Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Here's what they'll try next re: Plame/Rove/Cheney

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
gardenista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-05 01:48 AM
Original message
Here's what they'll try next re: Plame/Rove/Cheney
-Rove's leak of "Wilson's Wife's" name was not illegal.

Answer- Then why did Bush, McClellan, et al say that the leaker would be fired, so there must have been something very wrong in that action. Then get into the results of this leak, including possible deaths to other operatives. Loss of at least one valuable CIA asset.

-"Wilson's Wife" was "widely known" to be in the CIA, among Washington circles. (This is Novaks little gem).

Answer- Then why was it necessary for Rove to leak this information? Why were six separate instances documented in which the WH leaked this information to reporters?

Be on the lookout for the second one, they will push that one 'til the cows come home. They will saturate the media with any photo they can find of Plame. They will make it look like she never tried to hide her identity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Capn Sunshine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-05 01:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. They will flat out LIE about Wilson
It started tonight. Tweety had a NY Post whore on who said Wilson was such a liar , that poor Karl was only trying to set the record straight
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-05 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I saw that. She was a piece of sh*t. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gardenista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-05 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Oh yeah, the full on character assasination will begin now. But I think
it all works in our favor. It keeps the issue out there.

LOL, poor Karl. Such a stickler for the truth...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BCBud Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-05 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Not that I believe it ultimately matters....
but, how true is the statement that Wilson's wife got him the assignment? I'm a little worried about that one. I think they can get some mileage out of that. Please correct me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-05 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #4
16. it's another lie
Edited on Tue Jul-12-05 02:40 AM by bananas
It's been debunked, I don't have a link.

On edit: I have a link

http://www.yuricareport.com/Impeachment/WilsonDefendsHimselfInLtrToSenate.html

Joseph Wilson Fights Back

Answers the Senate Intelligence Committee's Report And A N.Y. Times Journalist

...

July 15, 2004

The Honorable Pat Roberts
Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

The Honorable Jay Rockefeller
Vice Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Dear Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller,

...

First conclusion: “The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador’s wife, a CIA employee.”

That is not true. The conclusion is apparently based on one anodyne quote from a memo Valerie Plame, my wife sent to her superiors that says “my husband has good relations with the PM (prime minister) and the former Minister of Mines, (not to mention lots of French contacts) both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” There is no suggestion or recommendation in that statement that I be sent on the trip. Indeed it is little more than a recitation of my contacts and bona fides. The conclusion is reinforced by comments in the body of the report that a CPD reports officer stated that “the former ambassador’s wife ‘offered up his name’” (page 39) and a State Department Intelligence and Research officer that the “meeting was ‘apparently convened by wife who had the idea to dispatch him to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue.”

In fact, Valerie was not in the meeting at which the subject of my trip was raised. Neither was the CPD Reports officer. After having escorted me into the room, she departed the meeting to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. It was at that meeting where the question of my traveling to Niger was broached with me for the first time and came only after a thorough discussion of what the participants did and did not know about the subject. My bona fides justifying the invitation to the meeting were the trip I had previously taken to Niger to look at other uranium related questions as well as 20 years living and working in Africa, and personal contacts throughout the Niger government. Neither the CPD reports officer nor the State analyst were in the chain of command to know who, or how, the decision was made. The interpretations attributed to them are not the full story. In fact, it is my understanding that the Reports Officer has a different conclusion about Valerie’s role than the one offered in the “additional comments”. I urge the committee to reinterview the officer and publicly publish his statement.

It is unfortunate that the report failed to include the CIA’s position on this matter. If the staff had done so it would undoubtedly have been given the same evidence as provided to Newsday reporters Tim Phelps and Knut Royce in July, 2003. They reported on July 22 that:

“A senior intelligence officer confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked ‘alongside’ the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger.

“But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. ‘They (the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story) were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising,’ he said. ‘There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason,’ he said. ‘I can’t figure out what it could be.’

“We paid his (Wilson’s) airfare. But to go to Niger is not exactly a benefit. Most people you’d have to pay big bucks to go there,’ the senior intelligence official said. Wilson said. he was reimbursed only for expenses.” (Newsday article Columnist blows CIA Agent’s cover, dated July 22, 2003).

In fact, on July 13 of this year, David Ensor, the CNN correspondent, did call the CIA for a statement of its position and reported that a senior CIA official confirmed my account that Valerie did not propose me for the trip:

“’She did not propose me’, he said--others at the CIA did so. A senior CIA official said that is his understanding too.’”

...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-05 01:58 AM
Original message
That's pitiful.
The White House has admitted that Wilson was telling the truth about the yellow cake incident and that they had already taken the yellow cake lie out of another speech because Wilson was right. Karly boy was not setting the record straight. He was trying to confuse the issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Check12 Donating Member (445 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-05 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. Intent will trump legality ("fair game")
Tweety made it through the whole segment, talking all about what Karl Rove's lawyer said in his defense; That Rove didn't say the name Valerie Plame, therefore he can't be guilty, even if he identified her as Joe Wilson's wife. Also, the lawyer's spin that Karl was just warning Mat Cooper about that bad Joe Wilson character. Well Mr. Matthews, how does all that jive with the fact that you, you miserable excuse for a journalist talked to Karl Rove yourself did you not? And what did Karl tell you Mr. Hardball? Oh yea, "Valerie Plame was fair game" how does that fit with the 'it was just a warning to Cooper theory' you propagandist creep. Some of you may think I am being to hard on tweety bird after all he did make some hard hitting points against Rove. However he never disclosed his own conversation with Rove and the implications of that conversation. That makes him a pathetic hack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gardenista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-05 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Anyone who has spent any significant time with an intelligent child who
Edited on Tue Jul-12-05 02:03 AM by mgdecombe
wants to push the boudaries using semantics understands that you reach a point where somebody has to get spanked.

edited for a dreaded extra apostrophe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JRob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-05 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. he IS "a pathetic hack" nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dave123williams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-05 02:20 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. If he was trying to set the record straight, why did he do it

...as a 'double super secret' background source?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tuvor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-05 01:58 AM
Response to Original message
5. If it wasn't illegal, why did rove deny involvement?
A good question posed earlier today on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gardenista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-05 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. Ding ding ding ding ding!!!!!
That question gets a gold star!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-05 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. you mean we have a winner?

Kewl... congrats!

;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JRob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-05 02:02 AM
Response to Original message
7. They can not have it both ways... these assholes are reaching the end
of their rope (today's WH briefing is a good indication). I've said for a while not that the only good thing about a BUSH win in 2004 is that they will get so cocky they will self-detinate...

Take the rope and hang themselves (so to speak).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ncteechur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-05 02:04 AM
Response to Original message
9. And why did Cooper say to not source it to Rove or the WH?
If it is not illegal then why should it matter who said it. Why couldn't Novak print the names of his sources? Why a grand jury and a special prosecuter?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gardenista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-05 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Yeah, I mean, if everybody knows she's a spook 'n all....
Why didn't Rove just jut his chin out and say, "Yeah, I exposed "Mrs. Wilson". She's a liar, and so is her husband.

Nope, that excuse don't fly any more Karl. Should have tried that one in the beginning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-05 02:22 AM
Response to Original message
14. Keep the focus on the enormity of the crime.
Outing a CIA agent sends the message that no undercover officer is safe. When I find out that someone is a CIA agent because I read it in the local newspaper or on the internet, it is not just widely known, everybody in the world knows it. And that is really serious.

Don't worry. One of the first things the prosecutor would have established is just how well protected Plame's undercover status with the CIA was. That is an element of the crime, and the prosecutor has to find evidence to establish each element. What the news media says on this is not relevant because the law is not some simplistic thing that you can discuss in a series of sound bites.

Besides, Rove and his friends are assuming that the prosecution is looking to charge him with a particular crime under a particular statute, but, if he is charged, he may not be charged with under that statute at all. There are other potential charges here. Fraud by a public employee, I have heard, is a very inclusive charge that might encompass Rove's acts. There may be others. There are also other potential suspects here. Rove had to get his information from someone. Who? That is the big question here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Historic NY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-05 02:44 AM
Response to Original message
17. -"Wilson's Wife" was "widely known" to be in the CIA,
-"Wilson's Wife" was "widely known" to be in the CIA, among Washington circles. (This is Novaks little gem).

I don't think that will wash too good, her own neighbors were clueless that she even worked for the agency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-05 04:00 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. RW Spin Masters are working overtime on this.
The Prosecutor will lay out specific charges to the GJ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-05 04:31 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Wonder if even Asscroft is part of his secret Rove meetings?


Tomorrow's edition >>


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC