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

Tico wrote:

Quote:

You do not have a logical mind, which I determined in our last go-round.

Determined or just "made up" to give yourself a basis for continuing to argue?

Tico, you would argue that I was assuming if I claimed 2+2 = 4.

A conclusion is not the same thing as an assumption.
A logical conclusion is based on logic Tico. You seem to not understsand that. Some word meanings for you Tico since you seem to need help in this area. (Right back at you bud since you want to border on personal attacks.)

Quote:

con·clu·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-klzhn)
n.
(Logic.)
a.) The proposition that must follow from the major and minor premises in a syllogism.
b.) The proposition concluded from one or more premises; a deduction

Quote:

as·sump·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-smpshn)
n.

The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.

Logic. A minor premise.

Facts we know.
Rove and Libby told reporters that Wilson's wife sent him to Niger
A state dept memo is the only known source of that information prior to reporters being told it. (The CIA doesn't state that his wife sent him.)
The memo was circulated amongst WH staff on Air Force 1
The prosecutor is investigating the memo and WH staff and who had access to that memo.

The logical conclusion is that Rove and Libby got the information about Wilson's wife either directly or indirectly from the memo. The memo is not quite accurate in its information and the same innaccuracies have appeared in the information alleged to come from Rove and Libby. The ONLY assumption here Tico is yours when you claim it could have come from a State dept employee. Your assumption violates some of the known facts. Reporters have all stated they heard it from WH employees, not state dept. There is no evidence to support your assumption.

The ONLY assumption I have made Tico is that the known facts are true. Your MAJOR premise seems to be that what we know can't possibly be true.

Based on how I built my conclusion Tico, there is no way to claim it isn't logical. It might be "false logic" if I made erroneous statements of fact to build my case or leapt to a conclusion that doesn't follow. Please feel free to point out my false logic Tico if you disagree with my conclusions, but you can't claim it isn't logic.

Quote:

False logic appears in such ways as:

Convoluted rationale that confuses and hence leads the listener to assume it is true.
Bold assertions of logic ('It makes sense, doesn't it?' or 'It stands to reason that...').
False data that follow logical rules and inevitably lead to false results. (The focus on the logic often acts to distract from the false data.)

The only false logic I have seen so far has been from you Tico when you introduced elements to my Plame must be covert based on CIA and Prosecutor conclusions argument that had nothing to do with what they or anyone else said. You were attempting a convoluted rational to confuse. Sorry bud, but you should stop and think before you accuse others of not being logical.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Regarding the de la Vega article, the IIPA might yet be found to be unconstitutionally vague for the reason she raises. If a person of ordinary intelligence has to guess as to whether their conduct is prohibited or not by a particular statute, the statute is void for vagueness.

See my earlier discussion on that point .... HERE.

The standards of conduct given to those with security clearances isn't that vague Tico. Any reasonable person can understand that if its classified you aren't supposed to reveal it. No reasonable person could possibly question if it was OK to reveal the name of an undercover CIA agent.

Please try and pay attention to what I'm saying and the point I'm making. I'm not talking about "the standards of conduct given to those with security clearances." I am specifically referring to the IIPA, and it is the IIPA I said might be found to be unconstitutionally vague. What I'm talking about has NOTHING to do with the standards of conduct of those with security clearances.

So then you will agree completely that it was a violation of security clearance rules for Rove and/or Libby to discuss classified information with a reporter even if they only confirmed it when asked. Make it clear to all that you were in no way attempting to obfuscate that fact by stating it clearly here Tico. Answer this question -

If Rove and Libby discussed classified information with a person that did not have the proper clearances then they should lose their security clearance. Agree or disagree, Tico?

(The pool is now open on how long Tico will dance around and not answer the question. $1 to get in. "Never" is not available since I have already taken that square. )

0 Replies

Apparently Novak has somewhat frayed nerves as the Plame affair slowly unravels. And we have to thank CNN to suspend him when Novak took an Howard Stern attitude, swore and walked out of the CNN set of Inside politics:

CNN Suspends Novak After He Walks Off Set

Excerpts:

Quote:

CNN suspended commentator Robert Novak indefinitely after he swore and walked off the set Thursday during a debate with Democratic operative James Carville.

The live exchange during CNN's "Inside Politics" came during a discussion of Florida's Senate campaign. CNN correspondent Ed Henry noted when it was over that he had been about to ask Novak about his role in the investigation of the leak of a CIA officer's identity.

