0
   

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

 
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2005 11:38 pm
kelticwizard wrote:
Nah. He's wrong. So are you.

CBS DID check out the doucments, and got the okay. Other experts called the document into question.


Not exactly - for just one example of the hole in that theory, see the article quoted in This Post

Quote:
... A CBS producer, who initially tipped off The Prowler about the 60 Minutes story, says that despite seeking professional assurances that the documents were legitimate, there was uncertainty even among the group of producers and researchers working on the story.

"The problem was we had one set of documents from Bush's file that had Killian calling Bush 'an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot.' And someone who Killian said 'performed in an outstanding manner.' Then you have these new documents and the tone and content are so different."

The CBS producer said that some alarms bells went off last week when the signatures and initials of Killian on the documents in hand did not match up with other documents available on the public record, but producers chose to move ahead with the story. "This was too hot not to push. If there were doubts, those people didn't show it," says the producer, who works on a rival CBS News program ...

Amusingly, Rove-paranoia figures in that flap, too - from the same article:
Quote:
... According to one ABC News employee, some reporters believe that the
Kerry campaign as well as the DNC were parties in duping CBS, but a
smaller segment believe that both the DNC and the Kerry campaign were duped by Karl Rove, who would have engineered the flap to embarrass the opposition.


Ahhhh, yessss - it all begins to come together now ... Laughing

Damn, I love this sorta thing.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 12:07 am
Quote:
Wednesday July 6, 2005
Opinion

Rove's unlikely defenders




The issue: Did white House 'brain' Karl Rove leak CIA information?

Our view: Rove may face charges, even as reporters risk jail to protect him
.

How ironically bizarre it would be if Bush political hit-man Karl Rove is proven to be the person, or one of them, who leaked the name of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame to news reporters, two of whom faced going to jail rather than reveal their White House sources on the Plame-leak story.

That would mean not only that Rove may have illegally disclosed classified CIA information to punish someone who dared report facts inconsistent with Bush's Iraq war obsession, it would also mean that the terrible "mainstream media" - including a New York Times reporter - risked sitting in jail for months rather than betray one of its most rabid critics.

Plame's identity was first revealed by conservative columnist Robert Novak, though curiously, he was never targeted by the feds. Novak's column appeared right after Joseph Wilson, Plame's husband, publicly ridiculed Bush administration assertions in the run-up to war with Iraq that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy 'yellowcake,' a nasty substance used to refine uranium, from Niger. Wilson's official report on the matter, however, didn't stop the president from sharing this false information with the American people in a major speech linking Iraq to global terrorism.

Rove's connection to Plame was revealed after Time gave up on a long battle to protect its sources by agreeing to turn over documents related to the case, including emails from Rove to Time. On Tuesday, though, a federal judge said simply turning over documents wasn't enough and ordered Time's Matthew Cooper to testify before a grand jury investigating the matter or face going to jail, perhaps as early as today.

While acknowledging that Rove spoke to Cooper, Rove's lawyer said his client never "knowingly" revealed classified information, which sounds very much like the beginnings of an 'I didn't inhale' criminal defense.

Possible charges against Rove, if he's indicted, range from treason to perjury.

Now, it is up to a federal grand jury to decide whether to charge Rove or anyone else, for that matter. Until their work is done, and especially if reporters go to the slammer on their behalf, there will be plenty of debate over how journalists could protect Karl Rove for two long years - a period that included the hard-fought 2004 elections.

The whole thing reminds us of the plight of another conservative icon, Rush Limbaugh, whose "right" to keep his medical records private - in the face of allegations he illegally scored thousands of narcotic painkillers to feed his addiction - was vigorously supported by none other than the American Civil Liberties Union.

"There is still only one drug suspect whose rights are in enough peril that Rush Limbaugh has been inspired to criticize law enforcement agents," wrote Sarasota (Fla.) Herald Tribune Columnist Tom Lyons. "The suspect whose rights have the famous conservative talk-show host wringing his hands like an ACLU lawyer is none other than Limbaugh himself, of course."

Like Rove, Limbaugh is sweating out the last days of a long-running investigation into his behavior, a probe that continues moving ahead despite a host of creative legal challenges tried by lawyers.

