Rove was the source of the Plame leak... so it appears

So I suppose Tico's position has evolved from "There is no leak if you cannot show she was covert" to "Leaks? Who cares about leaks, man? Everybody leaks. What's the big deal?" Very Happy

0 Replies

The 'left' isn't the CIA. We can't control what they release. So your argument is false.

As is the argument about the 'analyst' nature of Plame's work; in fact, I really think you need to re-read the WP article posted by revel here:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1479941#1479941

A snippet for you:

Quote:

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified information.

Let's make this clear:

1. Valerie Plame was an undercover agent according to the CIA. We now have confirmation of this, and there shouldn't be any more discussion on this matter, wouldn't you agree?

2. Novak was told not to write her name, and he did anyways. He was also told that she didn't make the decision to send Joe Wilson, yet Novak wrote that she did anyways.

And... the story... keeps moooooving along....

tee hee

Oh noticed this as well

Quote:

Quinnipiac Univ. 7/21-25. MoE 3.2% (May 25)

Bush approval ratings

Approve 41 (44)
Disapprove 53 (50)

Thirties, here we come!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

L.A. Times editorial
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-rove27jul27,0,3614014.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials
LOS ANGELES TIMES EDITORIAL
Operation Coverup
July 27, 2005

Scandals metastasize. That is the pattern since Watergate. What starts out looking like a small, isolated incident gradually reveals itself to be part of a larger abuse of power. Meanwhile, an unraveling coverup adds new elements. Is that happening now with the scandal over White House leaks of the identity of a CIA agent?

Some folks say that as we learn more, the scandal is getting smaller, not larger. Valerie Plame was a CIA functionary commuting openly to agency headquarters, not a spy working behind enemy lines. The law against revealing the identities of intelligence agents is complicated and probably wasn't broken in this case. And the story line gets muddier: Journalists may have revealed Plame's identity to White House honchos.

We don't buy it. However they came to learn about this juicy factoid, people in the Bush administration misused an intelligence secret to discredit a critic of its Iraq policy. And outing Plame, whether illegal or not, did harm to our national security. Plame may work in Langley, Va., but she worked with others who work in more dangerous locales. You only need to imagine how Republicans would have treated such a leak in the Clinton administration to dismiss their protestations that it's all no big deal.

It's a good bet that there has already been some lying under oath. One theory about the puzzling tenacity and ferocity of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald ?- why he is sending journalists to jail for refusing to provide information he already has about an activity that probably wasn't even a crime by people other than the ones he is persecuting ?- is that he's switched his attention from the leak itself to perjury by White House officials who were asked about it earlier in the investigation.

Perjury is your classic coverup method, and still is used when other methods have failed. Advances in the science of spin since Watergate, however, have made a high-risk, Nixon-style coverup unnecessary in many situations.

President Bush says he won't publicly comment about the Plame case while the investigation continues. But the reason the investigation continues is partly his fault. He should have determined early on who leaked Plame's CIA identity to members of the press, and dealt with it.

Why didn't Bush two years ago just ask Karl Rove and a few others in the administration whether they had leaked Plame's identity to Bob Novak and the others? Why doesn't he ask Rove now? Is it because he knows the answer? Or because he doesn't want to have to fire Rove?

As a precaution against such a catastrophe, Bush now says he will fire anyone found to have broken the law by outing an undercover intelligence operative. Previously he had said he would fire anyone who outs an intelligence officer, period.

The coverup, in short, is going well.

0 Replies

If Fitxgerald spends another three years investigating this leak, the issue of impeachment will have expired. How deep is this investigating going?

0 Replies

Fitzgerald said in his briefings on the Miller appeal that his investigation is almost wrapped up. It is expected to end in October.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

So I suppose Tico's position has evolved from "There is no leak if you cannot show she was covert" to "Leaks? Who cares about leaks, man? Everybody leaks. What's the big deal?"

You would suppose incorrectly.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

kelticwizard wrote:
So I suppose Tico's position has evolved from "There is no leak if you cannot show she was covert" to "Leaks? Who cares about leaks, man? Everybody leaks. What's the big deal?"

You would suppose incorrectly.

Actually, he hit the nail right on the head.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The 'left' isn't the CIA. We can't control what they release. So your argument is false.

...

What "argument" are you referring to?

