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

Ticomaya wrote:

... and fighting terrorists that attack the United States.

are they finally planning to do something about that?

0 Replies

i will switch hats for a second. the article by the WSJ (and how such good news reporting can co-exist with such lousy editorials is beyond the comprehenion of science).

the article lays out what timberland and i agreed upon many pages ago, viz., that if those people who said to novak, cooper et al had not actually known they were leaking classified information, then the party who did know it was classified and told the former parties is/are the ones responsible under the law.

and clearly it is going well beyond simply Plame's outing. For if that report written by the State Dept was classified as secret and someone leaked secret information, regardless of it being wrong about Plame, that is an offense in its own right.

someone leaked secret information, knowingly, whether directly to the press or to someone else who later did.

that is where this is going.

its why while i have shown rove talked to reporters in an attempt to smear wilson i have also agreed that he might not have known what he was saying was a secret. i am pissed at him because he presented lies as facts, and have responded to these lies on this thread.

but, i have yet to see convincing evidence (see cooper's email and testimony/Meet the Press appearance) that rove knew he was leaking classified information, even thought i believe he is a source of the leaks.

nevertheless, what he did was contemptable, and he would not have an office right next door to the president.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

That was the basic issue of the article posted by foxfyre, viz., that since Plame was already outed prior to Novak's column, any investigations of criminal activity pertaining to Novak's public revealations were without merit.

The basic issue in the article that she posted (and I posted earlier also) was the hypocrisy of the media. But it appears you missed that.

But I digress, because the point I'm trying to make is a different one:

Quote:

And if the Supreme Court had thought that the Appellate Court rulings were wrong, and you and the amicus brief were correct, they would have taken the case.

I don't suppose it would do any good to point out that you are, once again, wrong when you make this assertion.

But you apparently think you know what the Supreme Court was thinking when it decided to deny cert. If your prognostication abilities are up to it, would you do me a favor? Tell me who Bush is going to nominate to the SCOTUS tonight ... I'm going to be busy, and I'd like to know now.

Quote:

just read the amicus brief, it only runs a couple of dozen pages in total.

I did read the amicus brief ... in fact, I read it before you did.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
... and fighting terrorists that attack the United States.

are they finally planning to do something about that?

Heeheehee...

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

ehBeth wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
... and fighting terrorists that attack the United States.

are they finally planning to do something about that?

Heeheehee...

<sigh> You buy them books ....

0 Replies

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/comics/images/Toles/20050719.gif

0 Replies

People don't get fired because someone said they might have done something.

Try firing someone in the private sector on that flimsy reason.

I think we've done pretty good in deflecting terrorist attacks here--and I think our service personnel are doing valiant work in Afghanistan and likely other stans.

0 Replies

Whatever. Let's get back to the topic, PLEASE!

How much would you pay to get one free punch in the face on that pig Karl Rove?

0 Replies

Wait a minute. If Rove didn't know he was leaking, why did he tell Cooper it was double super secret? (Or something to that effect that led to the super secret comment in Coopers notes?)

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

I did read the amicus brief ... in fact, I read it before you did.

Quote of the day.

LMAO!!! Laughing

0 Replies

Kuvasz said:

Quote:

What else are they going to try, accuse Fitzgerald and the CIA of being influenced about this by Bill Clinton's powerful penis?

ROFLMAO!!! hehehehe

SCROTUS appointment? Sounds awfully similar to scrotum.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

since i got no reply the first time on this, i'll repost it. just in case lash didn't see it the first time...

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Lash wrote:
DTOM-- If you REALLY want to read about the phone call that Wilson neglected to follow up on, you can subscribe to the WaPo. My link expired.

no, i don't want to subscribe to the wapo and no, i don't want to read an op-ed.

It's not an op-ed. It's the one of the reports or conclusion pieces from the 911 Commission. I had it linked and it's no longer accessible. I wouldn't make a claim that serious on an op-ed. If you want to know bad enough to subscribe, you can.

what i want, is for you to provide the title, link and text of an official report that states that "wilson was given a contact phone number and he did not bother to call it".

