WH denies rove outed cia operative

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Sep 29, 2003.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/US/leak030929.html

    included in the story is this statement:
    something about that strikes me as odd. how can bush be so sure rove wasn't involved? unless bush knows who actually _did_ do it?

    i'm not holding my breath
     
  2. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    high bull****

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/wilson.cia/index.html

    a real leader would be demanding the truth and looking for people to fire.

    this pretty much convinces me that the leak came from the top levels of the WH (i suspect rove), probably w/ bush's knowledge and approval.
     
  3. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #3
    "a real leader would be demanding the truth and looking for people to fire."

    I remember when the flap blew up about Sherman Adams and the gift of a vicuna coat. Ike fired him, and Adams' desk was empty by that evening.

    Shame that Nixon didn't do the same with the "Plumbers", or Clinton on several of the bad-news deals (FBI files, Travel Office, etc.) and now this stupidity.

    Part of the deal for high level staff is that if you commit the sin of getting caught, you immediately resign and take your lumps. It's the downside of perks, power and money. That lets the administration (whatever level; private or public) go on about its business.

    'Rat
     
  4. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #4
    This story is getting big coverage in the UK on radio and TV tonight.

    Pundits are predicting the biggest WH scandal since Watergate, and that it will open the gates to a broader investigation of the whole issue of political manipulation of intelligence leading up to the Iraq war.

    Here's hoping!
     
  5. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #5
    from this NY times article

     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    Ye gods... if someone that high up in the WH did something like this as retaliation, well that's just about as low as you can go. Jail time would be a good thing to set an example of how important it is that our intel people are not subject to political maneuvers. (Or political manure... take your pick:p )

    Someone committed a serious crime here. We need to find out who.
     
  7. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #7
    Well, I don't know about jail time, but I'd be happy to see GW Bush sentenced to spending the next four years in Texas.
     
  8. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #8
    Do you think Tenet will take the fall for this one too?

    It is a very serious crime that can put people lives in danger. Not just hers but everyone she had contact with. Outing CIA agents is something spies do. Spying is treason.
     
  9. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #9
    i don't think the public would buy that, since its his agency that's pushing for the investigation.

    i think it's gonna be someone who actually works in the WH. the longer bush puts it off, the higher up s/he's gotta be.
     
  10. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
    It's funny how this has been floating around now for a while, and all of a sudden it's the news de jour, all over the place. Guess the request from the CIA for an investigation was what gave it "legs".
     
  11. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #11
    'cept that was requested in july.

    not sure what the catalyst was. maybe all it took was one editor who was sick of it all. then everyone picked up on it.
     
  12. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #12
    "...The Washington Post reported that Bush administration officials had contacted a half-dozen Washington reporters in an effort to publicly disclose Ms. Plame's identity..."

    That has got to be the absolute dumbest, the most inept thing I've heard of in a large number of decades of watching Beltway dumba.ssedness. Ineffingcredible! "Officials", plural? Contacting a half-dozen reporters? They might as well have gone public on TV!

    And for such a petty thing as an act of "revenge"...

    Mind-boggling.

    'Rat
     
  13. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #13
    What I find absolutely arrogant is the statement that the president knows he wasn't involved... it simply isn't true. This is no more proof than the president knows that he got more votes in Florida or that there are WMDs in Iraq.

    Whatever happened to investigation leading to evidence leading to knowledge?

    Since when did Jr. become omnicient?

    If I hear one person compare this to Clinton getting a BJ and lying about it, I will puke.
     
  14. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #14
    It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. -Arthur Conan Doyle, physician and writer (1859-1930)
     
  15. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #15
    When you already know, evidence is superfluous. The important task is covering your tracks and dragging your feet.

    Incidentally, the White House just pledged to "fully cooperate" with the investigation, which I believe was step two in my previously posted four-step scheme for the American people not learning the truth before the next election.
     
  16. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #16
    Well, Holmes, the reporter in question had a giddy tobacco induced high with a mustard stain on his lapel, obviously from the low-life haunts of Camden Yards. The paper he used in his story preparation is only available in the immediate vacinity of 1600 Pennsylavnia Avenue -- therefore it was Karl Rove with the well place knife in the back, in the Rose Garden, along with Col. Mustard ... oops, I mean Robert Novak! :D

    Sorry, zim, I'm just too big a fan of Doyle's most famous detective. We could use a few independant sleuths on this case.
     
  17. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #17
    you've forgotten one important aspect of the case, my dear sayhey -- only ONE of the bowls of porridge was fully consumed.

    therefore i surmise it was bush AND rove, with the knife, in the rose garden.
     
  18. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #18
    "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." -- AC Doyle
     
  19. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #19
    Man, this is the most bogus story.

    1st. She wasn't an operative, she was an analyst. Huge difference. You cannot out an analyst at all.

    2nd. Her husband said months before this happended that wanted to see Carl Rove taken out of the white house in hand cuffs.

    3rd. He said at a speech in Washington state recently that he was wrong to say Rove was the person behind the leak, because he had not evidence that he was involved, or had knowledge of it, then in the next breath said he at least had knowledge of it.

    4th. Robert Novack, the author of the article said "no one at the White house called me and leaded the info."

    So, it is much to do about nothing, ESPECIALLY since she wasn't an operative.
     
  20. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #20
    How does that shoe feel on the other foot? A bit tight?
     
  21. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #21
    Interesting. So why are the FBI and Justice Department investigating this? If "Mrs. Wilson's" position in the CIA wasn't classified, you'd think that the FBI would be able to figure that out pretty quickly, wouldn't you?

    Contrary to your assertion, the Justice Department and the FBI think there is a reason to investigate the leak. This implies there was something wrong with leaking the information in the first place. At the very least, it indicates they think the manner in which it was released is suspect.

    Your argument doesn't stand against these facts.

    Thats interesting. It seems that everyone else says that Novak did receive this information from senior white house officials.

    From the column where Novak "outed" "Mrs. Wilson" (townhall.com):

    From the AP story (salon.com):

    They didn't call Novak, but they certainly leaked the information. Novak didn't believe the agent's identity was classified, but he is hardly the authority, now is he?

    I really don't know how you can say nothing illegal happened. The facts, as they are currently known, just don't back you up.

    Taft
     
  22. michaello macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    #22
    Novak

    I feel Robert Novak should reveal his source.

    Whether he knew or didn’t know that her information was classified doesn’t matter – ignorance of the law is no excuse. He should have done his research. Screw him. He’s a pawn. The real game is not with him.

    He should reveal his source, if for no other reason that he was used like a tool by the person in the Bush administration who fed him the story - and that his source "asked" him "not to reveal her name", as he said on CNN - but, he went ahead and did anyway.

    I mean, the guy is a talk show host and a Daily News columnist - it's not like he's a serious journalist who has a reputation to keep up. He's a hack - a TV clown. He's a tool.

    I agree with George Bush Sr., that "revealing the name of a source" is a case of treason.

    But, we are in different times, when all George Bush Jr. could muster is "Leaks of classified information are bad things."

    "Bad things" - the man has the mentality of a five year old and he's running our country.

    I feel allowing Ashcroft to head the investigation is like leaving a wolf in charge of taking care of the chickens ... Or like leaving Raymond Burr in charge of taking care of Haley Joel Osmet ... Or, worse yet, leaving John Ashcroft in charge of taking care of Haley Joel Osmet.

    ... It's not a good idea.

    We've got to get rid of these guys. Enough is enough.

    We are better than this.
     
  23. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #23
    B2TM, can you tell me the source of #2 and #3? My understanding is that Wilson was not unfriendly to the WH until they started ignoring his reports about the bogus nature of the "Iraq-Niger" connection. Novak may be telling the truth in that the leak my not have come from the WH - it could have come from the Defense Dept. for example and still be high government officals. We will see where this story goes, but I can't see how you can call it bogus at this point.
     
  24. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #24
    Can anyone imagine how big a stink there would have been if Clinton would have refused an independent counsel when they had NO evidence, only a witch hunt.
     
  25. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #25
    Wait mcrain, no one is refusing the special counsel. Also, she was not an operative. Being an analyst is different from being an opperative.

    As for #2, and #3, I found it on Fox news the other day, can't find the link. Watch hanity and colmbs tonight. They discuss it.

    Taft, IF there was any leak on an operative, throw their ass in jail. But she isn't an operative, therefore, she isn't protected by the law that Reagan helped pass.

    As for Novack, he said in an interview on TV that the White House did not contact him, but that a senior official said that she was an agent. So, yea, I see your point on that and conceed it, except it isn't illegal to discuss the identy of an anaylist.

    Oh, and mcrain, there is HUGE difference between someone in an admistration commiting a leak, and the President himself commiting perjury before a federal judge ;)

    Taft, as for motivation, it is political. The democrats see a weakened presidency, and they are going for it.
     

Share This Page