Baldimo wrote:farmerman wrote:Last I looked, he wasnt the President.
Your right he isn't but he is still effective in getting things done. He helped Bush get elected twice, so maybe it could be payback.
you two both sound mighty sure of yourselves there......
now you just rest and let the heavy thinking to us.
farmerman wrote:now you just rest and let the heavy thinking to us.
The reason I ask about Rove breaking the law is because the law stating that no one can revel the ID of cover agents has a time limit to how long that is. If they haven't been under cover for more then 6 years and it appears from Joe Wilson's book that she wasn't under cover for about 6 years, so if that is so then Rove did nothing wrong.
Apparently, she still was under cover.
I think farmerman's prediction is true. Rove goes but still functions as Bush's brain.
Let's see if we can figure this out before anyone else:
Judith Miller of the NYT during the run-up to the war talks to a lot of people about weapons of mass destruction. She reads a lot about weapons of mass destruction. She writes a bunch of pro-let's-go-now articles for the Paper of Record all about those weapons of mass destruction, some of them later regretted by the editors because some of the reporting was too easy on the Bush Administration.
Now who did she do all that talking with? What kind of contacts would a person have to have in order to really understand the complexities of all that poison gas, aluminium tubing, chemical compounds, personalities like Dr. Death etc. Maybe somebody in the administration or even the CIA was put with her to help with the non-classified stuff, all that heavy reading, maybe somebody like an expert in weapons of mass destruction, but that most certainly does not sound like Karl Rove, it sounds like well, you know who.
Now fast forwardddddddd: The war is ongoing, but there is a lot of static about the lack of those "we know where they are" weapons of mass destruction, so Judy goes to work on another article, this time about this minor former ambassador who wrote a piece for a newspaper ranting about how his report on the yellowcake controversy was ignored by the Bush Administration. Hmmm, says Judy, I wonder if Val (oops) can talk about this...........
Meanwhile, back at the WH, there is some steam on the windows about this Wilson guy making everybody look bad so Karl wonders aloud if anybody had any background on this guy. No, says Dr. Rice's then assistant, Stephen, but I know a reporter who could dig for us, kind of a little payback for us helping her with the early reports on WMD.
Hello Judy, have you ever heard of this Wilson guy while you were writing on the weapons? ,,,,,,.... No kidding? Hey, gotta go.
Stephen, phone call line 12,
Hey, Stephen, way off the record, was this guy sent by Cheney like he says?
No, Bob, but guess what Judith Miller just told me about who he is married to.
No kidding.
No, and you know that I am no partisan gunslinger, just the facts with me.
...
ring..
ring...
''lo,
Hey, Karl, Bob here, have you heard.......
Yes, I had heard that.
But is it true?
Dunno. I just heard it.
Okay then....
====
Judith looks over her notes on the yellow cake sixteen words again, she must put it all together before anybody else does, but first she has that piece of how well the oil production is going in Iraq.
Bob Novak types his byline and proceeds to puncture the little loudmouth who had the nerve to speak badly and in public about his friends.\\\\\
====
Now who goes to jail?
1) Judith, unless she can prove... no, she's going to jail.
Who gets fined and has to quit/
1)Anybody who was dumb enough not to think of the right answer in the grand jury room, which surprisingly could be Karl Rove who had the fantasy that he didn't talk to the TIME reporter and may have said as much. ouch. Lie to the country, but not to an Irish DA.
Who goes to spend more time with his family?
Stephen Hadley. Condi didn't want him to have that job anyway and he's already tried to quit once over this.
That's it.
What do you think?
Joe(who are your friends at the company?)Nation
IT's going to come down to who the country trusts more..
The RW spin machine or all the former intelligence officers that have come out saying that the WH did damage by revealing the name. (Those former officers are not communists or liberal loonies and no amount of spin will make them such.)
The RW spin machine is losing its luster and the pretty lights aren't quite so bright and shiney.
parados wrote:IT's going to come down to who the country trusts more..
The RW spin machine or all the former intelligence officers that have come out saying that the WH did damage by revealing the name. (Those former officers are not communists or liberal loonies and no amount of spin will make them such.)
The RW spin machine is losing its luster and the pretty lights aren't quite so bright and shiney.
You ignore that fact that if she hadn't been under cover for 6 years then there was no law broken and revealing her name was within the subject they were talking about.
Does anyone see a conflict of interest in any of this? She sent her husband. I would see this as something to look into as well.
hi bear...been rootin for ya.
farmerperson
Rove's expertise won't be tossed regardless of any eventuality, including even if that expertise must be communicated from out of a jail cell.
I think though that the possibility of him being fired is close to zero. I do understand you mean fired as show, as a mere PR move, to stem the damage.
But such a move would violate two fundamentals in this White House's operrations...the prime value in personnel is loyalty and the prime appearance to be avoided is weakness/disunity. Firing Rove violates both of those.