I just did. You don't want it. I even provided you with the page. Why would you ask for some thing you've refused twice?

ya see, i just finished reading the text of the senate committee report, specifically the sections on "the ambassador" and "niger" and the conclusions of the sections related to niger and the "16 words".

Congratulations. I've read it too. Before you did. (Inside kuvasz joke, pardon.)

and there is not one single referrence to wilson having been given any phone numbers.

If you want to see it, I gave you the link and the page number.

he was given "talking points", which i take to mean as a list of questions. but no referrence to any phone numbers is made. nor does the report in any way scream "wilson lied".

If you know how to read you see he lied. His book said his wife didn't have anything to do with his assignment. Anyone with any brain activity and a smidge integrity can easily see that's a lie. They report she was found to have gotten him the assignment.

so unless you can provide the things i've asked you for, i will have to conclude that either there is no official referrence to the alleged phone number provided and that it is simply part of a partisan hit piece. or that you just made it up

so which is it ?

It is that you refuse to look at the link I've provided on the page where I told you it is.
edited for puncts

Just want to make sure you see this.

0 Replies

I'm wondering about the timing today that the SC appointment would be put forth tonight?

Damage control? Get the press off of one topic, onto another?

0 Replies

Found it elswhere:

(U) Problems with the Intelligence Community's HUMINT efforts were also evident in the Intelligence Community's handling of Iraq's alleged efforts to acquire uranium from Niger. The Committee does not fault the CIA for exploiting the access enjoyed by the spouse of a CIA employee traveling to Niger. The Committee believes, however, that it is unfortunate, considering the significant resources available to the CIA, that this was the only option available. Given the nature of rapidly evolving global threats such as terrorism and the proliferation of weapons and weapons technology, the Intelligence Community must develop means to quickly respond to fleeting collection opportunities outside the Community's established operating areas. The Committee also found other problems with the Intelligence Community's follow-up on the Iraq-Niger uranium issue, including a half-hearted investigation of the reported storage of uranium in a warehouse in Benin, and a failure, to this day, to call a telephone number, provided by the Navy, of an individual who claimed to have information about Iraq's alleged efforts to acquire uranium from Niger.

It was Wilson who screwed that up. He didn't use the phone number and this issue was one of the things he was given to do.

He didn't want to find it.

This entire section bashes the CIA for using such an idiot and not making sure he did the bare minimum he should have done.

0 Replies

sumac wrote:

I'm wondering about the timing today that the SC appointment would be put forth tonight?

Damage control? Get the press off of one topic, onto another?

That kind of timing can only be described as impecable.

As far as the 9/11 comission is concerned, there has been so much that WASN'T included in that commission in order to gain greater objectivity as to the true causes on that fateful day, and I do not hold much weight in that document whatsoever.

0 Replies

Niger did not sell Yellow cake to Saddam,
Niger did not sell yellow cake to Saddan. Bush was lying.[/size]
The result of the big lie
1750 American service people dead
45,000 service people wounded
110,000 Iraqi's dead
Uncounted Iraqi's wounded
200 billion dollars spent.

And all I hear is Wilson is a liar.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Niger did not sell Yellow cake to Saddam,
Niger did not sell yellow cake to Saddan. Bush was lying.[/size]
The result of the big lie
1750 American service people dead
45,000 service people wounded
110,000 Iraqi's dead
Uncounted Iraqi's wounded
200 billion dollars spent.

And all I hear is Wilson is a liar.

Next, they'll try and connect all those deaths to Wilson's "lies." Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Web Exclusive | Tony Karon
Bush and Iraq: Follow the Yellow Cake Road
Tony Karon's Web Log: The question is no longer whether the President uttered a falsehood in his indictment of Iraq; it's at what point the Administration learned the claim of uranium purchases from Niger was false

0 Replies

Feed Rove to the donkeys. Laughing

0 Replies

Bush wasn't lying.

The 911 Commission found that--the Butler Report found that. I don't know why people insist on perpetuating that lie.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know