Ahh, so it was Karl Rove....

[Reuben Gant]

" I know Mrs. Wilson, but I knew nothing about her C.I.A. career and hadn't realized she's "a hell of a shot with an AK-47," Kristof

 

She is sounding sexier all the time.

[Gene Frenkle]

Uh, actually it has a lot to do with Rove's actions, because the whole thing started when Cooper asked to interview Rove about Joe Wilson.  Calls into question Wilson's motives, qualifications, and integrity - as well as his wife's integrity if she's a covert CIA agent who uses her job to send her husband on trips to Niger that he isn't qualified to take (not the best way to stay covert, IMO, but then again I've never been in the CIA).

 

The main point is there's a lot more to this story than "Rove leaked CIA agent's name" (for revenge, which you seem to be sure of) but ignore everything else and keep trying to oversimplify until everything fits your world view.

Then why did he do it?

 

Has he been charged with anything?  Convicted?  Convicted by anyone other than Chris Matthews and Michael "Koran Abuse!" Isikoff?  No?  Oh, then why not be reasonable and take a wait and see approach to facts coming out slowly about an old story?

 

OK, yeah, that last one was a silly question....

380158[/snapback]

He was named as the source.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Actually, technically you did.

380164[/snapback]

 

Actually, technically he was paraphrasing the request "Define 'Agent'" for the benefit of those in the audience who were apparently unable to comprehend it the first time.

 

I just want to know which word you stumbled on: "define" or "agent"?

 

No need to be a dick about it.

 

Why on earth not?

[Gene Frenkle]

Nicholas D. Kristof's OP-ED Piece in the NYT

 

"First, the C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given Mrs. Wilson's name (along with those of other spies) to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons."

380160[/snapback]

Suspected implies speculation. Did the Ruskies make this public knowledge, as Mr. Rove did?

 

Considering her cover was blown way back then, it's incredible that she was allowed to still actively working as a CIA "agent".

[Ghost of BiB]

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

380152[/snapback]

 

Not everyone who works with/for the CIA is a covert operator. As has been mentioned before, VP drew a check, but it was not a big secret that she worked for the CIA. Just because one can not find it on the internet doesn't mean it's a secret. A lot of the people she probably dealt with, and had conversation with were well aware of her connections. It's called "back channel communications".

 

Take a look at hubby. There are a lot of people, military and diplomatic that when they are assigned certain posts, their spouse is investigated and cleared too. An actual clearance, not just a file. Sometimes, when people have access to certain other people, especially "diplomatically", they sometimes have conversations with people in the intelligence business. I hold a TS with a whole bunch of acronyms after it. Darlene was in the process of being checked for an SSBI Secret, when she died.

 

I STILL don't see the gain from "outing" her in the press. Mostly, because of the conversations and brouhaha we see in places like this. None of it represents any realities. Rove is not an idiot, by any stretch. You might not like him, I probably wouldn't, but he's an operator. There wasn't any tactical or political gain just to be spiteful. There's other ways to ruin someone that doesn't involve the (stupid) press.

 

That's why I dislike politics and media. Somebody PLEASE make them go away. This isn't meant to be a LAMP, it's just that unless you are really around it, you don't have a good feel for what goes on versus spin. I'd like to find a better word, but it's spin.

 

I'm not defending anything. I'm not in it, and I don't know what was said or what's going on - but a blow job from an intern in the oval office isn't hard to misinterpret. There aren't very many grey areas there. For those who want to make comparisons of what is worse - looks like apples and oranges to me.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Considering her cover was blown way back then, it's incredible that she was allowed to still actively working as a CIA "agent".

380172[/snapback]

 

DEFINE. "AGENT".

 

Maybe it wouldn't be so amazing if you knew what a CIA "agent" actually was, you chucklehead.

[Gene Frenkle]

Actually, technically he was paraphrasing the request "Define 'Agent'" for the benefit of those in the audience who were apparently unable to comprehend it the first time.

 

I just want to know which word you stumbled on: "define" or "agent"? 

Why on earth not?

380168[/snapback]

Oh, it's you again. You sure are smart.

[Ghost of BiB]

My Gawd...I'm turning into FFS!

[SilverNRed]

Then why did he do it?

380167[/snapback]

I dunno. Revenge? There are you happy? He did it for revenge. He was mad because her husband did a piss-poor job and was called on it publicly by the Senate Intelligence committee. Wait, no, I guess if the truth about Joe Wilson was out (or coming out) he wouldn't have any reason to do that. Hmmmm, let's see why did he do it? It didn't seem to benefit him or the President any.....

