM
It was called a joke. I am sure that was obvious to almost everyone here. I am sorry that you are this sore over this suspension that you got. I do not need to resort to personal attacks or "witch hunts".

pedro... I threw the Ted-thing in there as a joke as well. And (non-joking) I would not wish bad things upon Ted (as I have read here regarding Rove). As blind as I may be, I like to think that our gov't officials have the best intentions in mind. They all play politics at times, but I do not wish to see any of them break the law or compromise security. I'd also hate to see any of them throw away a successful career by ending up in jail.

And my tone was joking as well in the post I got suspended for. But it only seems to matter apparently when a comment is regarded as "snide."

Honestly, I didn't think what you said was funny, but again I guess it doesn't matter what I think. :rolleyes:

Oh well, I guess all I can do now is be Christ-like and turn the other cheek.

RedsBaron
07-03-2005, 09:22 PM
I hope the political threads are not banned. I detest the venom and personal attacks, but some of these threads are quite informational and interesting. Take this thread--while I realize that some here are motivated to post because the story harms the Bush administration and I'm sure they are gleeful about the possibility Karl Rove may be in big trouble, so what--it is potentially huge news, and if Rove is guilty he should be punished.
I could do without the namecalling, but I enjoy a well reasoned argument, even if I don't agree with it. M2 has made some very well thought out posts which I enjoyed and learned from, for example.

KYRedsFan
07-03-2005, 10:15 PM
Mmmmmm, blog justice. What a beautiful thing.

Mutaman
07-03-2005, 10:34 PM
Not just the liberal media. Fox News would be running cooking shows if it weren't for the kidnapping in Aruba.

I should have put "liberal" in quotes. I was being facetious. You wont hear much of this story in the media, cause it ain't a liberal media.

RFS62
07-03-2005, 11:11 PM
I hope the political threads are not banned. I detest the venom and personal attacks, but some of these threads are quite informational and interesting. Take this thread--while I realize that some here are motivated to post because the story harms the Bush administration and I'm sure they are gleeful about the possibility Karl Rove may be in big trouble, so what--it is potentially huge news, and if Rove is guilty he should be punished.
I could do without the namecalling, but I enjoy a well reasoned argument, even if I don't agree with it. M2 has made some very well thought out posts which I enjoyed and learned from, for example.


Yep, I agree. I hope they're not banned.

RBA
07-04-2005, 12:55 AM
I should have put "liberal" in quotes. I was being facetious. You wont hear much of this story in the media, cause it ain't a liberal media.

They know where their bread is butter. They are owned by a few powerful corporations. In addition, they don't want to be moved to the back of the press room or left out of a hob knob dinner sponsored by the party in charge.

It's all about power and privillages. If you don't appease the current administration, you get the cold shoulder. Or you might end up like Dan Rather.

GAC
07-04-2005, 07:44 AM
I hope the political threads are not banned. I detest the venom and personal attacks, but some of these threads are quite informational and interesting. Take this thread--while I realize that some here are motivated to post because the story harms the Bush administration and I'm sure they are gleeful about the possibility Karl Rove may be in big trouble, so what--it is potentially huge news, and if Rove is guilty he should be punished.
I could do without the namecalling, but I enjoy a well reasoned argument, even if I don't agree with it. M2 has made some very well thought out posts which I enjoyed and learned from, for example.

I fully agree with you RB. It just seems, even after the warning and stricter guidelines instituted a few months ago, that no one is learning any lessons. I wish discussions on here could be more civil and even-keeled. I have yet to see it.

Politics and relgion - two "hot buttons" that have always led to arguments.

When my in-laws come to visit (especially my wife's Dad), I usually stay clear. He loves to try and bait me, and I haven't got a chance! He's retired and watches C-Span all day! :lol:

RBA
07-04-2005, 09:24 PM
Looks like Lawrence O'Donnell has some mighty big balls unlike the rest of the "liberal" media.


07.04.2005 Lawrence O'Donnell (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/roves-i-did-not-inhale_3637.html)
Rove's "I Did Not Inhale" Defense (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/roves-i-did-not-inhale_3637.html)

Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, had his holiday weekend ruined on Friday when I broke the story (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/its-rove_3556.html) that the e-mails that Time delivered to the special prosecutor that afternoon reveal that Karl Rove is the source Matt Cooper has been protecting for two years. The next day, Luskin was forced to open the first hole in the Rove two-year wall of silence about the case. In a huge admission to Newsweek (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/) and the Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove3jul03,1,2388418.story), Luskin confessed that, well, yes, Rove did talk to Cooper. It is a huge admission in a case where Rove and Luskin have never, before Friday, felt compelled to say a word about Rove's contact with Cooper or anyone else involved in the case.

Luskin then launched what sounds like an I-did-not-inhale defense. He told Newsweek that his client "never knowingly disclosed classified information." Knowingly. That is the most important word Luskin said in what has now become his public version of the Rove defense.

Not coincidentally, the word 'knowing' is the most important word in the controlling statute ( U.S. Code: Title 50: Section 421). To violate the law, Rove had to tell Cooper about a covert agent "knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States."

So, Rove's defense now hangs on one wordóhe "never knowingly disclosed classified information." Does that mean Rove simply didn't know Valerie Plame was a covert agent? Or does it just mean that Rove did not know that the CIA was "taking affirmative measures" to hide her identity?

In Luskin's next damage control session with the press, let's see if any reporter can get him to drop the word 'knowingly' from the never-disclosed-classified-information bit.

Posted at 02:54 PM | email this post to a friend (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/roves-i-did-not-inhale_3637.html#emailthispost)| permalink (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/roves-i-did-not-inhale_3637.html)| comments (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/roves-i-did-not-inhale_3637.html#comments)
author bio (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/contributors/bio.php?nick=lawrence-odonnell&name=Lawrence%20O%27Donnell)

RBA
07-04-2005, 10:20 PM
In an earlier post, I alluded to the "celebrity" factor of today's press, I felt this is a good place as any for comments by Robert Redford (Actor). I know many don't agree with or give a "whatever" about what celebrities have to say by I can agree with the last two sentences he said. As far as the rest of his comments about the similarities of the current administration and Watergate, I have to say "no comment".

http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/redford%20urges%20journalists%20to%20investigate%2 0bush
REDFORD URGES JOURNALISTS TO INVESTIGATE BUSH



LATEST: ROBERT REDFORD has urged journalists to investigate US President GEORGE W BUSH's administration - because he sees strong similarities between Bush's government and the events leading to the Watergate scandal which forced President RICHARD NIXON to resign.

Redford starred in 1976 movie ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN alongside DUSTIN HOFFMAN, as The Washington Post journalists BOB WOODWARD and CARL BERNSTEIN, who brought about the events that led to Nixon's resignation in 1974.

And Redford wasn't surprised when the identity of the mysterious 'Deep Throat' character who sparked the Watergate scandal was recently revealed to be former deputy FBI chief MARK FELT.

But the shock revelation has reminded the actor of the power of the media and the similarities between Bush's secret cover-ups and the Watergate affair.

He says, "There are deep similarities going on but where is the press? where is the press?"

"There is stone-walling, not telling the truth, getting people under wiretaps. The US public continues to be told things that are not true and what worries me is that we have these brave young American guys risking their lives everyday.

"When Deep Throat was revealed, the press came to me and wanted to know what I thought. I said, 'Well, it's interesting that his name came out but is that the point?'

"My contribution was to come at a time when journalism was at its high point and the role I played was to save a testimony to the freedom of speech. The media have changed, we see the ethics have changed. The press is more, I am sorry to say, celebrity oriented."

RBA
07-05-2005, 01:40 AM
The Rove Factor?
Time magazine talked to Bush's guru for Plame story.

By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek

July 11 issue - Its legal appeals exhausted, Time magazine agreed last week to turn over reporter Matthew Cooper's e-mails and computer notes to a special prosecutor investigating the leak of an undercover CIA agent's identity. The case has been the subject of press controversy for two years. Saying "we are not above the law," Time Inc. Editor in Chief Norman Pearlstine decided to comply with a grand-jury subpoena to turn over documents related to the leak. But Cooper (and a New York Times reporter, Judith Miller) is still refusing to testify and faces jail this week.

At issue is the story of a CIA-sponsored trip taken by former ambassador (and White House critic) Joseph Wilson to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from the African country of Niger. "Some government officials have noted to Time in interviews... that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," said Cooper's July 2003 Time online article.

Now the story may be about to take another turn. The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper's sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House. Cooper and a Time spokeswoman declined to comment. But in an interview with NEWSWEEK, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for the article. It is unclear, however, what passed between Cooper and Rove.

The controversy began three days before the Time piece appeared, when columnist Robert Novak, writing about Wilson's trip, reported that Wilson had been sent at the suggestion of his wife, who was identified by name as a CIA operative. The leak to Novak, apparently intended to discredit Wilson's mission, caused a furor when it turned out that Plame was an undercover agent. It is a crime to knowingly reveal the identity of an undercover CIA official. A special prosecutor was appointed and began subpoenaing reporters to find the source of the leak.

Novak appears to have made some kind of arrangement with the special prosecutor, and other journalists who reported on the Plame story have talked to prosecutors with the permission of their sources. Cooper agreed to discuss his contact with Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide, after Libby gave him permission to do so. But Cooper drew the line when special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald asked about other sources.

Initially, Fitzgerald's focus was on Novak's sourcing, since Novak was the first to out Plame. But according to Luskin, Rove's lawyer, Rove spoke to Cooper three or four days before Novak's column appeared. Luskin told NEWSWEEK that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." Luskin declined, however, to discuss any other details. He did say that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him. "He has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else," Luskin said. But one of the two lawyers representing a witness sympathetic to the White House told NEWSWEEK that there was growing "concern" in the White House that the prosecutor is interested in Rove. Fitzgerald declined to comment.

In early October 2003, NEWSWEEK reported that immediately after Novak's column appeared in July, Rove called MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews and told him that Wilson's wife was "fair game." But White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters at the time that any suggestion that Rove had played a role in outing Plame was "totally ridiculous." On Oct. 10, McClellan was asked directly if Rove and two other White House aides had ever discussed Valerie Plame with any reporters. McClellan said he had spoken with all three, and "those individuals assured me they were not involved in this."


© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
function readCookie(ck){var anyCookies=document.cookie;var pos=anyCookies.indexOf(ck.toUpperCase()+"=");var value="";if(pos != -1){var start=pos + ck.length + 1;var end=anyCookies.indexOf(";",start);if(end == -1){end=anyCookies.length;}value=anyCookies.substri ng(start,end);value=unescape(value);}return value;}<IMG height=1 alt="" width=1 border=0 name=s_i_msnbcom>
© 2005 MSNBC.com

var url=location.href;var i=url.indexOf('/did/') + 1;if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('/print/1/') + 1;}if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('&print=1');}if(i>0){url = url.substring(0,i);document.write('URL: '+url+'

');if(window.print){window.print()}else{alert('To print his page press Ctrl-P on your keyboard \nor choose print from your browser or device after clicking OK');}}URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/)

Mutaman
07-05-2005, 01:56 PM
June 30, 2005 - How much Aruba is too much Aruba?

During O'Reilly's mail segment on last night's The O'Reilly Factor, he read this letter:

"Bill, I turned the Factor off for the first time in years because of the incessant
Natalee Holloway coverage. Why don't you poll Factor viewers on this?"

Katie Barnett
Great Neck, N.Y.

Ms. Barnett was most likely irritated by the fact that O'Reilly has dedicated TWENTY segments
to the Holloway story in his last eight shows. That's an average of 2.5 segments each night.

What was our favourite newsman's response to this woman's request?

"Well, we do, Katie. Our ratings are huge. That's the poll."

There you have it, kids. O'Reilly is saying that the newsworthiness of a story is directly tied to the ratings it gets. The more sensational a story, the more newsworthy it becomes. This is the death march of journalism in the United States and Bill is leading the way in a big furry drum major's hat and a baton shoved squarely up his ... well, you get the idea.

Sweet Jesus, I hate Bill O'Reilly, International

RedFanAlways1966
07-05-2005, 02:23 PM
June 30, 2005 - How much Aruba is too much Aruba?

During O'Reilly's mail segment on last night's The O'Reilly Factor

What does this have to do with MSNBC/Rove/Cooper/Miller? Is this some sort of attack thing on a person who is known to be a Republican (imagine that)? I thought this thread was about Karl Rove? Seems as though some Dems will attack anything that does not agree with them. The opposite of Democracy as far as I can tell. Oh, wait... The Factor should donate all of its time to this BLOG story about Karl Rove. Suggestion... become successful like Bill O'Reilly and get your own show. Then show all the BLOG stories that your bleeding heart desires.


Think ratings are not important to TV people? Think again. Even the Network News orgs. watch ratings VERY closely. But one woman from New York should have final say, right? Is this woman some sort of TV expert or is she just one person who does not want to hear about the tragedy in Aruba? Either way... it is not her job.

Let me guess... this wonderful story that you shared is from the UK? Unless the U.S. spells favorite with a "u" after the "o" and before the "r". Is this why you did not share the source? The Brits are clever. I wish some Americans would move there so can enjoy their elitist type commentary on AMERICAN shows. Alec Baldwin... where is he living these days? Not the U.S.... unless he is a hypocrite.

RBA
07-05-2005, 04:27 PM
Actually for clarification, O'Reilly has claimed to be an impartial independent. That is until Al Franken exposed O'Reilly's deception that he is a registered republican.

But what's the point, I agree that the woman is missing is a tragedy, but pails in comparison to other news events that aren't covered 1/100000th of the Aruba coverage.

registerthis
07-05-2005, 04:31 PM
Actually for clarification, O'Reilly has claimed to be an impartial independent. That is until Al Franken exposed O'Reilly's deception that he is a registered republican.
That was just great.

For years, O'Reilly lied that he was an independent, he claimed he left the party affiliation box blank. Until Franken pulled out his voting registration to show that he was, indeed, a registered Republican.

RedFanAlways1966
07-05-2005, 05:44 PM
That was just great.

For years, O'Reilly lied that he was an independent, he claimed he left the party affiliation box blank. Until Franken pulled out his voting registration to show that he was, indeed, a registered Republican.

But really (being serious here so no one gets upset at me)... isn't who you actually vote for in an election your own personal and private information?

If Bill is a registered Repub, does this mean he always votes for Repubs? Is there anyway to find the truth? Isn't it impossible for the Repub party to know who Bill actually voted for in an election (legally anyhow!)? So does Al Franken's big-find really amount to anything?

registerthis
07-05-2005, 06:19 PM
If Bill is a registered Repub, does this mean he always votes for Repubs? Is there anyway to find the truth? Isn't it impossible for the Repub party to know who Bill actually voted for in an election (legally anyhow!)? So does Al Franken's big-find really amount to anything?
Actually, it does, because Bill repeatedly pointed out the fact that he wasn't a registered member of either party. His words were (paraphrasing a bit) "There was a section where you could mark your party affiliation, and there wasn't an option for "independent", so I just left it blank."

He relied on that time and again to stress that he was coming from a point of view that was unbiased and not clouded by party affiliation.

You are correct when you state that who you vote for is your own personal choice...but Bill's voting record isn't what's in question here, it's his continued reliance on a falsehood to *prove* his contention that he is unbiased and impartial in everything.

RFS62
07-05-2005, 07:55 PM
Who in the world cares how Bill O'Reilly is registered?

I sure don't. He doesn't speak for me, one way or another.

I don't care how Al Franken is registered either.

RBA
07-05-2005, 08:15 PM
Who in the world cares how Bill O'Reilly is registered?

I sure don't. He doesn't speak for me, one way or another.

I don't care how Al Franken is registered either.

Apparently a lot of people care what Bill O'Reilly says. His show is the top rated talking head show on cable. His claim of neutrality in the "no spin zone" was actually spin.

Why would he speak for you? Who said that?

Al Franken is a registered Democrat or whatever they call it in Minnesota. DFL? Al Franken has never declared himself a registered independent as far as I know.

Why would anyone watch a news show where the host has repeatly lied about multiple aspects of his life such as his political leanings, his awards he never earned, his sex life with person(s) not his wife, and numerous other lies? I don't watch O'Reilly, but if someone can explain it to me, I'll be happy to hear it.

RFS62
07-05-2005, 08:22 PM
I don't watch him either. I couldn't care less what he thinks.

Or Al Franken.

But I am a registered Republican.

Jaycint
07-05-2005, 08:23 PM
Al Franken = a Democrat version of Rush Limbaugh on steroids

RBA
07-05-2005, 08:26 PM
Al Franken = a Democrat version of Rush Limbaugh on steroids

Without the illegal Oxycotin habit. I think he did all the recreational drugs at one time or another. Afterall, he was a writer/actor for SNL, the early days.

Jaycint
07-05-2005, 08:28 PM
Without the illegal Oxycotin habit. I think he did all the recreational drugs at one time or another. Afterall, he was a writer/actor for SNL, the early days.

That would hurt if I actually liked Limbaugh. Just stating my opinion of dear old Al.

RBA
07-05-2005, 08:31 PM
That would hurt if I actually liked Limbaugh. Just stating my opinion of dear old Al.

I don't think anyone admits they are a fans of Rush nowadays, but how does that correlate with his ratings? Interesting.

Jaycint
07-05-2005, 08:33 PM
I don't think anyone admits they are a fans of Rush nowadays, but how does that correlate with his ratings? Interesting.

If the implication is that I'm a closet Limbaugh fan who tunes in faithfully everyday I can assure you that's the furthest thing from the truth. He and Franken are both extreme blowhards. Neither represent my views.

RBA
07-05-2005, 08:46 PM
If the implication is that I'm a closet Limbaugh fan who tunes in faithfully everyday I can assure you that's the furthest thing from the truth. He and Franken are both extreme blowhards. Neither represent my views.

No, I'm sorry if you got that impression. I wasn't trying to be my usual taunting self.

I guess you wouldn't find it suprising that I don't think Franken is an extremist. Maybe I have missed some of his extremist views/ideas.

Jaycint
07-05-2005, 08:52 PM
No, I'm sorry if you got that impression. I wasn't trying to be my usual taunting self.

I guess you wouldn't find it suprising that I don't think Franken is an extremist. Maybe I have missed some of his extremist views/ideas.

I just think he is the Democrat version of Limbaugh. Toes the party line, viciously attacks the opposing parties ideology, etc. etc. Of course I'm not surprised that you don't think Franken is an extremist. I'm sure many Repubs don't think Limbaugh is either.

RedsBaron
07-05-2005, 09:45 PM
I don't think anyone admits they are a fans of Rush nowadays, but how does that correlate with his ratings? Interesting.
I have a partner who is a liberal Democrat, voted for Clinton, Gore, Kerry, et al. When he is on the road, or even just taking a break, he listens to Rush Limbaugh ( I know because he tells me what Limbaugh said) even though he rarely if ever agrees with him.
If I'm on the road when Limbaugh is on, I'll usually listen to him for a few minutes, but I soon grow tired of him. I agree with him more than I do some posters here, but I don't care for rancor anywhere in more than small doses.

RBA
07-06-2005, 04:38 PM
July 6, 2005
New York Times Reporter Is Jailed for Keeping Source Secret

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- A federal judge on Wednesday jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller for refusing to divulge her source to a grand jury investigating the Bush administration's leak of an undercover CIA operative's name.

"There is still a realistic possibility that confinement might cause her to testify," U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan said.

Miller stood up, hugged her lawyer and was escorted from the courtroom.

Earlier, Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, in an about-face, told Hogan that he would now cooperate with a federal prosecutor's investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame because his source gave him specific authority to discuss their conversation. "I am prepared to testify. I will comply" with the court's order, Cooper said.

Cooper took the podium in the court and told the judge, "Last night I hugged my son goodbye and told him it might be a long time before I see him again."

"I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions" for not testifying, Cooper said. But he told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance, he had received "in somewhat dramatic fashion" a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret.

Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment lawyer, told reporters after Miller's jailing, "Judy is an honorable woman, adhering to the highest tradition of her profession and the highest tradition of humanity." He called Miller's decision a choice "to take the personal burden of being in jail" rather than breaking her promise of confidentiality to her source.


Give the reporter a life sentence for protecting a traitor to the USA.

RBA
07-06-2005, 05:12 PM
Wilson on reporter being jailed: Collateral damage in a smear campaign
RAW STORY (http://rawstory.com/)



The following is a statement from Ambassador Joseph Wilson on the sentencing of New York Times Reporter Judith Miller to RAW STORY (http://rawstory.com/) and Daily Kos' SusanG.

Miller has been sentenced to jail for not revealing her sources in reporting on the outing of Valerie Plame, a former covert CIA operative who is Wilson's wife.

#

The sentencing of Judith Miller to jail for refusing to disclose her sourcesis the direct result of the culture of unaccountability that infects theBush White House from top to bottom. President Bushís refusal to enforce his own call for full cooperation with the Special Counsel has brought us to this point. Clearly, the conspiracy to cover up the web of lies that underpinned the invasion of Iraq is more important to the White House than coming clean on a serious breach of national security. Thus has Ms Miller joined my wife, Valerie, and her twenty years of service to this nation as collateral damage in the smear campaign launched when I had the temerity to challenge the President on his assertion that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium yellowcake from Africa.

The real victims of this cover-up, which may have turned criminal, are the Congress, the Constitution and, most tragically, the Americans and Iraqis who have paid the ultimate price for Bushís folly.

registerthis
07-06-2005, 05:18 PM
I just think he is the Democrat version of Limbaugh. Toes the party line, viciously attacks the opposing parties ideology, etc. etc. Of course I'm not surprised that you don't think Franken is an extremist. I'm sure many Repubs don't think Limbaugh is either.
The Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly chapters in his book are pretty damning though. It's not just empty rhetoric he's spitting out.

Although, like Michael Moore, Al has a way of letting his intentions get in the way of facts on occasion. I appreciate what he's doing, and he is on target more than not, but going too far doesn't help your point.

that being said, I would love to see Coulter, o'Reilly, Hannity and others do a point-by-point rebuttal of Franken's book. Because I don't think they could.

RedFanAlways1966
07-06-2005, 05:27 PM
The following is a statement from Ambassador Joseph Wilson on the sentencing of New York Times Reporter Judith Miller...


Hmmmm. So there is no confusion, Miller is no longer an ambassador.

Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant.

Anyone want to guess who appointed this guy ambassador to the important country of Gabon for those 3+ years? Hint: this president hailed from Arkansas.

Think Wilson is anti-Bush? Do not be confused.... YES. An anti-Bush opinion... he should join RZ! :laugh:

RedFanAlways1966
07-06-2005, 05:30 PM
The Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly chapters in his book are pretty damning though. It's not just empty rhetoric he's spitting out.

that being said, I would love to see Coulter, o'Reilly, Hannity and others do a point-by-point rebuttal of Franken's book. Because I don't think they could.

Isn't this Al Franken character a comedian and/or a comedy writer? Hmmmm. So when exactly did he become a political expert? Did he train for a political career or major in political science? I could have swore there was a guy by the same name on SNL (the comedy show) at one time in my life.

GAC
07-06-2005, 05:38 PM
RBA- you still keep ranting and calling Rove a traitor without due process. Why is that?

pedro
07-06-2005, 05:39 PM
The Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly chapters in his book are pretty damning though. It's not just empty rhetoric he's spitting out.

Although, like Michael Moore, Al has a way of letting his intentions get in the way of facts on occasion. I appreciate what he's doing, and he is on target more than not, but going too far doesn't help your point.

that being said, I would love to see Coulter, o'Reilly, Hannity and others do a point-by-point rebuttal of Franken's book. Because I don't think they could.

If Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity stepped in front of my car, I might not brake, that's how much I love them.

RBA
07-06-2005, 05:42 PM
RBA- you still keep ranting and calling Rove a traitor without due process. Why is that?

Whoever leaked the name of a covert operative would be a traitor in my book. Is it Rove?

registerthis
07-06-2005, 05:42 PM
Isn't this Al Franken character a comedian and/or a comedy writer? Hmmmm. So when exactly did he become a political expert? Did he train for a political career or major in political science? I could have swore there was a guy by the same name on SNL (the comedy show) at one time in my life.
Well, Rush Limbaugh was a college drop-out who worked for the Royals.

I guess I could be asking the same questions of him that you are of Franken.

RBA
07-06-2005, 05:46 PM
Well, Rush Limbaugh was a college drop-out who worked for the Royals.

I guess I could be asking the same questions of him that you are of Franken.

Yup, Al Franken is a Harvard graduate. I'm sure whatever Jr. College Rush attempted to go to is more pretigious.

registerthis
07-06-2005, 05:48 PM
Yup, Al Franken is a Harvard graduate. I'm sure whatever Jr. College Rush attempted to go to is more pretigious.
Southeast Missouri State, in Cape Girardeau, MO.

He completed all of three semesters.

GAC
07-06-2005, 05:49 PM
Whoever leaked the name of a covert operative would be a traitor in my book. Is it Rove?

Has it been actually proven through a criminal investigation? You'd be agreeing if it were a Democrat.

Oh... nevermind. I don't want to ruin a good partisan rant! Where's my broom handle and pitchfork? :lol:

RBA
07-06-2005, 05:52 PM
Has it been actually proven through a criminal investigation? Oh... nevermind. I don't want to ruin a good partisan rant! Where's my broom handle and pitchfork? :lol:

Well, I had to go back and see if I said it was Rove. I have quoted news reports and talking heads that it most likely is Rove. But have I said it was Rove? The closest I got, I think was "Kriminal Karl" I added the word Kriminal, the rest was the news story.

I'm coming to the conclusion that it is probably multiple sources and most likely including Rove.

GAC
07-06-2005, 05:57 PM
I can understand why Dems/liberals hate Karl Rove. I'd want to take the guy down anyway I can if he was outsmarting and outmanuevering me, and kicking my butt in the last two elections also. :lol:

I mean - Terry McAuliife and now Howard Dean. GEEZ! You guys can do better then that. ;)

If he were a Democratic strategist, you guys would all be on here praising how smart and cunning he was in out smarting those nasty Republicans.

Politics is a nasty game. I don't condone or agree with the behind-the scene tactics that drive/motivate Washngton politics. I simpy realistically acknowledge it as a part of the game that both sides play to the hilt. And any Democrat/liberal who tries to get on their stump and say that Dems haven't or don't are, respectfully, blind.

Both parties do it. it's just that the Repubs have gotten better at it.

RBA
07-06-2005, 05:59 PM
Marginalize and spin. Same ole. Yup, they all do it. That's how the game is played. Thanks. You haven't disappointed.

registerthis
07-06-2005, 05:59 PM
Karl Rove is very, very good at what he does.

I don't deny that.

GAC
07-06-2005, 06:01 PM
Well, I had to go back and see if I said it was Rove. I have quoted news reports and talking heads that it most likely is Rove. But have I said it was Rove? The closest I got, I think was "Kriminal Karl" I added the word Kriminal, the rest was the news story.

I'm coming to the conclusion that it is probably multiple sources and most likely including Rove.

Well if you don't know for sure it was Rove, since you're only going by some articles, then why have you convicted him already as a TRAITOR?

Semantics my friend. ;)

RBA
07-06-2005, 06:02 PM
Well if you don't know for sure it was Rove, since you're only going by some articles, then why have you convicted him already as a TRAITOR?

Semantics my friend. ;)

Is he the leaker who outed a covert CIA operative?

GAC
07-06-2005, 06:03 PM
Marginalize and spin. Same ole. Yup, they all do it. That's how the came is played. Thanks. You haven't disappointed.

Nope. Already stated that IF via a criminal investigation it is shown Rove or anyone else is guilty, then they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

I'm just not gonna go on a partisan rant or witch hunt right now. ;)

pedro
07-06-2005, 06:03 PM
If he were a Democratic strategist, you guys would all be on here praising how smart and cunning he was in out smarting those nasty Republicans.



Nope. You're wrong.

I wouldn't back anyone whose strategy to win a presidential primary was to spread rumours that another candidate was gay and denigrate him for having a black baby (adopted)

Karl Rove is SCUM.

GAC
07-06-2005, 06:09 PM
http://www.mwwilson.net/files/projects/reception/colorbars.jpg

This has been a test of the Emergency Broadcast System... we now return you back to your normal programming. :lol:

RBA
07-06-2005, 06:10 PM
Funny stuff GAC, you are pulling out all the stops. :lol:

Rojo
07-06-2005, 07:09 PM
I simpy realistically acknowledge it as a part of the game that both sides play to the hilt.

Boy, you should be commended for your level-headed realism. You've really been around the block or two.

It does raise a question. Namely, if nobody's right and nobody's wrong, if words rule men and the truth doesn't exist then why, prey tell, do you even pay attention to politics. Shouldn't you just don a black beret and head to the local coffee shop?

Falls City Beer
07-06-2005, 07:12 PM
Boy, you should be commended for your level-headed realism. You've really been around the block or two.

It does raise a question. Namely, if nobody's right and nobody's wrong, if words rule men and the truth doesn't exist then why, prey tell, do you even pay attention to politics. Shouldn't you just don a black beret and head to the local coffee shop?

Right. The paradigm has shifted to political oblivion. We're all dirty now.

Jaycint
07-06-2005, 07:49 PM
The Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly chapters in his book are pretty damning though. It's not just empty rhetoric he's spitting out.

Although, like Michael Moore, Al has a way of letting his intentions get in the way of facts on occasion. I appreciate what he's doing, and he is on target more than not, but going too far doesn't help your point.

that being said, I would love to see Coulter, o'Reilly, Hannity and others do a point-by-point rebuttal of Franken's book. Because I don't think they could.

I haven't read his book so I can't comment on the O'Reilly and Coulter chapters although I can state for you that I'm not really a fan of either. They make for good entertainment from time to time if I'm at home bored on a Tuesday night but I can't say I take seriously either of their political views. Nor do I take Franken's seriously from what I have seen. All of them I would put in the extreme camp of their respective parties.

Without having read the book I would guess that maybe he "outs" some of the skeletons in their closets? Everybody has those, I give credit to those willing to own up to it as Franken has regarding his drug riddled past. However if the slant of the O'Reilly and Coulter chapters basically are just attacking their ideology then it really holds no weight with me. He is the anti-Coulter, I'm not surprised he would devote a chapter to trying to tear down the views she espouses.

I would also contend that everything guys like Hannity and Limbaugh spit out isn't just empty rhetoric either. Some of it? Yeah. All of it? No way. Just a different ideology on what America should be than those on the other side of the aisle.

registerthis
07-06-2005, 07:58 PM
I haven't read his book so I can't comment on the O'Reilly and Coulter chapters although I can state for you that I'm not really a fan of either. They make for good entertainment from time to time if I'm at home bored on a Tuesday night but I can't say I take seriously either of their political views. Nor do I take Franken's seriously from what I have seen. All of them I would put in the extreme camp of their respective parties.

Without having read the book I would guess that maybe he "outs" some of the skeletons in their closets? Everybody has those, I give credit to those willing to own up to it as Franken has regarding his drug riddled past. However if the slant of the O'Reilly and Coulter chapters basically are just attacking their ideology then it really holds no weight with me. He is the anti-Coulter, I'm not surprised he would devote a chapter to trying to tear down the views she espouses.
He really doesn't address her ideaology at all. It's more her outright lies and fabrications that she consistently uses--such as continually stating that the New York Times called Clarence Thomas a "Chicken and biscuit eating Uncle Tom", when it did no such thing.

In other words, he doesn't go point-to-point on ideaology with her, but more says--you know, hold whatever views you want, but at least get your facts straight. I mean, I'd like to laugh but some of it isn't even funny.

Ditto for the O'Reilly chapter. He pretty much goes through and uses Bill's own words against him to show what a hypocritical jerk the guy is.


I would also contend that everything guys like Hannity and Limbaugh spit out isn't just empty rhetoric either. Some of it? Yeah. All of it? No way. Just a different ideology on what America should be than those on the other side of the aisle.
Not all of it, no. But they stretch the truth--and outright LIE--frequently to get their point across, and there are millions of people who accept what they say as Gospel. It's why I enjoyed the Franken book so much--he doesn't espouse many views of his own, just checks those who do. A get-your-facts-straight-and-quit-being-a-prick sort of thing.

For example, gay marriage. I can see how people would hold differing views of this. Ditto abortion. And Franken doesn't come out and say "You should support gay marriage, and here is why..." But he WILL take something Ann Coulter said or wrote ("A recent Ny Times survey indicated that 90% of homosexuals have AIDS" - I made that up, but it's just an example) and completely debunk it.

Jaycint
07-06-2005, 08:19 PM
He really doesn't address her ideaology at all. It's more her outright lies and fabrications that she consistently uses--such as continually stating that the New York Times called Clarence Thomas a "Chicken and biscuit eating Uncle Tom", when it did no such thing.

In other words, he doesn't go point-to-point on ideaology with her, but more says--you know, hold whatever views you want, but at least get your facts straight. I mean, I'd like to laugh but some of it isn't even funny.

Ditto for the O'Reilly chapter. He pretty much goes through and uses Bill's own words against him to show what a hypocritical jerk the guy is.

This is all well and good but does he do the same to people in his own party? I'm honestly asking, I have never seen him attack any of them over erroneous information or for being hypocrits.



Not all of it, no. But they stretch the truth--and outright LIE--frequently to get their point across, and there are millions of people who accept what they say as Gospel. It's why I enjoyed the Franken book so much--he doesn't espouse many views of his own, just checks those who do. A get-your-facts-straight-and-quit-being-a-prick sort of thing.

For example, gay marriage. I can see how people would hold differing views of this. Ditto abortion. And Franken doesn't come out and say "You should support gay marriage, and here is why..." But he WILL take something Ann Coulter said or wrote ("A recent Ny Times survey indicated that 90% of homosexuals have AIDS" - I made that up, but it's just an example) and completely debunk it.

I think you are giving way too much credit to the power of Limbaugh to sway a voter. Either that or vastly underestimating the average joe's ability to form his own opinion on issues. Any responsible adult that cares will check more than just one source in order to form an opinion. I have never taken anything any political commentator said at face value, I always back it up with a couple more sources, one from the opposite viewpoint and if I can find it, one from an independent viewpoint.

dsmith421
07-06-2005, 08:22 PM
I can understand why Dems/liberals hate Karl Rove. I'd want to take the guy down anyway I can if he was outsmarting and outmanuevering me, and kicking my butt in the last two elections also. .

Wanna know why I hate Karl Rove?

* McCain
* Cleland
* Swift Boat Vets

He's made a living off questioning and ridiculing the patriotism of men who have honorably and bravely served our country. And he's been doing a lot longer than his idiotic tirade in New York (wonder if ol' Karl would say the same things to a crowd of average New Yorkers, you know, who are mostly liberal and bravely rebuilt their city and their lives after 9/11).

He has no ethics and no shame. The first President Bush actually kicked him off his campaign for his slimeball tactics, if I remember correctly. I don't care how good he is at what he does, and I don't care which side he's on--he plays dirty pool, and your willingness to shrug it off is a sad commentary on the state of politics in this country. A scumbag is a scumbag.

You want to look for one major source of the partisan rancor that divides this country so deeply? Look no further.

registerthis
07-06-2005, 08:25 PM
I think you are giving way too much credit to the power of Limbaugh to sway a voter. Either that or vastly underestimating the average joe's ability to form his own opinion on issues. Any responsible adult that cares will check more than just one source in order to form an opinion. I have never taken anything any political commentator said at face value, I always back it up with a couple more sources, one from the opposite viewpoint and if I can find it, one from an independent viewpoint.
Are you kidding?

In my family alone, I can count three people who listen to Limbaugh on a daily basis and simply accept anything he says as gospel.

I don't know ANYONE who logs onto LexisNexis after the Limbaugh program to check his sources and verify his stories. Who does that?

If you honestly do what you wrote above, you are in the minority of people in this country, and I'm not exagerrating when I say that. Most people put Rush on in their car and start nodding their head in agreement.

Jaycint
07-06-2005, 08:31 PM
Are you kidding?

In my family alone, I can count three people who listen to Limbaugh on a daily basis and simply accept anything he says as gospel.

I don't know ANYONE who logs onto LexisNexis after the Limbaugh program to check his sources and verify his stories. Who does that?

If you honestly do what you wrote above, you are in the minority of people in this country, and I'm not exagerrating when I say that. Most people put Rush on in their car and start nodding their head in agreement.

No, I'm not kidding, and it doesn't have to be anything as formal as logging on to Lexis-Nexis. There are TONS of sources to fact check things. Heck, apparently 90% of the people on this board are ardent fact-checkers, just check out the different threads. Just about everybody backs up what they say with different web resources and newspapers.

Yes I honestly do what I wrote above. I would hope this conversation, which I think has been a good one, doesn't degenerate into questioning my honesty and integrity.

RBA
07-06-2005, 08:51 PM
Can you enlighten us of how many hours of the Al Franken Show on AAR you have actually listened to?

I can tell you I haven't listen to Rush in years, but from those years ago I did give him a try. I know for a fact he lies and exaggarates a great deal of the time.

Jaycint
07-06-2005, 08:57 PM
Can you enlighten us of how many hours of the Al Franken Show on AAR you have actually listened to?

I can tell you I haven't listen to Rush in years, but from those years ago I did give him a try. I know for a fact he lies and exaggarates a great deal of the time.

You guys aren't gonna bait me into a partisan argument over this. Especially considering the fact that I don't even support the party you guys have problems with.

I am not a Franken expert, sometimes I catch his radio show on television at night. They have half hour episodes on the Sundance channel here in northern Kentucky.

I've seen enough to know that he is to the Democratic party what Limbaugh is to the Repubs.

I will now respectfully bow out of this discussion.

GAC
07-06-2005, 09:00 PM
Boy, you should be commended for your level-headed realism. You've really been around the block or two.

It does raise a question. Namely, if nobody's right and nobody's wrong, if words rule men and the truth doesn't exist then why, prey tell, do you even pay attention to politics. Shouldn't you just don a black beret and head to the local coffee shop?

No. I've never alluded to that premise either.

I've already stated that if Rove is found guilty then he should be prosecuted didn't I? I woud just like to wait for a full investigation before I am asked to jump on the liberal bandwagon with my pitchfork and torch to meet up at Rove's house. :lol:

Some make references to Germany in the 30's and Nazism, but this is alot like it IMO. ;)

Rojo
07-06-2005, 09:02 PM
I've already stated that if Rove is found guilty then he should be prosecuted didn't I?

WMD redux.

RBA
07-06-2005, 09:08 PM
Coincedence? You tell me. ;)



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove3jul03,1,2388418.story?coll=la-headlines-nation (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove3jul03,1,2388418.story?coll=la-headlines-nation)
THE NATION

Rove Talked But Did Not Tattle, Attorney Says

The Bush advisor spoke with a Time reporter days before a CIA operative was outed.

By Richard B. Schmitt
Times Staff Writer

July 3, 2005

WASHINGTON ó Karl Rove, one of President Bush's closest advisors, spoke with a Time magazine reporter days before the name of a CIA operative surfaced in the press, but did not leak the confidential information, a lawyer for Rove said Saturday in a new admission in the case.

Rove spoke to Time reporter Matthew Cooper in July 2003, before a syndicated column revealed the identity of operative Valerie Plame, the wife of Bush administration critic and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

Cooper is one of two reporters who has been held in contempt of court for not cooperating with a federal investigation into who leaked Plame's identity. Although Wilson once said he suspected that Rove had played a role in destroying his wife's CIA cover, the White House dismissed questions about Rove's actions as "totally ridiculous."

In confirming the conversation between Rove and Cooper, Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, emphasized that the presidential advisor did not reveal any secrets. But the disclosure raised new questions about Rove and the precise role of the White House in the apparent national security breach as Cooper and another reporter, Judith Miller of the New York Times, faced imminent jail terms.

Time Inc., under pressure from a federal judge and over Cooper's objections, turned over e-mail records and other internal documents to a special prosecutor Friday, identifying sources that Cooper used to report and write on the politically charged case. A Time spokeswoman declined to say Saturday whether Rove was among sources mentioned in the documents.

Cooper and Miller could be jailed as soon as Wednesday for refusing to cooperate in the investigation. Time, which was separately held in contempt in the case, said that it hoped its cooperation meant that Cooper would not be incarcerated.

Rove, Bush's deputy chief of staff and longtime political strategist, testified before a grand jury investigating the Plame case on three occasions. His latest appearance was in October 2004, about the same time the prosecutor investigating the case said his probe was complete with the exception of testimony from Cooper and Miller.

Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald is investigating the alleged outing of Plame by Robert Novak, a columnist and CNN pundit, on July 14, 2003. Some suspect that the White House leaked her name in retaliation for a July 6, 2003, op-ed piece in the New York Times written by Wilson, her husband. He accused the administration of twisting intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Fitzgerald interviewed many other White House officials and journalists, including Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Although Novak was the first to publish Plame's name, Fitzgerald has indicated that whoever leaked the information to Novak also might have revealed her identity to other journalists. That could constitute separate violations of a federal law that protects the identity of undercover CIA personnel.

Prosecutions are rare, however, because they require showing that the leak was intentionally disclosed and that the person leaking the information knew the government was trying to conceal it.

Fitzgerald asked Cooper and Time for documents and testimony relating to conversations Cooper had with official sources about Wilson, Plame or her ties to the CIA in the period before the publication of Novak's column. Cooper wrote about the case on Time's website after the Novak column appeared.

Luskin, Rove's attorney, acknowledged in an interview Saturday that Cooper and Rove had spoken days before Novak's column, in a conversation that was initiated by Cooper.

"What I can tell you is that Cooper called Rove during that week between the Wilson article and the Novak article, but that Karl absolutely did not identify Valerie Plame," Luskin said. "He did not disclose any confidential information about anybody to Cooper or to anybody else."

Luskin said he would not "characterize the substance of the conversation," which was covered in the testimony Rove provided to the grand jury investigating the leak. "The folks in Fitzgerald's office have asked us not to talk about what Karl has had to say," Luskin said.

Luskin said Rove had been assured by prosecutors that he was not a target of the investigation. "We were advised recently that his status has not changed," he added.

"It is certainly my understanding that Karl has testified absolutely truthfully about all his conversations about everybody that he has been asked about during that week," Luskin added. "Nobody has suggested to us ever that they think that there are any problems about whether they think he is being candid."

But Newsweek magazine reported on its website Saturday that Rove was one of Cooper's sources identified in notes that Time turned over to Fitzgerald. And separately, MSNBC political analyst Lawrence O'Donnell said in a taped TV program that he had information indicating Rove was one of Cooper's sources. O'Donnell's comments were made in a segment of "The McLaughlin Group" that was set to air in Los Angeles on PBS Saturday night.

Cooper's lawyer, Richard Sauber, declined to discuss Rove's role in Cooper's work, saying in response to an e-mail message, "We're not going to discuss one way or another what the [documents turned over by Time] say."

In court papers filed Friday arguing against his possible confinement, Cooper's lawyers said if he were to break promises of confidentiality, "his ability to continue as an effective reporter would be seriously jeopardized."

In letters to the court accompanying his plea, fellow journalists discussed this principle.

"Journalists must honor their promises which protect the bad along with the good," said Margaret Carlson, a Time columnist and colleague of Cooper. "We can't separate them like the darks and the whites in the laundry."



------------------------------------------

U.S. Excuses Mercenary Firm Accused of Defrauding Taxpayers
by Chris Shumway (bio (http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_contributor_bio&contributorID=75))

Assuming the Justice Dept. fails to sign on to a suit against private paramilitary firm Custer Battles filed by two former associates, the government will be officially ignoring a claim of some $50 million in scammed funds.

Apr 1 - Despite strong evidence from well-connected whistleblowers and military investigators that the American mercenary firm Custer Battles over-billed US occupation authorities in Iraq by tens of millions of dollars, the Bush administration has refused to pursue legal action, so far declining multiple invitations to join a lawsuit brought against the company. The latest invitation expires today.

"The government has not lifted a finger to get back the $50 million Custer Battles defrauded it of," said Alan Grayson, an attorney for two whistleblowers, former company employee Pete Baldwin and Robert Isakson, a Custer Battles subcontractor. Grayson, who spoke to Newsweek, filed a "false claims" lawsuit last fall against the company on behalf of the federal government.

Although the judge hearing the fraud suit has twice invited the Justice Department to join the case, the Bush administration has thus far refused. According to multiple sources, Justice Department officials have privately argued that the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), which governed Iraq during the first year of occupation, was not an arm of the US government but rather a multinational institution. Following this logic, the Bush administration can claim that technically it has not been defrauded by Custer Battles, nor by any other company working under CPA contracts.

Grayson counters that position by pointing out that a 2003 law signed by George W. Bush himself -- which authorized $18.7 billion for reconstruction in Iraq -- explicitly referred to the CPA as "an entity of the United States Government." And at least one CPA contract with Custer Battles indicates it is a Department of the Army document and is signed by American contracting officer Patricia G. Logsdon of the US 336th Finance Command.

The administration's failure to join the suit effectively makes Iraq a "free fraud zone," in the words of Frank Willis, a former CPA official who testified before Congress in February that he handed $2 million in shrink-wrapped $100 bills to a representative from Custer Battles without properly accounting for the cash award. Willis, who indicated that paying corporations in cash without collecting receipts was a matter of policy, also provided a photograph showing himself and two other CPA employees smiling while holding bricks of cash he says they handed to a representative of Custer Battles minutes later.

Berlin-based Transparency International, an anti-corruption watchdog organization, recently criticized the CPA for its handling of reconstruction contracts in Iraq. A report by the group warns that unless immediate corrective measures are taken, Iraq's reconstruction could become "the biggest corruption scandal in history."



The suit filed by Baldwin and Isakson claims that Custer Battles double-billed the CPA for salaries and that they repainted forklifts they found at Baghdad airport before leasing them back to the US government at a rate of $1,000 per month per machine.

In addition to alleging fraud, the suit claims that after Isakson complained about Custer Battles' practices, company employees held him and his 14-year-old son at gunpoint. According to the suit, the employees then kicked Isakson and his son off the US base at the Baghdad airport.

Other charges of brutal treatment have come from former Custer Battles security personnel.

Four former US military veterans who worked for Custer Battles in Iraq came forward last month saying they witnessed other company employees brutalizing Iraqi civilians. According to NBC, the men, who say they quit the company after a few missions, claim that heavily armed security operators on Custer Battles' outings frequently fired at civilians indiscriminately as they ran for cover. The Army told NBC it is investigating the accusations.

Newsweek reports that in 2004 Steven Shaw, the Deputy General Counsel of the Air Force, asked that Custer Battles be banned from future business with the US. He said the company had "created sham companies, whereby fraudulently increased profits by inflating its claimed costs." Shaw's recommendations came nearly a year after an Army inspector concluded that Custer Battles was incompetent and had refused to obey rules established by the CPA.

According to the [i]LA Times, Custer Battles was a newly formed company with no experience in the security industry when in the spring of 2003 it landed one of the first contracts issued in post-invasion Iraq. The no-bid contract to maintain security at the Baghdad airport was worth $16 million, the Times reported.

The Virginia-based company is headed by Scott Custer, a former Army Ranger, and Mike Battles, a former CIA employee, who was fined by the Federal Elections Commission for misrepresenting campaign contributions during a failed race for Congress in Rhode Island in 2002. Battles has also been a commentator for the Fox News Channel.

In August 2003, according to Shaw's report, the company won a contract to provide support for a currency exchange program in which Iraqis traded in their old currency for new Iraqi dinars. The "cost plus" contract paid all the company's operational expenses, plus a 25 percent markup for overhead and profit. A few months later, Custer Battles representatives accidentally left a spreadsheet in a meeting that was later discovered by CPA employees, the LA Times reported. The spreadsheet reportedly showed that although the currency-exchange operation had cost the company $3.7 million, Custer Battles billed the CPA for $9.8 million, a markup of 162 percent.

Richard Sauber, an attorney for Custer Battles, who says his clients deny the charges against them, doesn't think the Bush administration will accept the judge's latest invitation to join the false claims suit. "I'll bet you $50 dollars they will not show up," he told Newsweek.


© 2005 The NewStandard. See our r (http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_reprint_policy)

GAC
07-06-2005, 09:09 PM
WMD redux.

Well...I've already gone over this before (and just recently), and it's not the same situation at all. You know - how your illustrious Democratic leadership was saying the same things before and after Bush became Prez? Who was the first to use the words "WMD" and "imminent threat"? Hint: it wasn't a Republican. ;)

Here, I'll let you re-read it...... http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36873&page=3&pp=10

Enjoy. Because I don't like to chew my cabbage twice. :lol:

Rojo
07-06-2005, 09:29 PM
You know - how your illustrious Democratic leadership was saying the same things before and after Bush became Prez?

Your right! I guess I should stop holding anyone accountable for this disastrous waste of human life and my tax money.

Boy, that feels better. All I had to do was close my eyes.

RedFanAlways1966
07-07-2005, 08:40 AM
Man, oh man... so much hatred and venom coming from the keyboards of our lefties. And who do they hate? Fellow American citizens. Life seems so short to hate so much.

I hate some people myself, I must admit.... terrorists, former Baath Party members who murdered hundreds of thousands of their own people, etc.

I do not agree with the politics of some Americans. But that is never reason to hate them. I would not wish bad things upon them or state that I might run them over in my car if they passed in front of my auto on the street. I would not wish that they break a law and go to jail. It is really shameful to hear Americans wish these awful things upon other Americans. And these types think their fellow types should run our country? Hmmmm... with this hatred-mentality, I think not.

Dom Heffner
07-07-2005, 10:29 AM
I hate some people myself, I must admit.... terrorists, former Baath Party members who murdered hundreds of thousands of their own people, etc.

You left Ted Kennedy off your list.:)


I do not agree with the politics of some Americans. But that is never reason to hate them. I would not wish bad things upon them or state that I might run them over in my car if they passed in front of my auto on the street. I would not wish that they break a law and go to jail. It is really shameful to hear Americans wish these awful things upon other Americans. And these types think their fellow types should run our country? Hmmmm... with this hatred-mentality, I think not.

Yeah, RFA, there are times I often weep reading the love for the left in your posts. :laugh:

registerthis
07-07-2005, 10:35 AM
No, I'm not kidding, and it doesn't have to be anything as formal as logging on to Lexis-Nexis. There are TONS of sources to fact check things. Heck, apparently 90% of the people on this board are ardent fact-checkers, just check out the different threads. Just about everybody backs up what they say with different web resources and newspapers.
The people on this board ar FAR from a representative sample. it's pretty much policy to back up your assertations with facts/sources, otherwise you aren't taken seriously.

But, for example, when Ann Coulter said the NY Times called Clarence Thomas a "chicken and biscuit eating Uncle Tom", how many people went to the NY Times and verified that? I'm guessing less than one percent who actually heard Coulter say that. No way, no how do I believe that a majority of talk radio listeners check the facts the show host gives them for authenticity.


Yes I honestly do what I wrote above. I would hope this conversation, which I think has been a good one, doesn't degenerate into questioning my honesty and integrity.
That's not what I was implying, Jaycint...I'm saying if you do that, you are in the minority, because most people don't. You're underestimating the influence people like Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh et al. have on the population.

RedFanAlways1966
07-07-2005, 11:01 AM
Yeah, RFA, there are times I often weep reading the love for the left in your posts.

I know that you are joking, Dom, but I never hope/wish/pray that a person in our gov't has broken a law. I never hope that an individual in our gov't goes to jail. I never hope that a person in our gov't compromises the secuirty of an agent. Never. Left or right.

I may not agree with the opinions of some and the actions of others, but I do not hate them and wish bad things upon them. I read the early (and some recent) comments on this forum relative to this "story" and it makes me shake my head. It makes me realize that some need to take a break from the political-thing. Wishing demise upon a fellow American b/c of their politics is shameful. Real shameful. You will not find me wishing bad things upon people. I may wish that they lose an election or lose the vote on a bill. But I will not state on this forum that I hope they broke a law and/or go to jail. I will not state that I would run them over with my car if I had the chance.

There is a big difference between disagreeing on views and wishing bad things to a human.

Jaycint
07-07-2005, 11:54 AM
That's not what I was implying, Jaycint...I'm saying if you do that, you are in the minority, because most people don't. You're underestimating the influence people like Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh et al. have on the population.


That's fine Reg, it's just hard sometimes to tells someone's tone or what they are implying online. No offense taken, just wanted to make sure my integrity as a poster here wasn't under attack.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the influence of guys like Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc etc. I think they drive away as many people as they convert, same thing with the guys on the left side like Franken and Moore. All of these people are very polarizing, they don't speak to the vast number of people in the middle in my opinion.

registerthis
07-07-2005, 12:38 PM
That's fine Reg, it's just hard sometimes to tells someone's tone or what they are implying online. No offense taken, just wanted to make sure my integrity as a poster here wasn't under attack.
No, I wouldn't do that.

I may not agree with you, but I don't question your integrity. In fact, I don't think there's anyone here I would do that with. Cheers.

RedsBaron
07-07-2005, 01:00 PM
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the influence of guys like Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc etc. I think they drive away as many people as they convert, same thing with the guys on the left side like Franken and Moore. All of these people are very polarizing, they don't speak to the vast number of people in the middle in my opinion.
I agree. Even when I sometimes agree with a position some of the above take on an issue, I usually do not like how they express their position.

Dom Heffner
07-07-2005, 01:23 PM
I may not agree with the opinions of some and the actions of others, but I do not hate them and wish bad things upon them. I read the early (and some recent) comments on this forum relative to this "story" and it makes me shake my head. It makes me realize that some need to take a break from the political-thing. Wishing demise upon a fellow American b/c of their politics is shameful. Real shameful.

RFA, I was joking, so I am happy that you took it that way.

What you are saying here makes sense, but it doesn't accurately derscibe - at least to me :)- what was going on in this thread.

In this case, someone gave up a confidential CIA agent's identity, possibly putting lives at risk (I don't know if the assassination reports have been confirmed or not, but at the very minimum the person who leaked this person's name put lives at risk, period). The reason this identity was given up was because Valerie Plame criticized the Bush administration's usage of reports of terrorists and weapons. The intelligence was shaky, had been looked at before, and was discounted, and when Miss plame speaks her mind on the subject, someone outs her because of her views, which is exactly what you are accusing everyone else of doing. Karl Rove called Chris Matthews on "Hardball" and said that Plame was "fair game." That should be offensive to everyone, so pardon me if I get a litle excited that the person who possibly commited this crime is found.

The whole reason Plame was outed was for her political beliefs, and you haven't said one word about her. You're worried about Karl Rove, so don't try and pretend that you are coming with a bipartisan olive branch in your hand. Do I hope it's Rove? No. I only hoped that the person who commited the crime was found. I'll admit it will be sweet justice if it is Rove, only because he has maliciously spread false rumors about McCain, Kerry, and liberals in general. His day is coming, and frankly, he will deserve whatever he gets. It isn't the fact that he is a Republican- it is the way he goes about being a Republican.

You are not going to tie my hands over some little rules about picking on people when this man has done some of the worst things I have seen in politics. I do not have to be polite about Karl Rove.

Notice I am not complaining about all Republicans.

I will not feel one bit sorry for him, but that in no way makes me a bad person because I am happy that the perpetrator of a crime is caught. Especially if it is as big of a jerk as this guy. Sorry, but that's how I feel.


There is a big difference between disagreeing on views and wishing bad things to a human.

What things is Karl Rove wishing on humans when he says that liberals wanted to give bin Laden therapy? Since it didn't happen (do a Nexus search and show me where a large group of liberals wanted to offer therapy to bin Laden), Rove has tried to villianize millions of Americans. He is using beliefs that liberals don't even hold as a political tool to advance his agenda. That is offensive. Republicans jumped up and down over John Edward's comments about Dick Cheney's daughter, but it doesn't bother them one bit to use my party as political tools. The hypocrisy is as worse as anything I've seen. Ever.

Your morality speech would have went over much better if you had called Rove on all of his stunts long ago. He has hurt countless lives so that he can gain power, which should offend you much more than a poster like myself on Redszone.

Again, I did not wake up and wish this on Karl Rove. I remember when the Republicans were the party of personal responsibility. Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander: Don't want to be the subject of a federal investigation? Don't talk to Time magazine reporters about CIA agents. Don't call up Hardball and say that someone is fair game. Karl Rove has put himself here, friend, and it looks as though he is now the one who is fair game. I didn't wish this upon him, he made it happen.

In my opinion he is a bad, bad person (go ahead and post a thread on how wonderful he is and see how many people will put their personal reputations on the line for this guy), so there is a sense of "I told you so," but it doesn't make me pump my fists that someone -an unelected someone by the way- who represents my country is caught up in this. It's embarrassing for us.

I'm ashamed, but it isn't of myself, that's for sure.

Rojo
07-07-2005, 02:09 PM
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the influence of guys like Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc etc. I think they drive away as many people as they convert, same thing with the guys on the left side like Franken and Moore. All of these people are very polarizing, they don't speak to the vast number of people in the middle in my opinion.

Who the hell is "in the middle" these days? I mean, man, these are polarizing times. You'd have to be Tommy Chong, to not know where you stand.

Jaycint
07-07-2005, 02:50 PM
Who the hell is "in the middle" these days? I mean, man, these are polarizing times. You'd have to be Tommy Chong, to not know where you stand.

Contrary to what you may think, there is a VAST majority of the American public that doesn't buy into the propoganda pushed by the far right or the far left in this country. That's who I'm referring to when I say "in the middle". My contention is that most people are much more moderate in their beliefs whether they lean a little to the left or to the right.

What I am saying is that the polarizing forces in the media such as Franken, Limbaugh, Moore, Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly etc don't hold some magical power over this vast middle. They don't speak to me, or to most people with half of a brain, they speak to the people who were pretty much already with them on an idealogical level to begin with.

registerthis
07-07-2005, 02:59 PM
they speak to the people who were pretty much already with them on an idealogical level to begin with.
But that would include a LOT of people. And it's mainly the right. 6 million people listen to Rush on a daily basis...O'Reilly has the highest rated cable TV show. Hannity is right behind. Coulter's radio show is extremely popular as well.

There are a lot of people across the U.S. who use those individuals as their political compass.

Jaycint
07-07-2005, 03:25 PM
But that would include a LOT of people. And it's mainly the right. 6 million people listen to Rush on a daily basis...O'Reilly has the highest rated cable TV show. Hannity is right behind. Coulter's radio show is extremely popular as well.

There are a lot of people across the U.S. who use those individuals as their political compass.

Is somebody stopping the guys on the left from having popular television and radio programs? Would a radio station refuse to carry someone with a liberal viewpoint if they were drawing 6 million listeners a day? I highly doubt it.

Basically the point you are making is that the guys on the right are better at pushing their agenda than those on the left. With that I would agree. Either that or there just happen to be more people that agree with their views. I mean think about it, why can't a guy like Franken, a talented comedy writer, get a radio gig that draws millions and millions of listeners? Surely he is bright enough and funny enough to hold an audiences attention. Could it be that not many people tend to agree with his politics?

registerthis
07-07-2005, 03:34 PM
Is somebody stopping the guys on the left from having popular television and radio programs? Would a radio station refuse to carry someone with a liberal viewpoint if they were drawing 6 million listeners a day? I highly doubt it.
I'm not saying they would. Just pointing out that more people are influenced by right wing media pundits simply because they are more pervasive.


I mean think about it, why can't a guy like Franken, a talented comedy writer, get a radio gig that draws millions and millions of listeners? Surely he is bright enough and funny enough to hold an audiences attention. Could it be that not many people tend to agree with his politics?
No, it could be that liberal-tinged talk radio simply isn't what the public-at-large is interested in.

Quick, name three prominent liberal media pundits. You probably can't.

I'm not one to believe in a necessarily biased media. i think the media put out what sells, and what gets ratings. Right now, inflammatory right wing pundits are what draws ratings. If this country veered more liberal than conservative, there's no doubt in my mind Fox would be a liberal news network.

Jaycint
07-07-2005, 03:46 PM
I'm not one to believe in a necessarily biased media. i think the media put out what sells, and what gets ratings. Right now, inflammatory right wing pundits are what draws ratings. If this country veered more liberal than conservative, there's no doubt in my mind Fox would be a liberal news network.


I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head here. Dollars definitely speak louder than ideas in the media.

Mutaman
07-07-2005, 03:49 PM
Early on in this thread, (last week) I predicted that the "liberal media" would ignore this story of Karl Rove being one of the secret sources matt Cooper has been trying to protect. Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan took questions from the press aboard Air Force One. No one asked him about Roveís role in outing undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Tuesday, McClellan held a press conference and no one asked him about Karl Roveís role in outing undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame.

In fact, no member of the White House press corps has asked McClellan about Roveís role in the Plame outing since Rove's lawyer admitted on Saturday that Rove was one of Matt Cooperís sources.

pedro
07-07-2005, 03:51 PM
Early on in this thread, (last week) I predicted that the "liberal media" would ignore this story of Karl Rove being one of the secret sources matt Cooper has been trying to protect. Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan took questions from the press aboard Air Force One. No one asked him about Roveís role in outing undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Tuesday, McClellan held a press conference and no one asked him about Karl Roveís role in outing undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame.

In fact, no member of the White House press corps has asked McClellan about Roveís role in the Plame outing since Rove's lawyer admitted on Saturday that Rove was one of Matt Cooperís sources.

That's because if they do, they'll never get called on again by McClellan. The White House only let's BP pitchers into the ballgame.

Rojo
07-07-2005, 03:56 PM
Contrary to what you may think, there is a VAST majority of the American public that doesn't buy into the propoganda pushed by the far right or the far left in this country. That's who I'm referring to when I say "in the middle". My contention is that most people are much more moderate in their beliefs whether they lean a little to the left or to the right.

What I am saying is that the polarizing forces in the media such as Franken, Limbaugh, Moore, Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly etc don't hold some magical power over this vast middle. They don't speak to me, or to most people with half of a brain, they speak to the people who were pretty much already with them on an idealogical level to begin with.

I think you mean that a lot of folks don't like the shrillness of it all. Which is fine. I don't either. But when people say they're "in the middle" what they really mean is that they don't have the will or courage to believe in something. Its the same as shrugging your shoulders. Dante has a ring for those people.

RFS62
07-07-2005, 03:59 PM
I think you mean that a lot of folks don't like the shrillness of it all. Which is fine. I don't either. But when people say they're "in the middle" what they really mean is that they don't have the will or courage to believe in something. Its the same as shrugging your shoulders. Dante has a ring for those people.



That is completely ridiculous. I agree with Jaycint.

Jaycint
07-07-2005, 04:06 PM
I think you mean that a lot of folks don't like the shrillness of it all. Which is fine. I don't either. But when people say they're "in the middle" what they really mean is that they don't have the will or courage to believe in something. Its the same as shrugging your shoulders. Dante has a ring for those people.

I agree with the first part of what you said. Another way for me to put it is you can be anti-Bush administration without calling people Nazi's. On the other hand you can be pro-Bush without calling other people cowards and saying they are unpatriotic. So yeah, the shrillness of it is a factor for me and I believe a factor as well for a whole lot of people across this country.

I disagree with the idea that people don't have the will or courage to stand up in what they believe in just because they refuse to participate in hatred and venom laced tirades. There are many civilized ways to go about getting your views out there. Calling someone a Nazi or an unpatriotic coward doesn't get anything accomplished other than to drive the wedge deeper in our country.

registerthis
07-07-2005, 04:11 PM
I think you mean that a lot of folks don't like the shrillness of it all. Which is fine. I don't either. But when people say they're "in the middle" what they really mean is that they don't have the will or courage to believe in something. Its the same as shrugging your shoulders. Dante has a ring for those people.
To be fair, I do know people who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. And vice versa.

The difference is, social issues are at the front of everyone's agenda right now. That, and the war in Iraq, was the determining factor in the '04 election.. But Bush's waning popularity seems to suggest that there were a number of voters who voted for him based on a few specific issues, and are unhappy with his performance in other areas.

Mutaman
07-07-2005, 04:14 PM
That's because if they do, they'll never get called on again by McClellan. The White House only let's BP pitchers into the ballgame.

Thats a good point, but I don't recall the same standard in effect during the Clinton years. I remember the press corp diligently examining Clinton's press secretary during the Whitewater era.

Although I have no facts to back this up, I really think there was a double standard between the way the press covered the Clinton administration versus the way they now cover the Bush administration.

Rojo
07-07-2005, 04:25 PM
Calling someone a Nazi or an unpatriotic coward doesn't get anything accomplished other than to drive the wedge deeper in our country.

Obviously its not impossible to be "conservative" on some issues and "liberal" on others. I just don't think that's what most people mean when they say they are "in the middle". Instead they mean that they want no part of the Franken/Limbaugh bullsh. While that's noble and understandable, if you leave at that and say "I'm in the middle" your abdicating your civic responsibility.

Redsfaithful
07-07-2005, 04:27 PM
To be fair, I do know people who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

You can't really be both though. People seem to think socially liberal is a simplistic term that means little more than being pro-choice and not caring about people's sexual orientation.

Being socially liberal means wanting to help the poor, the elderly, children, etc. through government programs. You can't do that by cutting spending.

This isn't even mentioning that nobody is really fiscally conservative. Republicans spend just as much, if not more, money than Democrats. They just prefer to spend it on the military as opposed to social programs.

Rojo
07-07-2005, 04:42 PM
You can't really be both though. People seem to think socially liberal is a simplistic term that means little more than being pro-choice and not caring about people's sexual orientation.

Being socially liberal means wanting to help the poor, the elderly, children, etc. through government programs. You can't do that by cutting spending.

This isn't even mentioning that nobody is really fiscally conservative. Republicans spend just as much, if not more, money than Democrats. They just prefer to spend it on the military as opposed to social programs.

To tack on, what most people mean by "fiscally conservative" is that they don't want big budget deficits -- which is precisely what Republicans give us. A better term is "fiscally responsible". I truly people believe most people want a government that helps people help themselves without going deep into hock.

The media, btw, loves the "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" tag. They will apply it so often you cannot come away with the idea that its a good thing. And its no accident. Surveys of media types show that they are to the right of the general population on economics (because they're rich) and to the left on social issues (cause theyr'e city folk).

Frankly, I'd rather spend the evening with Randall Terry than someone who describes themselves as "fiscally conservative, socially liberal".

registerthis
07-07-2005, 06:19 PM
Frankly, I'd rather spend the evening with Randall Terry than someone who describes themselves as "fiscally conservative, socially liberal".
I'm just stating there are people who view themselves that way.

I generally support Democrats, but there's a lot in that party who I don't agree with.

RedsBaron
07-08-2005, 11:35 AM
I had to laugh at today's Borowitz Report online which "reported" the following: "Elsewhere President Bush called the jailing of a New York Times reporter 'a positive step' but warned that many other reporters were still at large."

GAC
07-08-2005, 12:02 PM
Middle - Far Left - Far Right

Who draws those lines/distinctions? And shouldn't the one(s) who are drawing those lines be objective and free of biases either way? You'll have a hard time finding that anywhere! :lol:

I've been labelled far right simply because I disagree with one who admits to being far left on here.

And then there is the abortion/gay rights issue. Where one stands on those two issues determines where you are on the graph? As they say in baseball lingo - small window! ;)

Falls City Beer
07-08-2005, 12:13 PM
I happen to think centrists exist. I think many of them are misguided (Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden) and many of them are pretty great (John Kerry).

RBA
07-10-2005, 11:25 AM
Matt Cooper's Source
What Karl Rove told Time magazine's reporter

By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek

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 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8489888/site/newsweek/) of The New York Times, refused to identify her source and chose to go to jail instead.

For two years, a federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been investigating the leak of Plame's identity as an undercover CIA agent. The leak was first reported by columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. Novak apparently made some arrangement with the prosecutor, but Fitzgerald continued to press other reporters for their sources, possibly to show a pattern (to prove intent) or to make a perjury case. (It is illegal to knowingly identify an undercover CIA officer.) Rove's words on the Plame case have always been carefully chosen. "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," Rove told CNN last year when asked if he had anything to do with the Plame leak. Rove has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. But last week, his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Rove didóand that Rove was the secret source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/)who, at the request of both Cooper's lawyer and the prosecutor, gave Cooper permission to testify.

The controversy arose when Wilson wrote an op-ed column in The New York Times saying that he had been sent by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate charges that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from the African country of Niger. Wilson said he had found no evidence to support the claim. Wilson's column was an early attack on the evidence used by the Bush administration to justify going to war in Iraq. The White House wished to discredit Wilson and his attacks. The question for the prosecutor is whether someone in the administration, in an effort to undermine Wilson's credibility, intentionally revealed the covert identity of his wife.



In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson's criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine's corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"óCIA Director George Tenetóor Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger... "

Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative. Nonetheless, it is significant that Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak's column appeared; in other words, before Plame's identity had been published. Fitzgerald has been looking for evidence that Rove spoke to other reporters as well. "Karl Rove has shared with Fitzgerald all the information he has about any potentially relevant contacts he has had with any reporters, including Matt Cooper," Luskin told NEWSWEEK.

A source close to Rove, who declined to be identified because he did not wish to run afoul of the prosecutor or government investigators, added that there was "absolutely no inconsistency" between Cooper's e-mail and what Rove has testified to during his three grand-jury appearances in the case. "A fair reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame's identity, but was an effort to discourage Time from publishing things that turned out to be false," the source said, referring to claims in circulation at the time that Cheney and high-level CIA officials arranged for Wilson's trip to Africa.

Fitzgerald is known as a tenacious, thorough prosecutor. He refused to comment, and it is not clear whether he is pursuing evidence that will result in indictments, or just tying up loose ends in a messy case. But the Cooper e-mail offers one new clue to the mystery of what Fitzgerald is probingóand provides a glimpse of what was unfolding at the highest levels as the administration defended a part of its case for going to war in Iraq.


© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
function readCookie(ck){var anyCookies=document.cookie;var pos=anyCookies.indexOf(ck.toUpperCase()+"=");var value="";if(pos != -1){var start=pos + ck.length + 1;var end=anyCookies.indexOf(";",start);if(end == -1){end=anyCookies.length;}value=anyCookies.substri ng(start,end);value=unescape(value);}return value;}<IMG height=1 alt="" width=1 border=0 name=s_i_msnbcom>
© 2005 MSNBC.com

var url=location.href;var i=url.indexOf('/did/') + 1;if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('/print/1/') + 1;}if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('&print=1');}if(i>0){url = url.substring(0,i);document.write('URL: '+url+'

');if(window.print){window.print()}else{alert('To print his page press Ctrl-P on your keyboard \nor choose print from your browser or device after clicking OK');}}URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/)

RBA
07-11-2005, 04:57 PM
Today's WH press conference. Is the "liberal" media back?

QUESTION: Does the president stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in a leak of the name of a CIA operative?
MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked related to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point.

And as Iíve previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it.

The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we werenít going to comment on it while it is ongoing.

QUESTION: I actually wasnít talking about any investigation.

But in June of 2004, the president said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak to the press about information. I just wanted to know: Is that still his position?

MCCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and thatís why I said that our policy continues to be that weíre not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium.

The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium.

MCCLELLAN: And so thatís why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation ó or questions related to it.

QUESTION: Scott, if I could point out: Contradictory to that statement, on September 29th of 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one to have said that if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired.
And then, on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation, when the president made his comments that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved, so why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now youíve suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, Weíre not going to comment on an ongoing investigation?

MCCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.
And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. And thatís something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow.
And thatís why weíre continuing to follow that approach and that policy.
Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And, at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.

QUESTION: So could I just ask: When did you change your mind to say that it was OK to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now itís not?

MCCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terryís question at the beginning. There came a point, when the investigation got under way, when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be ó or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing.
I think thatís the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.

QUESTION: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I donít think you should read anything into it other than: Weíre going to continue not to comment on it while itís ongoing.

QUESTION: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, Iíve gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this ?

QUESTION: Do you stand by that statement?

MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, weíre not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.

QUESTION: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that youíre going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow youíve decided not to talk.
Youíve got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?

MCCLELLAN: Iím well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigationÖ

QUESTION: (inaudible) when itís appropriate and when itís inappropriate?

MCCLELLAN: If youíll let me finish.

QUESTION: No, youíre not finishing. Youíre not saying anything.
You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilsonís wife. So donít you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didnít he?

MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

QUESTION: Do you think people will accept that, what youíre saying today?

MCCLELLAN: Again, Iíve responded to the question.

QUESTION: Youíre in a bad spot here, ScottÖ
(LAUGHTER)
Ö because after the investigation began ó after the criminal investigation was under way ó you said, October 10th, 2003, I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this, from that podium. Thatís after the criminal investigation began.

Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation.

MCCLELLAN: No, thatís not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that.
We know each other very well. And it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation.

And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.

I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, Iím just not going to do that.

QUESTION: So youíre now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you havenít.

MCCLELLAN: Again, youíre continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and Iím just not going to respond to them.

QUESTION: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?

MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.

QUESTION: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

QUESTION: Well, we are going to keep asking them.
When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilsonís wife in the decision to send him to Africa?

MCCLELLAN: Iíve responded to the questions.

QUESTION: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had beenÖ

MCCLELLAN: Iíve responded to your questions.

QUESTION: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the presidentís word that anybody who was involved will be let go?

MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

QUESTION: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Roveís lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here?

MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while itís ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.

QUESTION: Scott, thereís a difference between commenting on an investigation and taking an actionÖ

MCCLELLAN: (inaudible)

QUESTION: Can I finish, please?

MCCLELLAN: Iíll come back to you in a minute.

QUESTION: Scott, (inaudible) president spoke about war on terrorism and, also, according to India Globe report there is bombings in London and also bombings in India. And at both places, Al Qaida was involved.

According to the India Globe and press reports, Pakistani television said that Osama bin Laden is now alive and they had spoken with him. And his group is (inaudible) terrorism around the globe is concerned.

Well, now, the major bombings after 9/11 took place in London and (inaudible) fighting against terrorism is concerned.

Where do we stand now? Really, where do we go from London as far as terrorism is concerned? How far can we go after Osama bin Laden now to catch him, because heís still in Pakistan?

MCCLELLAN: What occurred in London is a grim reminder that we are at war on terrorism. We are waging a comprehensive war on terrorism.

You heard the president talk earlier today to the FBI personnel and others who were at Quantico. And the president talked about our global war on terrorism. He talked about our strategy for taking the fight to the enemy, staying on the offensive, and working to spread freedom and democracy to defeat the ideology of hatred that terrorists espouse.

And the president pointed back to the 20th century. He pointed out that in World War II, freedom prevailed over fascism and Nazism. And in the Cold War, freedom prevailed over communism.

MCCLELLAN: Freedom is a powerful force for defeating an ideology such as the one that the terrorists espouse. And thatís why itís so important to continue working to advance freedom and democracy in the broader Middle East. And thatís what we will continue to do.

And the president also talked about the great progress weíve made at home to protect the home front.

The families and friends of those who lost their lives in London continue to be in our thoughts and prayers. We know what itís like to be attacked on our own soil.

And thatís why the president made a decision that we were going to take the fight to the enemy to try to disrupt plots and prevent attacks from happening in the first place. And thatís exactly what we are doing.

But weíre also going to work with the free world to support the advance of freedom and democracy in a dangerous region of the world. For too long we ignored what was going on in the Middle East. We accepted and tolerated dictatorships in exchange for peace and stability, and we got neither.

As the president said, free nations are peaceful societies. And thatís why itís so important that we continue to support the advance of freedom, because thatís how you ultimately defeat the ideology of hatred and oppression that terrorists espouse.

QUESTION: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?

MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And youíve heard my response on this.

QUESTION: So youíre not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff?

MCCLELLAN: Youíre asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then Iím simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation.

QUESTION: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Roveís portfolio to be altered in any way?

MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions. QUESTION: A secret British memo says plans under way for a significant troop withdrawal from Iraq early next year. Does the president agree with those plans? And even though he doesnít want to give an exit dateÖ

MCCLELLAN: Who has a plan? Iím sorry.

QUESTION: A secret British memo says plans are under way for a significant troop withdrawal from Iraq early next year. Does the president agree with those plans? And even though he doesnít want to give an exit date, is there White House and Pentagon pressure to draw down U.S. troop levels in Iraq as soon as possible?

MCCLELLAN: I think youíre referring to reports of a British memo talking about a reduction in troop forces.

First of all, the military always plans for all contingencies. And thatís something our military is always looking at: What are the various contingencies and how do we meet our commitments and complete the mission?

The presidentís made it clear that we are going to complete the mission and then our troops will return home with the honor that they deserve.

The president always looks to his commanders on the ground to make assessments in terms of what troops level are needed.

And the commanders on the ground will have the troops that they need to complete the mission. But the commanders have said that that will be based on the conditions on the ground; it will be based on circumstances on the ground. So youíre always looking at the circumstances on the ground.

Now, one part of our strategy for the victory in Iraq is to train and equip the Iraqi security forces. As we stand up the Iraqi forces, we will stand down coalition and American forces.

And the president talked about that again today. Thatís part of our two-track strategy for succeeding in Iraq.

And what youíre seeing now is that the number of Iraqi forces that are trained and equipped continues to go up. They are the largest contingent providing for security in Iraq. And we continue to expand those forces.

But not only are we expanding the numbers, weíre strengthening their capability. And the commanders have talked about that as well.

So thereís good progress being made there. The president referenced some of that in this remarks today.

QUESTION: Thereís a difference between commenting publicly on an action and taking action in response to it.

Newsweek put out a story, an e-mail saying that Karl Rove passed national security information on to a reporter that outed a CIA officer. Now, are you saying that the president is not taking any action in response to that? Because I presume that the prosecutor did not ask you not to take action and that if he did you still would not necessarily abide by that; that the president is free to respond to news reports, regardless of whether thereís an investigation or not.

So are you saying that heís not going to do anything about this until the investigation is fully over and done with?

MCCLELLAN: Well, I think the president has previously spoken to this.

This continues to be an ongoing criminal investigation.

MCCLELLAN: No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.

And weíre just not going to have more to say on it until that investigation is complete.

QUESTION: But you acknowledged that he is free, as president of the United States, to take whatever action he wants to in response to a credible report that a member of his staff leaked information. He is free to take action if he wants to.

MCCLELLAN: Again, youíre asking questions relating to an ongoing investigation, and I think Iíve responded to it.

QUESTION: Since President William Howard Taft became chief justice after his presidency, you would not rule out the presidentís nominating former law school professor Bill Clinton to the Supreme Court, would you? And if you wouldnít, we can report that President Clinton is under consideration, canít we?

MCCLELLAN: Well, thatís the first time Iíve heard that name suggested. I know there are a lot of names being suggested out there and you know that Iím not going to get into speculating about any particular names.

QUESTION: Considering the widespread interest and the absolutely frantic Democrat reaction to Karl Roveís excellent speech to conservatives last month, does the president hope that Karl will give a lot more speeches?

MCCLELLAN: He continues to give speeches.

He was traveling this weekend talking about the importance of strengthening Social Security. And heís continued to go out and give speeches.

Let me back up, though. You brought up the Supreme Court, and I would like to update you in terms of where we are in terms of consultations with the Senate, because the White House consultations have been wide and deep with the United States Senate.

I think you heard Senator Hatch yesterday talk about how in his 29 years in the United States Senate he has not seen anything like this when it comes to the level of consultation that is going on. It is unprecedented, in his words ó and heís certainly been around the Senate for a long time ó to see the type of consultations that go on. But we have reached out to more than 60 senators now and we have actively consulted with most of those. We are continuing those outreach calls and meetings to listen to what senators have to say and hear what their views are.

The president has reached out himself.

MCCLELLAN: The president looks forward to meting tomorrow with four distinguished leaders in the Senate. He will be listening to what their views are. The president is not prejudging anything. He wants to hear what their views are and hear what they have to say as we move forward on a Supreme Court nominee.

The president welcomes people suggesting names. Thatís part of the consultation process. But not only are we going to consult before the nomination is made, but weíll continue to consult once the nomination is made.

Weíve also consulted with more than half of the Democratic Conference in the United States Senate. Weíve spoken with every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

And we are continuing that outreach as we speak. A number of White House staffers have been reaching out to individual members, and the president is going to be sitting down and meeting with those four leaders tomorrow.

QUESTION: What does he think of Specter suggesting OíConnor as chief?

MCCLELLAN: There are going to be a lot of suggestions made. Iím just not going to get into speculating about potential nominees.

The president takes this responsibility very seriously, and thatís why he is going through a deliberate and thorough process. Thatís why he has instructed us to reach out to senators and get their views and hear what they have to say about a potential nominee.

The president hopes that we can move forward in a dignified and civilized way. You heard him express that. Itís important to elevate the discourse as we move forward.

The American people want this nomination process to be something that we can all be proud of. And the president is going to select a nominee who meets the criteria that he outlined. That is someone of high intellect, someone of integrity, someone of great legal ability, and someone who will faithfully interpret our Constitution and our laws and not try to make law from the bench.

QUESTION: Will the president discuss his names with Democrats as well and get their thoughts on his names?

QUESTION: Scott, what was the presidentís interaction today with Karl Rove? Did they discuss this current situation?

And understanding that Karl Rove was the architect of the presidentís reelection (OFF-MIKE) how important is Karl Rove to this administration?

MCCLELLAN: Again, this is coming at it fromÖ

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

MCCLELLAN: This is still coming at the same question relating to reports about an ongoing investigation. And I think Iíve responded toÖ

QUESTION: Who is Karl Rove as it relates to this administration?

MCCLELLAN: Do you have questions on another topic?

QUESTION: No, no, no, no. Who is Karl Rove as it relates to this current administration?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate the question. I think Iíve responded.

QUESTION: Is the president going to make any outreach to conservative groups on the Supreme Court nominee and listen to their point of view at all?

MCCLELLAN: Well, we are listening to what others have to say, not only the United States Senate, but outside as well. And there are a lot of people expressing their views right now.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

MCCLELLAN: I wouldnít try to label anything.

