Ex-Cia's Spouse says Rove must go

July 14, 2005

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The husband of a

CIA agent whose identity was exposed during the fierce debate over the Iraq war accused the White House on Thursday of being involved in a giant "cover-up" involving top aide Karl Rove.

Federal investigators are looking into who leaked the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, whose name appeared in a newspaper column exactly two years ago, on July 14, 2003. Rove, who orchestrated Bush's presidential campaigns, has emerged as a source for at least one other media report on the case.

"What this thing has been for the past two years has been a cover-up, a cover-up of the ... web of lies that underpin the justification for going to war in Iraq," said Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, a career foreign service officer who served in the Clinton White House.

"And to a certain extent, this cover-up is becoming unraveled. That's why you see the White House stonewalling," Wilson told NBC's "Today" show.

Bush, whose approval ratings have fallen in recent months, has had no public words of support for his longtime adviser. He said he would withhold judgment and ordered his staff to cooperate with investigators.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, traveling with Bush to Indiana, declined to comment on Wilson's charges. "We'll let the investigation continue and come to a conclusion," he said.

It is a federal offense to knowingly reveal the identity of a U.S. undercover agent, and Bush said in 2003 he would fire whoever leaked the classified information about Plame. The special prosecutor investigating the case could also be considering charges of obstruction of justice or perjury.

yahoo tells all

July 14, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The special prosecutor investigating the case could also be considering charges of obstruction of justice or perjury.

President Bush shouldn't do anything until this happens. He simply cannot let the media dictate how he runs the White House. However if charges are made he will need to deal with the issue.

July 15, 2005

Quote:

President Bush shouldn't do anything until this happens. He simply cannot let the media dictate how he runs the White House. However if charges are made he will need to deal with the issue.

I hope that Bush does deal with this. This person who leaked the CIA operative's name, not only placed the operative in jepardy, but the cover's and all other agents who used that same cover in danger as well. This, IMNSHO, is a treasonous act. And if the leak is from the Clinton Camp, I hope they put them in jail indefinately. But since the leak is known to have come from the White House, my sediments are still in place.

July 15, 2005

[:"blue"] This keeps getting juicier and jucier.... [/]

Senate Does Battle Over Rove's Role in Plame Leak

Dueling Republican, Democratic Amendments Fail

By Charles Babington

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, July 15, 2005;

In bitingly partisan exchanges yesterday, lawmakers plunged into the dispute over Karl Rove's hand in leaking a covert CIA operative's identity, as the Senate rejected a bid to strip the White House aide of his security clearance.

A day of dueling news conferences ended with a Senate debate that turned unusually personal. It began when Democratic leaders proposed an amendment, aimed at Rove, to deny access to classified information to any federal employee who discloses a covert CIA agent's identity.

President Bush's walk with Karl Rove, center, from the White House to the Marine One helicopter was viewed as Bush's show of support for his deputy chief of staff. Accompanying them was domestic policy assistant Claude Allen. Rove accompanied the president on a trip to Indianapolis.

Republican leaders retaliated with a measure designed to strip the security clearances of the chamber's top two Democrats. Even as he urged support for his amendment, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) acknowledged the blatantly political tone of the debate. "This is a sad and a disappointing afternoon here in the United States Senate," he said.

Frist's amendment failed, 64 to 33, when 20 Republicans joined all present Democrats in voting against it. The Senate then rejected the Democrats' measure aimed at Rove, by a 53-to-44 vote along party lines. Both items were offered as amendments to a homeland security appropriations bill.

Rove, President Bush's deputy chief of staff, accompanied the president on a trip to Indianapolis -- both men walking together from the White House to the Marine One helicopter on the South Lawn. Bush usually walks alone to the helicopter, and their public stroll was widely perceived as a presidential show of support.

Through his attorney, Rove in recent days has acknowledged discussing CIA official Valerie Plame -- though not by name -- with a Time magazine reporter shortly before columnist Robert D. Novak named her in a July 2003 column, citing two senior administration officials as his sources. Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, had written that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence about Iraq's pursuit of nuclear weapons material to justify the invasion there and the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

Democrats say the White House unmasked Plame in an effort to undermine Wilson's allegations. As part of its case for going to war in 2003, the administration cited evidence that Iraq may be trying to obtain uranium in Niger. Wilson said his own 2002 trip showed there was no evidence for such a claim. But administration officials told reporters that Wilson's Niger trip deserved little credibility, since he was dispatched at the recommendation of his wife at the CIA. A special counsel is investigating, and Rove is among several senior White House officials who have spoken to a grand jury.