[Reuben Gant]

I'm not defending anything. I'm not in it, and I don't know what was said or what's going on - but a blow job from an intern in the oval office isn't hard to misinterpret. There aren't very many grey areas there. For those who want to make comparisons of what is worse - looks like apples and oranges to me.

380173[/snapback]

not to make light of a good post, but

if I was going to go down for a BJ or

a Leak - I would take the BJ.

[Alaska Darin]

Suspected implies speculation.  Did the Ruskies make this public knowledge, as Mr. Rove did?

 

Considering her cover was blown way back then, it's incredible that she was allowed to still actively working as a CIA "agent".

380172[/snapback]

Why would PUBLIC knowledge matter in the least? Are you really that remarkably stupid?

[SilverNRed]

Not everyone who works with/for the CIA is a covert operator. As has been mentioned before, VP drew a check, but it was not a big secret that she worked for the CIA. Just because one can not find it on the internet doesn't mean it's a secret. A lot of the people she probably dealt with, and had conversation with were well aware of her connections. It's called "back channel communications".

 

Take a look at hubby. There are a lot of people, military and diplomatic that when they are assigned certain posts, their spouse is investigated and cleared too. An actual clearance, not just a file. Sometimes, when people have access to certain other people, especially "diplomatically", they sometimes have conversations with people in the intelligence business. I hold a TS with a whole bunch of acronyms after it. Darlene was in the process of being checked for an SSBI Secret, when she died.

 

I STILL don't see the gain from "outing" her in the press. Mostly, because of the conversations and brouhaha we see in places like this. None of it represents any realities. Rove is not an idiot, by any stretch. You might not like him, I probably wouldn't, but he's an operator. There wasn't any tactical or political gain just to be spiteful. There's other ways to ruin someone that doesn't involve the (stupid) press.

 

That's why I dislike politics and media. Somebody PLEASE make them go away. This isn't meant to be a LAMP, it's just that unless you are really around it, you don't have a good feel for what goes on versus spin. I'd like to find a better word, but it's spin.

 

I'm not defending anything. I'm not in it, and I don't know what was said or what's going on - but a blow job from an intern in the oval office isn't hard to misinterpret. There aren't very many grey areas there. For those who want to make comparisons of what is worse - looks like apples and oranges to me.

380173[/snapback]

***Applause***

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Are you really that remarkably stupid?

380182[/snapback]

 

Rhetorical question?

[SilverNRed]

Why would PUBLIC knowledge matter in the least?  Are you really that remarkably stupid?

380182[/snapback]

Would anything matter at this point?

[Gene Frenkle]

I dunno.  Revenge?  There are you happy?  He did it for revenge.  He was mad because her husband did a piss-poor job and was called on it publicly by the Senate Intelligence committee.  Wait, no, I guess if the truth about Joe Wilson was out (or coming out) he wouldn't have any reason to do that.  Hmmmm, let's see why did he do it?  It didn't seem to benefit him or the President any.....

380179[/snapback]

Incidentally, what did Rove tell the Senate Intelligence Committee? Was he under oath, and if so, did he possible purjure himself?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Would anything matter at this point?

380188[/snapback]

 

No, because Rove did it, because Newsweek says his lawyer says he talked to Time. That's damning fourth-hand testimony right there, particularly in Frenklevision...case closed.

[Reuben Gant]

I dunno.  Revenge?  There are you happy?  He did it for revenge.  He was mad because her husband did a piss-poor job and was called on it publicly by the Senate Intelligence committee.  Wait, no, I guess if the truth about Joe Wilson was out (or coming out) he wouldn't have any reason to do that.  Hmmmm, let's see why did he do it?  It didn't seem to benefit him or the President any.....

380179[/snapback]

 

I am leaning towards just a good old fashioned discrediting:

 

President Bush is running for re-election. If Wilson's claims are

perceived by voters as credible - it has the chance of reaching

a tipping point and derailing one of the main reasons for re-electing

Bush- i.e. Bush as commander in cheif and war architect- reliable

and trustworthy- safe hands with our boys in battle. This was on top

of discrediting Clark, and Oneil. Purely political motives. The election

was staked on selling the Iraq war.

