Buftex Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I know most here inisisted that Karl Rove was not the "leak" who exposed the CIA agent....well, it looks like that is not true....now tell me how this is a good thing... http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.ad...S00010000000001 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Good ol politicans, saying just enough to discredit someone but not enough to get themselves in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 11, 2005 Author Share Posted July 11, 2005 Good ol politicans, saying just enough to discredit someone but not enough to get themselves in trouble. 378650[/snapback] The sad thing, Rove is not an elected official, so I suspect he will go unscathed...the president was "really angry" about this pre-election, even he probably never suspected one of his own would have such loose lips... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I know most here inisisted that Karl Rove was not the "leak" who exposed the CIA agent....well, it looks like that is not true....now tell me how this is a good thing...http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.ad...S00010000000001 378645[/snapback] I don't know if anyone insisted that it wasn't Rove but I think the thought that Rove did this on purpose out of spite seemed (and still seems) incorrect. From what was reported, it doesn't seem like Rove knew she was a covert agent (didn't seem like much of a secret around Washington where she worked) and the focus of what he was saying was still Wilson. (BTW, 'Austin in da house' in this thread) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I know most here inisisted that Karl Rove was not the "leak" who exposed the CIA agent....well, it looks like that is not true....now tell me how this is a good thing...http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.ad...S00010000000001 378645[/snapback] Scroll down...topic already exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I don't know if anyone insisted that it wasn't Rove but I think the thought that Rove did this on purpose out of spite seemed (and still seems) incorrect. From what was reported, it doesn't seem like Rove knew she was a covert agent (didn't seem like much of a secret around Washington where she worked) and the focus of what he was saying was still Wilson. (BTW, 'Austin in da house' in this thread) 378656[/snapback] ATX baby! The Newsweek article said an e-mail Cooper sent his bureau chief after briefly talking with Rove stated that "it was, KR said, Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd (weapons of mass destruction) issues who authorized the trip." Thats the interesting thing. I'm sure Cooper will be asked in court if Rove directly told him or not. Until that time comes, my guess is we won't know, and still might not afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Newsweek reports that Rove's lawyer says Rove talked to Time? That's barely credible. And don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Rove. If he did it, hang him. But first let's see a report that's objectively believable, rather than this fourth-hand nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 ATX baby!Thats the interesting thing. I'm sure Cooper will be asked in court if Rove directly told him or not. Until that time comes, my guess is we won't know, and still might not afterwards. 378658[/snapback] So why are the reporters "protecting their sources" and going to jail even if KR is being implicated in this whole thing? That doesn't make any sense. I'd like to know if some of the sources being protected are actually other reporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 So why are the reporters "protecting their sources" and going to jail even if KR is being implicated in this whole thing? That doesn't make any sense. I'd like to know if some of the sources being protected are actually other reporters. 378664[/snapback] Isn't only Miller going to jail? You know how those New York Times liberal reporters are, all about their ideals of a free press. Seriously though, I wouldn't be surprised if Miller was going to go to jail over not revealing her source(s) after hearing Bob Woodward speak here at UT. If she does release names, that could be the end of her reporting career pretty quickly even if she has nothing to hide, for fear of other people being found out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 11, 2005 Author Share Posted July 11, 2005 (BTW, 'Austin in da house' in this thread) 378656[/snapback] Hey, you're right....this is sure to be a disaster! I seem to remember an earlier post om this subject where there was lots of doubt expressed that Rove was the culprit, writing off the alegations as "liberal paranoia". Either way, like I said, I don't expect much to come of this, on Rove's end. If he didn't know, he should have. I honestly think you are giving him the major benefit of a doubt, that seems to be required an awful lot by the current administration. I have read or seen nothing that indicates Rove is above being spiteful... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 What suprises me, or probably shouldn't, is that Matt Cooper scrapped his lawyers and is now represented by Theodore Olson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Rove got away with disclosing her name by saying "the wife of Wilson" instead of revealing that it was Valerie Plame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Seriously though, I wouldn't be surprised if Miller was going to go to jail over not revealing her source(s) after hearing Bob Woodward speak here at UT. If she does release names, that could be the end of her reporting career pretty quickly even if she has nothing to hide, for fear of other people being found out. 378671[/snapback] OK but, seriously then, who are the other names? And how many names are there? Was Plame's employment ever a secret to reporters? And what did Cooper know when he interviewed Karl Rove? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 OK but, seriously then, who are the other names? And how many names are there? Was Plame's employment ever a secret to reporters? And what did Cooper know when he interviewed Karl Rove? 378719[/snapback] It doesn't matter what other names, or how many. Miller is simply taking a stand on giving out any names. It's a long held tradition. She wouldn't be able to get reliable inside scoop, and she is still in a position to. Time caved on Cooper by releasing their notes. His source was already given up, that it why it was nothing for him to cave, too. There wasn't anything to protect. That is not the same with Miller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I still say I don't get it. I still can't find the gain. People DO say some dumb stuff, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Then Rep Torricilli and subsequent Senator in 1995 gave an active agent's name to the NY Times, which they published. Outrage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 It doesn't matter what other names, or how many. Miller is simply taking a stand on giving out any names. It's a long held tradition. She wouldn't be able to get reliable inside scoop, and she is still in a position to. Time caved on Cooper by releasing their notes. His source was already given up, that it why it was nothing for him to cave, too. There wasn't anything to protect. That is not the same with Miller. 378733[/snapback] I think it does matter how many names. If this wasn't a secret in reporting circles, it could've been Cooper who brought it up to Rove and Rove who ran with it. We don't have a transcript of that interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I still say I don't get it. I still can't find the gain. People DO say some dumb stuff, though. 378736[/snapback] Nor do I. I can't help but think there's a lot more to this story than just "Rove gave up undercover CIA agent's identity because he was mad at her husband." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I know most here inisisted that Karl Rove was not the "leak" who exposed the CIA agent....well, it looks like that is not true....now tell me how this is a good thing...http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.ad...S00010000000001 378645[/snapback] Lets just get some reality injected into the situation here before everyone on the left freaks out. first of all, I have seen no spin at all. It has been reported by a number of credible news organizations that KR did have some discusion with the reporter in question. It is also pretty widely reported that KR never gave a name. Hmm, lets see this was stated by the reporter himself. Please explain to me where the spin is. Furthermore, if it was KR that gave the name, I have little doubt that he will get what he deserves. Afterall he is not a democrate he is a conservative republican, and when men like him makes mistakes they are typically held to account. We all know that this is not the way it is on the left. If he did this, and he was a lefty....then a healthy promotion would be in order, and his status would be significantly increased within the party. GWB will do the right thing if there was wrong doing. And it will not have anything to do with political pressure from the nutty left. It would be because it was the right thing to do. This is not a concept that the left understands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Furthermore, if it was KR that gave the name, I have little doubt that he will get what he deserves. Afterall he is not a democrate he is a conservative republican, and when men like him makes mistakes they are typically held to account. We all know that this is not the way it is on the left. If he did this, and he was a lefty....then a healthy promotion would be in order, and his status would be significantly increased within the party.GWB will do the right thing if there was wrong doing. And it will not have anything to do with political pressure from the nutty left. It would be because it was the right thing to do. This is not a concept that the left understands. 378787[/snapback] Please God tell me this is sarcasm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Lets just get some reality injected into the situation here before everyone on the left freaks out. first of all, I have seen no spin at all. It has been reported by a number of credible news organizations that KR did have some discusion with the reporter in question. It is also pretty widely reported that KR never gave a name. Hmm, lets see this was stated by the reporter himself. Please explain to me where the spin is. Furthermore, if it was KR that gave the name, I have little doubt that he will get what he deserves. Afterall he is not a democrate he is a conservative republican, and when men like him makes mistakes they are typically held to account. We all know that this is not the way it is on the left. If he did this, and he was a lefty....then a healthy promotion would be in order, and his status would be significantly increased within the party. GWB will do the right thing if there was wrong doing. And it will not have anything to do with political pressure from the nutty left. It would be because it was the right thing to do. This is not a concept that the left understands. 378787[/snapback] The "I never gave him a name" really does refer to Rove never actually saying Valerie Plame's name, but rather, "Joe Wilson's wife". It's not as though he never gave away the identity. It's a semantic and legal argument, but he definitely gave it away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Please God tell me this is sarcasm 378848[/snapback] Please God, tell me that's a rhetorical question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Please God, tell me that's a rhetorical question. 378851[/snapback] Remarkably, I think the answers were no, and no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Please God, tell me that's a rhetorical question. 378851[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Then Rep Torricilli and subsequent Senator in 1995 gave an active agent's name to the NY Times, which they published. Outrage? 