For these two piously patriotic, tough-on-crime idealogues, so-called "liberal" ideas like unrestricted press freedom, privacy, probable cause and the rights of the accused might be looking a lot better now that they both face the possibility, however remote, of going to jail with all the rest of America's "evildoers."
Source
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 04:39 am
Novak, it is said on the streets of Washington without a shred of evidence, (who cares?), puked up his liver, lungs, offered his first born child and sang like a nightingale to investigators, naming names, pointing fingers, shouting names, whispering names and shaking like a leaf.

Roll the video tape.

Joe(Wait. I need some popcorn)Nation
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 04:55 am
ehBeth wrote:
I guess it depends on how you see the U.S. media.
Right-wing and sucking up to the White House about covers it from the north of the border view.

O'Donnell has a few questions

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20050705/cm_huffpost/003683/nc:742

Quote:


Wait a second. More questions? Why? Timberlandko already told us that O'Donnell had already concluded Rove was clear of criminl culpablity.

When is the right going to learn that posting propaganda from freeper bloggers as fact does nothing but destroy their own credibility.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 04:59 am
"The grinding wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow but they grind exceedingly fine."

Going from memory no idea to whom that should be attributed (I know it's not me) and I have probably got the wroding wrong but that popped up in my mind.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 06:22 am
Re Karl's typical mode of operation (which has some consequence for how we might consider his ethics and honesty), please refer to christian conservative Bush appointee to the faith based initiatives project, DiIulio, who related (in letter to Suskind) the time he was passing Rove's office in the White House and heard Rove yelling "We will fuk him like he's never been fukked before!"
0 Replies
 
Zane
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 07:41 am
And then there's this..

Quote:
KARL ROVE: WORSE THAN OSAMA BIN LADEN
By Ted Rall
Tue Jul 5, 8:05 PM ET

NEW YORK--In war collaborators are more dangerous than enemy forces, for they betray with intimate knowledge in painful detail and demoralize by their cynical example. This explains why, at the end of occupations, the newly liberated exact vengeance upon their treasonous countrymen even they allow foreign troops to conduct an orderly withdrawal.

If, as state-controlled media insists, there is such a creature as a Global War on Terrorism, our enemies are underground Islamist organizations allied with or ideologically similar to those that attacked us on 9/11. But who are the collaborators?

The right points to critics like Michael Moore, yours truly, and Ward Churchill, the Colorado professor who points out the gaping chasm between America's high-falooting rhetoric and its historical record. But these bête noires are guilty only of the all-American actions of criticism and dissent, not to mention speaking uncomfortable truths to liars and deniers. As far as we know, no one on what passes for the "left" (which would be the center-right anywhere else) has betrayed the United States in the GWOT. No anti-Bush progressive has made common cause with Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan or any other officially designated "terrorist" group. No American liberal has handed over classified information or worked to undermine the CIA.

But it now appears that Karl Rove, GOP golden boy, has done exactly that.

Last week Time magazine turned over its reporter's notes to a special prosecutor assigned to learn who told Republican columnist Bob Novak that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. The revelation, which effectively ended Plame's CIA career and may have endangered her life, followed her husband Joe Wilson's publication of a New York Times op-ed piece that embarrassed the Bush Administration by debunking its claims that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger. Time's cowardly decision to break its promise to a confidential source has had one beneficial side effect: according to Newsweek, it indicates that Karl Rove himself made the call to Novak.

One might have expected Rove, the master White House political strategist who engineered Bush's 2000 coup d'état and post-9/11 permanent war public relations campaign, to have ordered a flunky underling to carry out this act of high treason. But as the Arab saying goes, arrogance diminishes wisdom.

Rove, whose gaping maw recently vomited forth that Democrats didn't care about 9/11, is atypically silent. He did talk to the Time reporter but "never knowingly disclosed classified information," claims his attorney. But there's circumstantial evidence to go along with Time's leaked notes. Ari Fleischer abruptly resigned as Bush's press secretary on May 16, 2003, about the same time the White House became aware of Ambassador Wilson's plans to go public. (Wilson's article appeared July 6.) Did Fleischer quit because he didn't want to act as spokesman for Rove's plan to betray CIA agent Plame? Another interesting coincidence: Novak published his Plame column on July 14, Fleischer's last day on the job.

