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...
Recommended Posts