378752[/snapback] Would you say that the outing of a CIA agent as political payback to her husband for leaking damaging information to the administration by one of the President's henchman is the equivalent of a Senator giving the name of a CIA informant (NOT AN AGENT) because that informant was allegedly involved in the murder of an American citizen in 1990 and of the husband of an American citizen in 1992? If you are going to imply that the two are the same, why not include the facts of each for people to judge for themselves whether the comparison is a fair one or not? Why do you state that Col. Julio Roberto Alpirez, the CIA informant whose identity was disclosed by Torricelli was a CIA agent when instead he was a paid informant? Were you lying, playing fast and loose with the facts or did you just never bother to find out the facts? In 1992, Efrain Bamaca Velasquez, a Mayan resistance leader, was reported to have committed suicide during an armed confrontation with Guatemalen government troops. His wife, an American named Jennifer Harbury supposedly uncovered information indicating that he had been captured, tortured and killed by government troops. No one paid her much attention until 1993 when she exhumed the body from the grave where the government said they buried him. The body they exhumed was not Bamaca's, it was that of some unknown boy. The Republican controlled House of Rep.'s Ethics committee ruled that Torricelli had acted contrary to the relevant House rule but that the rule was ambiguous so it did not punish him. The State Dept. aide who originally gave him the info lost his security clearance which ended his career in the Executive office and led to his resignation from the State Department. Torricelli was wrong, no doubt, but that idiot's motives were a hell of a lot better than Rove's. Given the context, I would have done exactly to Torricelli as the Republican controlled Ethics committee did and I would do today just what was done to the State Department aide, I'd fire him. Links: Torricelli 1 Harbury Torture Case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 What was known around Washingtn was hat she worked for the CIa, not that she was an active agent. What I have read is that Rove sid that as everybody knew, she worked for the CIA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 i·ro·ny (r-n, r-) KEY NOUN: pl. i·ro·nies 1) The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning. 2)An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning example: Lets just get some reality injected into the situation here followed by before everyone on the left freaks out. first of all, I have seen no spin at all. It has been reported by a number of credible news organizations that KR did have some discusion with the reporter in question. It is also pretty widely reported that KR never gave a name. Hmm, lets see this was stated by the reporter himself. Please explain to me where the spin is. Furthermore, if it was KR that gave the name, I have little doubt that he will get what he deserves. Afterall he is not a democrate he is a conservative republican, and when men like him makes mistakes they are typically held to account. We all know that this is not the way it is on the left. If he did this, and he was a lefty....then a healthy promotion would be in order, and his status would be significantly increased within the party. GWB will do the right thing if there was wrong doing. And it will not have anything to do with political pressure from the nutty left. It would be because it was the right thing to do. This is not a concept that the left understands. 378787[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I think it does matter how many names. If this wasn't a secret in reporting circles, it could've been Cooper who brought it up to Rove and Rove who ran with it. We don't have a transcript of that interview. 378777[/snapback] Whats the difference if it was Cooper who brought it up? How does this somehow give Rove a pass for "running with it"? I'm not saying that Cooper wouldn't be to blame in this situation, but I don't see how Rove escapes blame for it. first of all, I have seen no spin at all. It has been reported by a number of credible news organizations that KR did have some discusion with the reporter in question. It is also pretty widely reported that KR never gave a name. Hmm, lets see this was stated by the reporter himself. Please explain to me where the spin is. I agree that there isn't spin in that. The spin is that while he didn't say the name, he could have given away the identity based upon what he said (if its true, which we'll find out during the court trial). Furthermore, if it was KR that gave the name, I have little doubt that he will get what he deserves. Afterall he is not a democrate he is a conservative republican, and when men like him makes mistakes they are typically held to account. We all know that this is not the way it is on the left. If he did this, and he was a lefty....then a healthy promotion would be in order, and his status would be significantly increased within the party.GWB will do the right thing if there was wrong doing. And it will not have anything to do with political pressure from the nutty left. It would be because it was the right thing to do. This is not a concept that the left understands. 378787[/snapback] Really? Give me some examples of where Democrats got away with things such as this, and some other examples of Republicans getting the blame. Last time I checked, Nixon was a Republican. CTM said it the best in his irony post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 It is also pretty widely reported that KR never gave a name. Hmm, lets see this was stated by the reporter himself. And the definition of "is" is... Turn off the spin control on that silly line of defense Rush. Identifying the source as "Wilson's wife" is giving the name. Don't even try to Clinton out of this. Please explain to me where the spin is. see above Furthermore, if it was KR that gave the name, I have little doubt that he will get what he deserves. If he gave out the name/identity of a CIA operative- by identifying her as Wilson's wife, what should be the recourse? Go on record. Afterall he is not a democrate he is a conservative republican, and when men like him makes mistakes they are typically held to account. Bush said there were WMD and that's how he justified invading Iraq. He now admits there were not... 200 billion, 1700 lives and counting later. Seen a lot of firings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Please God tell me this is sarcasm 378848[/snapback] Not at all. What do you really find so difficult to believe? Is the truth that far removed from you that you can no longer distinquish it from silliness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 i·ro·ny (r-n, r-) KEY NOUN: pl. i·ro·nies 1) The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning. 2)An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning example: followed by 378942[/snapback] Are you insane? How is any of that spin? It is being reported as what KR said. Does this make it spin. Wake up and smell the coffee. My point is....wh the hell is spinning this? I think what is being said....is what was said. How complicated is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 And the definition of "is" is... Turn off the spin control on that silly line of defense Rush. Identifying the source as "Wilson's wife" is giving the name. Don't even try to Clinton out of this. see above If he gave out the name/identity of a CIA operative- by identifying her as Wilson's wife, what should be the recourse? Go on record. Bush said there were WMD and that's how he justified invading Iraq. He now admits there were not... 200 billion, 1700 lives and counting later. Seen a lot of firings? 