QUESTION: Scott, I think youíre getting this barrage today in part because it is now clear that 21 months ago you were up at this podium saying something that we now know to be demonstrably false.

Now, are you concerned that in setting the record straight today that this could undermine the credibility of the other things you say from the podium?

MCCLELLAN: Again, Iím going to be happy to talk about this at the appropriate time.

You and everybody in this room ó or most people in this room, I should say ó know me very well, and they know the type of person that I am. And Iím confident in our relationship that we have.

But I will be glad to talk about this at the appropriate time, and thatís once the investigation is complete. Iím not going to get into commenting based on reports or anything of that nature.

QUESTION: Scott, at this point are we to consider what you said previously, when you were talking about this ó that youíre still standing by that or are those all inoperative at this point? MCCLELLAN: Again, youíre still trying to come at this from a different angle, and Iíve responded to it.

QUESTION: Are you standing by what you said previously?

MCCLELLAN: Youíve heard my response.

QUESTION: The six-party talks are finally to be resumed on coming July 27th. The United States policy has been to demand complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement of nuclear weapons by North Korea to ensure nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.

MCCLELLAN: Right.

QUESTION: If North Korea does not agree with that, what would happen to the six-party talks?

MCCLELLAN: Well, first of all, we are pleased that North Korea is coming back to the talks. The five parties put a proposal on the table, and we believe itís now time to make progress on what we outlined.

MCCLELLAN: Itís important for North Korea to return to the talks prepared to talk in a serious way about how to move forward on that proposal.

The goal is not for North Korea to come back to the talks. The goal is a denuclearized peninsula. Thatís a goal that we all share.

And we need to make progress toward that goal. Thatís why itís important that when North Korea comes back that they are prepared to respond to the proposal and move forward in a serious way to make progress toward that goal.

In the discussions recently with North Korea, they have expressed a commitment to a denuclearized peninsula, in making progress toward that goal. These meetings or this upcoming six-party talks is a way to move forward toward that goal. And we want to move forward in a serious way.

QUESTION: By the way, there are reports that the United States would offer some new incentives to North Korea. Will you tell us, what is the contents of theÖ

MCCLELLAN: I think any such impression is wrong.

We have put a proposal on the table along with the other four parties in the talks. That is a proposal that was ó itís a serious proposal. It was put on the table by the five parties for North Korea to consider and respond to.

Now North Korea is committed to coming back to the talks with a date certain. And when they come back later this month, we want them to be prepared to talk in a serious way about how to move forward on that proposal.

Thatís the proposal that is on the table. It was a proposal that was outlined to North Korea in the last round of talks over a year ago by the other five parties.

QUESTION: When the leak investigation is completed, does the president believe it might be important for his credibility, the credibility of the White House, to release all the information voluntarily that was submitted as part of the investigation, so the American public could see what transpired inside the White House at the time?

MCCLELLAN: This is an investigation being overseen by a special prosecutor.

MCCLELLAN: And I think those are questions best directed to the special prosecutor.

Again, this is an ongoing matter. Iím just not going to get into commenting on it further at this time.

At the appropriate time, when itís complete, then Iíll be glad to talk about it at that point.

QUESTION: Have you or the White House considered whether that would be optimal to release as much information and make it as openÖ

MCCLELLAN: Itís the same type of question. Youíre asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation and Iím not going to do that.

QUESTION: Iíd like you to talk about the communications strategies just a little bit there.

MCCLELLAN: Understood. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and thatís what he expects people in the White House to do.

QUESTION: And he would like to do that when it is concluded, cooperate fully withÖ

MCCLELLAN: Again, Iíve already responded.

QUESTION: Scott, who in the investigation made this request of the White House not to comment further about the investigation? Was it Mr. Fitzgerald? Did he make a request of you specifically?

MCCLELLAN: You can direct those questions to the special prosecutors. I think probably more than one individual whoís involved in overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference that we not get into commenting on the investigation while itís ongoing.

I think we all want to see the prosecutors get to the bottom of this matter. The president wants to see the prosecutors get to the bottom of this matter. And the way to help them do that is to not get into commenting on it while it is ongoing.

QUESTION: Was the request made of you or of whom in the White House?

MCCLELLAN: I already responded to these questions. QUESTION: According to todayís Gallup poll, 62 percent of the American people believe that a terrorist attack like the one we saw in London could happen here.

In the presidentís speech today, we havenít heard anything new. What is the plan, exactly, to protect the American people?

MCCLELLAN: Itís exactly what he outlined in this remarks earlier today. Itís a comprehensive strategy. We are working on multiple fronts to protect the American people.

As he said, the best way to defend the American people is to stay on the offense and take the fight to the enemy. And thatís exactly what we are doing.

You see, the terrorists have been carrying out attacks for years. They felt that the civilized world would only respond in a very limited way.

We saw the attacks back in Ď83 on the Marine barracks in Lebanon. We saw the attack on the World Trade Center back in 1993. We saw the attacks on our embassies back in Ď98. They certainly carried out attacks in other parts of the civilized world as well.

The president saw the attacks of September 11th and said: We are going to take the fight to the enemy.

MCCLELLAN: Weíre going to wage a comprehensive war and we are going to see it through. The enemy will be defeated.

And the way we will ultimately defeat the enemy is to defeat their hateful ideology. And you do that by spreading freedom because free societies, as the president said.

QUESTION: In your dealings with the special counsel, have you consulted a personal attorney?

MCCLELLAN: Again, Iím just not going to say anything further. I expressed all Iím going to say on this matter from this podium.

QUESTION: How does the uncertainty over Chief Justice Rehnquist affect the presidentís selection of replacement for Justice OíConnor?

MCCLELLAN: How does the speculation about another vacancyÖ

QUESTION: The uncertainty about Chief Justice Rehnquist affect the process?

MCCLELLAN: Well, the president is moving forward to fill the vacancy. He spent time on his trip looking over the background materials of potential nominees and some of their key rulings or decisions.

The president has been talking with senior staff. I know he visited with Andy Card about it on the trip as well. And talking to them about potential nominees in the process for moving forward to name a nominee.

We are prepared for additional vacancies if they would occur. This is something that we have prepared for for quite some time at the White House. But Iím not aware of any announcement thatís been made on an additional vacancy at this point.

QUESTION: Scott, on Voting Rights reauthorization, I understand the president is for Voting Rights reauthorization, but he still wants to study portions of it.
It sounds kind of contradictory. Could you explain what that means?

MCCLELLAN: Sure. As you point out, itís up for reauthorization in 2006. The president does support reauthorization. That process is getting under way in Congress. And as it works its way through Congress, the White House will look at and consider any improvements to strengthen it.
And thatís really where it stands at this point.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) can strengthen it, what tweak is he thinking of right now?

MCCLELLAN: Well, I think thatís something weíll look at.
There are suggestions that, sure, people are going to make as we move forward and weíll look at and consider those suggestions.

The president also met with the Congressional Black Caucus and said he would take their views into account as we move forward as well.

Thank you.

registerthis
07-11-2005, 05:12 PM
Thanks RBA. That's incredible...FINALLY the press is growing a spine on some of these issues. I hope they don't let it die--keep up the pressure.

Do you have any references as to who those journalists were who were asking the questions?

Redsfaithful
07-11-2005, 05:18 PM
Wow. I can't believe the press collectively grew a backbone. I'm truly stunned and amazed.

RBA
07-11-2005, 05:22 PM
Do you have any references as to who those journalists were who were asking the questions?

If you can access CSPAN.org they have the video of today's WH press conference.

M2
07-11-2005, 05:23 PM
It'll be interesting to see if they keep the backbone in place. Probably the next question to ask is whether the President has obtained personal legal counsel pertaining to the ongoing investigation of the leak.

Redsfaithful
07-11-2005, 05:23 PM
Video:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/07/11.html#a3868

You can download it there.

pedro
07-11-2005, 05:24 PM
That'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Thanks RBA.

RBA
07-11-2005, 05:25 PM
Whoops, I thought I posted this in the Karl Rove thread. Well, it works here too.

Falls City Beer
07-11-2005, 05:44 PM
Probably the next question to ask is whether the President has obtained personal legal counsel pertaining to the ongoing investigation of the leak.

Would they have to answer that? I'm asking because I don't know.

registerthis
07-11-2005, 06:03 PM
Would they have to answer that? I'm asking because I don't know.
"The President nor anyone in his office are prepared to issue a statement in response to an inquiry concerning an ongoing investigation."

Falls City Beer
07-11-2005, 06:07 PM
"The President nor anyone in his office are prepared to issue a statement in response to an inquiry concerning an ongoing investigation."

Right. I guess I ask that not because I don't expect obfuscation; rather, as a matter of principle. That is, is that some kind of privileged information.

registerthis
07-11-2005, 06:10 PM
Right. I guess I ask that not because I don't expect obfuscation; rather, as a matter of principle. That is, is that some kind of privileged information.
He's not obliged to discuss it, no, but if Bush is ever subpoenad to offer testimony his legal counsel would be a matter of public record. But a lawyer is not required to confirm that they even represent a client until it becomes public record by way of a court motion filing, or something similar.

M2
07-11-2005, 06:23 PM
Would they have to answer that? I'm asking because I don't know.

I'm not sure what the rules on that are. Bush probably has to file that information somewhere, perhaps with the prosecutor assigned to the case. If he is meeting with someone who might qualify as private counsel, it should be on his schedule, which is public info.

As for the Press Secretary, obviously he's got the latitude to lie and obfusticate as he sees fit. Yet when someone's throwing up a stone wall the best way to bust through it is to ask the most uncomfortable question you can think of and have the story become about the non-answer it draws. It looks real bad when the Head Flak doesn't deny that the President is circling his wagons in anticipation of a legal onslaught. McClellan would know this the instant he gets the question. Perhaps Bush isn't doing that yet, in which case McClellan may feel compelled to give his boss some cover. If he does that then the press gets on his jugular about only discussing details of the ongoing investigation which are politically expedient for the White House. If he passes on the question and Bush hasn't done it yet, he's probably in line for a closed-door thumping later in the day and it becomes that much harder for Bush to obtain counsel under the radar when the time comes for it (and that time will come in this matter because regardless of whether he's done anything wrong, he's going to have himself and his staff embroiled in a serious legal matter). If he passes on the question and Bush has sought counsel, the buzzards will start picking at the carcass.

It's amazing what you can unleash just by asking the right question.

Falls City Beer
07-11-2005, 06:25 PM
I'm not sure what the rules on that are. Bush probably has to file that information somewhere, perhaps with the prosecutor assigned to the case. If he is meeting with someone who might qualify as private counsel, it should be on his schedule, which is public info.

As for the Press Secretary, obviously he's got the latitude to lie and obfusticate as he sees fit. Yet when someone's throwing up a stone wall the best way to bust through it is to ask the most uncomfortable question you can think of and have the story become about the non-answer it draws. It looks real bad when the Head Flak doesn't deny that the President is circling his wagons in anticipation of a legal onslaught. McClellan would know this the instant he gets the question. Perhaps Bush isn't doing that yet, in which case McClellan may feel compelled to give his boss some cover. If he does that then the press gets on his jugular about only discussing details of the ongoing investigation with are politically expedient for the White House. If he passes on the question and Bush hasn't done it yet, he's probably in line for a closed-door thumping later in the day and it becomes that much harder for Bush to obtain counsel under the radar when the time comes for it (and that time will come in this matter because regardless of whether he's done anything wrong, he's going to have himself and his staff embroiled in a serious legal matter). If he passes on the question and Bush has sought counsel, the buzzards will start picking at the carcass.

It's amazing what you can unleash just by asking the right question.

I agree. This is no time for the press to treat this delicately.

M2
07-11-2005, 06:29 PM
I agree. This is no time for the press to treat this delicately.

Indelicacy used to be its best feature.

rdiersin
07-11-2005, 06:30 PM
EDIT

Falls City Beer
07-11-2005, 06:36 PM
Indelicacy used to be its best feature.

Yep. And I agree as well that the right question is just as much a matter of good strategy as it is a necessary departure from propriety.

registerthis
07-11-2005, 07:19 PM
Whoo boy, if you watch the video of the press conference it doesn't look good for Bush at all. McClellan looked VERY uncomfortable answering the questions, and the reporters were relentless. (Why they weren't this vigilant duringthe lead-up to the Iraq war is another issue, but whatever...)

I believe Rove either leaked her name directly, or pointed the reporter to a place where such information coul dbe obtained. I hope it takes Rove down and I hope there is a full investigation into the White House's role in this cover up.

And I want to see the reaction of the neocons and Bush defenders who were so gung-ho about the Lewinsky investigation. If it is discovered that the White house played an active role covering up the actions of Rove when he leaked the CIA operative's name, how could it not be grounds for impeachment proceedings?

Redsfaithful
07-11-2005, 07:27 PM
I'm reading in certain places that Rove is to be indicted this week. Total unsubstantiated internet rumor mongering from people claiming to have inside info, but we'll see.

Jaycint
07-11-2005, 08:31 PM
Reg, RF and RBA, how did you guys get on the White House press corps? Haha, just kiddin... ;)

If Rove is guilty, which is looking more and more likely then I hope he gets everything he has coming to him.

pedro
07-11-2005, 08:33 PM
I have to say I really dislike McClellan. Makes me long for the "good old days" of Ari Fleischer.

Mutaman
07-11-2005, 09:14 PM
I'm reading in certain places that Rove is to be indicted this week. Total unsubstantiated internet rumor mongering from people claiming to have inside info, but we'll see.

From your lips to God's ears. Hope his cellmate is a Republican.

KittyDuran
07-11-2005, 10:38 PM
Reg, RF and RBA, how did you guys get on the White House press corps? Haha, just kiddin... ;)

If Rove is guilty, which is looking more and more likely then I hope he gets everything he has coming to him.I have a feeling that if Rove is guilty he's going to bring other people down with him... He's not going to take the fall himself and he knows too much about this administration. Sometimes in politics you can have a person who is both loved, hated and feared for their power and knowledge. What was the famous saying that LBJ said about J. Edgar Hoover when someone suggested that the President replace him? "Better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in."

This administration will do anything within their powers to protect Rove. Some crisis will come up to take the public and especially the media off of this story. :(

Dom Heffner
07-12-2005, 01:14 AM
Whoo boy, if you watch the video of the press conference it doesn't look good for Bush at all. McClellan looked VERY uncomfortable answering the questions, and the reporters were relentless. (Why they weren't this vigilant duringthe lead-up to the Iraq war is another issue, but whatever...)

Allow those who missed it to see just how good it was:

Q: Does the President stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak of a name of a CIA operative?

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked relating to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point. And as I've previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it. The President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren't going to comment on it while it is ongoing.

Q: Excuse me, but I wasn't actually talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the President said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak, to press of information. And I just want to know, is that still his position?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that's why I said that our policy continues to be that we're not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium. The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium. And so that's why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation, or questions related to it.

Q: Scott, if I could -- if I could point out, contradictory to that statement, on September 29th, 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one who said, if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation is when the President made his comment that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you've suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, "We're not going to comment on an ongoing investigation"?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. That's something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow. And that's why we're continuing to follow that approach and that policy.

Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.

Q: So could I just ask, when did you change your mind to say that it was okay to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it's not?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry's question at the beginning. There came a point when the investigation got underway when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be their -- or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing. I think that's the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.

Q: Scott, can I ask you this; did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to an ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than we're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

Q: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this" -- do you stand by that statement?

MR. McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time, as well.

Q: Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --

Q Why are you choosing when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MR. McCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish --

Q: No, you're not finishing -- you're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke out about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation? Was he involved, or was he not? Because, contrary to what you told the American people, he did, indeed, talk about his wife, didn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: David, there will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

Q: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

Go ahead, Terry.

Q: Well, you're in a bad spot here, Scott, because after the investigation began, after the criminal investigation was underway, you said -- October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby, as I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this." From that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began. Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization, Terry, and I think you are well aware of that. We know each other very well, and it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation. And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this, because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point, I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

Q: Do you recall when you were asked --

Q: Wait, wait -- so you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore, and since then, you haven't?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation, and I'm just not going to respond any further.

Q: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you peg down a date?

MR. McCLELLAN: Back at that time period.

Q: Well, then the President commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

Go ahead, Dave.

Q: We are going to keep asking them. When did the President learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with the President -- with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife and the decision to send --

MR. McCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.

Q: When did the President learn that Karl Rove had --

MR. McCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions, Dick.

Go ahead.

Q: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the President's word that anybody who was involved would be let go?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

Q: And a follow-up. Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the Deputy Chief of Staff?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.

Q: Scott, there's a difference between commenting on an investigation and taking an action --

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Goyal.

Q: Can I finish, please?

MR. McCLELLAN: You can come -- I'll come back to you in a minute ...

Carl, go ahead. I'll come to you, David, in a second.

Q: Does the President continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this.

Q: So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the President has confidence in his Deputy Chief of Staff?

MR. McCLELLAN: Carl, you're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation. And I would not read anything into it other than I'm simply not going to comment on an ongoing --

Q: Has there been -- has there been any change --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- investigation.

Q: Has there been any change or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions...

Now I'll go back to David. Go ahead.

Q: There's a difference between commenting publicly on an action and taking action in response to it. Newsweek put out a story, an e-mail saying that Karl Rove passed national security information on to a reporter that outed a CIA officer. Now, are you saying that the President is not taking any action in response to that? Because I presume that the prosecutor did not ask you not to take action, and that if he did, you still would not necessarily abide by that; that the President is free to respond to news reports, regardless of whether there's an investigation or not. So are you saying that he's not going to do anything about this until the investigation is fully over and done with?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think the President has previously spoken to this. This continues to be an ongoing criminal investigation. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. And we're just not going to have more to say on it until that investigation is complete.

Q: But you acknowledge that he is free, as President of the United States, to take whatever action he wants to in response to a credible report that a member of his staff leaked information. He is free to take action if he wants to.

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're asking questions relating to an ongoing investigation, and I think I've responded to it...

Q: Scott, what was the President's interaction today with Karl Rove? Did they discuss this current situation? And understanding that Karl Rove was the architect of the President's win for the second term in the Oval Office, how important is Karl Rove to this administration currently?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, this is coming at it from --

Q: It has nothing to do with what you just said.

MR. McCLELLAN: This is still coming at the same question relating to reports about an ongoing investigation, and I think I've responded to it.

Q: Who is Karl Rove as it relates to this administration?

MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have questions on another topic?

Q: No, no, no, no. Who is Karl Rove as it relates to this current administration?

MR. McCLELLAN: I appreciate the question, April. I think I've responded...

Q: Scott, I think you're [receiving a] barrage today in part because we -- it is now clear that 21 months ago, you were up at this podium saying something that we now know to be demonstratively false. Now, are you concerned that in not setting the record straight today that this could undermine the credibility of the other things you say from the podium?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I'm going to be happy to talk about this at the appropriate time. Dana, you all -- you and everybody in this room, or most people in this room, I should say, know me very well and they know the type of person that I am. And I'm confident in our relationship that we have. But I will be glad to talk about this at the appropriate time, and that's once the investigation is complete. I'm not going to get into commenting based on reports or anything of that nature.

Q: Scott, at this point, are we to consider what you've said previously, when you were talking about this, that you're still standing by that, or are those all inoperative at this point?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're still trying to come at this from a different angle, and I've responded to it.

Q: Are you standing by what you said previously?

MR. McCLELLAN: You've heard my response...

Q: When the leak investigation is concluded, does the President believe it might be important for his credibility, the credibility of the White House, to release all the information voluntarily that was submitted as part of the investigation, so the American public could see what the -- what transpired inside the White House at the time?

MR. McCLELLAN: This is an investigation being overseen by a special prosecutor. And I think those are questions best directed to the special prosecutor. Again, this is an ongoing matter; I'm just not going to get into commenting on it further at this time. At the appropriate time, when it's complete, then I'll be glad to talk about it at that point.

Q: Have you in the White House considered whether that would be optimum to release as much information and make it as open a process --

MR. McCLELLAN: It's the same type of question. You're asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation, and I'm not going to do that.

Q: I'm actually talking about the communication strategy, which is a little different.

MR. McCLELLAN: Understood. The President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And that's what he expects people in the White House to do.

Q: And he would like to that when it is concluded, cooperate fully with --

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I've already responded.

Go ahead.

Q: Scott, was it -- who in the investigation made this request of the White House not to comment further about the investigation? Was it Mr. Fitzgerald? Did he make the request of you --

MR. McCLELLAN: I mean, you can ask -- you can direct those questions to the special prosecutors. I think probably more than one individual who's involved in overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. I think we all want to see the prosecutors get to the bottom of this matter. The President wants to see the prosecutors get to the bottom of this matter. And the way to help them do that is to not get into commenting on it while it is ongoing.