Far more likely, I think, they will do what they always do...stonewall, mount the ad hominem smears and the diversionary tricks.
But then Fitzgerald's findings will come down. If there is nothing substantial on Rove (and even if someone else, like Scooter gets hit) they will mount a huge PR attack on the 'liberal' press for 'going after' Rove.
And watch for this...the one individual in all of this who has not had a hint of any negative thrown his way is Fitzgerald. That's not surprising - at this point. But if he comes down with indictments on Rove, suddenly Fitzgerald will be guilty of raping farm animals.
Baldimo wrote:parados wrote:IT's going to come down to who the country trusts more..
The RW spin machine or all the former intelligence officers that have come out saying that the WH did damage by revealing the name. (Those former officers are not communists or liberal loonies and no amount of spin will make them such.)
The RW spin machine is losing its luster and the pretty lights aren't quite so bright and shiney.
You ignore that fact that if she hadn't been under cover for 6 years then there was no law broken and revealing her name was within the subject they were talking about.
Does anyone see a conflict of interest in any of this? She sent her husband. I would see this as something to look into as well.
Lets find the errors in your statements..
1. If its classified that she is a CIA agent then revealing that fact is a crime if you have security clearance. It doesn't matter if she was a covert agent or not. Revealing any classified information is a crime.
2. The CIA seems to think she was covert so your argument is meaningless since they are the people that KNOW when she was sent overseas and what her cover was.
3. SHE did NOT send her husband. She was not part of the decision making process. She only suggested her husband when asked for names of people that could be sent.
Keep watching the shiney lights Baldimo. Don't take your eyes off the shiney lights. If you take your eyes off the shiney lights you might be forced to recognize REAL facts. So whatever you do Baldimo, don't take your eyes off the shiney lights.
Too many ex CIA officers have come out about this Baldimo and made the points I just repeated here. You are free to not believe them but don't expect the rest of the country to be as bamboozled as you are.
Baldimo, security clearances are long time getting and easily lost. As parados said, covert,schmovert. If You gave me the names of all lab scientists at a govt lab who had their Q clearances , you would be breaking the law and its not a misdemeanor for us schmucks.
IM STILL BETTIN. ANYBODY TAKIN? IM A FOOL WITH MY MONEY> I JUST LIKE THE ACTION> TELL YA WHAT. WE DO IT JUST FOR BRAGGING RIGHTS , NO MONEY (ITS PROBLY COVERED IN THE TOS ANYWHEY) LOSER HAS TO START A THREAD AND EXTOlL THE VIRTUES AND MAGNIFICENSE OF THE WINNER FOR EVERY DAY OF A GIVEN WEEK< CHOSEN BY THE WINNER. ALSO, THE WINNER GETS TO DICTATE THE VIRTUES BY PM TO THE LOSER< WHO MUST FAITHFULLY REPRODUCE THESE VIRTUES AND MAGNIFICENSE AS IF THEY WERE OWN WORDS.
THE TIME PERIOD FOR THIS ACTION HAS TO BE LONG ENOUGH SO THE DC CROWDS CAN FOCUS ON THIS.
I posted this in another forum on a2k, but I thought it important enough to also post it here. I hope you don't mind, farmerman.
Rep. Waxman explains Rove's Nondisclosure agreement
Posted by BurtWorm
Added to homepage Fri Jul 15th 2005, 06:37 PM ET
REP. HENRY A. WAXMAN RANKING MINORITY MEMBER
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JULY 15, 2005
Fact Sheet
Karl Rove's Nondisclosure Agreement
Today, news reports revealed that Karl Rove, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff and the President's top political advisor, confirmed the identity of covert CIA official Valerie Plame Wilson with Robert Novak on July 8, 2003, six days before Mr. Novak published the information in a nationally syndicated column. These new disclosures have obvious relevance to the criminal investigation of Patrick Fitzgerald, the Special Counsel who is investigating whether Mr. Rove violated a criminal statute by revealing Ms. Wilson's identity as a covert CIA official.
Independent of the relevance these new disclosures have to Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation, they also have significant implications for: (1) whether Mr. Rove violated his obligations under his "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement" and (2) whether the White House violated its obligations under Executive Order 12958. Under the nondisclosure agreement and the executive order, Mr. Rove would be subject to the loss of his security clearance or dismissal even for "negligently" disclosing Ms. Wilson's identity.
KARL ROVE'S NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
Executive Order 12958 governs how federal employees are awarded security clearances in order to obtain access to classified information. It was last updated by President George W. Bush on March 25, 2003, although it has existed in some form since the Truman era. The executive order applies to any entity within the executive branch that comes into possession of classified information, including the White House. It requires employees to undergo a criminal background check, obtain training on how to protect classified information, and sign a "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," also known as a SF-312, promising not to reveal classified information.1 The nondisclosure agreement signed by White House officials such as Mr. Rove states: "I will never divulge classified information to anyone" who is not authorized to receive it.2
THE PROHIBITION AGAINST "CONFIRMING" CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
Mr. Rove, through his attorney, has raised the implication that there is a distinction between releasing classified information to someone not authorized to receive it and confirming classified information from someone not authorized to have it. In fact, there is no such distinction under the nondisclosure agreement Mr. Rove signed.
One of the most basic rules of safeguarding classified information is that an official who has signed a nondisclosure agreement cannot confirm classified information obtained by a reporter. In fact, this obligation is highlighted in the "briefing booklet" that new security clearance recipients receive when they sign their nondisclosure agreements:
Before
confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not,
confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.
parados:
Quote:1. If its classified that she is a CIA agent then revealing that fact is a crime if you have security clearance. It doesn't matter if she was a covert agent or not. Revealing any classified information is a crime.
Was her ID classified?
Check here to see if what Rove did was illegal. What he did doesn't seem to violate the Act as it is listed.
Quote:2. The CIA seems to think she was covert so your argument is meaningless since they are the people that KNOW when she was sent overseas and what her cover was.
Has the CIA came forward and said this? I haven't seen any mention of this. Please provide link for verification.
Quote:3. SHE did NOT send her husband. She was not part of the decision making process. She only suggested her husband when asked for names of people that could be sent.
It is still a conflict of interest is it not? I have read many times on this web site about conflict of interests and how much you all hate it when the right doesn't admit something. It seems one of your own has been engaged in the same type of issue but I have seen no interest from the left on this.
Quote:Keep watching the shiney lights Baldimo. Don't take your eyes off the shiney lights. If you take your eyes off the shiney lights you might be forced to recognize REAL facts. So whatever you do Baldimo, don't take your eyes off the shiney lights.
Try making some sense.
Quote:Too many ex CIA officers have come out about this Baldimo and made the points I just repeated here. You are free to not believe them but don't expect the rest of the country to be as bamboozled as you are.
It's not about being bamboozled; it is about what really happened and what can happen. The fact remains Rove didn't break the law. What does remain is the gunning the left has had for any one in the Bush admin since the beginning. They have been looking under every rock they can and have found nothing. They make a big stink about everything they can and only find fungus under those rocks. Don't worry people are taking notice of the left wing attach machine and when the next election comes the only thing that will be found under any rocks are going to be Dem candidates cowering after another voter loss.
farmerperson imprudently stood up in the bar and yelled:
Quote:IM STILL BETTIN. ANYBODY TAKIN? IM A FOOL WITH MY MONEY> I JUST LIKE THE ACTION> TELL YA WHAT. WE DO IT JUST FOR BRAGGING RIGHTS , NO MONEY (ITS PROBLY COVERED IN THE TOS ANYWHEY) LOSER HAS TO START A THREAD AND EXTOlL THE VIRTUES AND MAGNIFICENSE OF THE WINNER FOR EVERY DAY OF A GIVEN WEEK< CHOSEN BY THE WINNER. ALSO, THE WINNER GETS TO DICTATE THE VIRTUES BY PM TO THE LOSER< WHO MUST FAITHFULLY REPRODUCE THESE VIRTUES AND MAGNIFICENSE AS IF THEY WERE OWN WORDS.
Oh, yes. I'm in. But I have a bare spot on one wall crying out for a mounted and signed ink portrait of Mr. Franklin.
How say you, Barnum-fodder?
What obscure individual from Canadas past adorns your 50 ?, Ranger Rick?)(plus Id need about 4 toonies to even it up a bit). We need some rules
Rule 1. This rule defines theDuration, obviously Nixon didnt even make a dot in the press till well after election. This event is only beginning, so Id suggest that , if Karl Rove isno longer gainfully employed in his present p osition in 18 months I prevail
Rule 2- (consistant with the terms of our incentivized inquiry include the following, any collateral change of status in that same time period, like "reassignment, "taking on another role", retitling of his position, reassignment of component responsibilities etc) these are also a "clip"in normal US political existence, and, therefore, under our agreement, this would mean that I also prevail. In order for you to win Karl must suffer no significant diminution of stati by January 15 2007.
Rule 3-There is no rule 3
I think that this is fair and can be subject to the A2K censors and may be monitored for quality control. Your mileage may vary.
I suppose that, in order to consumate this inquiry between the principles, we should communicate in a PM. This would offer the host community advisors to a plea of plausible deniability? OK skippy?
The majestic Canadian fifty sports a spell-binding lithograph of Celine Dion, pre-nose job.
I'm convinced there is no applicable TOS in play here. This certainty follows upon consultation with Victoria Toensing and Karl Rove's mother - not the fake replacement mother inserted by the college republicans two decades ago but the real Rove mother, Carolina Commons Trailer Park scrabble champion seven years running with a taste for black boys, bathtub gin, and sucking up opium vapors through a DeSoto tailpipe.
But apparently you are a rule wuss. Please feel free to forward contract details via private communication lines. My solicitor and I shall get back to you anon.
Baldimo wrote:parados:
Quote:1. If its classified that she is a CIA agent then revealing that fact is a crime if you have security clearance. It doesn't matter if she was a covert agent or not. Revealing any classified information is a crime.
Was her ID classified?
Check here to see if what Rove did was illegal. What he did doesn't seem to violate the Act as it is listed.
Quote:2. The CIA seems to think she was covert so your argument is meaningless since they are the people that KNOW when she was sent overseas and what her cover was.
Has the CIA came forward and said this? I haven't seen any mention of this. Please provide link for verification.
Quote:3. SHE did NOT send her husband. She was not part of the decision making process. She only suggested her husband when asked for names of people that could be sent.
It is still a conflict of interest is it not? I have read many times on this web site about conflict of interests and how much you all hate it when the right doesn't admit something. It seems one of your own has been engaged in the same type of issue but I have seen no interest from the left on this.
Quote:Keep watching the shiney lights Baldimo. Don't take your eyes off the shiney lights. If you take your eyes off the shiney lights you might be forced to recognize REAL facts. So whatever you do Baldimo, don't take your eyes off the shiney lights.
Try making some sense.
Quote:Too many ex CIA officers have come out about this Baldimo and made the points I just repeated here. You are free to not believe them but don't expect the rest of the country to be as bamboozled as you are.
It's not about being bamboozled; it is about what really happened and what can happen. The fact remains Rove didn't break the law. What does remain is the gunning the left has had for any one in the Bush admin since the beginning. They have been looking under every rock they can and have found nothing. They make a big stink about everything they can and only find fungus under those rocks. Don't worry people are taking notice of the left wing attach machine and when the next election comes the only thing that will be found under any rocks are going to be Dem candidates cowering after another voter loss.
Lets examine your argument again and point out the NEW errors..
Who mentione Rove other than you? I didn't mention him. I only pointed out the fact that the WH revealed the name of a covert agent.
The CIA has said she was a covert agent when they asked the DoJ to investigate. Without her being a covert agent there could be no crime as you say. Yet the CIA said there WAS the possibility of a crime. There could be no possible crime if she was not a covert agent. The CIA did an investigation and concluded there was a possible crime.
CIA letter to Conyers detailing DoJ contacts about covert agent's name relased
If Plame was not a covert agent how could it be a crime according to the CIA?
How could the CIA claim a crime if they are not claiming Plame was covert?
It is NOT a conflict of interest to suggest someone for a job. It can't be a conflict of interest. Plame didn't make the decision of who went. She only suggested her husband for a non paid position. What was the conflict? I can't see any at all. Plame couldn't make the decision so she had no conflict. Her husband wasn't paid so no monetary conflict. WHat the heck is the conflict? Conflict of interest means there must be some kind of possible personal gain contrary to the public purpose. WHat was it?
The person looking under rocks is a prosecutor holding GJ hearings. It is a fact that the prosecutor has caused a WH official to change their story after first denying they had any conversations about a CIA agent and then changing it to they talked about her and said she was Wilson's wife but didn't identify her. The bamboozle is expecting us to believe that both statements are true.
The only thing crawling out from under the rocks Baldimo is WH officials that are lying. You are free to be bamboozled by them. Go ahead. I expect it of you. But as you flounder around trying to defend the actions of the WH it only shows others how silly it is to defend it.
So far your argument is that Rove isn't guilty so that must mean the no one in the WH ever revealed the name of a covert agent. Then you argue that she wasn't covert in spite of the fact that without her being covert there would be no crime to report to FBI or for the FBI and prosecutor to investigate. Keep those shiney things dangling in front of your eyes Baldimo. The rest of us aren't fascinated with them.
The specific gravity of a typical Canadian must exceed that of vanadium. My rules are quite simple
1 Time (Im given 18 months to have this result transpire)
2 Definition (Any outcome that defines my side prevailing shall include termination, resignation, or any of a number of "significant" role changes for Mr R)
3 All other rules shall not apply'
A holographic image of Ms Dione with her natal honker must be quite impressive . I am eager to own one . I might add that should the above mentioned miscreant successfully evade termination but still be held for prosecution or a Grand Jury decree (post term of course) then I feel we have a draw in which no portrtaits need be exchanged. I have circled my 10 year calendar January 07 with the note is Karl Rove still employed? If not, contact the RCMP.
The Mountie is havin' ya on, FM, as i'm sure ya know . . . i don't recall the jokers name, maybe its Sir Robert Borden, or one a them other Tory yutzes . . .