If Newsweek's report is accurate, Karl Rove is more morally repugnant and more anti-American than Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden, after all, has no affiliation with, and therefore no presumed loyalty to, the United States. Rove, on the other hand, is a U.S. citizen and, as deputy White House chief of staff, a high-ranking official of the U.S. government sworn to uphold and defend our nation, its laws and its interests. Yet he sold out America just to get even with Joe Wilson.

Osama bin Laden, conversely, is loyal to his cause. He has never exposed an Al Qaeda agent's identity to the media.

"[Knowingly revealing Plame's name and undercover status to the media]...is a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and is punishable by as much as ten years in prison," notes the Washington Post. Unmasking an intelligent agent during a time of war, however, surely rises to giving aid and comfort to America's enemies--treason. Treason is punishable by execution under the United States Code.

How far up the White House food chain does the rot of treason go? "Bush has always known how to keep Rove in his place," wrote Time in 2002 about a "symbiotic relationship" that dates to 1973. This isn't some rogue "plumbers" operation. Rove would never go it alone on a high-stakes action like Valerie Plame. It's a safe bet that other, higher-ranking figures in the Bush cabal--almost certainly Dick Cheney and possibly Bush himself--signed off before Rove called Novak. For the sake of national security, those involved should be removed from office at once.

Rove and his collaborators should quickly resign and face prosecution for betraying their country, but given their sense of personal entitlement impeachment is probably the best we can hope for. Congress, and all Americans, should place patriotism ahead of party loyalty.


source

Laughing Cool
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 07:45 am
Sigh. And the left complains about Ann Coulter.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 09:51 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Sigh. And the left complains about Ann Coulter.


Ann Coulter does not occupy a position of power and authority. Rove does,and more is expected of him.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 10:01 am
Some of that article may be going out there without any real proof. However, the fact remains that Rove is connected to this and when Bush promised to investigate, his name should have come up sooner than when two underling times reporters were threatened with jail time while Novak (friend of Rove) who wrote the story and never revealed his source don't appear to be touched by any of this.

At the very least anyone would have to admit that it is all questionable on the part of the administration since Rove is tied up in this. I think it is silly for anyone to pretend that they believe his story about not knowing what he was doing when he was talking to reporters.

This is serious business and it does rise to level of an independent investigation to get to the bottom of it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 10:07 am
Ah, the early days of a conspiracy investigation.

I never DREAMED last November that things would be going this well for the Dems.

Who will talk? Who will lie to the Grand Jury? Will the Reporters go to jail rather than talk?

I also wonder if anyone remembers our boy Gannon/Guckert? He was one of the 'reporters' supposedly told about the Plame outing. Strangely enough, he was the first documented claim that the CBS memos were fake. Hmm.......

I think we will have a fun time seeing how deep the rabbit hole goes, don't you?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 10:17 am
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ah, the early days of a conspiracy investigation.

I never DREAMED last November that things would be going this well for the Dems.

Who will talk? Who will lie to the Grand Jury? Will the Reporters go to jail rather than talk?

I also wonder if anyone remembers our boy Gannon/Guckert? He was one of the 'reporters' supposedly told about the Plame outing. Strangely enough, he was the first documented claim that the CBS memos were fake. Hmm.......

I think we will have a fun time seeing how deep the rabbit hole goes, don't you?

Cycloptichorn


There are even really nasty rumors going around DC that Rove and Gannon are more than just good friends. Yikes! The republicans hate it when sex gets mixed up in their scandals. Takes away their high moral ground.

BBB
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 10:30 am
BBB wrote:
There are even really nasty rumors going around DC that Rove and Gannon are more than just good friends. Yikes! The republicans hate it when sex gets mixed up in their scandals. Takes away their high moral ground.

BBB


Tsk, tsk.....the left is reduced to gossip.....really salacious gossip. Atta boy
BBB
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 10:37 am
Rayban
rayban1 wrote:
BBB wrote:
There are even really nasty rumors going around DC that Rove and Gannon are more than just good friends. Yikes! The republicans hate it when sex gets mixed up in their scandals. Takes away their high moral ground.

BBB


Tsk, tsk.....the left is reduced to gossip.....really salacious gossip. Atta boy
BBB


Yeah, we learned it from the Republican's lie campaigns against Clinton and Kerry. We should know better than to copy such tactics as designed and directed by Karl Rove. Shame on me. I should behave better than Rove.