You will have to read the Washington Post

July 15, 2005

>>…leaking a covert CIA operative's identity,<< (???) [ed.]

ON CAPITOL HILL

Drafter of intel statute:

Rove accusers ignorant

Lawyer who wrote law to protect agents says Plame charge doesn't meet standard [ed.]

Posted: July 14, 2005

1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Art Moore

Democrat leaders and editorialists accusing Karl Rove of treason for referring to CIA agent Valerie Plame in an off-the-record interview are ignorant of the law, according to the Washington attorney who spearheaded the legislation at the center of the controversy.

Plame's circumstances don't meet several of the criteria spelled out in a 1982 statute designed not only to protect the identity of intelligence agents but to maintain the media's ability to hold government accountable, Victoria Toensing told WorldNetDaily.

Toensing – who drafted the legislation in her role as chief counsel for the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence – says the Beltway frenzy surrounding Plame's alleged "outing" as a covert agent is a story arising out of the capital's "silly season."

"The hurricane season started early and so did the August silly stories," Toensing said. "What is it that qualifies as a story here?"

Democrat leaders are accusing Rove of exposing Plame's identity as an act of retribution against her husband Joe Wilson, who returned from a CIA assignment to Niger with a report disputing the administration's suspicion that Iraq wanted to acquire uranium from the African nation.

Toensing, now a private attorney in Washington, says Plame most likely was not a covert agent when Rove referred to her in a 2003 interview with Time magazine's Matt Cooper.

The federal code says the agent must have operated outside the United States within the previous five years. But Plame gave up her role as a covert agent nine years before the Rove interview, according to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.

Kristof said the CIA brought Plame back to Washington in 1994 because the agency suspected her undercover security had been compromised by turncoat spy Aldrich Ames.

Moreover, asserts Toensing, for the law to be violated, Rove would have had to intentionally reveal Plame's identity with the knowledge that he was disclosing a covert agent.

Toensing believes Rove's waiver allowing reporters testifying before the grand jury to reveal him as a source –signed more than 18 months ago – shows the Bush strategist did not believe he was violating the law.

Rove, according to Cooper's notes, apparently was trying to warn the reporter not to give credence to Wilson's investigation, because he had no expertise in nuclear weapons and was sent to Africa on the recommendation of his wife. Wilson had claimed he was sent by Vice President Cheney.

Another element necessary for applying the law is that the government had to be taking affirmative measures to conceal the agent's identity.

Toensing says that on the contrary, the CIA gave Plame a desk job in which she publicly went to and from work, allowed her spouse to do a mission in Africa without signing a confidentiality agreement and didn't object to his writing an op-ed piece in the New York Times about his trip.

Columnist Robert Novak, who first published Plame's name, also apparently didn't think it was a big deal, Toensing said, or he would have put it in the first paragraph.

Novak's aim was to expose the incompetence of the CIA, she argued.

"These are the kinds of stories we wanted to still be put out there when we passed the law," she said. "We only wanted to stop the methodical exposing of CIA personnel for the purpose of assassination."

July 15, 2005

Why does this remind me of Watergate

The cover-up is worse than the offense

/Bevin

July 15, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I hope that Bush does deal with this.

Until there is an inditement, He shouldn't deal with it. On the surface, it looks to be no big deal. The hate-mongers seem to be all excited at the chance of bringing down a public servant.

This really highlights partisanship in Washington. Many that defended President Clinton's behavior now want Karl Rove to resign while if they applied their own defense arguements for Clinton they would have no issue with Rove. One of the leading Democrat senators calling for Rove's resignation actually voted against the law Rove is accused of breaking! Imagine that! He thinks Rove should resign for breaking a law that he didn't think should have become law in the first place. And some people can't see any partisanship happening.

Why doesn't everyone just settle down and let the investigation conclude. If Rove is guilty of breaking a law he will be charged and then we can have this discussion. Let's not get so excited that an American public servant has broken the law that we wet our pants.

July 18, 2005

For the Record . . .

Bill Clinton lied about whether or not he had sexual relations with an intern to avoid putting his family through a sex scandal.

Karl Rove "outed" a covert operations officer endangering her life and the life of her fellow agents to exact revenge on her husband who spoke the truth about the lack of WMDs.

These are, of course, equal in their degree of scale!

(And now I've probably invited some heated response, but . . . !)

July 18, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Bill Clinton lied about whether or not he had sexual relations with an intern to avoid putting his family through a sex scandal.

That is the Democrat spin on it. A more objective view is that he was trying to obstruct justice in the Paula Jones case that was pending against him.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Karl Rove "outed" a covert operations officer endangering her life and the life of her fellow agents

Again, you summerize the Democrat spin well. Try to follow the news a little more closely. The agent involved hadn't been covert for nine years. Her office was in Chicago. Her life was not endangered. The issue is that now that her identity is known, she cannot work as a covert agent again in the future.

This investigation is still going on so we cannot make conclusions about it like we can about Clinton or Nixon. If Karl Rove broke the law I doubt he will get away with it. I doubt you will see Republicans go to the wall for him.

July 18, 2005

Quote:

Again, you summerize the Democrat spin well. Try to follow the news a little more closely. The agent involved hadn't been covert for nine years. Her office was in Chicago. Her life was not endangered. The issue is that now that her identity is known, she cannot work as a covert agent again in the future.

Your insistance that she has not been covert for 9 years, that her life was not endangered, and future employment is very contentious.

By exposing her as a operative, her history by other goveremnt is open to examination. She has listed, on public record, her employer...of which other agents currently working in the field, are also now exposed, as this employer is a front for the CIA.

By your using the words "Democratic spin", you have put your republican bias into the mix. And all I am doing is saying your view as tainted with the republican mix as well the musicmans...The truth lies somewhere in between...and, IMHO, lies closer to musicmans than yours. But the practicalities of the matter is in a republican controled congress, I don't think that anything will come out of it 'cept some bad press. I have reported this over 3 years ago, and it has taken this long to get this far....

July 19, 2005

Let me give you what I perceive as the Republican spin. Note that I don’t buy into it. The Republicans are saying that Rove didn’t contact any reporter but the reporter contacted him and the reporter is the one that brought up the subject. The Republicans say Rove wasn’t trying to leak any information but was just trying to do the reporter a favor by informing him that the story he was about to print was wrong. That is the Republican spin.

As a moderate, I say let’s wait to see what the investigation turns up. Let’s see if there are any inditements. Let’s see who else was involved. I think Tim Russert had a good segment on this subject Sunday on Meet The Press. It had the spin-masters from both sides going at it and Russert asking both of them some tough questions.

July 19, 2005

I do think it's interesting to note President Bush's subtle change: he originally said that if anyone in the Administration was found to have leaked Plame's identity that person would be fired. He's now shifted that slightly to say that if anyone has committed a crime that person will be fired. For reasons including the wording of the relevant law and the fact that Plame was not active in the field at the time of the leak, it's possible that under a strict letter-of-the-law interpretation no crime was committed, so Rove (and Libby?) might survive on that technicality. As I understand yesterday's polls, that's not good enough for the majority of the American people, though.

July 19, 2005

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/i...ame1/index.html

(disclaimer - Salon is Salon and is on the left: I'm posting this not as news but as one set of opinions and a canvassing of possibilities)

July 19, 2005

Quote:

Let me give you what I perceive as the Republican spin. Note that I don’t buy into it. The Republicans are saying that Rove didn’t contact any reporter but the reporter contacted him and the reporter is the one that brought up the subject.

Sorry, but that not Republican spin. That's Rove's spin, attempting to save his neck.

Quote:

The Republicans say Rove wasn’t trying to leak any information but was just trying to do the reporter a favor by informing him that the story he was about to print was wrong. That is the Republican spin.

As I see it, Republicans are saying that there's no harm been done, it's just democrates being upset. I don't buy that either as all other covert agents using Valeries employer, who was a front for the CIA, are now exposed. That is bad for all those human agents out there....

Hopeing that Karl gets nailed, I would like to see Bush put in that postion where he has to fire his chief of mischief PR, but that is unlikely to happen since he has moved a bit in his wording from "anyone who has leaked..." to "anyone who commits a crime, leaking the name...". Since it isn't going to happen, I shouldn't get my hopes up...Still, it's nice to see when this political savay president keeps getting embarrassed for his and his administration's misdeeds..

July 20, 2005

In a "He said, she said" scenerio, Press Secretary Scott McClellan has said that Karl Rove was NOT involved with the leaking of the CIA operative. Scott is a likeable Press Secretary and is feeling like there is egg on his face, especially when he place his own character on the line when he said that he "knew Karl Rove and it just wasn't possible that he would be involved in this" [or something to that effect]... And Karl has told ABC that he was NOT involved, and now, we know that he was involved.

Conclusion, Karl is a major embarrassment for the White House.

July 20, 2005

Two more pieces:

1. The timing of the Supreme Court appointment to deflect attention from the issue - Wag The Dog indeed.

2. It looks quite possible that Rove lied to the FBI when he was first interviewed. Someone was saying yesterday that even if he can't be indicted on the actual outing of Plame he might on obstruction of justice. Shades of Clinton and Watergate both: it's not what you do so much as what you do to cover up what you did that'll getcha!

July 20, 2005

[:"blue"] I found this after I put my last post up and was thinking of editing my post, but Bravus was kind enough to mess that up [honest grin] so I guess I will put this humourous post up...You can just feel sympathy for Scott... [/]

Making Mincemeat of McClellan

The most prestigious beat beef in "journalism"

by Eric Friedman - July 21, 2005

[]http://westchesterweekly.com/binary/119754-273-1/news-3616.jpg[/]

The Plame-Wilson-Cooper-Miller-Gate scandal kicked into a whole new level of fever-frenzy last week in the nation's capital, as internal Time magazine e-mails showed that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove had discussed the identity of an undercover CIA operative, Valerie Plame, with reporter Matt Cooper. Critics, accusing Rove of breaching national security to execute a political grudge against Bush critic Joe Wilson, are calling for his head, while Rove's defenders claim he was simply trying to warn Cooper off the story.

Whatever the motives, this column cannot ignore the real loser in this scandal: White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. As reporters watch one of their colleagues sent to jail for taking calls from a White House source, McClellan must offer daily explanations for the administration to an increasingly hostile press corps. These briefings are a comical yet graphic depiction of the total breakdown in relations between the media and the Bush White House. The exchanges sound a lot like this:

Q: In June of 2004, the President told the American people that he would fire anyone involved in leaking sensitive national security information. Is that statement still operative?

McClellan: I appreciate your question, but it is being asked in relation to some reports that you're referring to in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. That ongoing criminal investigation is still going on. And while the ongoing investigation is going on, the White House simply will not comment on how it's going.

Q: Actually, if you'd listened to what I said, I'm not asking about the investigation at all. I'm asking about what the President said. He promised us personally he would send the staffer responsible for the leak to the military prison at Guantánamo for "interrogation." Is that still his position?

McClellan: As it stands right now, the President's position is that he's sitting down. Other than that, he has said that the White House will cooperate with the ongoing investigation as long as it's ongoing, and possibly beyond that. And part of our ongoing cooperation is that we will not comment on how or where the investigation is going.

Q: Scott, little weasel that you are, you told us and you told the American people, from that very podium, that Karl Rove was not the leaker. Now it turns out that Rove did indeed talk about Joe Wilson's wife with at least one reporter. Your lies make us very, very angry. Why do you think you can mislead the American people? The people always find out even if we don't.

McClellan: That's not exactly a correct characterization of what happened, and I think you know it.

Q: Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!

McClellan: Could you please phrase that in the form of a question?

Q: Actually, on Sept. 29, 2003, you told us, and I quote, "Karl Rove specifically told me he did not talk to any reporters about Joe Wilson's wife. He didn't even know Joe was married. In fact, Karl tried to set Joe up with his sister once. He's always thought Joe was a swell guy, even if they have disagreements from time to time. So this whole controversy was a surprise to Karl Rove." Now you're trying to hide behind this "ongoing investigation" nonsense. But we're not going to let you get away with it. What do you have to say to that, you bastard child of a gutter rodent?

McClellan: There will be a time to address that question, but now is not the time.

Q: When, in your opinion, will it be time to address that question?

McClellan: When the investigation is concluded. Or when Halley's comet returns, whichever comes second.

Q: Hey! Dead meat! Over here! Earlier this morning, the President failed to say if Karl Rove was under consideration for an appointment to the Supreme Court. Is Karl Rove about to be fired?

McClellan: Everybody who works at the White House--even me--has the full confidence of the President. I believe that is what he meant.

Q: You uninformed, sniveling jackass. What the President said was, "I will not prejudge an ongoing investigation. I'm not in right now. Please leave a message after the tone. Eep, ork." Can you explain that statement, or not? Has anyone even told the President about his previous remarks?

McClellan: I think we've exhausted these questions.

Q: Not a chance. We're just getting warmed up. HOO-AH!

McClellan: Oh boy. Over there, in the back.

Q: Scott, could you tell us how the search for Osama bin Laden is going?

McClellan: Thank you very much for asking a question I can answer. The bombings in London are a horrible reminder of our ongoing struggle against the evils of terrorism. The perpetrators of these attacks are really, really bad guys, and we are vigorously pursuing the terrorists with every available resource. In fact, one of our operatives spotted Osama bin Laden having lunch with Bob Geldof just last week. So we're closing in. But that's classified information, so it will have to remain on background.

Q: Uh, do you realize these briefings are broadcast on C-SPAN? You're live on TV right now, dumbass.

McClellan: Oh, [censored]. Does anybody have the name of Karl Rove's lawyer? Next question.

Q: Who exactly is this Karl Rove everyone keeps talking about?

McClellan: I've said everything I'm going to say about that, and I'll be happy to explain just exactly who that is once the investigation is complete. Until then, I will continue to refer to him exclusively as "Unnamed Mystery White House Staffer X."

Q: Scott, I'm about to rip out a hunk of your flesh with my teeth. Would you prefer I attack your thigh, or your abdomen?

McClellan: The White House has no official position on that question.

Q: GRRR! GRRR! OW OW OWOOOO!

McClellan: We can keep going round and round and round on this subject, but no amount of snarling or barking will disrupt the responses I spent all last night coming up with. I even missed The O.C. to prepare for this briefing. So try as you might, you cannot break me.

July 20, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I do think it's interesting to note President Bush's subtle change: he originally said that if anyone in the Administration was found to have leaked Plame's identity that person would be fired. He's now shifted that slightly to say that if anyone has committed a crime that person will be fired.

To be fair, that really is splitting hairs. If Karl Rove didn't break the law that means he was playing by the rules. Why would the President fire him for playing by the rules? One can gather that when the President said anyone leaking information would be fired, it was believed that such a leak would have been illegal.

July 20, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I shouldn't get my hopes up...Still, it's nice to see when this political savay president keeps getting embarrassed for his and his administration's misdeeds..

It is hard to deny this is Bush-hate. You seem to have opened the door of your heart and shown us what is inside. That is sad indeed. There are many others like you in the media and many ignorant people that rely on them for their news.

It is natural to be happy when our political opponents fail to pass certain laws we believe would be bad. That is policy based and not personal. Yet it is hatred for our political opponents that make us cheerful and giddy when they experience personal pain like embarassment or injury.

I took no joy in President Clinton's admission that he did have an improper relationship with "that woman". That was a sad day for Clinton and for the nation. No compassionate Christian should ever find joy when their leaders have personal problems.

The right thing to do is let the investigation take place. I do think Congress should look into it but since it is controlled by Republicans that is not likely unless there is public preassure and the public really doesn't care about this story although a well organized group could still be able to preasure Congress into action.

July 21, 2005

Quote:

this is Bush-hate.

Here we go again, with the emotionally charged language that actually does nothing but stir up emotions and cause far more damgage than retoric...This is just plain stupid lazy behavior on your part. Be more creative in expressing YOUR opinion rather than the slum-gum from stinking sewers that neo-conservatives put forth.

Shane, you have taken my quote out of context and deliberately made my words say something else....I am going to deny that those words, in the context that you place it, are my words. Sure, I used those letters in the order that you copied, but in the context of where they came from...NOT MINE. They are yours and they make me look bad. Isn't this slander or at the very least gossip?

Does that mean that now I can take you to task for creating gossip about me? Does that mean that since I did not say those words in the context that you place them, that you are a gossiper, which as I recall, is a damnable offense...

I feel compelled to respond to your stupid, damnable gossip and to do so is to reduce this thread into a tit 4 tat posts. This has got to stop. This is what got you and I banned for 30 days...and it is stupid to start this. Would you please cease from posting emotionally charged wording and posting partial quotes out of context?

July 21, 2005

Quote:

Shane said:

To be fair, that really is splitting hairs. If Karl Rove didn't break the law that means he was playing by the rules. Why would the President fire him for playing by the rules? One can gather that when the President said anyone leaking information would be fired, it was believed that such a leak would have been illegal.

Here is the essencial liberal spin from Liberaltopia-

Here is the crux of the matter:

First, Karl Rove told a reporter that she was a CIA agent working on WMD, and the Republican cries that 'everybody knew that' are belied by the fact that Rove told Matt Cooper of Time magazine that his information was on deep background. Bolstering this was Bob Novak's notorious July 14, 2003 column that only mentioned 'two senior administration officials' as the sources. If 'everybody knew that,' why would Rove care if Cooper or Novak used his name? Why would he even feed them the story in the first place? It was obviously a devious hatchet job and all involved knew that very well.

Secondly, there is no defense for breaching national security this way; certainly not political revenge against Wilson nor to make other whistleblowers think twice before they reveal the truth. To work in the White House, Rove took an oath of office to protect national security which he violated -- that, pure and simple, is treason.

If Rove is not convicted and sent to jail, it will show how far we've come under the Bush Republicans from democracy and the rule of law.

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country."

-- Edward Bernays, "Propaganda" (1928).

July 21, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

One can gather that when the President said anyone leaking information would be fired, it was believed that such a leak would have been illegal

Nope sorry. If Rove is the leak then he must be fired or Bush is a flat out liar. He made a statement to the public he works for. He does not have the option of crossing his fingers when talking to us. Or,"OOPS, I dont fire friends". Or any other excuse that will be given when its proven Rove is the leak and not fired. And just because I stated my OPINION does not make it Bush hate mongering. I dont hate the man but I do hate verbal shenanigans and two faced politicking.

July 21, 2005

“When the act was passed, Congress had no intention of prosecuting a reporter who wanted to expose wrongdoing and, in the process, once or twice published the name of a covert agent. Novak is safe from indictment. But Congress also did not intend for government employees to be vulnerable to prosecution for an unintentional or careless spilling of the beans about an undercover identity. A dauntingly high standard was therefore required for the prosecutor to charge the leaker.

Plame's "covert" status needs to be investigated:

At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert." [ed.]

And this: The special prosecutor and reporters should ask Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan, who is overseeing the grand jury, to conduct a hearing to require the CIA to identify all affirmative measures it was taking to shield Plame's identity. [ed.]

Since Plame's cover name identity was posted for the entire world to see on her husband's 'Who's who' listing, and since she listed her employer as the CIA when she made a campaign contribution to Gore's campaign.. her husband going on a VERY public PR smear campaign (over 30 talk-show appearances and a splash in the NY Times) against the Bush administration, etc... Either the CIA was extraordinarily sloppy in it's failure to take even basic steps to shield Plame's identity, or she wasn't a covert agent whose identity needed protecting.” [ed.]

It seems that Plame rolled down the window in a drive-by and outed herself… a long time ago. It seems also that

the left-of-aisle, having run themselves as ragged as Keystone Kops with “Go” on the Iraq matter; “Bush was wrong about Iraq”; “Sadam has WMDs”; “Sadam’s don’t got no WMDS”; “Don’t touch Social Security -- it’s as good as gold ”; “Tax breaks for the wealthy!!!” (funny, why don’t the poor ever create jobs?); ad infinitum… now seek

to make a silk purse from a sow’s ear; or is it Rove’s ear?

Per Dubya: c’mon, either the man’s inarticulate or he’s not. You can’t have it both ways. All of a sudden the man parses as well as Bubba!? Tchah! I think most here have already come down on the side of -- “Dubya is inarticulate, hello? disassemble?” One might

harbor suspicions…

July 21, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Tchah!

July 21, 2005

I think I already noted that Rove is likely not guilty under that specific statute, but may be of obstruction of justice. As noted above, it seems fairly clear that he lied to the FBI.

Sign In

Ex-Cia's Spouse says Rove must go

Recommended Posts

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

jasd

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bevin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

musicman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bravus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bravus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bravus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Amelia

Link to comment

Share on other sites

jasd

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Amelia

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bravus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Browse