A CNN spokeswoman, Edie Emery, called Novak's behavior "inexcusable and unacceptable."

Only two weeks ago, CNN executives defended their decision to keep Novak on the air during the ongoing probe into the revelation of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/04/AR2005080401606_pf.html

I had seen the exchange but wasn't aware of its fallouts until today. Ever since the Plame affair I was always uncomfortable with Novak on CNN, choosing most of the time to zap to another news channel (and FOX isn't one of them or a news channel. In the cold war it would have been termed a propaganda outfit).

0 Replies

My money is that he will attempt to state why the question is not relevant.

0 Replies

Novak's "tantrum" was not predicated by anything to do with the Plame Game, which had not yet even come up in the segment. His ire stemmed from the interuptions and condescensions thrown his way, particularly by Carville. The clip is out there on the web; google it up and watch it yourself.

0 Replies

parados,If I can jump in here,and I'm not taking sides,you said...

only known source of that information

Quote:

Now,I must point out that for years the "only KNOWN" source of oil was from the ground.
Now it can be made with synthetics.
The "only known source" of diamonds was in South Africa.
The "only known" planets were earth,mars,and nercury.
The "only known" way to cross the ocean was by sailing ship.

I would suggest that just because its the only source YOU KNOW OF,does not make it the only known source.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Novak's "tantrum" was not predicated by anything to do with the Plame Game, which had not yet even come up in the segment. His ire stemmed from the interuptions and condescensions thrown his way, particularly by Carville. The clip is out there on the web; google it up and watch it yourself.

C'mon, timber. That exchange was about a '2' on a scale of 1 to 10, compared to what they did to each other regularly on Crossfire. He had been told that the upcoming segment would include some tough questions about his part in the Plame affair. That, and the constant media drumbeat that says the noose is tightening, and you say these things had nothing to do with his being more irascible and sensitive than normal?

0 Replies

Just going by what I saw and what Novak has said about it, snood.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

parados,If I can jump in here,and I'm not taking sides,you said...

only known source of that information
Quote:

Now,I must point out that for years the "only KNOWN" source of oil was from the ground.
Now it can be made with synthetics.
The "only known source" of diamonds was in South Africa.
The "only known" planets were earth,mars,and nercury.
The "only known" way to cross the ocean was by sailing ship.

I would suggest that just because its the only source YOU KNOW OF,does not make it the only known source.

Too funny Mysteryman.. I love the irony as you claim some things were the "only known" sources when they were never considered as such.

Whale oil was the prime source of a fuel that could be burned for some time before crude oil from the ground was ever refined.

South Africa may be the most abundant source but never has been considered the "only known" source of diamonds. India is considered the first source of mined diamonds and are written about over 2000 years ago. Diamonds weren't discovered in South Africa until the last couple of centuries.

When was Mercury known but Venus wasn't? Venus is brighter than Mercury in the sky and was known to the ancients.

Your ship example doesn't even relate since what Rove and Libby knew has NOTHING to do with yet to be invented technologies.

0 Replies

Are Bush supporters ready to fight another Bush war?

Germany attacks US on Iran threat
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has warned the US to back away from the possibility of military action against Iran over its nuclear programme.
His comments come a day after President Bush reiterated that force remained an option but only as a last resort.

Iran has resumed what it says is a civilian nuclear research programme but which the West fears could be used to develop nuclear arms.

Germany, France and the UK have led efforts to end the crisis peacefully.

Let's take the military option off the table. We have seen it doesn't work
Gerhard Schroeder

Mr Schroeder's rejection of force came at the official launch of his party's election campaign.
The BBC's Ray Furlong - reporting from Hanover - says there was an echo of his last election campaign three years ago, when his steadfast opposition to the use of force against Iraq helped get him re-elected.

Applause

Mr Schroeder directly challenged Mr Bush's comment that "all options are on the table" over the Iran crisis.

"Let's take the military option off the table. We have seen it doesn't work," Mr Schroeder told Social Democrats at the rally in Hanover, to rapturous applause from the crowd.

Mr Schroeder said it remained important that Iran did not gain atomic weapons, and a strong negotiating position was important.

"The Europeans and the Americans are united in this goal," he said. "Up to now we were also united in the way to pursue this."

Mr Schroeder reiterates his views in an interview to be published Sunday in the German weekly Bild am Sonntag, labelling military action "extremely dangerous".