BBB
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 10:54 am
one of Rove's friends chimes in

Quote:
Save the First Amendment--from Karl Rove

By Bill Israel

Published: July 05, 2005 3:45 PM ET

In 99.9 percent of cases I know, journalists must not break the bonds of appropriate confidentiality, to protect their ability to report, and to defend the First Amendment. I've testified in court to that end, and would do so again.

But the Valerie Plame-CIA case that threatens jail time for reporters from Time and The New York Times this week is the exception that shatters the rule. In this case, journalists as a community have been played for patsies by the president's chief strategist, Karl Rove, and are enabling him to abuse the First Amendment, by their invoking it.

To understand why this case is exceptional, one must grasp the extent of Rove's political mastery, which became clearer to me by working with him. When we taught "Politics and the Press" together at The University of Texas at Austin seven years ago, Rove showed an amazing disdain for Texas political reporters. At the same time, he actively cultivated national reporters who could help him promote a Bush presidency.

In teaching with him, I learned Rove assumes command over any political enterprise he engages. He insists on absolute discipline from staff: nothing escapes him; no one who works with him moves without his direction. In Texas, though he was called "the prime minister" to Gov. George W. Bush, it might have been "Lord," as in the divine, for when it came to politics and policy, it was Rove who gave, and Rove who took away.

Little has changed since the Bush presidency; all roads still lead to Rove.

Consequently, when former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson challenged President Bush's embrace of the British notion that Saddam Hussein sought to import uranium from Niger to produce nuclear weapons, retaliation by Rove was never in doubt. While it is reporters Matthew Cooper of Time and Judith Miller of The New York Times who now face jail time, the retaliation came through Rove-uber-outlet Robert Novak, who blew the cover of Wilson's wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame.

The problem, as always, in dealing with Rove, is establishing a clear chain of culpability. Rove once described himself as a die-hard Nixonite; he is, like the former president, both student and master of plausible deniability. (This past weekend, in confirming that Rove was indeed a source for Matthew Cooper, Rove's lawyer said his client "never knowingly disclosed classified information.") That is precisely why prosecutor Fitzgerald in this case must document the pattern of Rove's behavior, whether journalists published, or not.

For in this case, Rove, improving on Macchiavelli, has bet that reporters won't rat their relationship with the administration's most important political source. How better for him to operate without constraint, or to camouflage breaking the law, than under the cover of journalists and journalism, protected by the First Amendment?

Karl Rove is in my experience with him the brightest and most affable of companions; perhaps I have been coopted, for I genuinely treasure his friendship. But neither charm nor political power should be permitted to subvert the First Amendment, which is intended to insure that reporters and citizens burrow fully and publicly into government, not insulate its players from felony, or reality.

Reporters with a gut fear of breaching confidential sources must fight like tigers to protect them. But neither reporters Cooper nor Miller, nor their publications, nor anyone in journalism should protect the behavior of Rove (or anyone else) through an undiscerning, blanket use of the First Amendment that weakens its protections by its gross misuse.


editor and publisher link
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 10:57 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I also wonder if anyone remembers our boy Gannon/Guckert? He was one of the 'reporters' supposedly told about the Plame outing. Strangely enough, he was the first documented claim that the CBS memos were fake. Hmm.......

No, he wasn't.

Here's the opening of the Rathergate:
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/2468/buckhead471dn.jpg

Quote:
I think we will have a fun time seeing how deep the rabbit hole goes, don't you?

Cycloptichorn

I'm confident some of will be greatly entertained. I doubt the Bushohobes/Roveophobes will be among that demographic.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 10:59 am
I know I was entertained by the Vanity Fair article on Rove.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 11:01 am
Don't take much to entertain some folks.
0 Replies
 
Synonymph
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 11:01 am
Quote:
There's a little-known profile of Karl Rove floating around the mediasphere.

It was published by The New Yorker in 2003, and it seems to be the sort of lengthy, comprehensive investigation into the psyche of a man which could be dredged up at any point in that man's life to explain--or predict--his behavior.

Karl Rove 101
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 11:07 am
found it

http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/050704roco03

small snippet from the middle

Quote:


It's a longish, interesting read.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Karl Rove E-mails - Discussion by Diest TKO
Rove: McCain went 'too far' in ads - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Sheryl Crow Battles Karl Rove at D.C. Press Dinner - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Texas attorney fired for Rove article comments - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/09/2025 at 08:58:46