My posting of Mr. Spruiell's article about his interview with Mr. Inman does not constitute an "argument." My observation about Mr. Spruiell's perceived hypocrisy by the left was in response to Sumac's post, and stems from a reading of said article, where he said:

Mr. Spruiell wrote:

My question: Where was all the liberal outrage over the leaking of classfied information when the leaks were designed to hurt the Bush administration?

You will agree that while the "left" isn't the CIA and doesn't ostensibly control what is leaked, they can control how they react to said leaks. Mr. Spruiell appears to think liberals are being hypocritical with regard to their approach to this issue.

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
kelticwizard wrote:
So I suppose Tico's position has evolved from "There is no leak if you cannot show she was covert" to "Leaks? Who cares about leaks, man? Everybody leaks. What's the big deal?"

You would suppose incorrectly.

Actually, he hit the nail right on the head.

I thought we had agreed to ignore each other. I'm trying to do my part.

0 Replies

Tico, how about the confirmation that Plame was indeed undercover according to the CIA?

Care to discuss that little tidbit of information?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Tico's argument seems to be that we should be as upset about information that the CIA CLEARED for publication as we are about information that the CIA felt was worthy of asking for a criminal investigation about its publication.

There is a HUGE difference between the 2 Tico. Even you have to see that.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Tico's argument seems to be that we should be as upset about information that the CIA CLEARED for publication as we are about information that the CIA felt was worthy of asking for a criminal investigation about its publication.

There is a HUGE difference between the 2 Tico. Even you have to see that.

On the contrary, it is quite clear that Tico is very selective about what he does and does not see.

0 Replies

So where are all the other Bush Crime Family apologists? This thread is becoming rather boring. Even Tico can't come up with any decent Red Herrings.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
The 'left' isn't the CIA. We can't control what they release. So your argument is false.

...

What "argument" are you referring to?

My posting of Mr. Spruiell's article about his interview with Mr. Inman does not constitute an "argument." My observation about Mr. Spruiell's perceived hypocrisy by the left was in response to Sumac's post, and stems from a reading of said article, where he said:

Mr. Spruiell wrote:
My question: Where was all the liberal outrage over the leaking of classfied information when the leaks were designed to hurt the Bush administration?

You will agree that while the "left" isn't the CIA and doesn't ostensibly control what is leaked, they can control how they react to said leaks. Mr. Spruiell appears to think liberals are being hypocritical with regard to their approach to this issue.

My question is: What leaks? There is no mention of any leak at all in the article you posted Tico. To demand that the left be outraged over something you provide less evidence for than what has been provided to you about Plame's covert status is pretty funny. Where is your question demanding to know for certain that any information was a leak, let alone what information was supposedly a leak. Has a prosecutor pursued these unsubstantiated claims of leaks giving them any legitimacy at all? What evidence do you have that these leaks even existed?

0 Replies

Not enogh Americans are challenging this administration. The followng was sent to me by a friend.

The Down Low on the Down Below: A NYC Subway Event
A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by Brian Michels

DO NOT CONSENT. That was written across the upper chest of a woman exiting the Apple store in Soho. I didn't catch the meaning at first. However, a half hour later as I entered the Broadway Lafayette subway station, I figured it out pretty quickly. "Open your bag," the police officer told me. There were three other cops nearby inspecting personal belongings.

Of course I didn't comply. The officer, a nice enough fellow, told me I wouldn't be allowed on the train unless I did. I saw the need to educate the officer. I will get on the subway, I told him, and, of course, you won't be looking in my bag. He didn't like it, and it caused the other officers to laugh. I'll be getting on the subway, and there's a decent chance it'll be the next train, and you will not be looking in my bag, I repeated for a few surprised straphangers to catch the drift.

I hadn't raised my voice, I delivered it with a smile, yet now I had stern attention from all four cops as they gathered around. Relax gentlemen; I'm not doing anything wrong. I pointed to the first cop, I'm simply telling this kind police officer why he's wrong and he won't be telling me what to do. The chubby cop caught my bait, "Is that right, you're going to get by all four of us?" I will, and without much difficulty, I told them, just as easy as a terrorist would be able to do it. I continued, I will simply go upstairs and cross the street and enter on the other side where there are no cops standing around. And if tomorrow there are cops there, I will simply walk to the next station. There are too many stations on the subway to have cops posted at every one of them. Add to it the thousands of subway access points from street grates, sewer lines, and tunnels, and you have to agree that the subway is an open ended system. It cannot be sealed off. A terrorist could easily figure this out; especially these genius types who were supposedly able to foil the most dominant military defense system in the world when they managed to strike the pentagon on 9/11. (Something most experts believe was impossible) After cracking the pentagon, the subway must be a joke. Furthermore, what is to prevent a terrorist from buying a fat suit and strapping themselves with explosives, and then asking one of you cops inspecting his bag how to make a transfer to the Wall Street bound #1 train.

"Let him on the train!" an older lady yelled from the other side of the turnstile. Chubby cop said, "Well, I guess you are going to have to walk to the next station, buddy, because you not entering here." I told him that's not a major hurdle. I then finished off by telling the cops and the now thirty people gathered around, the real problem is that the government is instructing the police to look into bags for no reason other than to frighten all of us, and this is unacceptable in America. If this is allowed to continue it means those who hate our country for our FREEDOM have won. And those freedom-hating enemies of America are very likely some officials in this Administration. I love my country always and my government when it deserves it. In the end if a police state takes shape, we are no longer America, we are something Not America. I finally raised my voice before walking away, the real reason for a bogus police subway bag inspection is to instill fear into the masses just as the un-Patriot Act is up for confirmation in the Senate. Without a frightened populace the un-Patriot Act would be thrown in front of a moving train.

Brian Michels
New York, New York

0 Replies

The above ariticle reminds me that our borders are not secured, and the question of National Security is a big joke. This administration keeps reminding Americans about 9-11 to keep control of their insecurity and their dormant brains. What a shame!

0 Replies

That article is SO good. I am going to copy it and pass it around.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
The 'left' isn't the CIA. We can't control what they release. So your argument is false.

...

What "argument" are you referring to?

My posting of Mr. Spruiell's article about his interview with Mr. Inman does not constitute an "argument." My observation about Mr. Spruiell's perceived hypocrisy by the left was in response to Sumac's post, and stems from a reading of said article, where he said:

Mr. Spruiell wrote:
My question: Where was all the liberal outrage over the leaking of classfied information when the leaks were designed to hurt the Bush administration?

You will agree that while the "left" isn't the CIA and doesn't ostensibly control what is leaked, they can control how they react to said leaks. Mr. Spruiell appears to think liberals are being hypocritical with regard to their approach to this issue.

Mr. Spruiell asks a good question, but in answering him, the Left would indeed expose their hipocrisy.

Of the only two leakers in the last 50 years to be convicted of leaking, Clinton pardoned one.

Samuel L. Morison, a Navy intelligence analyst who gave three spy satellite photographs to Jane's Defence Weekly in 1984, was convicted of leaking classified information to the media. Morison was pardoned as President Bill Clinton left office in 2001. In the only other conviction for a leak, Jonathan Randel, a former intelligence officer at the Drug Enforcement Administration, was sentenced to a year in prison for selling restricted federal information.

If I recall correctly (and I do), the CIA literally begged Clinton not to pardon Morison. So, to those that are so self-righteously indignant that there may be a few here that aren't willing to hang anyone before the investigation is completed (since we don't know ALL the facts yet), your pseudo-outrage is transparent and laughable.

In other words, the Left could care less about the effects of Plame being "outed", and as someone noted pages ago, this is nothing but a third-rate smear campaign against Bush, Rove, and this administration.

Spruiell is right. Buncha hypocrites with no patience to let Fitzgerald do his job and finish this investigation.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Tico, how about the confirmation that Plame was indeed undercover according to the CIA?

Care to discuss that little tidbit of information?

Cycloptichorn

What about it? Again, your argument is with Admiral Inman, former Director of the National Security Administration and Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence. I merely posted the article which you apparently disagree with.

0 Replies

parados' post (a couple back), modified to read how he should have typed it:

parados wrote:

Mr. Spruiell's argument seems to be that we should be as upset about information that the CIA CLEARED for publication as we are about information that the CIA felt was worthy of asking for a criminal investigation about its publication.

There is a HUGE difference between the 2 Mr. Spruiell . Even you have to see that.

0 Replies

Rove was the source of the Plame leak... so it appears

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know