Q Was the request made of you, or of whom in the White House?

MR. McCLELLAN: I already responded to these questions...

Q: Yes, in your dealings with the special counsel, have you consulted a personal attorney?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I'm just not going to say anything further. I expressed all I'm going to say on this matter from this podium.

registerthis
07-12-2005, 10:50 AM
Reg, RF and RBA, how did you guys get on the White House press corps? Haha, just kiddin... ;)
Jay, I wouldn't even be let in the door! ;)


If Rove is guilty, which is looking more and more likely then I hope he gets everything he has coming to him.
I don't think you're alone in feeling that way...it's not just libs and dems, I've heard a lot of conservatives and repub's say they wish Rove would exit the White House.

What they may not realize is that if Rove wasn't there, most likely Bush wouldn't be either!

RBA
07-12-2005, 11:00 AM
Jay, I wouldn't even be let in the door! ;)

Yup, we don't have the right credentials. We never worked for a male escort service or had our own male on male websites. Well, I can speak for myself at least. ;)

registerthis
07-12-2005, 02:39 PM
Well, McClellan got hammered again today.

At some point, the administration is going to have to face the music on this issue. They're not going to be able to hide behind the "we don't want to impede an ongoing investigation by issuing comments" nonsense forever. The longer the WHite House stays silent, the worse it looks for Rove and the Bush administration. And, let's be clear: if Rove TRULY had nothing to do with leaking the CIA operative's name, the White House would be issuing statements like gangbusters. The fact that they have suddenly developed this profound sense of respect for the sanctity of an investigation that has been going on for nearly two years indicates that Rove is, indeed, guilty. And the White House lied about it.

Sweetstop
07-12-2005, 02:51 PM
Ahhh...lessons never learned. W must not have read "All The President's Men"....

M2
07-12-2005, 03:02 PM
Ahhh...lessons never learned. W must not have read "All The President's Men"....

I'm guessing he read it and lamented that the good guys lost.

On a more serious note, I really want the Bushies to get this right and cut it off before it hits the presidential level. My fear is that he's already up to his ears in this mess and now the only defense is a stonewall.

Outing a CIA operative and then covering it up inside the Oval Office is indefensible. Whack the guilty parties and save this nation from a nightmare already.

RBA
07-12-2005, 03:25 PM
Fox News to the rescue.....



Early in the probe, President Bush said those responsible would be held accountable.

"If there is a leak 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," Bush said in September 2003.

Bush did not use the word "fired" to describe the fate of the leaker, but some reporters and Democrats seem to expect that response.

"The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration, his administration. I trust they will follow through on this pledge," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162227,00.html

But as usual for Fox News the Facts say otherwise...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/2004061... (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040610-36.html)


Q Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?
THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --
Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

registerthis
07-12-2005, 04:01 PM
How does Fox News even pretend that they have a shred of credibility?

pedro
07-12-2005, 04:43 PM
How does Fox News even pretend that they have a shred of credibility?

I really don't think they are as much a news organization as they are "right wing opinion validators"

That's why I think it's so funny when some people call CNN "liberal media". Apparently a lot of people think that any critizism of the current administration is automatically an indicator of "leftist" tendencies.

It's really too bad. I think Fox "News" is one of the worst things that has happened to the American media in the last ten years.

rdiersin
07-12-2005, 04:46 PM
I really don't think they are as much a news organization as they are "right wing opinion validators"

That's why I think it's so funny when some people call CNN "liberal media". Apparently a lot of people think that any critizism of the current administration is automatically an indicator of "leftist" tendencies.

It's really too bad. I think Fox "News" is one of the worst things that has happened to the American media in the last ten years.

I agree, sort of. CNN and Fox are the worst things that has happened to the American media. Their sensationalism has become disgusting. I find CNN a little better than Fox, but they both are bad. America just needs to pick up a newspaper every once in awhile. But, that's just MO.

Rojo
07-12-2005, 04:49 PM
What's funny is that this thread has become an amen chorus. No Republican wants to defend this (assuming Rove is guilty).

Bush' reelection was the GOP's supernova. The blackhole is now swirling.

pedro
07-12-2005, 04:51 PM
I agree, sort of. CNN and Fox are the worst things that has happened to the American media. Their sensationalism has become disgusting. I find CNN a little better than Fox, but they both are bad. America just needs to pick up a newspaper every once in awhile. But, that's just MO.

CNN has certainly dumbed down over the last few years and I'm not too enamored of them either.

Unfortunately, print media has realy gone down hill as well, and don't get me started on ClearChannel.

I pretty much get my news from the sunday NY Times, PBS, and the BBC website. And RZ , of course. :)

rdiersin
07-12-2005, 04:54 PM
CNN has certainly dumbed down over the last few years and I'm not too enamored of them either.

Unfortunately, print media has realy gone down hill as well, and don't get me started on ClearChannel.

I pretty much get my news from the sunday NY Times, PBS, and the BBC website. And RZ , of course. :)

Really? I was in Portland a little over a month ago, and I thought your Oregonian was a nice paper. I didn't get to read it a lot, but what I read seemed ok. I agree though, I am a NY times, NPR, PBS person. I don't think there is a more balanced and informative news show than Jim Lehrer.

Chip R
07-12-2005, 04:55 PM
I wonder if the White House might cut a deal with Congress. The WH appoints a very moderate Supreme Court Justice(s) and in return Congress doesn't call for impeachment hearings.

pedro
07-12-2005, 04:57 PM
Really? I was in Portland a little over a month ago, and I thought your Oregonian was a nice paper. I didn't get to read it a lot, but what I read seemed ok. I agree though, I am a NY times, NPR, PBS person. I don't think there is a more balanced and informative news show than Jim Lehrer.

The Oregonian is OK. It's fairly balanced. It's just that so much of the non-local news these days is pulled from stock sources, that there really isn't anything in there that you don't get from other sources, except for local news. I read it a couple times a week, but really only for local issues.

pedro
07-12-2005, 04:59 PM
I wonder if the White House might cut a deal with Congress. The WH appoints a very moderate Supreme Court Justice(s) and in return Congress doesn't call for impeachment hearings.

Congress is going to have a tough time getting impeachment off the ground while the GOP is in control. And that's assuming that Bush is even implicated in this fiasco.

rdiersin
07-12-2005, 05:05 PM
Congress is going to have a tough time getting impeachment off the ground while the GOP is in control. And that's assuming that Bush is even implicated in this fiasco.

I don't know, I mean I think you are right, but if there is enough public outrage (which we have yet to see) I could see enough Republicans backing away from GW in order to stay in office. They know he won't be in office after 2008, but they are going to be fighting to stay in office for 2006.

RBA
07-12-2005, 05:06 PM
Congress is going to have a tough time getting impeachment off the ground while the GOP is in control. And that's assuming that Bush is even implicated in this fiasco.

Tim Russert on the Today Show this morning related that his republican friend told him if this had happened with a Democrat President in office, the hearings would of already started by now.

registerthis
07-12-2005, 05:09 PM
BTW... the "evidence" against Mr. Rove seems awful flimsy to me. But God forbid that I get in the middle of elitist-talk and a feeding frenzy. Have at it, boys. I'll wait for the news that Mr. Rove is cleared and read all the conspiracy theories here... with pleasure.
<bump>

CrackerJack
07-12-2005, 05:13 PM
Tim Russert on the Today Show this morning related that his republican friend told him if this had happened with a Democrat President in office, the hearings would of already started by now.


If repubs got as upset as they did over a president cheating on his wife, then you would think if someone on Clinton's staff did what Rove apparently did there'd be a million, middle-aged white man March on Washington!

But what will curtail the public fervor is that, one, people don't really care how corrupt GW Bush is as long as he's talking tough and fighting wars to appease American bloodlust over 9/11, and the fact the whole scenario came about as a result of him fabricating intelligence to support the Iraq invasion - which most hard-line right wingers supported and still do, no matter how flimsy the reasons were..."anything" would do, and they had no intention of letting a CIA agent stand in their way of their agenda.

pedro
07-12-2005, 05:13 PM
Tim Russert on the Today Show this morning related that his republican friend told him if this had happened with a Democrat President in office, the hearings would of already started by now.

I don't doubt it, considering this is much more serious IMO than the issues that led to the impeachment hearings for Clinton.

Jaycint
07-12-2005, 05:14 PM
What's funny is that this thread has become an amen chorus. No Republican wants to defend this (assuming Rove is guilty).




I don't get it, would the Dems on this board be defending Rove if he was a Democrat serving a Democratic president and this exact same situation occurred? I highly doubt it. Why would it be any different for the Conservatives on this board? If the guy did something reprehensible then he should be punished.

registerthis
07-12-2005, 05:16 PM
I don't get it, would the Dems on this board be defending Rove if he was a Democrat serving a Democratic president and this exact same situation occurred? I highly doubt it. Why would it be any different for the Conservatives on this board? If the guy did something reprehensible then he should be punished.
And if the White House intentionally covered up the story to keep it from leaking to the public...?

Jaycint
07-12-2005, 05:18 PM
And if the White House intentionally covered up the story to keep it from leaking to the public...?

Then they should pay the price too.

pedro
07-12-2005, 05:21 PM
I don't get it, would the Dems on this board be defending Rove if he was a Democrat serving a Democratic president and this exact same situation occurred? I highly doubt it. Why would it be any different for the Conservatives on this board? If the guy did something reprehensible then he should be punished.

I think some might. There are some bulldogs on both sides of the fence here. But as brilliant as Rove is, I don't think he inspires warmth in even his most ardent supporters.

RBA
07-12-2005, 05:24 PM
Then they should pay the price too.

For clarity sake, can you define the price?

registerthis
07-12-2005, 05:29 PM
Pay particular attention to the last line. The media has a very long memory...

(From today's press briefing)

Q Scott, some Democrats are calling for the revocation of Karl Rove's security clearance. Does the President see any need for that?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, I think there's a lot of discussion that's going on in the context of an ongoing investigation. This is based on some news reports that came out recently. I think you heard me talk about the importance of helping this investigation move forward. I don't think it's helpful for me from this podium to get into discussing what is an ongoing investigation. I think it's most helpful for me to not comment while that investigation continues. And these are all issues that some are trying to raise in the context of news reports. I don't think we should be prejudging the outcome of any investigation at this point.

Q But the issues of security clearance and criminal investigations are often on very separate tracks. So does the President see any reason, any necessity, at least in the interim, to revoke Karl Rove's security clearance?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, the President -- first of all, let me back up -- some of you asked a couple of questions about does the President still have confidence in particular individuals, specifically Karl Rove. I don't want to get into commenting on things in the context of an ongoing investigation. So let me step back and point out that 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. And in terms of security clearances, there are a number of people at the White House that have various levels of security clearance. And I'm confident that those individuals have the appropriate security clearance. I haven't gone around looking at what those security clearances are.

Q But, Scott, are you suggesting -- I think it's pretty clear to everybody at this point you don't want to comment on the investigation. But the President has also spoken about this when asked. So does the President --

MR. McCLELLAN: Spoken about?

Q Well, he has spoken about these questions that have come up as part of a leak investigation. So does he retain confidence in Karl Rove, specifically?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. Any individual who works here at the White House has the President's confidence. They wouldn't be working here if they didn't have the President's confidence. That's why I stepped back from this and talked about it in the broader context.

Now, these questions are coming up in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I stated long ago, you all will remember, that the investigation is continuing, I want to be helpful to the investigation, I don't want to jeopardize anything in that investigation, and that's why I made a decision and the White House made a decision quite some time ago that we weren't going to get into commenting on questions related to that investigation.

Q But isn't the difficulty that you have said to the public, dating back to 2003, affirmatively, Karl Rove is not involved, and now we have evidence to the contrary? So how do you reconcile those two things? How does the President reconcile those two things?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, if I were to get into discussing this, I would be getting into discussing an investigation that continues and could be prejudging the outcome of the investigation. I'm not going to do that from this podium. You do point out some statements that were made. I remember well the comments that were made. After that point, I also remember going and testifying in this investigation. I remember well individuals who are involved overseeing this investigation expressing their preference personally to me that we not get into discussing what is an ongoing investigation. I think that's the way to be most helpful as they move forward, and that's why I'm in the position that I am. I'm not going to get into jumping on every news report as the investigation continues and trying to comment on them, because I don't think that's helpful.

So I think you have to step back from any individual news story or individual reports. Let's let the investigation take place. I look forward to talking about some of these matters once the investigation is complete. I welcome the opportunity to talk about some of these questions, but I don't think it's appropriate to do so at this time.

Q Let's just -- just one final --

MR. McCLELLAN: And I think the American people can understand and appreciate that.

Q Well, we'll see. But I just have one final question on this. The question of whether a law has been broken, a crime committed, is a separate matter. You're not going to resolve that; that's for a grand jury to decide. But we know what the facts are. We know that Karl Rove spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife, referring to the fact that she worked at the Agency. You've heard Democrats who say that -- say today that alone was inappropriate conduct. What was Karl Rove trying to accomplish by having the conversation he did? And does the President think that it was fair of him to do that? Was it fair game?

MR. McCLELLAN: Now, that's a question related to an ongoing investigation. The investigation continues, David. I think you know that very well. I've responded to that question. And if I were to start commenting on news reports or things related to the investigation, I'm getting into prejudging the outcome of that investigation. I don't want to do that from this podium. Let's let the investigation take place, and let's let the investigators bring all the facts together and draw the conclusions that they draw, and then we will know the facts at that point.

Q But, Scott, there's a difference between what's legal and what's right. Is what Karl Rove did right?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I mean, you can state the obvious. I understand and appreciate that, and I appreciate you all. I know you all want to get to the bottom of this. I want to get to the bottom of it; the President has said no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than he does. We want to see it come to a successful conclusion. The best way to help the investigation come to a successful conclusion is for me not to get into discussing it from this podium. I don't think that --

Q Well, wait, wait, wait --

MR. McCLELLAN: Wait -- I don't think that helps advance the investigation.

Q All right, you say you won't discuss it, but the Republican National Committee and others working, obviously, on behalf of the White House, they put out this Wilson-Rove research and talking points, distributed to Republican surrogates, which include things like, Karl Rove discouraged a reporter from writing a false story. And then other Republican surrogates are getting information such as, Cooper -- the Time reporter -- called Rove on the pretense of discussing welfare reform. Bill Kristol on Fox News, a friendly news channel to you, said that the conversation lasted for two minutes and it was just at the end that Rove discussed this. So someone is providing this information. Are you, behind the scenes, directing a response to this story?

MR. McCLELLAN: You can talk to the RNC about what they put out. I'll let them speak to that. What I know is that the President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with that investigation, that means supporting the efforts by the investigators to come to a successful conclusion, and that means not commenting on it from this podium.

Q Well, if --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I understand your question.

Q Well, Fox News and other Republican surrogates are essentially saying that the conversation lasted for two minutes and that the subject was ostensibly welfare reform. They're getting that information from here, from Karl Rove.

MR. McCLELLAN: And again, you're asking questions that are related to news reports about an ongoing, continuing investigation. And you've had my response on that.

Q At the very least, though, Scott, could you say whether or not you stand by your statement --

MR. McCLELLAN: John, I'll come back to you if I can.

Q -- of September 29th, 2003, that it is simply not true that Karl Rove disclosed the identify of a CIA operative? Can you stand by that statement?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, I look forward to talking about this at some point, but it's not the appropriate time to talk about those questions while the investigation is continuing.

Q So should we take that as a yes or a no?

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Dick.

Q Can you explain why --

Q Scott, this was a statement you made, on the record, 21-months ago. You very confidently asserted to us and to the American people that Rove told you he had nothing to do with it. Can you stand by that statement now?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, and I responded to these questions yesterday.

Go ahead, Dick.

Q Can you explain why the President chose today to break with his usual practice of taking two questions from the American side at events with a foreign leader, and only taking one?

MR. McCLELLAN: Just last Friday, I think, with Prime Minister Blair, or Thursday, they did the same thing.

Q The practice in the Oval Office is to take two questions. I'm just curious why --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we did that last week with Prime Minister Blair, as well. You're going to have other opportunities to see him this week.

Q If he had responded to a question today about Karl Rove, would he have gone beyond your stance here of just not commenting?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you're going to have other opportunities to ask him questions. He takes questions on a fairly regular basis, Dick.

Q Let me -- let me just do what you did a few moments ago and step back from the context of the investigation to the President's agenda. Does Karl Rove, with all the attention being paid to him now, become a liability to the President, an impediment to his pushing his agenda?

MR. McCLELLAN: See, you're asking all these context in -- all these questions in the context of the news reports relating to an investigation --

Q I'm talking about it now in the larger sense of Rove being the Deputy Chief of Staff.

MR. McCLELLAN: We're continuing to move forward on our agenda, and the -- we're on the verge of accomplishing some very big things when it comes to the agenda. And --

Q But is Karl Rove an impediment now, with all this attention distracting from that push on your agenda?

MR. McCLELLAN: Everybody who is working here is helping us to advance the agenda, and that includes Karl in a very big way.

Q Has he apologized to you for telling you he is not involved?

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, I'm not going to get into any private discussions.

Q He put you on the spot. He put your credibility on the line.

MR. McCLELLAN: And, Helen, I appreciate you all wanting to move forward and find the facts relating to this investigation. I want to know all the facts relating to the investigation.

Q You people are on the record, one quote after another.

MR. McCLELLAN: The President wants to get to the bottom of it. And it's just not appropriate. If you'll remember back two years ago, or almost two years ago, I did draw a line and I said, we're just not going to get into commenting on --

Q You also made comments in defending Mr. Rove.

MR. McCLELLAN: We're just not going to get into commenting on an investigation that continues. And I think you've heard me explain why I'm not going to do that. I do want to talk about this --

Q Do you regret putting yourself out on a limb, Scott?

MR. McCLELLAN: I do want to talk about this, and we will talk about it once the investigation is complete.

Q Do you regret what you said in 2003?

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead.

Q Do you regret putting yourself so far out on a limb when you don't know the facts?

MR. McCLELLAN: David, you had your opportunity. I'll try to come back to you if I can, but I think I've responded to those questions.

Q Well, you haven't responded to that. Do you think you went too far two years ago?

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead.

Q Scott, for the first time on Capitol Hill, two day's conference -- on Kashmir is going on. But for the first time group is saying that they are showing the other side of the Kashmiris being brutalized and killing -- killed in Kashmir like Kashmiri -- Kashmiri Hindus. And several congressmen -- Congressman Wilson, and he said that he just came back from Cuba prison and talking with the prisoners and all that, and he said that those prisoners are there to stay because those are the one who killed 60,000 Kashmiri -- in India, and those are the ones who killed 9/11 -- or thousands in America and killing around the globe. So he said they are there to stay. But he said that now the time has come that India and U.S. should work together to fight against terrorism because common enemies are -- of the world's largest democracy and the world's oldest and richest democracy. Will the President agree with him or just what he said yesterday --

MR. McCLELLAN: We are working closely with India in the global war on terrorism. We're working closely with Pakistan in the global war on terrorism. And it's important that they continue to move forward on their dialogue to resolve issues surrounding Kashmir. And we continue to support their efforts and their dialogue that is ongoing. They've made some progress, and they're having more direct discussions relating to the region.

Q But Scott, the group has said --

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me -- let me keep going, Goyal. Go ahead. Or Ed, did you have something?

Q Does the White House have a credibility problem?

MR. McCLELLAN: Ed, these are all questions that you're bringing up in the context of an investigation that is ongoing --

Q I'm not asking about that.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it's clear that this is coming up in the context of news --

Q We could talk about WMDs, a whole range of issues.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- in the context of news reports. And I appreciate those questions. And I think you're trying to get at the specific news reports and wanting me to comment on those specific news reports and --

Q But they're news reports that have been confirmed by Karl Rove's attorney, Scott.

MR. McCLELLAN: John, you can keep jumping in, but I'm going to try to keep going to other people in this room, as well. And we can have constructive dialogue here, I think, but that's not the way to do it.

Q It's not my job to have a constructive dialogue, Scott. Sorry.

registerthis
07-12-2005, 05:30 PM
For clarity sake, can you define the price?
Well, surely he means impeachment. After all, if the previous President was impeached for lying about a blow job, then certainly the covering up of the intentional leaking of a covert CIA operative's name warrants similar considerations.

Jaycint
07-12-2005, 05:34 PM
For clarity sake, can you define the price?

Impeachment. And for the record I don't think Clinton should have been.

Chip R
07-12-2005, 05:39 PM
But what will curtail the public fervor is that, one, people don't really care how corrupt GW Bush is as long as he's talking tough and fighting wars to appease American bloodlust over 9/11
You may be right. As I said a few weeks ago, you can get away with a lot politically during war time. But even some people who voted for W feel he hasn't been very honest about Iraq. But it may not matter what the people want. If prosecutors find out that Rove spilled the beans on this and the WH covered it up, they will go after Rove and the WH. I know there's a lot of glee from the left side about Rove and the WH being involved in a scandal but I would hope that it doesn't turn into a Watergate thing where there are cover ups and obstruction of justice. I think kicking Rove to the curb would placate a lot of people on both sides of the political fence.

RBA
07-12-2005, 05:43 PM
Impeachment. And for the record I don't think Clinton should have been.

IF that was the outcome, would resignation be in order and who would end up as President?

Jaycint
07-12-2005, 05:51 PM
IF that was the outcome, would resignation be in order and who would end up as President?

I would certainly think resignation would be in order if that were the outcome. I don't know who would end up being president or should be. Are you trying to paint me into some kind of corner on the issue? Here's the line of presidential succession, take your pick: (assuming of course that they weren't involved in the scandal)

Presidential Line of Succession (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_succ.html)


* Speaker of the House of Representatives
* President Pro Tempore of the Senate
* Secretary of State
* Secretary of the Treasury
* Secretary of Defense
* Attorney General
* Secretary of the Interior
* Secretary of Agriculture
* Secretary of Commerce
* Secretary of Labor
* Secretary of Health and Human Services
* Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
* Secretary of Transportation
* Secretary of Energy
* Secretary of Education
* Secretary of Veterans Affairs
* Secretary of Homeland Security (not yet set by law)

RBA
07-12-2005, 05:56 PM
Are you trying to paint me into some kind of corner on the issue?

Yes. I'm guessing since you past over the V.P., if President Bush was/is involved you would agree with me, Cheney's hands would be most likely dirty as well.

registerthis
07-12-2005, 06:00 PM
Here's the problem I see with impeachment-

I don't want ANYONE in the line of succession to end up as Pres.

Jaycint- Thank you for your honest response on this issue. :)

pedro
07-12-2005, 06:02 PM
Here's the problem I see with impeachment-

I don't want ANYONE in the line of succession to end up as Pres.

Jaycint- Thank you for your honest response on this issue. :)

No kidding, I'd be satisfied to see Rove thrown under the bus and then we can get on with our lives. Otherwise we're just going to spend the rest of our lives with the Prez getting impeached everytime the other party has control of teh congress.

Jaycint
07-12-2005, 06:03 PM
Yes. I'm guessing since you past over the V.P., if President Bush was/is involved you would agree with me, Cheney's hands would be most likely dirty as well.

Well the mistake you are making is in thinking that I am a supporter of the current administration so it's pointless to try and paint me into a corner on the issue as if some revelation about my true feelings would be coming out. I have no idea whether or not Cheney is involved in the coverup, if he is then yes, he should resign as well. I didn't intentionally leave him out by the way, I think it's fairly obvious to everybody that the VP is the first successor waiting in line. I did a quick copy and paste job from a site and neglected to add in the VP at the top of the list.

RBA
07-12-2005, 06:05 PM
Here's the problem I see with impeachment-

I don't want ANYONE in the line of succession to end up as Pres.

Jaycint- Thank you for your honest response on this issue. :)

Yes, isn't Tom Delay the speaker of the house right now. He's on thin ice also. How does President Frist sound?

registerthis
07-12-2005, 06:08 PM
Yes, isn't Tom Delay the speaker of the house right now. He's on thin ice also. How does President Frist sound?
Holy Mary Mother of Christ

M2
07-12-2005, 06:09 PM
I think kicking Rove to the curb would placate a lot of people on both sides of the political fence.

I agree. I sincerely doubt many on the left want to impeach Bush. He can derail this now if he chooses, even if he's been involved in covering it up to date.

As long as no one was leaking the information at his direction he doesn't need to push this into an endgame (which he stands to lose).

What he needs to do is cut loose all the people directly involved in the leak (anyone who did it and anyone who helped orchestrate it). Not so much as one person should be left out. The administration can't afford to have subsequent shoes dropping. If Bush and other senior offiicials (e.g. CoS Andy Card or Dick Cheney) came to know about the leak well after it occurred and failed to treat it with the proper disgust (or even involved themselves in attempting to make it go away), he needs to apologize profusely and acknowledge the wrongdoing, not just that he did, but that he fully understands why it was wrong.

He'll need to avoid the word "coverup" and replace it with "We failed to appreciate the gravity of what had been done and mistakenly chose to stand by our colleagues even after we'd learned of their culpability." By showing that he understands the error of that judgment, by turning those people over to the authorities, by offering up his full contrition Bush can unentangle himself from the scandal.

Yes, it will be a permanent black mark on his record and yes some of his friends will be headed to the pokey (convince them it's time to be a good Roman), but he and most of his inner circle will survive.

This country doesn't need this to travel down the impeachment path. Bush needs to get out of bunker mode and sort this mess out before everyone gets filthy.

RBA
07-12-2005, 06:15 PM
M2,

I don't know/think that Bush has that in him. He seems to want to win every battle. Maybe he'll realize to win the war sometimes you might have to lose once in awhile. But, I bet he goes for broke.

Reds4Life
07-12-2005, 06:17 PM
Yes, isn't Tom Delay the speaker of the house right now. He's on thin ice also. How does President Frist sound?

Your wrong on both. Tom Delay isn't the speaker of the house, Dennis Hastert is. President Pro Tem of the Senate is Ted Stevens of Alaska.

RBA
07-12-2005, 06:19 PM
Your wrong on both. Tom Delay isn't the speaker of the house, Dennis Hastert is. President Pro Tem of the Senate is Ted Stevens of Alaska.

Yup, you're right. I was thinking Hastert, but somehow I thought Delay was the Speaker.

Thanks.

Falls City Beer
07-12-2005, 07:17 PM
M2,

I don't know/think that Bush has that in him. He seems to want to win every battle. Maybe he'll realize to win the war sometimes you might have to lose once in awhile. But, I bet he goes for broke.

I agree. This administration, for all its "deviousness" and "wiliness," is hardly measured or careful. They just grind you to dust by repeating falsehoods.

Rojo
07-12-2005, 08:11 PM
I don't get it, would the Dems on this board be defending Rove if he was a Democrat serving a Democratic president and this exact same situation occurred? I highly doubt it. Why would it be any different for the Conservatives on this board? If the guy did something reprehensible then he should be punished.

My point was that this latest transgression has exhausted even the faithful. And credit goes to those that don't bother to defend the indefensible.

BTW, would the Plame outing be considered treason? Because the maximum penalty for that is pretty harsh.

Falls City Beer
07-12-2005, 08:14 PM
My point was that this latest transgression has exhausted even the faithful. And credit goes to those that don't bother to defend the indefensible.

BTW, would the Plame outing be considered treason? Because the maximum penalty for that is pretty harsh.

According to the letter of the law, I don't know if it's treason. But if there is a spirit to the law, then, yeah, it's treason. Only the lowest scum would pull a stunt like that on an intelligence agent--think Benedict Arnold scum.

Jaycint
07-12-2005, 08:49 PM
My point was that this latest transgression has exhausted even the faithful. And credit goes to those that don't bother to defend the indefensible.

BTW, would the Plame outing be considered treason? Because the maximum penalty for that is pretty harsh.


To avoid the abuses of the English law, treason was specifically defined in the U.S. Constitution (definitions of other crimes were not deemed necessary). Article 3 of the Constitution thus provides that treason shall consist only in levying war against the United States or in giving aid and comfort to its enemies and that conviction may be had only on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or on confession in open court. There have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions.

Going by those fairly strict guidelines I would think a treason conviction would be really hard to get. I would think his intent would have to be proven among other things and I just don't see any way in which they could prove that he intended to give aid to a US enemy or to levy war against the US. Of course I know next to nothing about law so anybody that does feel free to correct me.

Falls City Beer
07-12-2005, 08:58 PM
Let me go on record to say, I would support Gitmo-like interrogation practices on Karl Rove. Just this once.

Rojo
07-12-2005, 09:35 PM
As much as I dislike Rove, I think Jaycint is correct about intent. Rove's purpose (presuming guilt) wasn't to "aid the enemy", it was to harm domestic critics. The fact that it might've helped our enemies was a consequence.

Jaycint
07-12-2005, 09:40 PM
Let me go on record to say, I would support Gitmo-like interrogation practices on Karl Rove. Just this once.

Or we could ship him to a country that really knows how to get it done on the interrogation tip like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lybia, Uzbekistan, etc. etc. He'd be singing like a bird in one of those places I would imagine.

Falls City Beer
07-12-2005, 09:54 PM
Or we could ship him to a country that really knows how to get it done on the interrogation tip like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lybia, Uzbekistan, etc. etc. He'd be singing like a bird in one of those places I would imagine.

Oh, I suspect America consults no one but the best for its own practices.

GAC
07-12-2005, 10:22 PM
Innocent till proven guilty folks. There isn't a person on here who hasn't stated that if Rove is found to be guilty (and that has not been proven), then he should be made to resign and prosecuted. People can post al the articles they want that states "so and so" said this or that; but only an official investigation can uncover the real facts on this matter. But as I look into this matter more and more, I would like to see more of an full investigation into this matter that doesn't just involve Karl Rove. Because I think this is simply being used as a partisan witch-hunt by those who really hate this administration, and especially hate Karl Rove, and would do anything to get him. But we'll see. ;)

This same Matt Cooper was going to run with a story awhile back that stated that it was VP Cheney who sent Wilson to Niger, and it was killed when it was shown to be wrong. And now it is coming out that it was Cooper who originally called Rove.

So the more they dig into this, they are finding more and more that is shining new light on this whole situation. So we'll see.

But I find it interesting, when looking more into Joseph Wilson, that this guy is not only a liberal Democrat, but was a high-profile supporter and advisor for the Kerry campaign. And more importantly, the Senate Intelligence Committee report released last week on Wilson's trip to Niger counters everything that Wilson has publically been stating beforehand as to the How and WHY he went....http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf

Basically, he lied! First, contrary to what Wilson has said publicly, his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, did recommend him for the Niger investigation..."Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson says in his book. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." In fact, the Senate panel found, she was the one who got him that assignment, and produced the memo she wrote to prove it.

Further, the Senate report indicates that Plame and Wilson, from the beginning, had an absurdly biased view of the subject Wilson was supposed to be investigating: "The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, 'there's this crazy report' about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq."

As has been widely reported, Wilson conducted a half-baked investigation into the uanium report. But here is the most astonishing fact uncovered by the Senate Intelligence Committee: in his book and in countless interviews and op-ed pieces over the past year, Wilson has been lying about the contents of his OWN REPORT to the CIA:

The Senate report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.

So, what Wilson actually told the CIA, contrary to his own oft-repeated claims, is that he was told by the former mining minister of Niger that in 1998, Iraq had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium from that country, and that Iraq's overture was renewed the following year. What Wilson reported to the CIA was exactly the same as what President Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address: there was evidence that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa.

Recall Wilson's famous op-ed in the New York Times, published on July 6, 2003, which ignited the whole firestorm over the famous "sixteen words" in Bush's State of the Union speech. In that op-ed, Wilson identified himself as the formerly-unnamed person who had gone to Niger to investigate rumors of a possible uranium deal between Iraq and Niger. Here are the key words in Wilson's article:

[I]n January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa. The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.

It was this flat-out lie about what Wilson learned in Niger, and what he reported to the CIA upon his return, that fueled the "sixteen words" controversy and led to the publication of Wilson's best-selling account, titled, ironically, The Politics of Truth.

So I'm not going to proclaim Rove's innocence or guilt as of yet. I'll let the investigation determine that. But I think there is more of a bitter partisan attack at getting Rove, then there is at getting to the truth. ;)

Falls City Beer
07-12-2005, 10:42 PM
Innocent till proven guilty folks. There isn't a person on here who hasn't stated that if Rove is found to be guilty (and that has not been proven), then he should be made to resign and prosecuted. People can post al the articles they want that states "so and so" said this or that; but only an official investigation can uncover the real facts on this matter. But as I look into this matter more and more, I would like to see more of an full investigation into this matter that doesn't just involve Karl Rove. Because I think this is simply being used as a partisan witch-hunt by those who really hate this administration, and especially hate Karl Rove, and would do anything to get him. But we'll see. ;)

This same Matt Cooper was going to run with a story awhile back that stated that it was VP Cheney who sent Wilson to Niger, and it was killed when it was shown to be wrong. And now it is coming out that it was Cooper who originally called Rove.

So the more they dig into this, they are finding more and more that is shining new light on this whole situation. So we'll see.

But I find it interesting, when looking more into Joseph Wilson, that this guy is not only a liberal Democrat, but was a high-profile supporter and advisor for the Kerry campaign. And more importantly, the Senate Intelligence Committee report released last week on Wilson's trip to Niger counters everything that Wilson has publically been stating beforehand as to the How and WHY he went....http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf

Basically, he lied! First, contrary to what Wilson has said publicly, his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, did recommend him for the Niger investigation..."Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson says in his book. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." In fact, the Senate panel found, she was the one who got him that assignment, and produced the memo she wrote to prove it.

Further, the Senate report indicates that Plame and Wilson, from the beginning, had an absurdly biased view of the subject Wilson was supposed to be investigating: "The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, 'there's this crazy report' about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq."

As has been widely reported, Wilson conducted a half-baked investigation into the uanium report. But here is the most astonishing fact uncovered by the Senate Intelligence Committee: in his book and in countless interviews and op-ed pieces over the past year, Wilson has been lying about the contents of his OWN REPORT to the CIA:

The Senate report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.

So, what Wilson actually told the CIA, contrary to his own oft-repeated claims, is that he was told by the former mining minister of Niger that in 1998, Iraq had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium from that country, and that Iraq's overture was renewed the following year. What Wilson reported to the CIA was exactly the same as what President Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address: there was evidence that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa.

Recall Wilson's famous op-ed in the New York Times, published on July 6, 2003, which ignited the whole firestorm over the famous "sixteen words" in Bush's State of the Union speech. In that op-ed, Wilson identified himself as the formerly-unnamed person who had gone to Niger to investigate rumors of a possible uranium deal between Iraq and Niger. Here are the key words in Wilson's article:

[I]n January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa. The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.

It was this flat-out lie about what Wilson learned in Niger, and what he reported to the CIA upon his return, that fueled the "sixteen words" controversy and led to the publication of Wilson's best-selling account, titled, ironically, The Politics of Truth.

So I'm not going to proclaim Rove's innocence or guilt as of yet. I'll let the investigation determine that. But I think there is more of a bitter partisan attack at getting Rove, then there is at getting to the truth. ;)

Discrediting Wilson does nothing to exonerate Rove or the administration.

Again, just as you say no one says the guilty shouldn't be punished, no Democrat or liberal is going to say guilty until proven innocent. Trust me, liberals defend due process, the Constitution, and the law of the land, unlike some people of the other persuasion. ;)

And GAC, red herring smells.

RBA
07-12-2005, 10:48 PM
Wrong on all counts.

1. It wasn't "Iraq" but 'Iran' that Wilson discovered had tried to buy the 400 tons of uranium. Washington Post has since issued a "correction" which can be viewed on the right-hand side of the same web page Schmidt's article in all of its original calumny appears.

2. It wasn't the "bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report" that asserted Plame had recommended Wlson, but a minority report of 'three Republicans -- [Pat] Roberts and Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Kit Bond of Missouri.' Schmidt neglected to mention that this claim actually appears in an appendix to the report which was not endorsed by the committee. WaPo has not issued a "correction" of this deceit.

I won't bother at this time to debunk the rest of your "Rove" talking points issued out by objective journalist like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh along with the National Review.


Thanks GAC, you don't disappoint.

Falls City Beer
07-12-2005, 10:56 PM
Wrong on all counts.

1. It wasn't "Iraq" but 'Iran' that Wilson discovered had tried to buy the 400 tons of uranium. Washington Post has since issued a "correction" which can be viewed on the right-hand side of the same web page Schmidt's article in all of its original calumny appears.

2. It wasn't the "bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report" that asserted Plame had recommended Wlson, but a minority report of 'three Republicans -- [Pat] Roberts and Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Kit Bond of Missouri.' Schmidt neglected to mention that this claim actually appears in an appendix to the report which was not endorsed by the committee. WaPo has not issued a "correction" of this deceit.

I won't bother at this time to debunk the rest of your "Rove" talking points issued out by objective journalist like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh along with the National Review.


Thanks GAC, you don't disappoint.

Don't take the red herring bait, RBA. While I respect sticking it to the dittoheads on the facts, Wilson's actions have no bearing on the actions of those who leaked Plame's identity.

Redsfaithful
07-12-2005, 11:10 PM
Gac you really take those GOP Talking Points to heart:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Exclusive_GOP_talking_points_on_Rove_seek_to_discr e_0712.html

You hit just about everything.

This one isn't going to go away, no matter how much misdirection Republicans try to toss at it. The press finally seems to have had enough, and that's going to be the tipping point I think.

RBA
07-12-2005, 11:10 PM
Don't take the red herring bait, RBA. While I respect sticking it to the dittoheads on the facts, Wilson's actions have no bearing on the actions of those who leaked Plame's identity.

Of course you are referring to Ann Coulter and the lot to "Dittoheads" and not GAC. GAC is just the victim of their campaign.

But this is well known Rove Tactic is to make your accusers dirtier than you are. Or just as dirty. It also works good in rape victims and other victims of crimes.

Falls City Beer
07-12-2005, 11:12 PM
Of course you are referring to Ann Coulter and the lot to "Dittoheads" and not GAC. GAC is just the victim of their campaign.

But this is well known Rove Tactic is to make your accusers dirtier than you are. Or just as dirty. It also works good in rape victims and other victims of crimes.

Or Michael Schiavo....

and list goes on and on and on and on....

RBA
07-12-2005, 11:49 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-react13jul13,0,6741334.story?coll=la-home-headlines (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-react13jul13,0,6741334.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
White House Deflects Questions on Rove as RNC Defends Him

By Edwin Chen and Warren Vieth
Times Staff Writers

6:01 PM PDT, July 12, 2005

WASHINGTON ó The White House won't talk about Karl Rove. But as the furor over President Bush's chief political strategist continues, Republican leaders have found other ways to get their points across.

For the second consecutive day, White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to answer questions about Rove's possible role in disclosing the identity of an undercover CIA operative, saying on Tuesday -- as he had the day before -- that any comments might damage an ongoing criminal investigation into the matter.

"I want to be helpful to the investigation. I don't want to jeopardize anything in that investigation," McClellan said during another contentious briefing as reporters bombarded him with questions about the White House deputy chief of staff.

Yet, at the same time, the Republican National Committee -- closely allied with the White House and chaired by Rove protege Ken Mehlman -- distributed a 3 1/2-page set of talking points defending the president's chief political strategist and attacking Democrats and the CIA operative's husband, an outspoken critic of the administration's Iraq policy.

"The RNC is trying to get the attention off the White House," said David Gergen, a Harvard University government professor who has worked for presidents of both parties. "A week ago, this was all about the press. Now it's back to the White House, which is not what they want."

The controversy exploded in recent days after disclosures that Rove was a source for a July 17, 2003, article on Time magazine's Web site. That article questioned whether the Bush administration had "declared war" on former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who had traveled to Africa in 2002 to investigate allegations that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase weapons-grade uranium.

On July 6, 2003, The New York Times published an op-ed article by Wilson criticizing those claims -- a key underpinning for the White House's case for invading Iraq. The article on Time magazine's Web site, co-authored by reporter Matthew Cooper, cited "some government officials" as identifying Wilson's wife as CIA officer Valerie Plame and saying that she had been involved in dispatching her husband to Africa.

In a court proceeding last week, Cooper said his source had authorized him to reveal his identity to a federal grand jury investigating whether Plame's public outing violated a federal law barring disclosure of a covert agent's identity. The decision allowed Cooper to avoid a jail term for refusing a special prosecutor's order to reveal a confidential source. New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for refusing a similar order to reveal her sources.

Although Cooper did not publicly identify Rove as his source, Newsweek magazine on Sunday published the contents of a 2003 e-mail from the reporter to his editors, saying Rove had told him that Wilson's trip had been authorized by his wife.

McClellan refused to square the latest disclosures with his previous assertions in September and October of 2003 that Rove was not involved in leaking Plame's identity to the media. "The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved," McClellan said at the time.

But now, McClellan said Tuesday, it would be inappropriate for him to discuss the matter because of the ongoing investigation.

However, Republican officials had no such reservations. The RNC talking points, distributed to Republicans on Capitol Hill and party operatives across the country, provided a detailed, point-by-point defense of Rove's role in the Plame case, saying that he only discussed the situation with Cooper to prevent him from writing something inaccurate.

Appearing on CNN's "Wolf Blitzer Reports," Mehlman cited Rove's previous statement that he had not identified Plame by name.

"The fact is Karl Rove did not leak classified information," Mehlman said. "He did not, according to what we learned this past weekend, reveal the name of anybody. He didn't even the know the name. ... He tried to discourage a reporter from writing a story that was false."

The RNC's aggressive stance in the face of mounting Democratic criticism suggests that Republicans hope the public will simply dismiss the complex controversy as a partisan "food fight," in the words of one Republican senator's chief of staff, who requested anonymity. "They're trying to dilute the matter," the aide said.

Bush was asked about Rove at the end of an Oval Office photo session with the prime minister of Singapore on Tuesday morning, but he did not reply to a shouted question as aides quickly ushered reporters out of the room. Later in the day, a senior administration official said only that "we've lived with the investigation for two years and we're not changing approach or focus now."

But Gergen, who began his career in politics as an assistant to President Nixon during the Watergate scandal, questioned the White House strategy.

"They ought to do an about-face and put out the full facts and quell the storm," he said. "Their danger is, if they allow this to keep whipping up in the press, Rove could be wounded. And this president does not want to lose Karl Rove. Rove is his right arm."

Times staff writer Richard Simon contributed to this report.

Dom Heffner
07-12-2005, 11:55 PM
Innocent till proven guilty folks.

Actually, not true. Every prosecutor that brings a case against someone thinks the person is guilty, or they wouldn't be having a trial.

And as far as the general public, we can believe whatever we want. Do you think O.J. Simpson was guilty? I mean, he wasn't proven guilty in a court of law, was he?

Innocent until proven guilty basically means we cannot sentence someone until they are convicted.

Why on earth you continue to come to the rescue of a guy like Rove is puzzling.

GAC, your post is nothing but an ad hominen attack on Wilson. I really dont care if he molested thirty thousand children, Karl Rove doesn't get to out his wife's identity.

If you can't see that a high level Bush administration official giving away the identity of someone just to serve his own poltiical agenda is wrong, then just say that. But don't come on here with, "Well, Wilson lied..."

Karl Rove lied when he spread rumors about John McCain fathering black children in the South Carolina primary. Karl Rove lies all the time. If being a liar ruins your credibility, it looks like we just found Rove guilty as charged, by using your logic.


But I think there is more of a bitter partisan attack at getting Rove, then there is at getting to the truth.

We'll never get at the truth because your guy won't tell it. ;)

The party of personal responsibility at its finest.

Mutaman
07-13-2005, 03:00 AM
I guess I was wrong when I predicted earlier that the press wouldn't push this story. But based on 5 years of past performances who could have predicted that these guys would start playing a little hardball. Maybe they really do smell Rove's blood>

GAC
07-13-2005, 09:33 AM
There's nothing like getting ganged up on by a bunch of angry liberals! :lol:

I didn't find one bit of this from Coulter or Limbaugh. I wouldn't cross the street to listen to either of them (never have). So you're wrong on that point, but nice try.

Have you listened to yourselves on here? You sound like Limbaugh and Coulter! Just from the other side.

And RBA - that was my fault, and a simple typo in refering to Iraq and not Iran.

Dom - nowhere did I say that a high government official outing a CIA operative wasn't wrong. What I've stated is that the investigation needs to continue unheeded in order to get all the facts.

I guarantee if this was a high profile liberal/Democrat you'd all be saying/taking the same position I am - allow due process to takes it course via the legal system.

My purpose in bringing up Wilson? Not to deflect anything from Rove at all. But when I simply look more and more into this entire situation, and all the players involved, then I want more questions asked concerning motives. I think it is relevant. No - it doesn't excuse Rove IF it is proven he is guilty.

Have any of you read the Senate Intelligence report? Probably not. I'm beginning to think you could care less what it reveals or says because it simply does not line up with your already pre-conceived notions and guilty cry.

And can you disprove anything that reports states, such as what Wilson himself originally reported to the CIA concerning the uranium purchase- and then changes his mind? You say that this man's character and motives should not be examined or questioned? Why? It's obvious to me and alot of others as to why. Wilson has been a walking contradiction (and that's putting it nicely).

I hope this story doesn't go away. I hope they really start to do alot of solid digging and get to the bottom of it and the real truth behind it all. And right now, I have no idea what that truth is with all the partisan rhetoric that is flying about. I've already made my position known on what should happen to Rove if it is found to be true...and I don't chew my cabbage twice. ;)

But I personally think some of you are being nothing but disingenuous about this whole situation. Like you really are concerned about national security in this instance, or that a low level CIA operative got "outed". Yeah, right.

You want Rove, and you'll do anything to get him. Pure and simple. And to heck with due process or anything else that may get in your way.

I've never said Rove wasn't a dirty player. That's politics whether you Dems like it or not. Not justifying it - just acknowledging it's reality in the world of politics.

You're simply trying to pull a Rove on Rove (and I can't say I blame you) ;)

So I'll just sit back and watch some of you try to give yourselves a cerebral hemmorage over this.

Dom Heffner
07-13-2005, 10:30 AM
My purpose in bringing up Wilson? Not to deflect anything from Rove at all. But when I simply look more and more into this entire situation, and all the players involved, then I want more questions asked concerning motives. I think it is relevant. No - it doesn't excuse Rove IF it is proven he is guilty.

If you want to talk about motive - I mean, c'mon, GAC, your defense is almost laughable here- why aren't you looking at Rove's motive? If you are so concerned about motive and really not trying "to deflect anything from Rove at all", how about a nice expose on him? What are his motives?

Due process isn't stopping you from accusing Wilson, just Rove.

And yes, I am angry that someone's identity was given up - especially over politics, and especially from someone who has accused my party of being soft on terror by offering therapy to terrorists, which is an out and out lie (still waiting for someone to show me where someone offered bin Laden therapy). :)

Falls City Beer
07-13-2005, 11:00 AM
"But I personally think some of you are being nothing but disingenuous about this whole situation. Like you really are concerned about national security in this instance, or that a low level CIA operative got "outed". Yeah, right."

I find THIS offensive. Incredibly so. As if I can't be concerned about national security. Seriously, who do you think you are to know my motivations and concerns? I'm liberal AND just as concerned (if not more concerned) about national security as any conservative on this board. Do you know how I know this to be the case? I didn't support the war in Iraq--which has created a much bigger U.S. national security threat than if they'd never gone. That's how I know. I knew it then and I know it now.

bucknutdet
07-13-2005, 11:17 AM
Nice job GAC, your summary is on the money.

RBA
07-13-2005, 11:28 AM
Nice job GAC, your summary is on the money.

Not really. I googled what GAC wrote earlier and they were taken verbatim from Ann Coulters and Rush Limbaughs works. He may claim not to listen to Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, but he uses the same unfactual information.
I'm not going down that slippery slope because I have already chewed that cabbage and his points have been discredited as a Rove smear campaign against Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. But believe what you want to believe as long as fits your political side, even if it's contrary to your own values of integrity, honor, and restoring them back to the White House.

RBA
07-13-2005, 11:39 AM
More cabbage to chew on....from an ex CIA covert operator.

he Big Lie About Valerie Plame
By Larry Johnson (http://www.tpmcafe.com/author/ljohnson)

From: TPMCafe Special Guests (http://www.tpmcafe.com/section/specialguests)


The misinformation being spread in the media about the Plame affair is alarming and damaging to the longterm security interests of the United States. Republicans' talking points are trying to savage Joe Wilson and, by implication, his wife, Valerie Plame as liars. That is the truly big lie.

For starters, Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak. Novak's column was not an isolated attack. It was in fact part of a coordinated, orchestrated smear that we now know includes at least Karl Rove.

Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.


Jul 13, 2005 -- 12:47:20 AM EST

A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.

The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her.

The Republicans now want to hide behind the legalism that "no laws were broken". I don't know if a man made law was broken but an ethical and moral code was breached. For the first time a group of partisan political operatives publically identified a CIA NOC. They have set a precendent that the next group of political hacks may feel free to violate.

They try to hide behind the specious claim that Joe Wilson "lied". Although Joe did not lie let's follow that reasoning to the logical conclusion. Let's use the same standard for the Bush Administration. Here are the facts. Bush's lies have resulted in the deaths of almost 1800 American soldiers and the mutilation of 12,000. Joe Wilson has not killed anyone. He tried to prevent the needless death of Americans and the loss of American prestige in the world.

But don't take my word for it, read the biased Senate intelligence committee report. Even though it was slanted to try to portray Joe in the worst possible light this fact emerges on page 52 of the report: According to the US Ambassador to Niger (who was commenting on Joe's visit in February 2002), "Ambassador Wilson reached the same conclusion that the Embassy has reached that it was highly unlikely that anything between Iraq and Niger was going on." Joe's findings were consistent with those of the Deputy Commander of the European Command, Major General Fulford.

The Republicans insist on the lie that Val got her husband the job. She did not. She was not a division director, instead she was the equivalent of an Army major. Yes it is true she recommended her husband to do the job that needed to be done but the decision to send Joe Wilson on this mission was made by her bosses.

At the end of the day, Joe Wilson was right. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It was the Bush Administration that pushed that lie and because of that lie Americans are dying. Shame on those who continue to slander Joe Wilson while giving Bush and his pack of liars a pass. That's the true outrage.

bucknutdet
07-13-2005, 11:45 AM
Is this Err Amerika or the Democratic Underground?

RBA
07-13-2005, 12:01 PM
Is this Err Amerika or the Democratic Underground?

Neither. It's from an Ex CIA operative. The source is linked in my post. Did you somehow miss it? And I have no doubt the Republican/Rove smearers will try and attack the ex agent's credibility soon.

And why do you say "Err" America with so much contempt? Do you apply the same standards to your right wing radio buddies?

Falls City Beer
07-13-2005, 12:06 PM
Neither. It's from an Ex CIA operative. The source is linked in my post. Did you somehow miss it? And I have no doubt the Republican/Rove smearers will try and attack the ex agent's credibility soon.

And why do you say "Err" America with so much contempt? Do you apply the same standards to your right wing radio buddies?

They've learned well from weasels like Donald Rumsfeld. When cornered by the facts, start pointing fingers. "Goody Proctor. It was Goody Proctor I saw dancing in the woods!!!!"

It's gotten so predictable it's laughable. An exercise in self-caricature.

RBA
07-13-2005, 12:13 PM
I'm happy to wait for the investigation to run it's course. The republicans spent milliions on a blue dress, I guess we can afford to spend a few dollars trying to find out the truth when it involves National Security. It's a criminal investigation now, and no amount of spinning is going to hamper the special investigator from conducting his case. And I remind you, that he was selected by Bush's own Justice Department.

Mutaman
07-13-2005, 12:20 PM
Just like Lance, I think RBA is laying the hammer down. GAC is cracking.

registerthis
07-13-2005, 12:28 PM
And why do you say "Err" America with so much contempt? Do you apply the same standards to your right wing radio buddies?
Hah.

A quick read through Franken's book tells that story. And for like Bucknutdet above, who are typically prepared to respond with something like "Franken is just the Democratic Rush Limbaugh", I urge you to pick up his book and point out to me their factual errors. Because he does an excellent job--citing FULL sources and references--debunking the garabge that spews forth from the mouths of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and the like.

GAC, congrats on being led like a lemming by the RNC to defend Rove with their "talking points." Do you find it the least bit odd that the RNC's stated goal here is to "deflect criticism until discussion about Bush's Supreme Court nominee heats up", thereby pushing the Rove issue to the back burner?

I vehemently disagree with the majority of the conservative platform, but I generally don't personally dislike conservatives. However, I HATE Karl Rove, and I will be the first to throw my hands up in glee when the evil bastard has this whole mess bite him in the rear. And it will.

registerthis
07-13-2005, 12:45 PM
BTW

For those interested, here is a link to the RNC "Talking Points". Sound familiar?

RNC Says 'Defend Karl' (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Exclusive_GOP_talking_points_on_Rove_seek_to_discr e_0712.html)

bucknutdet
07-13-2005, 12:46 PM
Wow, you guys are really on attack, full force, this is humorous. Some posts are filled with inflamatory attacks towards other posters, it is laughable.

registerthis
07-13-2005, 12:53 PM
Wow, you guys are really on attack, full force, this is humorous. Some posts are filled with inflamatory attacks towards other posters, it is laughable.
The sad thing is, it isn't funny at all.

And what inflammatory attacks on other posters are you talking about?

bucknutdet
07-13-2005, 01:00 PM
I am not getting dragged into the attacks on peoples integrity, thanks though. BTW the flames here are what is funny.

Another viewpoint, not that it will matter:

WSJ

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

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.


RESPOND TO THIS ARTICLE READ RESPONSES E-MAIL THIS TO A FRIEND PRINT FRIENDLY FORMAT

HOME TOP OF PAGE BOOKMARK THIS SITE ARCHIVE

SUBSCRIBE TO THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE OR TAKE A TOUR

RBA
07-13-2005, 01:02 PM
Another viewpoint, not that it will matter:

How is it another viewpoint? It seems to be the same talking points handed down from the RNC.

bucknutdet
07-13-2005, 01:09 PM
The only "correct" sources are yours, so it seems. :thumbdown :bang: We'll see what happens and go from there. IF laws were truly broken then I'm sure justice will prevail.

pedro
07-13-2005, 01:20 PM
While I don't agree with it, I don't think the story Bucknutdet posted is quite a word for word recitation of the GOP talking points and it's hard to denegrate the Wall Street Journal in the same manner that one would some ultra right wing web blogs.

Falls City Beer
07-13-2005, 01:21 PM
"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."

Oh, and Mr. Rove would NEVER have maliciously exposed Plame for partisan reasons. Karl's a doll-baby.

This is a classic begging the question (petitio principii) fallacy: this is exactly what the investigation has yet to discover one way or another. This is what they have been set to prove. Yet the Wall Street Journal is telling us it's all okay. THEY have privileged information that Karl had no deliberate ill-will. Riiiiight. According to this *unassailable* op-ed's OPINION, "it appears" that Rove didn't know Plame's identity.

By the way, ignorance of the law does not excuse the crime.

RBA
07-13-2005, 01:22 PM
While I don't agree with it, I don't think the story Bucknutdet posted is quite a word for word recitation of the GOP talking points and it's hard to denegrate the Wall Street Journal in the same manner that one would some ultra right wing web blogs.

For clarity, it's not a story, but an OP-ED.

pedro
07-13-2005, 01:23 PM
For clarity, it's not a story, but an OP-ED.

Clearly. Thanks.

registerthis
07-13-2005, 01:29 PM
I'm not asking you to get "dragged into" personal attacks. You made a claim that some on this thread are making inflammatory posts aimed at other posters. I'm simply asking that you back up that assertion.

With regards to the article you posted, I've never read a more biased and partisan piece in my life. Karl Rove deserves a medal for outting a CIA operative and subsequently lying about it? Youc an't possibly be serious.

In the interest of fairness, i will comment on some of this editorial's "points" that bear special mentioning. Feel free to rebut if you wish.

On the contrary, we'd say the White House political guru deserves a prize...For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real "whistleblower" in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal.
The only thing Rove blew the whistle on was Valerie Plame's CIA career. Rove's disclosure of her identity (and, yes, saying "Joseph Wilson's wife" is the same as saying "Valerie Plame", since that information is easily and quickly attainable) came at a time when Wilson was presentig damaging evidence against the administration's case for war in Iraq. The leak of his wife as a CIA op was clearly intentional, and the timing shows it was clearly aimed as retribution at Wilson for his Op-Ed piece, "What I Didn't Find in Africa".

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.
Flat-out wrong. In Wilson's own op-ed piece, this is what he writes:

"In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report...After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government. "

He is very clear that the CIA approached him about the trip to Africa, based upon a request from the V.P,'s office. Now, he didn't state "My wife, a covert CIA operative, recommended me for the trip", for obvious reasons. Besides, whether the CIA operative who reccomended him was his wife or not was irrelevant, due to this next bit of info:


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.
The only problem with this statement is that Wilson wasn't a partisan seeking to undermine the administration's case for war--the facts did that by themselves. To suugest that Rove is a hero for "blowing the whistle" on an individual who was exposing faulty evidence being used by the White House and Pentagon to make a case for war is simply ludicrous. Who was Rove protecting in this matter? Why did he attack Wilson, rather than the evidence Wilson uncovered? What integrity was Rove defending--that the administration had an inherent right to lie or make-up evidence to justify their ambitions for war? Please, i would like to know the answers to these questions.


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.
There certainly was if the conversation was made on-record to a journalist for a story that would be published. This is simply a red herring in this argument.

I could go on, but quite frankly that piece isn;t worth any more of my time. The fact is, Rove denied any involvement in this, the White House supported him, and now that irrefutable evidence has come out directly linking Rove as the source of the leak, Rove's defenders make an extremely weak argument that the leak was "justified", and have been open about their intent to "distract the American public" from this issue until news about Bush's supreme court nominees heat up.

The administration has been caught red-handed, and from their urgent calls to go on the offensive, they clearly have reason to be worried.

Falls City Beer
07-13-2005, 01:33 PM
While I don't agree with it, I don't think the story Bucknutdet posted is quite a word for word recitation of the GOP talking points and it's hard to denegrate the Wall Street Journal in the same manner that one would some ultra right wing web blogs.

Two people have just denigrated this op-ed hardcore. Both fact and logic.

registerthis
07-13-2005, 01:34 PM
While I don't agree with it, I don't think the story Bucknutdet posted is quite a word for word recitation of the GOP talking points and it's hard to denegrate the Wall Street Journal in the same manner that one would some ultra right wing web blogs.
but it's not so far off.

Remember, this is the same publications whose op-ed editor, Paul Gigot, authored an editorial attempting to support Bush's record on crime while degrading Clinton's by writing "The results are a vindication for Mr. Ashcroft, who has been vilified for being soft on gun violence because he continues to defend the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners. In reality, gun violence has declined from 12% of violent crime in 1993 to 9% in the most recent Justice statistics. Any gun control advocates out there care to apologize?"

The "most recent Justice statistics" were from 2001.

Anyone care to take a shot at who was president between 1993 and 2001?

the WSJ is as biased and partisan as anyone.

pedro
07-13-2005, 01:43 PM
I'm just drawing you out guys. I'm with you. I just didn't want to off the cuff treat the WSJ like some nutty right wing source. I hate it when people try to act like the NYT is a left wing rag. While obviously the WSJ, has a POV that leans very right, it is a credible news source, despite this unfortunate OP Ed piece.

registerthis
07-13-2005, 01:46 PM
I'm just drawing you out guys. I'm with you. I just didn't want to off the cuff treat the WSJ like some nutty right wing source. I hate it when people try to act like the NYT is a left wing rag. While obviously the WSJ, has a POV that leans very right, it is a credible news source, despite this unfortunate OP Ed piece.
No, they're not nutty...that's what makes them more dangerous. ;)

Seriously, I get what you're saying...but I believe the press in this nation is expected to lean right. If you are in the center, you may get tagged as unbiased, or you may get branded liberal. If you actually do lean liberal, you're branded far left wing and just another member of the "liberal media".

letsgojunior
07-13-2005, 01:48 PM
One thing I don't get is how Bob Novak is getting a free pass in all of this. He was the first to name her, and IIRC he mentioned two senior administration sources (so there's one still unnamed). I read somewhere that he made a deal with the prosecutor, but I don't see how it's fair that Judith Miller is in jail while he's basically getting a free pass (when she didn't even write her piece while he was the first to explicitly name Plame).

registerthis
07-13-2005, 02:18 PM
So I just read on CNN that president Bush issued a statement that the administration would not issue any comments on the Rove investigation until the investigation is complete.

How utterly ridiculous. They didn't hesitate to issue comments ("The idea that Karl Rove is involved in the leaking o fthe name is ridiculous") as recently as a few months ago...and now, suddenly, they have a respect for the integrity of the investigation?

But I thought Karl deserved a medal for this...I am confused why the Bush administration wouldn't be trumpeting that. :confused:

pedro
07-13-2005, 02:25 PM
So I just read on CNN that president Bush issued a statement that the administration would not issue any comments on the Rove investigation until the investigation is complete.

How utterly ridiculous. They didn't hesitate to issue comments ("The idea that Karl Rove is involved in the leaking o fthe name is ridiculous") as recently as a few months ago...and now, suddenly, they have a respect for the integrity of the investigation?

But I thought Karl deserved a medal for this...I am confused why the Bush administration wouldn't be trumpeting that. :confused:

And it sure didn't stop the RNC from jumping into the fray. :rolleyes:

As for Novak, I agree with you LGJ. Why is that jerk getting a free pass?