"This is why I can with certainty exclude any participation by the German government under my direction," Mr Schroeder tells the paper.

Mr Schroeder was among Europe's sternest critics of the Iraq war, causing a bitter rift with the US which poisoned relations between the two countries.

His opposition, in tandem with that President Jacques Chirac's France, led to US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld's stinging attack on "old Europe".

NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
Mined uranium ore is purified and reconstituted into solid form known as yellowcake
Yellowcake is converted into a gas by heating it to about 64C (147F)
Gas is fed through centrifuges, where its isotopes separate and process is repeated until uranium is enriched
Low-level enriched uranium is used for nuclear fuel
Highly enriched uranium can be used in nuclear weapons

The UN's atomic watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, backed a resolution this week expressing "serious concern" at the resumption of the nuclear programme, and demanding it be halted again at once.

Mr Bush's comments about the military option came in an interview on Israeli TV.

The BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington says the president wants to send a clear warning to Tehran, although in reality the US already has its hands full in neighbouring Iraq.

Mr Schroeder is lagging well behind his conservative rivals in the German election campaign, but has been narrowing the gap in recent days.

In the 2002 poll, he came from behind to snatch victory after anti-Iraq war feeling - and an outbreak of serious flooding in Germany - helped him attract last-minute support.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/4149090.stm

Published: 2005/08/13 16:19:43 GMT

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Just going by what I saw and what Novak has said about it, snood.

hey timber, how you? keeping the jugernaut outta the ditch ? Laughing

i saw the exchange too. and cnn pretty much right away stated that novak knew that the next segment was on the leak. it's true that carville and novak went haywire on each other all the time on crossfire. usually more heated than what happened during "the incident".

as i've mentioned before, there's not much of anything on t.v. that's not planned out.

i wouldn't be surprised if novak planned to do something ahead of time. also wouldn't be surprised if he did so counting on being contractually barred from appearing on any other network.

voila ! poor bob can't talk about anywhere on t.v.

pheewwww ! what a relief, he says trundling off to lunch with his buddy, karl.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Tico wrote:
Quote:
You do not have a logical mind, which I determined in our last go-round.
Determined or just "made up" to give yourself a basis for continuing to argue?

Tico, you would argue that I was assuming if I claimed 2+2 = 4.

No, I wouldn't. But you tend to claim 2 + X = 4. Laughing

parados wrote:

A conclusion is not the same thing as an assumption.
A logical conclusion is based on logic Tico. You seem to not understsand that. Some word meanings for you Tico since you seem to need help in this area. (Right back at you bud since you want to border on personal attacks.)

Quote:
con·clu·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-klzhn)
n.
(Logic.)
a.) The proposition that must follow from the major and minor premises in a syllogism.
b.) The proposition concluded from one or more premises; a deduction

Quote:
as·sump·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-smpshn)
n.

The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.

Logic. A minor premise.

Thanks for the "lesson," Einstein. I meant assumption, and that's why I typed the word "assumption."

Quote:

Facts we know.
Rove and Libby told reporters that Wilson's wife sent him to Niger
A state dept memo is the only known source of that information prior to reporters being told it. (The CIA doesn't state that his wife sent him.)
The memo was circulated amongst WH staff on Air Force 1
The prosecutor is investigating the memo and WH staff and who had access to that memo.

The logical conclusion is that Rove and Libby got the information about Wilson's wife either directly or indirectly from the memo. The memo is not quite accurate in its information and the same innaccuracies have appeared in the information alleged to come from Rove and Libby. The ONLY assumption here Tico is yours when you claim it could have come from a State dept employee. Your assumption violates some of the known facts. Reporters have all stated they heard it from WH employees, not state dept. There is no evidence to support your assumption.

(1) You assume there are no other sources of the information aside from the State Dept. memo. (You appear to feel confident in making that assumption because there are no other "known" sources.) (2) You assume that Rove and Libby got their information from the State Dept. Memo. (3) You assume that nobody at the State Dept. revealed the information to a reporter, who then told Rove and Libby. (4) You assume that Rove and/or Libby saw the State Dept. memo.

Those appear to be the major assumptions you made in order to reach the conclusion you did. What I've done is point out that you have made these assumptions. You are again showing an inability to either, (A) recognize when you make an assumption, or (B) admit you are making an assumption.

parados wrote:

The ONLY assumption I have made Tico is that the known facts are true.