[SilverNRed]

I am leaning towards just a good old fashioned discrediting:

 

President Bush is running for re-election. If Wilson's claims are

perceived by voters as credible - it has the chance of reaching

a tipping point and derailing one of the main reasons for re-electing

Bush- i.e. Bush as commander in cheif and war architect- reliable

and trustworthy- safe hands with our boys in battle. This was on top

of discrediting Clark, and Oneil. Purely political motives.  The election

was staked on selling the Iraq war.

380194[/snapback]

So the President's top advisor, a man already villified by groups like moveon.org, would meet with a reporter a leak an undercover CIA agent's name to the press in order to derail her idiot husband who was being derailed anyway? And he would do this prior to the 2004 elections without worrying about his name (or emails of this nature) popping up and loons like Isikoff running with it?

 

Seems like the exact definition of high risk-low reward move, and that's why it still doesn't make sense to me.

 

And most Americans still don't know who Joe Wilson is, what he did, and why he's a liar and a fraud. Frenkle didn't.

[Ghost of BiB]

I am leaning towards just a good old fashioned discrediting:

 

President Bush is running for re-election. If Wilson's claims are

perceived by voters as credible - it has the chance of reaching

a tipping point and derailing one of the main reasons for re-electing

Bush- i.e. Bush as commander in cheif and war architect- reliable

and trustworthy- safe hands with our boys in battle. This was on top

of discrediting Clark, and Oneil. Purely political motives.  The election

was staked on selling the Iraq war.

380194[/snapback]

 

Clarke is a moron. Might have been good at a point, but got stuck on himself more than in doing his job.

 

From both sides, lots of egos at play. Bunch of spoiled kids. That is the single biggest thing that people who know what is going on have to fight to get something done.

[Reuben Gant]

So the President's top advisor, a man already villified by groups like moveon.org, would meet with a reporter a leak an undercover CIA agent's name to the press in order to derail her idiot husband who was being derailed anyway? 

380201[/snapback]

I don't think Rove is known by many outside of those who follow politics,

and most importantly, I don't think Rove is going down for this.

I think he covered his tracks well enough. Just good politics.

Why tell anyone that "Joe Wilson's wife is fair game" if it is not important

in terms of a political strategy. in terms of legal strategy, that is a different ballgame, but I think it is looking like he was crafty enough not to have anything

traced back to him in terms of law. Rove is the best hardball politician in America,

bar none.

[Ghost of BiB]

I don't think Rove is known by many outside of those who follow politics,

and most importantly, I don't think Rove is going down for this.

I think he covered his tracks well enough.  Just good politics.

Why tell anyone that "Joe Wilson's wife is fair game" if it is not important

in terms of a political strategy. in terms of legal strategy, that is a different ballgame, but I think it is looking like he was crafty enough not to have anything

traced back to him in terms of law. Rove is the best hardball politician in America,

bar none.

380207[/snapback]

 

And, once again, why make a point out of a non-issue?

[SilverNRed]

I don't think Rove is known by many outside of those who follow politics,

and most importantly, I don't think Rove is going down for this.

I think he covered his tracks well enough.  Just good politics.

Why tell anyone that "Joe Wilson's wife is fair game" if it is not important

in terms of a political strategy. in terms of legal strategy, that is a different ballgame, but I think it is looking like he was crafty enough not to have anything

traced back to him in terms of law. Rove is the best hardball politician in America,

bar none.

380207[/snapback]

I can't see him telling anyone "Joe Wilson's wife is fair game." I can see him saying Wilson only got the job because of his wife, who apparently abused her power to get him to Niger, but I don't see him taking on a CIA agent and expecting to come out looking good. Not before an election anyway.

 

If KR is the best hardball "figure" in America (I don't say politician because he doesn't run for office), you'd think he'd be smart enough to know what the media can do when they smell blood. The NYT whipped up a brief frenzy over missing explosives in the week leading up to the election last November. Turns out the missing explosives may have been disposed of and would have only accounted for less than 1% of the total amount of Iraqi weapons that had been secured and/or destroyed since the war began but they made it an issue anyway (I believe their second front page headline was "Missing Weapons become Campaign Issue"). Imagine if they'd have this to work with a year ago.

 

It just doesn't add up.

[Reuben Gant]

And, once again, why make a point out of a non-issue?

380214[/snapback]

 

Well Clinton survived his Senate trial. I think

Rove will survive this too, but these special

prosecutors don't just go away. This story

will be with us for some time. Like it or not.

[Alaska Darin]

Frenklevision

380191[/snapback]

Brilliant!

[Ghost of BiB]

Well Clinton survived his Senate trial. I think

Rove will survive this too, but these special

prosecutors don't just go away. This story

will be with us for some time. Like it or not.

380219[/snapback]

 

It's still not a story.

[Thurman's Helmet]

How come Democrats are Innocent until proven guilty and Republicans are guilty until driven out of town without benefit of trial or ever actually preventing evidence of a crime????????

[Reuben Gant]

It's still not a story.

380233[/snapback]

You must have a high threshold for "story."

[Reuben Gant]

How come Democrats are Innocent until proven guilty and Republicans are guilty until driven out of town without benefit of trial or ever actually preventing evidence of a crime????????

380239[/snapback]

 

Which Republican are you talking about?

[Reuben Gant]

Republicans are guilty until driven out of town without benefit of trial or ever actually preventing evidence of a crime????????

380239[/snapback]

OR did I miss a joke?

[Ghost of BiB]

You must have a high threshold for "story."

380241[/snapback]

 

Yeah, I do. Sue me. I focus on the important.

[Reuben Gant]

Yeah, I do. Sue me. I focus on the important.

380256[/snapback]

nobody gets sued unless they are "preventing evidence of a crime"

[Ghost of BiB]

nobody gets sued unless they are "preventing evidence of a crime" 

380259[/snapback]

 

My neighbor is coming over to split a bottle of wine. She's a libertard. I'll certainly ask all of these questions tonight.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

Well, everyone is doing a good job arguing semantics here. Was she a covert agent? Did he name her by name? Was her husband dirty?

 

The real issue is that the White House stated a long time ago that Rove was not involved at all and that if the person who leaked the information is in the administration, that that person would be fired!

 

It seems VERY VERY CLEAR that Rove was involved and talked to the reporter about Wilson's wife being in CIA. This seems to be enough to be fired per the White House statement.

 

The rest is just spin...ummm...she wasn't a covert agent. Ummmmm...he didn't name her by name, etc. Ummmm...if we knew Rove would be caught, we would never have said that the person would be fired.

[Ghost of BiB]

Well, everyone is doing a good job arguing semantics here.  Was she a covert agent?  Did he name her by name?  Was her husband dirty? 

 

The real issue is that the White House stated a long time ago that Rove was not involved at all and that if the person who leaked the information is in the administration, that that person would be fired! 

 

It seems VERY VERY CLEAR that Rove was involved and talked to the reporter about Wilson's wife being in CIA.  This seems to be enough to be fired per the White House statement.

 

The rest is just spin...ummm...she wasn't a covert agent.  Ummmmm...he didn't name her by name, etc.  Ummmm...if we knew Rove would be caught, we would never have said that the person would be fired.

380262[/snapback]

 

I'm getting laid in about an hour. What do I care?

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

I'm getting laid in about an hour. What do I care?

380267[/snapback]

 

Just make sure that your boyfriend wears a condom.

[EC-Bills]

I'm getting laid in about an hour. What do I care?

380267[/snapback]

 

Wine's a great leg spreader ...

[bobblehead]

My neighbor is coming over to split a bottle of wine. She's a libertard. I'll certainly ask all of these questions tonight.

380261[/snapback]

 

 

I'm getting laid in about an hour. What do I care?

 

 

If you want both of these statements tonight, you might want to drop the questions bit.

 

[bobblehead]

Well, everyone is doing a good job arguing semantics here.  Was she a covert agent?  Did he name her by name?  Was her husband dirty? 

 

The real issue is that the White House stated a long time ago that Rove was not involved at all and that if the person who leaked the information is in the administration, that that person would be fired! 

 

It seems VERY VERY CLEAR that Rove was involved and talked to the reporter about Wilson's wife being in CIA.  This seems to be enough to be fired per the White House statement.

 

The rest is just spin...ummm...she wasn't a covert agent.  Ummmmm...he didn't name her by name, etc.  Ummmm...if we knew Rove would be caught, we would never have said that the person would be fired.

380262[/snapback]

 

 

Thanks for that post.

 

The 'base' can cover Rove all they want ( as evidenced by some of the posts here) and they have a right to. Rove won them two elections, I guess he gets a lifetime pass for that. Maybe he should.

 

Sure, I get it. Plame was "uncovered" years ago, she was a desk jockey, Wilson may have been incompetent, