Bush moves the goal posts to protect his Brain...

[jAZ]

First it was "shown to have leaked information " now it's officially, "committed a crime in the CIA-leak case"...

Gotta protect that power, at all costs.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CIA_LEAK_INVESTIGATION?SITE=AZTUS&SECTION=HOME

Bush: Any criminals in leak to be fired

By PETE YOST
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Monday that if anyone on his staff committed a crime in the CIA-leak case, that person will "no longer work in my administration." At the same time, Bush yet again sidestepped a question on the role of his top political adviser, Karl Rove, in the matter.

"We have a serious ongoing investigation here and it's being played out in the press," Bush said at an East Room news conference.

Bush, appearing at a news conference with visiting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India, spoke a day after Time magazine's Matthew Cooper said that a 2003 phone call with Rove was the first he heard about the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson apparently working for the CIA.

Bush said in June 2004 that he would fire anyone in his administration shown to have leaked information that exposed the identity of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. On Monday, however, he added the qualifier that it would have be shown that a crime was committed.

Asked at a June 10, 2004 news conference if he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked Plame's name, Bush answered, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts."

A tempest has swirled around the leak of the CIA agent's name, apparently by Bush administration officials, in July 2003.

Some Democrats have called for Rove, whose title is deputy chief of staff, to be fired. They have suggested that he violated a 1982 federal law that prohibits the deliberate exposure of the name of a CIA agent.

"It's best people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. I don't know all the facts. I want to know all the facts," Bush said Monday. "I would like this to end as quickly as possible. If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

It was the second time that Bush, when asked specifically about Rove's involvement in the matter, passed up an opportunity to come to his adviser's defense.

Bush has appeared with Rove at his side several times over the past week, however. And White House spokesman Scott McClellan has said Rove - as well anyone who works now at the White House - continues to have the president's confidence.

The president did not respond directly to a reporter's question on whether he disapproved of Rove's telling a reporter that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction issues.

Rove has not disputed that he told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the agency. But he has insisted through his lawyer that he did not mention her by name, nor did he intend to "out" her.

[Simplex3]

Four words:

Sandy, Berger, National, Archives.

Think about it.

[jAZ]

Four words:

Sandy, Berger, National, Archives.

Think about it.
Bush moved the goal posts to protect power that Sandy Berger provided/provides to him???? Weird.

[Michael Michigan]

...And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of...

From 9/30/03


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030930-9.html


Let me answer a couple of questions, then we've got to go to Cincinnati. Deb.

Q Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the CIA leak, and why wouldn't a special counsel be better?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks.

And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

Also later:

...If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.

Carry on.

[Duck Dog]

Must you start a new thread with every feebel thought or article?

This thread is totally unnecessary.

[patteeu]

Nice try jAZ. Well, not really.

[Simplex3]

Bush moved the goal posts to protect power that Sandy Berger provided/provides to him???? Weird.
You're so worried that Rove MIGHT have said a CIA employee's name (note: NOT a covert agent) yet you aren't all bent that someone DID remove and destroy confidential documents pertaining to 9/11 from the National Archives.

[RINGLEADER]

And the Dems have been constantly moving the goal posts in this story as well. If you remember we were originally being told that Karl Rove was actively peddling a story in which he deliberately dropped Ms. Plame's name in an effort to smear Joe Wilson as retribution for his POV on Iraq. Then, as more facts came out, the Dems' story changed as did their claims.

It turns out that Karl Rove wasn't peddling the story (he was responding to questions from reporters - and setting the story straight - prompted by Joe Wilson's fantasy-filled editorial days before), that he didn't drop Valerie Plame's name (mainly, it turns out, because he didn't know it), and that he was trying to get a story to NOT be written because it was factually inaccurate (something supported by the bi-partisan report on Iraq) and wasn't pimping a story to smear anyone. At least if you want to believe the reporter that he was supposedly trying to "plant" the story with.

To that the Dems now laughingly refer to Valerie Plame as Valerie Wilson since they can't connect Rove with actually saying her name (with the media in some circles blissfully going along for the ride), they now downplay Joe Wilson's admission that her cover doesn't fit the definition of a covert agent under the applicable statute (it turns out she wasn't working out of country within the necessary five-year window and, consequently, wasn't the covert agent that Joe Wilson likes to believe), and making the fine distinction that it no longer matters if any kind of law was broken or even if Rove was trying to smear a dissenting voice on the Iraq War (which had been their whole contention from the beginning).

Anyway, I'm sure at the end of the day this whole episode will make a great chapter in Michael Moore's next Democratic circle-jerk.

[Electric]

You're so worried that Rove MIGHT have said a CIA employee's name (note: NOT a covert agent) yet you aren't all bent that someone DID remove and destroy confidential documents pertaining to 9/11 from the National Archives.

That's because nobody has "posted" Bush did it. If jaz felt like he could get an argument going with false information, he would. He must work for the libby media in his "real" job?

[Electric]

And the Dems have been constantly moving the goal posts in this story. If you remember we were originally being told that Karl Rove was actively peddling a story in which he deliberately dropped Ms. Plame's name in an effort to smear Joe Wilson as retribution to his POV on Iraq. Then, as more facts came out, the Dems' story changed as did their claims.

It turns out that Karl Rove wasn't peddling the story (he was responding to questions from reporters that were prompted by Joe Wilson's fantasy-filled editorial days before), that he didn't drop Valerie Plame's name (mainly, it turns out, because he didn't know it), and that he was trying to get a story to NOT be written because it was factually inaccurate (something supported by the bi-partisan report on Iraq) and wasn't pimping a story to smear anyone. At least if you want to believe the reporter that he was supposedly trying to "plant" the story with.

To that the Dems now laughingly refer to Valerie Plame as Valerie Wilson (with the media in some circles blissfully going along for the ride), downplaying Joe Wilson's admission that her cover doesn't fit the definition of a covert agent under the applicable statute, and making the fine distinction that it no longer matters if any kind of law was broken or even if Rove was trying to smear a dissenting voice on the Iraq War (which had been their whole contention from the beginning).

Anyway, I'm sure at the end of the day this whole episode will make a great chapter in Michael Moore's next Democratic circle-jerk.


What I find funny is that Michael Moore or Less is always his own pivot man in the circle jerk. Is it really a circle jerk if the only circle is your waist line?

[RINGLEADER]

What I find funny is that Michael Moore or Less is always his own pivot man in the circle jerk. Is it really a circle jerk if the only circle is your waist line?

Now that's funny.

But I have no doubt MM will look beyond the facts of this whole episode to arrive at his own mistaken conclusions.

[Simplex3]

That's because nobody has "posted" Bush did it. If jaz felt like he could get an argument going with false information, he would. He must work for the libby media in his "real" job?
He does or used to run a board dedicated to Air America Radio, can't remember the name of it. It's basically a miniature DU.

[Duck Dog]

Now that's funny.

But I have no doubt MM, along with every other pacifist, will look beyond the facts of this whole episode to arrive at his own mistaken conclusions.


I felt compelled to re-write your post.

Hope you don't mind.

[RINGLEADER]

...And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of...

From 9/30/03


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030930-9.html


Let me answer a couple of questions, then we've got to go to Cincinnati. Deb.

Q Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the CIA leak, and why wouldn't a special counsel be better?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks.

And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

Also later:

...If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.

Carry on.


Yeah, this is pretty much another example of the far-left Dems ignoring facts so that they can perpetuate their own beliefs. It's funny that Joe Wilson is pimping himself all over the airwaves making believe Bush said something he didn't while simultaneously finding it impossible to bring himself to admit (as he did in his own book) that his wife's status with the CIA doesn't fall under the definition of a "covert agent" and, consequently, naming her wouldn't have been a crime even if Rove had actually done that. Which even Wilson now admits he didn't do.

Somewhere Lawrence O'Donnell weeps...

[RINGLEADER]

I felt compelled to re-write your post.

Hope you don't mind.


:thumb:


BTW, where'd Jaz go? I can't wait to hear what secret document or conversation he's pinning this one on...

[jAZ]

You're so worried that Rove MIGHT have said a CIA employee's name (note: NOT a covert agent) yet you aren't all bent that someone DID remove and destroy confidential documents pertaining to 9/11 from the National Archives.
Oh, I'm bent about that too... Where do you get that idea from?

However, neither Berger or Clinton are currently in power... are they? So while I am "bent" about Berger... and I do think that if he is "legally guilty" he should go to jail... just like I think if Rove is "legally guilty", he too should go to jail.

However, Clinton isn't in power, and Berger isn't working for the WH. So the situations aren't the same. Rove should be shit-canned based on what we know now. He should go to jail (and possibly be executed) if it turns out that he legally commited treason. That legal aspect is on going, and under the law Rove should remain "innocent" until his day in court.

But outside of that, the WH should enact it's own punishment for Rove violating his NDA and outing a undercover CIA operative.

If Clinton were President, I would say the same thing about Berger.

[patteeu]

Rove should be shit-canned based on what we know now. He should go to jail (and possibly be executed) if it turns out that he legally commited treason.

LMAO

[mlyonsd]

However, Clinton isn't in power, and Berger isn't working for the WH. So the situations aren't the same. Rove should be shit-canned based on what we know now. He should go to jail (and possibly be executed) if it turns out that he legally commited treason.



Whoa there big guy. Better loosten your belt, I think your brain needs more blood circulation.

j/k

[Electric]

<HR SIZE=1> Originally Posted by jAZ
Rove should be shit-canned based on what we know now. He should go to jail (and possibly be executed) if it turns out that he legally commited treason. <HR SIZE=1>

So if you legally drive your car down a one way street we can execute you?

[Electric]

Whoa there big guy. Better loosten your belt, I think your brain needs more blood circulation.

j/k

He tried that, didn't work.

[Taco John]

First it was "shown to have leaked information " now it's officially, "committed a crime in the CIA-leak case"...




That seems reasonable to me... Why fire someone who didn't commit a crime?

[ChiefsGirl]

That seems reasonable to me... Why fire someone who didn't commit a crime?
Because he signed a confidentiality agreement. SF 312

http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_22864.shtml

A fact sheet released today by Rep. Waxman explains that the nondisclosure agreement signed by Karl Rove prohibited Mr. Rove from confirming the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Wilson to reporters. Under the nondisclosure agreement and the applicable executive order, even "negligent" disclosures to reporters are grounds for revocation of a security clearance or dismissal.

[Duck Dog]

jAz, you asshole. Why did you have to start another thread? Mods can you get the two Plame threads merged? jiz the attention whore is fugging up the flow debate.

[Taco John]

Because he signed a confidentiality agreement. SF 312

http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_22864.shtml



Yes, but if there is no law protecting that confidentiality agreement, then it doesn't matter. I think it's abundantly clear that Rove was out to get Wilson. I think that much is crystal clear, and those who are trying to deny it (very few) are in denial. It's clear this was a petty political thing. But that being said, it's also clear that it didn't put our nation in any more danger whatsoever. She wasn't in the field, and it's unclear if she ever planned on getting there. If it can be proven that she aspired to be covert, THEN and only then, I'll be convinced that damage has been done and someone should be made to be held accountable. But I can't get too excited about the outing of a desk clerk.

Certainly, I don't believe he committed treason. Treason comes with treasonous intent. Rove's intent was not to give the enemy an edge in war. It was to punish an outspoken critic. It definitely is petty, but I'm unclear if there are laws agains this kind of pettiness. If there are, then he'll be fired. If there aren't, I can't blame the Bush administration for not firing him.

[jAZ]

But that being said, it's also clear that it didn't put our nation in any more danger whatsoever. She wasn't in the field, and it's unclear if she ever planned on getting there. If it can be proven that she aspired to be covert, THEN and only then, I'll be convinced that damage has been done and someone should be made to be held accountable. But I can't get too excited about the outing of a desk clerk.
How did you get this far along in this discussion and appear to be this knowledgable about this story... and come away with the idea that she was nothing but a "desk clerk". You aren't prone to being a walking RNC talking point echo chamber... but you seem to have been remiss in your investigation of this issue... The only people that believe Plame was a desk clerk are those trying to coverup for Rove/Cheney/Libby/Bush... and you aren't that guy... so how did this happen?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

Known background
Plame is the third wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Plame met Wilson, her second husband, at a Washington D.C party in early 1997. She was able to reveal her CIA role to him while they were dating because he held a high-level security clearance. At the time, Wilson was separated from his second wife Jacqueline, a former French diplomat. Wilson and Plame are the parents of five-year-old twins.

Plame graduated from Pennsylvania State University in 1985. Soon after, she started working for the U.S. government in Washington D.C. During her time at Penn State, she had worked on the business side of PSU's student newspaper, The Daily Collegian. According to an October 9, 2003 Collegian article she previously attended Lower Moreland High School in Huntingdon Valley, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Her life history was documented in the January 2004 Vanity Fair article, "Double Exposure" [2]


Little is known of Plame's professional career. While undercover, she had described herself as an "energy analyst" for the private company "Brewster Jennings & Associates," which the CIA later acknowledged was a front company for certain investigations. "Brewster Jennings" was first entered into Dun and Bradstreet records on May 22, 1994, but D&B would not discuss the source of the filing. D&B records list the company as a "legal services office," located at 101 Arch St. A $1000 donation to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign on April 22, 1999, under the citation "Ms. Wilson, Valerie E. of Washington, DC 20007, President of Brewster-Jennings & Assoc." [3] One former CIA official, Larry Johnson, claims Plame was a "non-official cover officer [NOC] ... that meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed." [4] David Armstrong, an Andover researcher for the Public Education Center, believe that the Brewster-Jennings & Assoc cover was not executed convincingly and that other covers had been established for her by the CIA. [5]

It has been speculated that Plame likely would have worked in the office of former CIA Deputy Director of Operations (DOO) James Pavitt.

[Chief Henry]

<HR SIZE=1> Originally Posted by jAZ
Rove should be shit-canned based on what we know now. He should go to jail (and possibly be executed) if it turns out that he legally commited treason. <HR SIZE=1>

So if you legally drive your car down a one way street we can execute you?



But you can drive your car off a bridge and let your intern drown
while still be re-elected year after year as a US Senator.

[patteeu]

Valerie Plame, 007 ROFL

[Electric]

But you can drive your car off a bridge and let your intern drown
while still be re-elected year after year as a US Senator.

I've heard that. IIRC it was some guy on the east coast that did that. Must have had money.

[homey]

What's more fun than seeing redneck's retreat and make excuses for acts of treason? How American is that?

[Simplex3]

What's more fun than seeing redneck's retreat and make excuses for acts of treason? How American is that?
Nice racist comment. I'm sure you'd be cool with those "rednecks" calling you a ni**er, right?

[Duck Dog]

What's more fun than seeing redneck's retreat and make excuses for acts of treason? How American is that?


Who are the rednecks and what treason are you talking about?

Not that I expect a response from you. Just sayin'.

[memyselfI]

First it was "shown to have leaked information " now it's officially, "committed a crime in the CIA-leak case"...




IS

[jettio]

If the question is leaking, Rove and Libby sit down when they pee, so it is unfair to call them leakers.

[Michael Michigan]

is



..And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of...

From 9/30/03


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20030930-9.html

[memyselfI]

..And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of...

From 9/30/03


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20030930-9.html

Oh, so the leaking of confidential information pledge is null and void now that DUHbya realizes his 'brain' had done just that? The measure is now whether that leak broke the law. :hmmm: ROFL

[Loki]

But you can drive your car off a bridge and let your intern drown
while still be re-elected year after year as a US Senator.

errr ummm...
i hope you are not referring to me...
*hic*

[Loki]

I've heard that. IIRC it was some guy on the east coast that did that. Must have had money.

i washnt born with a shilvah spoon in my mouth... *hic*
growing up in an eshtate *burp* has isht downshides too y'know... *hic*

[jAZ]

..And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of...

From 9/30/03


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20030930-9.html
Ahhh! You are such a good propagandist. I give you credit for that, no doubt...

Don't mind this quote from the day before your's...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html
The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.

Or this one a month after your's...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031006-5.html
Q -- responsible for this. But can you confirm that the President would fire anyone on his staff found to have leaked classified information?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I made that very clear last week. The topic came up, and I said that if anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer work in this administration. This is a very serious matter. The President made it very clear just a short time ago in the East Room, and he has always said that leaking of classified information is a serious matter. And that's why he wants to get to the bottom of this. And the sooner we get to the bottom of it, the better.

[Michael Michigan]

Oh, so the leaking of confidential information pledge is null and void now that DUHbya realizes his 'brain' had done just that? The measure is now whether that leak broke the law.

No--that was from 9/30/03.

This is 2005.

[Michael Michigan]

Ahhh! You are such a good propagandist. I give you credit for that, no doubt...

Don't mind this quote from the day before your's...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html


Or this one a month after your's...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031006-5.html

You cited President Bush and stated that he was moving the goalposts.

He said roughly the same thing today as he said in 2003.

I guess that means you're wrong.


Maybe you should stick with citing the president's spokesman.

[Logical]

In all seriousness, how could Bush fire Rove, who would be President then?

[jAZ]

You cited President Bush and stated that he was moving the goalposts.

He said roughly the same thing today as he said in 2003.

I guess that means you're wrong.


Maybe you should stick with citing the president's spokesman.
Oddly enough... the President's Spokesman... yes... I think he ... uhhh... speaks for the President.

Strange how that works.

[Michael Michigan]

Oddly enough... the President's Spokesman... yes... I think he ... uhhh... speaks for the President.

Strange how that works.

You quoted President Bush.

Not his spokesman.

I just gave you the link to what President Bush said in 2003.

Sorry it blew your goalpost theory.

Better luck next time.

[Logical]

In all seriousness, how could Bush fire Rove, who would be President then?
I seriously doubt Bush could handle the Presidency without Rove to lead him. Not joking about this whatsoever. Lose Rove and Cheney is in essence President God forbid because we will truly be sending the Presidency into a hell that we cannot even imagine should that day occur.

[Taco John]

Personally, I think it's reasonable that Bush doesn't want to fire his guy unless he is found criminally guilty of something.

Once the words "criminal charges against Rove" enter the picture, it's a whole new ball game. He becomes a hot potato instead of the warm potato that he is now.

[Michael Michigan]

Personally, I think it's reasonable that Bush doesn't want to fire his guy unless he is found criminally guilty of something.

Once the words "criminal charges against Rove" enter the picture, it's a whole new ball game. He becomes a hot potato instead of the warm potato that he is now.

Oh yea--he's got to fire him if that happens.

[Taco John]

Oh yea--he's got to fire him if that happens.



No, he doesn't have to... But the pressure for him to do so will be much more powerful if Carl is being formally charged with a crime. And the amount of diversion it will cause with the daily headlines, and the Bush reaction to this, and the stonwalling, and the constant questions in return, and Greta reports, and on and on and on... If Rove gets pressed with criminal charges, this little side show becomes a full on three ring circus.

Also, while I'm unimpressed with this sideshow thus far, I'm not forgetting that it was the CIA who was upset enough about Plame's outing to request a special prosecutor...

[Saggysack]

Personally, I think it's reasonable that Bush doesn't want to fire his guy unless he is found criminally guilty of something.

Once the words "criminal charges against Rove" enter the picture, it's a whole new ball game. He becomes a hot potato instead of the warm potato that he is now.

Why not? His father didn't seem to have a problem with firing Rove after leaking about a fellow Republican. And guess who Rove leaked to. Yep, that's right, good ol' Robert Novak.

BTW, this happened in 1992.

[BigChiefDave]

I seriously doubt Bush could handle the Presidency without Rove to lead him. Not joking about this whatsoever. Lose Rove and Cheney is in essence President God forbid because we will truly be sending the Presidency into a hell that we cannot even imagine should that day occur.How's it going, memyselfVlib?
:D

[Chief Henry]

errr ummm...
i hope you are not referring to me...
*hic*


Where did you find that picture. Is it fake? Its priceless
no mater what.

[Duck Dog]

I seriously doubt Bush could handle the Presidency without Rove to lead him. Not joking about this whatsoever. Lose Rove and Cheney is in essence President God forbid because we will truly be sending the Presidency into a hell that we cannot even imagine should that day occur.


That's a pretty idiotic thing to say. Your name is matchng you quit well recently. (actually for a while)

Do you think you know Bush well to make that statement without smirking just a bit? Are you really one of those that feel Bush can't tie his shoes without Rove helping him?

Bush is very good president because he does listen to his aids. How did running the country single handed work out for Carter?

[Electric]

Bush is very good president because he does listen to his aids. How did running the country single handed work out for Carter?

Jimmy Carter was probably the most sincere President we've had for a long time, but he just didn't have it all together. He never became the leader that everyone thought he should have.

[patteeu]

IS

You guys are always trying to play word games.

[Logical]

That's a pretty idiotic thing to say. Your name is matchng you quit well recently. (actually for a while)

Do you think you know Bush well to make that statement without smirking just a bit? Are you really one of those that feel Bush can't tie his shoes without Rove helping him?

Bush is very good president because he does listen to his aids. How did running the country single handed work out for Carter?Actually you miss the point, Bush is a lesser President than Carter if you take away Rove exactly because Bush does rely on Rove to run the Presidency for him. Not that it is wrong to do so, it is the right thing to do when you are incapable of handling the job. Carter who was 10 times as smart as Bush proved that fact.

[Electric]

Actually you miss the point, Bush is a lesser President than Carter if you take away Rove exactly because Bush does rely on Rove to run the Presidency for him. Not that it is wrong to do so, it is the right thing to do when you are incapable of handling the job. Carter who was 10 times as smart as Bush proved that fact.

I can't agree with you on this. Jimmy Carter had all of the best intentions but was an island unto himself. He made many mistakes that in today's world would have put him in a light less glamorous than Bush is currently experiencing.

I do not believe that Rove is that influential on his own. There is a large staff that the president is briefed by on a daily basis, Rove is only one of those people.

[patteeu]

Why not? His father didn't seem to have a problem with firing Rove after leaking about a fellow Republican. And guess who Rove leaked to. Yep, that's right, good ol' Robert Novak.

BTW, this happened in 1992.

The difference between 1992 and now is that in the former case, the person who thought Rove should go was named Bush, in the latter case, the people who think Rove should go are all enemies of Bush. That's a pretty big distinction IMO.

[jAZ]

You quoted President Bush.

Not his spokesman.

I just gave you the link to what President Bush said in 2003.

Sorry it blew your goalpost theory.

Better luck next time.
ROFL

You are the only person on the face of the planet that would make a distinction between the words of the official spokesman for the President speaking officially for the President at an official Press Briefing (in which he actually says "I'm speaking on behalf of the White House").

You have clearly earned your propagandist stripes young Jedi.

ROFL

[patteeu]

ROFL

You are the only person on the face of the planet that would make a distinction between the words of the official spokesman for the President speaking officially for the President at an official Press Briefing (in which he actually says "I'm speaking on behalf of the White House").

You have clearly earned your propagandist stripes young Jedi.

ROFL

I agree with him, so that makes you wrong for at least the 2nd time in this thread.

[jAZ]

I agree with him, so that makes you wrong for at least the 2nd time in this thread.
Or it makes you a Jedi in training. ;)

[Electric]

<HR SIZE=1>Originally Posted by patteeu
I agree with him, so that makes you wrong for at least the 2nd time in this thread. <HR SIZE=1>


It is very difficult to agree with patteeu, but I have to agree with him on this point.

[Michael Michigan]

You are the only person on the face of the planet that would make a distinction between the words of the official spokesman for the President speaking officially for the President at an official Press Briefing (in which he actually says "I'm speaking on behalf of the White House").

You have clearly earned your propagandist stripes young Jedi.



Next time, quote his spokesperson and you may have a case.

This time, you lost.

[patteeu]

<HR SIZE=1>Originally Posted by patteeu
I agree with him, so that makes you wrong for at least the 2nd time in this thread. <HR SIZE=1>


It is very difficult to agree with patteeu, but I have to agree with him on this point.

It's far more difficult to agree with me if you are habitually wrong (like Talking Can and jAZ) than if you an unbiased truth seeker. ;)

[jAZ]

Next time, quote his spokesperson and you may have a case.

This time, you lost.
I'll change the title to "Whitehouse moves the goal posts to protect his Bush's Brain...".

Either way, makes no difference to me.

[RINGLEADER]

Oh, I'm bent about that too... Where do you get that idea from?

However, neither Berger or Clinton are currently in power... are they? So while I am "bent" about Berger... and I do think that if he is "legally guilty" he should go to jail... just like I think if Rove is "legally guilty", he too should go to jail.

However, Clinton isn't in power, and Berger isn't working for the WH. So the situations aren't the same. Rove should be shit-canned based on what we know now. He should go to jail (and possibly be executed) if it turns out that he legally commited treason. That legal aspect is on going, and under the law Rove should remain "innocent" until his day in court.

But outside of that, the WH should enact it's own punishment for Rove violating his NDA and outing a undercover CIA operative.

If Clinton were President, I would say the same thing about Berger.

Possibly be executed.

You're a riot, Jaz.

If it weren't for people like you, Dean, Kennedy, Begala, et al the GOP would have a harder time winning elections...

[patteeu]

I'll change the title to "Whitehouse moves the goal posts to protect his Bush's Brain...".

Either way, makes no difference to me.

Change it to "Media moves goal posts in effort to make mountain out of molehill" and you'll be on the right track.

[Bootlegged]

Damnit! I thought we had da Bushies! :deevee:

[RINGLEADER]

Because he signed a confidentiality agreement. SF 312

http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_22864.shtml


Further proof of my point.

Originally the Dems were telling us he broke the law. Now they're using an NDA as the basis for why he should be canned.

Originally the Dems were telling us he was the leaker peddling the story to smear a dissenting voice. Now they're admitting he didn't leak the name, didn't peddle the story, and was answering a reporter's question.

Originally the Dems were saying that Plame was a covert agent who had her cover blown. Now, after Wilson pointed out the contrary in his own book, they're not talking much about that either.

But, hey, if it keeps the far left fomented into such uncontrollable rage that they'd pimp Rove's execution for answering a reporter's question then I'm all for it...

[Electric]

Change it to "Media moves goal posts in effort to make mountain out of molehill" and you'll be on the right track.

patteeu, stop that!!!! I've had to agree with you twice on the same thread!!!

[RINGLEADER]

Yes, but if there is no law protecting that confidentiality agreement, then it doesn't matter. I think it's abundantly clear that Rove was out to get Wilson. I think that much is crystal clear, and those who are trying to deny it (very few) are in denial. It's clear this was a petty political thing. But that being said, it's also clear that it didn't put our nation in any more danger whatsoever. She wasn't in the field, and it's unclear if she ever planned on getting there. If it can be proven that she aspired to be covert, THEN and only then, I'll be convinced that damage has been done and someone should be made to be held accountable. But I can't get too excited about the outing of a desk clerk.

You say its crystal clear that he was "out to get Wilson"...not denying this, but can you point to the facts that support it? Because the only facts that I'm aware of are the Grand Jury testimony from Cooper and no where does he say that Rove pushed the story. In fact, the only reference to it - according to the reporter - came in response to a question that Cooper himself asked. The context was that Wilson was saying the veep's office had sent him (or at least that's how the reporter viewed Wilson's op-ed statements) and Rove was explaining why Wilson was sent (that he was recommended by someone from the CIA who happened to be his wife).

Since we also know that Rove apparently learned of this connection from talking to Robert Novak and we don't know who Judith Miller spoke with I just don't see where the proof that "Rove was out to get Wilson" comes from. If you have a link - no matter how partisan - I'd love to read how Rove answering a reporter's question can be construed as an effort to "get Wilson".

[RINGLEADER]

How did you get this far along in this discussion and appear to be this knowledgable about this story... and come away with the idea that she was nothing but a "desk clerk". You aren't prone to being a walking RNC talking point echo chamber... but you seem to have been remiss in your investigation of this issue... The only people that believe Plame was a desk clerk are those trying to coverup for Rove/Cheney/Libby/Bush... and you aren't that guy... so how did this happen?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame


Jaz, read Joe Wilson's book. He says that she returned from overseas duty in 1997. Which would make any mention of her in 2003 fall outside the statute. Your attempt to keep this fact "hidden" with a link that is obviously outdated or is decidedly incomplete - combined with the fact that Joe Wilson refused to correct this data amidst his partisan foaming of the mouth when he was on Face the Nation last Sunday - seems to undercut your argument.

Do you have a different link that refutes what Joe Wilson wrote about his own wife?

[RINGLEADER]

Oh, so the leaking of confidential information pledge is null and void now that DUHbya realizes his 'brain' had done just that? The measure is now whether that leak broke the law. :hmmm: ROFL


Try to enforce an NDA if the information is available through other channels or is publicly known (and this is even if you side-step the facts that have been presented to date to conclude that he actually did violate the NDA). From everything that is known about Valerie Plame her identity wasn't quite the secret that Joe Wilson or Chuck Schumer would have you believe.

http://nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp

[RINGLEADER]

Ahhh! You are such a good propagandist. I give you credit for that, no doubt...

Don't mind this quote from the day before your's...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html


Or this one a month after your's...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031006-5.html


Still don't see what classified information was released Jaz. That Valerie Plame was a covert agent (she wasn't). That he released Valerie Plame's name (he didn't).

The left has backtracked so far from the original charges that not even Joe Wilson is saying Rove broke the law anymore...

[RINGLEADER]

In all seriousness, how could Bush fire Rove, who would be President then?


ROFL

Now THAT'S funny...

[Taco John]

You say its crystal clear that he was "out to get Wilson"...not denying this, but can you point to the facts that support it? Because the only facts that I'm aware of are the Grand Jury testimony from Cooper and no where does he say that Rove pushed the story. In fact, the only reference to it - according to the reporter - came in response to a question that Cooper himself asked. The context was that Wilson was saying the veep's office had sent him (or at least that's how the reporter viewed Wilson's op-ed statements) and Rove was explaining why Wilson was sent (that he was recommended by someone from the CIA who happened to be his wife).

Since we also know that Rove apparently learned of this connection from talking to Robert Novak and we don't know who Judith Miller spoke with I just don't see where the proof that "Rove was out to get Wilson" comes from. If you have a link - no matter how partisan - I'd love to read how Rove answering a reporter's question can be construed as an effort to "get Wilson".



Please. Believe what you want. I'm not so interested in this story as to get into it with someone who has blinders on and disregards common sense. I don't think this is going anywhere anyway with regards to Rove. I think it's Novak's source that the CIA wants prosecuted. Not Rove.

[RINGLEADER]

Personally, I think it's reasonable that Bush doesn't want to fire his guy unless he is found criminally guilty of something.

Once the words "criminal charges against Rove" enter the picture, it's a whole new ball game. He becomes a hot potato instead of the warm potato that he is now.


As unfair as charges could be (that is, being charged while still not being guilty) I agree with you. Even though it appears that Fitzgerald is working more on a perjury case instead of the original leak - if you read what people are saying he's asking about in the Grand Jury - I have great confidence in his ability to get at the facts.

[RINGLEADER]

Also, while I'm unimpressed with this sideshow thus far, I'm not forgetting that it was the CIA who was upset enough about Plame's outing to request a special prosecutor...


That's not exactly how it works Taco. The CIA refered the matter to the Justice Department (they don't have a judicial wing in the CIA). It was the Justice Department that started a preliminary investigation that ultimately resulted in the naming of a special prosecutor. This could have occurred BEFORE there were any judgements made regarding the legal status of Plame as a covert agent (which, again, if you listen to her husband she was neither overseas nor covert - two requirements to fall within the statute).

Not saying I know this to be the case...just that you can't automatically draw a line between the naming of a special prosecutor and foreknowledge of the presence of a crime.

[Taco John]

Let me say it a different way...

As far as I know, nobody knew who Valerie Plame was until Wilson fell on the wrong side of the Administration. Are you telling me that it's all just a coincidence?

It's pretty clear to me that this was politically motivated. Whether a Grand Jury would agree with me is another issue altogether. I would think Rove would have a lot of 'splainin to do along the lines of the definition of the word "is."

[Taco John]

Not saying I know this to be the case...just that you can't automatically draw a line between the naming of a special prosecutor and foreknowledge of the presence of a crime.


It's a crime to out a CIA agent. A CIA agent was outed. A crime has been committed. Hence, the reason the CIA called for special prosecution. They didn't call for special prosecution because they wanted people walked across the road. They called for a special prosecution because they wanted somebody prosecuted.

Now, whether Rove broke the law or not isn't here nor there with me. I think he just did something stupid out of political motivation, without realizing the ramifications. The person the CIA is after is Novak's source, not Rove.

[RINGLEADER]

Why not? His father didn't seem to have a problem with firing Rove after leaking about a fellow Republican. And guess who Rove leaked to. Yep, that's right, good ol' Robert Novak.


You're leaving out some of the facts, but even if true you have to look past the fact that Novak says that the only reason there was a discussion about Plame was because he (Novak) brought it up and that the connection with Plame came from a conversation he (Novak) had directly with the CIA (who confirmed her role with the agency, BTW).

[RINGLEADER]

Actually you miss the point, Bush is a lesser President than Carter if you take away Rove exactly because Bush does rely on Rove to run the Presidency for him. Not that it is wrong to do so, it is the right thing to do when you are incapable of handling the job. Carter who was 10 times as smart as Bush proved that fact.


Wow.

I thought you were joking.

[RINGLEADER]

Please. Believe what you want. I'm not so interested in this story as to get into it with someone who has blinders on and disregards common sense. I don't think this is going anywhere anyway with regards to Rove. I think it's Novak's source that the CIA wants prosecuted. Not Rove.


I'd like to get the facts of the story. If you have evidence that shows Rove was calling reporters to push the story to smear Wilson then I'd love to read about it because everything Novak and Cooper have said is that THEY brought up the question. Because, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, if he wasn't pushing the story, wasn't dropping her name and wasn't doing anything but answering why the CIA would send someone like Wilson I just don't see how he was "getting Wilson".

Again, not saying you're not right, I just haven't seen anything from the reporters that indicates otherwise.

[Taco John]

I'd like to get the facts of the story. If you have evidence that shows Rove was calling reporters to push the story to smear Wilson then I'd love to read about it because everything Novak and Cooper have said is that THEY brought up the question. Because, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, if he wasn't pushing the story, wasn't dropping her name and wasn't doing anything but answering why the CIA would send someone like Wilson I just don't see how he was "getting Wilson".

Again, not saying you're not right, I just haven't seen anything from the reporters that indicates otherwise.


:drool:


A guy like Rove doesn't need to pick up a phone to push anything. He just waits until a reporter calls him. Again, the facts of the case are the facts. Valerie Plame, unknown. Joe Wilson gets on the bad side of the admin... Valerie Plame gets outed. Whether he actually said her name or not is immaterial. Outed is outed.

You're not interested in the "facts of the story" as you claim. The facts are already well established. You're interested in what can/can't be proven. Very different things.

[RINGLEADER]

Let me say it a different way...

As far as I know, nobody knew who Valerie Plame was until Wilson fell on the wrong side of the Administration. Are you telling me that it's all just a coincidence?

It's pretty clear to me that this was politically motivated. Whether a Grand Jury would agree with me is another issue altogether. I would think Rove would have a lot of 'splainin to do along the lines of the definition of the word "is."

It happened like this Taco:

1. Wilson wrote an op-ed that was critical of the administration's Saddam-Niger claims in which he claimed (at least in the reporter's minds) that VP Cheney's office was responsible for sending him on the mission (probably because writing that "my wife recommended me" would seem as official, but I digress).

2. Novak called Rove and asked if the veep did, in fact, recommend Wilson. Rove corrected that misperception. Novak wanted to know why Wilson would be selected and was told that the CIA recommended her. Novak then contacted the CIA directly and THEY confirmed Plame's name and, according to Novak, did not mention that she was covert or could be compromised if her name was released. They asked Novak not to disclose her name, but only because it might make it difficult for her to travel abroad in the future.

3. At some point Novak related this information to Rove. When Cooper called Rove he gave up the detail that it was Wilson's wife at the CIA who recommended he go and not the veep.

As far as we know there was no one else other than Novak, Cooper and possibly Miller who spoke to Rove about the issue. And all the information we know so far is that Rove was RESPONDING to questions from reporters who were (mistakenly) led to believe from Wilson's op-ed that Cheney was involved with sending Wilson to Niger (something that the bi-partisan report on Iraq handily refuted).

Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. Just saying that the facts don't support that Rove was out to get Wilson. More facts could come out to change that opinion of course...but as of now the only sources of information aren't supporting your conclusion.

[RINGLEADER]

It's a crime to out a CIA agent. A CIA agent was outed. A crime has been committed. Hence, the reason the CIA called for special prosecution. They didn't call for special prosecution because they wanted people walked across the road. They called for a special prosecution because they wanted somebody prosecuted.

Now, whether Rove broke the law or not isn't here nor there with me. I think he just did something stupid out of political motivation, without realizing the ramifications. The person the CIA is after is Novak's source, not Rove.


It's actually not a crime to point out that someone works at the CIA first of all. Secondly, the CIA didn't call for a special prosecutor. Thirdly, a special prosecutor isn't called for because "they want someone prosecuted" but because there MAY be a crime that could represent a conflict of interest with the Justice Department (who ultimately calls for such special prosecutor).

Lastly, according to Novak, it was <B>the CIA</B> that confirmed Plame's position/name. Not Rove.

[Taco John]

That's a very different interpretation from the one I heard from Peter Lance last night...

[Taco John]

Secondly, the CIA didn't call for a special prosecutor.


Then who did?

[RINGLEADER]

:drool:


A guy like Rove doesn't need to pick up a phone to push anything. He just waits until a reporter calls him. Again, the facts of the case are the facts. Valerie Plame, unknown. Joe Wilson gets on the bad side of the admin... Valerie Plame gets outed. Whether he actually said her name or not is immaterial. Outed is outed.

You're not interested in the "facts of the story" as you claim. The facts are already well established. You're interested in what can/can't be proven. Very different things.

Well, if answering questions from Novak and Cooper are "pushing the story" and giving information that is factually accurate is "smearing" then I guess Rove is the mastermind you think he is. But it doesn't change the fact that your claims that outing a CIA agent is a crime, that the CIA referred the matter for a special prosecutor, or that Novak learned about Plame's position/name came from Rove are wrong.

[Duck Dog]

It's a crime to out a CIA agent. A CIA agent was outed. A crime has been committed. Hence, the reason the CIA called for special prosecution. They didn't call for special prosecution because they wanted people walked across the road. They called for a special prosecution because they wanted somebody prosecuted.



Are we talking about the same CIA that sent that lying, incompetent
moron, Joe Wilson on the yellowcake investigation? The same Joe Wilson that was caught in multiple lies when wrote that BS OP ED peice?

Yeah, the CIA is just trying to flex their muscles to make their agents feel warm and fuzzy and all protected.

I'd say at this point Fitzgerald is looking at obstruction charges at the most.

[Taco John]

Well, if answering questions from Novak and Cooper are "pushing the story" and giving information that is factually accurate is "smearing" then I guess Rove is the mastermind you think he is. But it doesn't change the fact that your claims that outing a CIA agent is a crime, that the CIA referred the matter for a special prosecutor, or that Novak learned about Plame's position/name came from Rove are wrong.


I never said Novak learned about Plame's position/name from Rove... I'm starting to understand why your take on this seems to warped though... You're not by any chance a partisan? ;)

[Logical]

Wow.

I thought you were joking.That is not an insult in and of itself, I do not believe any President in the last 40 years is capable of handling the job on their own. Carter just proved that this statement is true. His spineless nature did not help (I named him Jimmy Jello for a reason). Bush is just less capable than most on his own, fortunately he realizes it and leaves the job to the people capable of handling it and is happy with his role as front man.

[RINGLEADER]

Then who did?

The CIA doesn't attempt to judge the legalities of the charges when an assertion of law-breaking is made. Instead, they will forward the matter to the Justice Department. Given the nature of the charges the Justice Department likely did little in the terms of actual investigation before appointing a special prosecutor to do the investigating. The assignment of a special prosecutor isn't done because there's a belief of guilt, it's assigned because of a potential conflict of interest with any investigation that the Justice Department might do.

Just saying that some of the facts - like Plame's role not conforming to the statutory definitions of a covert agent - likely weren't investigated/discovered until Fitzgerald got on the job.

[RINGLEADER]

That's a very different interpretation from the one I heard from Peter Lance last night...


Yeah, that dude didn't think much of Fitzgerald did he.

[RINGLEADER]

That is not an insult in and of itself, I do not believe any President in the last 40 years is capable of handling the job on their own. Carter just proved that this statement is true. His spineless nature did not help (I named him Jimmy Jello for a reason). Bush is just less capable than most on his own, fortunately he realizes it and leaves the job to the people capable of handling it and is happy with his role as front man.


Ah. Got ya. And I agree.

But I liked your comment more when it was jab at Bush's stupidity... ;)

[Taco John]

The CIA doesn't attempt to judge the legalities of the charges when an assertion of law-breaking is made. Instead, they will forward the matter to the Justice Department. Given the nature of the charges the Justice Department likely did little in the terms of actual investigation before appointing a special prosecutor to do the investigating. The assignment of a special prosecutor isn't done because there's a belief of guilt, it's assigned because of a potential conflict of interest with any investigation that the Justice Department might do.

Just saying that some of the facts - like Plame's role not conforming to the statutory definitions of a covert agent - likely weren't investigated/discovered until Fitzgerald got on the job.



A special prosecutor was appointed because a crime was believed to have been committed. Despite the immense amount of spin you are doing on this one...

[Taco John]

Hey Ringleader,

What do you think about the charges that Rove and Cheney's office seem to have coordinated on leaking the info at about the same time?

[Logical]

Here is what Reuters had to say when the special prosecutor was named.
Newsflash: Special prosecutor named for Plame investigation

I haven't been convinced that this was the best path (http://www.needlenose.com/pMachineFree2.2.1/weblog.php?id=P485), but it's official, as Reuters (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41929-2003Dec30?language=printer) reports:U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft will step aside from the politically charged investigation into a leak related to the Iraq war and the Justice Department will name a special prosecutor, department officials said on Tuesday.

The officials gave few details, saying only that Ashcroft was stepping down from the investigation and it would now be headed by the U.S. Attorney in Chicago, Patrick Fitzgerald.

Further details are expected at a 2 p.m. news conference.

The Justice Department is conducting a criminal investigation into who had disclosed the identity of a CIA officer whose husband had challenged President Bush's claims about Iraq's weapons threat.

Disclosing the identity of a clandestine intelligence officer is a federal crime as is leaking classified information to the media.

[mlyonsd]

Since it's against the law to leak grand jury information I'd like to know why the media doesn't hold those leakers to the same standard as whomever leaked the Wilson information.

Oh wait I just figured it out....the media wants to protect some leakers but go after others if it helps their agenda/lively hood.

And another thing, since Plame/Wilson contributed money to the Gore campaign under her covert name I don't consider her covert at that point.

[Logical]

Since it's against the law to leak grand jury information I'd like to know why the media doesn't hold those leakers to the same standard as whomever leaked the Wilson information.

Oh wait I just figured it out....the media wants to protect some leakers but go after others if it helps their agenda/lively hood.

And another thing, since Plame/Wilson contributed money to the Gore campaign under her covert name I don't consider her covert at that point.

Actually I have heard nothing being leaked, I have heard two things:


Press release data from the Special Prosecutor
Rumors based on the press release data from Mr. Fitzgerald.

[Michael Michigan]

Actually I have heard nothing being leaked, I have heard two things:


Press release data from the Special Prosecutor
Rumors based on the press release data from Mr. Fitzgerald.

So you missed Matt Cooper's e-mails, press conferences, press interviews and latest article about his testimony before the Grand Jury?

BTW--that's not a leak, he is allowed to publicly communicate about his testimony before the grand jury.

[Logical]

So you missed Matt Cooper's e-mails, press conferences, press interviews and latest article about his testimony before the Grand Jury?

BTW--that's not a leak, he is allowed to publicly communicate about his testimony before the grand jury.

You answered your own question, sorry I did not think of every legal condition for the media to grab a story.

[patteeu]

The NY Times also reported on grand jury information fed to them by an anonymous source.

I don't have a link, but mlyonsd is right (unless the anonymous source was revealing his/her own testimony I suppose).

[Logical]

The NY Times also reported on grand jury information fed to them by an anonymous source.

I don't have a link, but mlyonsd is right (unless the anonymous source was revealing his/her own testimony I suppose).

Maybe I am misunderstanding your use of "anonymous" but if the NY Times does not know who it's source is, then one I am pretty sure they did not report it as a fact, and second they cannot know whether it was legal for that "anonymous" source to provide the information given.

Correct? Still seems like shoddy journalism to use it but not an illegal activity.

[patteeu]

Maybe I am misunderstanding your use of "anonymous" but if the NY Times does not know who it's source is, then one I am pretty sure they did not report it as a fact, and second they cannot know whether it was legal for that "anonymous" source to provide the information given.

Correct? Still seems like shoddy journalism to use it but not an illegal activity.

You misunderstood. I am using the term "anonymous source" in the way it is typically used in journalism. It is a source who is known to the reporter but who gives information under the condition that his/her identity will not be revealed. If the source was one of the jury members, for example, it would be an illegal leak of grand jury testimony and that would account for why the leaker required anonymity. Obviously, I don't know who the leaker was so I can't say for sure that it was illegal.

[Logical]

You misunderstood. I am using the term "anonymous source" in the way it is typically used in journalism. It is a source who is known to the reporter but who gives information under the condition that his/her identity will not be revealed. If the source was one of the jury members, for example, it would be an illegal leak of grand jury testimony and that would account for why the leaker required anonymity. Obviously, I don't know who the leaker was so I can't say for sure that it was illegal.
Actually every story I have ever seen written calls them an unamed source or a confidential source. I have never heard them called anonymous in that circumstance.