I really think you believe that to be true. I really think you believe your logic is flawless. But as I've clearly pointed out above, you are making many more assumptions than that one.

parados wrote:

Your MAJOR premise seems to be that what we know can't possibly be true.

That is not my major premise. Is it possible that you see that now?

parados wrote:

Based on how I built my conclusion Tico, there is no way to claim it isn't logical. It might be "false logic" if I made erroneous statements of fact to build my case or leapt to a conclusion that doesn't follow. Please feel free to point out my false logic Tico if you disagree with my conclusions, but you can't claim it isn't logic.

Quote:
False logic appears in such ways as:

Convoluted rationale that confuses and hence leads the listener to assume it is true.
Bold assertions of logic ('It makes sense, doesn't it?' or 'It stands to reason that...').
False data that follow logical rules and inevitably lead to false results. (The focus on the logic often acts to distract from the false data.)

Your logic isn't so much false as it is flawed.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
parados wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Regarding the de la Vega article, the IIPA might yet be found to be unconstitutionally vague for the reason she raises. If a person of ordinary intelligence has to guess as to whether their conduct is prohibited or not by a particular statute, the statute is void for vagueness.

See my earlier discussion on that point .... HERE.

The standards of conduct given to those with security clearances isn't that vague Tico. Any reasonable person can understand that if its classified you aren't supposed to reveal it. No reasonable person could possibly question if it was OK to reveal the name of an undercover CIA agent.

Please try and pay attention to what I'm saying and the point I'm making. I'm not talking about "the standards of conduct given to those with security clearances." I am specifically referring to the IIPA, and it is the IIPA I said might be found to be unconstitutionally vague. What I'm talking about has NOTHING to do with the standards of conduct of those with security clearances.

So then you will agree completely that it was a violation of security clearance rules for Rove and/or Libby to discuss classified information with a reporter even if they only confirmed it when asked. Make it clear to all that you were in no way attempting to obfuscate that fact by stating it clearly here Tico. Answer this question -

If Rove and Libby discussed classified information with a person that did not have the proper clearances then they should lose their security clearance. Agree or disagree, Tico?

(The pool is now open on how long Tico will dance around and not answer the question. $1 to get in. "Never" is not available since I have already taken that square. )

<sigh>

Was I wrong to presume English is your first language? What do you mean, "Make it clear to all that you were in no way attempting to obfuscate that fact by stating it clearly here Tico." I didn't say anything about the standards of conduct for those with security clearances.

I made a post that related to the points made by de la Vega in her article about the IIIPA, pointing out that the IIPA might be found to be unconstitutionally vague because of the arguments raised by de la Vega. Then, for reasons known only to yourself, you replied with a post that claims that the standards of conduct given to those with security clearances aren't vague, apparently thinking I had claimed that they were. I'm beginning to think drawing pictures might be a more effective means of communicating with you.

In any event, I'll respond to the point you're trying to make (which again, is not related to the point I was making in any way). You claim that the "standards of conduct given to those with security clearances isn't that vague." I haven't examined these "standards of conduct." If you will provide me with a link to them I'll try and answer that question.

If Rove and Libby intentionally discussed classified information with a person that did not have the proper clearances then they should lose their security clearances, IMO (not based on any review of said "standards of conduct").

sumac wrote:

My money is that he will attempt to state why the question is not relevant.

You win.

0 Replies

Quote:

If Rove and Libby intentionally discussed classified information with a person that did not have the proper clearances then they should lose their security clearances, IMO (not based on any review of said "standards of conduct").

Thank you, Tico! Now pleeeeeeeeeze get rid of that avatar! Very Happy

0 Replies

Stradee wrote:

Quote:
If Rove and Libby intentionally discussed classified information with a person that did not have the proper clearances then they should lose their security clearances, IMO (not based on any review of said "standards of conduct").

Thank you, Tico! Now pleeeeeeeeeze get rid of that avatar!

What's wrong with my avatar? Does it anger you? It angers some people.

0 Replies

Angry? No.

Drop kick Arnold out of California? Yep.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Stradee wrote:
Thank you, Tico! Now pleeeeeeeeeze get rid of that avatar!

What's wrong with my avatar? Does it anger you? It angers some people.

trust me bro, if you lived in cali it would have you p.o.ed too. Laughing

try a kinder, gentler ahnoldt. conan or something. much more palettable than the governator.

ya got any floyd news, tico ?

0 Replies

Dems in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...

From http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/2005/07/what-if-karl-rove-were-democrat.htm

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

What If Karl Rove Were A Democrat
by Roger Aranoff

While the mainstream media continue to be indignant about Bush official Karl Rove's alleged role in revealing the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame, it is worthwhile to put this in political perspective. The Center for Individual Freedom has provided an excellent list of cases involving Democratic officials possibly violating national security or using classified information that have been ignored or glossed over by the major media. It's hard not to conclude that the media are targeting Rove because he is a conservative Republican.

Despite the feeding frenzy and scores of questions asked by the media at White House briefings, it remains to be seen that what Rove did was actually wrong. Possible violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act have been the apparent reason why the New York Times and others pushed so vigorously for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the case of who provided Plame's name to the press. Yet according to her husband Joe Wilson's book, "The Politics of Truth," she had not served in a foreign country since 1997 and wasn't therefore covered by the law.

One of the many relevant aspects of the law is that for it to be applicable, the named agent must be serving now, or sometime in the past five years, in a foreign country. Also, the agent must be someone whose identity the CIA is taking active steps to keep hidden. But Plame gave money to Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000 using her married name and identified her employer as a CIA-front company. She worked at the CIA headquarters in Virginia and was listed in her husband's biography.

There is, of course, the possibility that the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, is looking at other possible violations of the law. For example, reports of conflicting statements could mean perjury or obstruction of justice or just bad memories of the same events. But for the media the blood is in the water. The critics are saying at the very least, President Bush promised to fire anyone involved, even though a reconstruction of the comments and the timeline of his remarks on the matter clearly indicate that Bush was saying that if anyone had committed an illegal act, they would be fired. Was Rove involved? He was certainly involved in the sense that he talked to reporters about her. But there's no evidence at this point that his involvement rises to the level of anything illegal or unethical.

The Center for Individual Freedom has assembled some other more clear-cut examples of the misuse or outright abuse of classified material, some by harsh critics of Rove and the Bush administration for their handling of this matter. They include:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) went on the floor of the Senate and said there was a "problem" revealed in a private FBI file on a judicial nominee, Judge Henry Saad. Senate rules require Senators "to keep FBI information strictly confidential."

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) identified a covert CIA officer by name during confirmation hearings for John Bolton as UN ambassador. The committee chairman had repeatedly requested that the agent not be named.

John Deutsch, the CIA director under former President Clinton, "wrote, stored and accessed classified memos on the same unsecured home computer that he used to surf the Internet."

A Federal Appeals Court said that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, "was a likely source of disparaging leaks about former Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee," while Richardson was Energy Secretary under President Clinton. The case involved national security information.

Democratic Senators Rockefeller and Wyden improperly disclosed the existence of a classified spy satellite last year while on the floor of the Senate, while expressing opposition to what they felt was too much spending by the Bush administration.

Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont resigned from the Senate Intelligence Committee "in disgrace" in the 1980's for leaking a draft report on the so-called Iran-Contra investigation. It included information on how the CIA gathered intelligence.

Sandy Berger, former National Security Adviser under President Clinton, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in federal court. Berger admitted that he intentionally took and destroyed copies of classified documents from the National Archives. He had stuffed some in his pants, cut some of them up with scissors, and lied to the investigators and the American public. He claimed he was reviewing Clinton administration documents to decide which ones to provide to the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks on Washington D.C. and New York. He said it had been "an honest mistake" and that he "deeply regrets" his actions.

Time will tell how these episodes compare to the actions of Karl Rove and others in the Bush administration. But the public evidence against Rove at this point is mighty thin and the case seems minor compared to the incidents cited above. We can only conclude that the media frenzy is disproportionate to the facts of the case, and that coverage of Rove represents a clear double standard by reporters eager to go after Republicans but willing to ignore worse transgressions by Democrats. If Karl Rove were a Democrat, he would be forgiven by the press and reporters would be returning to him for more juicy tidbits of information.

Roger Aronoff is a media analyst with Accuracy in Media

0 Replies

"Yet according to her husband Joe Wilson's book, "The Politics of Truth," she had not served in a foreign country since 1997 and wasn't therefore covered by the law."

Can somebody please verify the verasity of this statement?

0 Replies

Roger Aranoff probably doesn't know and understand security requirements. A 'release' doesn't happen because any government staff may claim something is not classified. Any and all release of classified information must be in writing by the authorized security officer. There is nothing about statute of limitations based on an operatives overseas assignment. Aranoff's whole thesis is based on misinformation.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know