379001[/snapback] dude...refer to my post above to the other radical, it applies to you as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Are you insane? How is any of that spin? It is being reported as what KR said. Does this make it spin. Wake up and smell the coffee. My point is....wh the hell is spinning this? I think what is being said....is what was said. How complicated is that? 379016[/snapback] I was merely referring to your "Let's interject some reality" followed by I have seen no spin at all....I have little doubt that he will get what he deserves... ...when men like him makes mistakes they are typically held to account... We all know that this is not the way it is on the left. If [...] he was a lefty....then a healthy promotion would be in order, and his status would be significantly increased within the party. GWB will do the right thing if there was wrong doing. - that is particularly hilarious - And it will not have anything to do with political pressure from the nutty left. It would be because it was the right thing to do.This is not a concept that the left understands. And that last is particularly funny, too. NEITHER party understands doing the right thing for the sake of it being right. And you don't see any spin in this? Your post is ALL SPIN. "Karl Rove didn't do anything, and what he did is being reported, and if it was wrong he'll be punished because he's a Republican and the Republicans hold themselves accountable unlike those nasty, icky Democrats." What in that is NOT spin? And what in that is that "reality" you were offering to interject? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 11, 2005 Author Share Posted July 11, 2005 Please explain to me where the spin is. I didn't say that there was any "spin", only asked that you (and your ilk ) start it...you have done so beautifully! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 11, 2005 Author Share Posted July 11, 2005 first of all, I have seen no spin at all. It has been reported by a number of credible news organizations that KR did have some discusion with the reporter in question. It is also pretty widely reported that KR never gave a name. Hmm, lets see this was stated by the reporter himself. 378787[/snapback] You are absoutely right, KR never gave a name, just said it was Wilson's wife. This is what I will refer to as a Haslett! You know, Jim Haslett saying, "there was a O-line player on the Bills, who played in the USFL, and ended up being one of the the greatest O-linemen in team history, who took steroids...not to name any names or anything!" Why did Kent Hull get so pissed off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Whats the difference if it was Cooper who brought it up? How does this somehow give Rove a pass for "running with it"? I'm not saying that Cooper wouldn't be to blame in this situation, but I don't see how Rove escapes blame for it. 378996[/snapback] I never suggested that we give him a pass but I'm still not clear what was public knowledge about this woman and what was not prior to the "outing." If everything KR said to Cooper was public knowledge, then who cares? If it wasn't, then that's a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckey Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 The sad thing, Rove is not an elected official, so I suspect he will go unscathed...the president was "really angry" about this pre-election, even he probably never suspected one of his own would have such loose lips... 378654[/snapback] ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Lets just get some reality injected into the situation here before everyone on the left freaks out. first of all, I have seen no spin at all. It has been reported by a number of credible news organizations that KR did have some discusion with the reporter in question. It is also pretty widely reported that KR never gave a name. Hmm, lets see this was stated by the reporter himself. Please explain to me where the spin is. Furthermore, if it was KR that gave the name, I have little doubt that he will get what he deserves. Afterall he is not a democrate he is a conservative republican, and when men like him makes mistakes they are typically held to account. We all know that this is not the way it is on the left. If he did this, and he was a lefty....then a healthy promotion would be in order, and his status would be significantly increased within the party. GWB will do the right thing if there was wrong doing. And it will not have anything to do with political pressure from the nutty left. It would be because it was the right thing to do. This is not a concept that the left understands. 378787[/snapback] This is one of the funniest posts that I have read in a while. The White House is already backing away from earlier assertions about "firing" the leak and that Rove had nothing to do with it. I would think that with all the righteousness, dignity and valor that goes with being a Republican, Karl Rove would gladly fall on his sword due to there being even a hint of wrong doing. Because that's what being a Republican is all about! Holding yourself to a higher standard should be the new Republican motto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckey Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 What was known around Washingtn was hat she worked for the CIa, not that she was an active agent.What I have read is that Rove sid that as everybody knew, she worked for the CIA. 378919[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Is the truth that far removed from you that you can no longer distinquish it from silliness? 379010[/snapback] Oh, I can distinguish silliness just fine, thank you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts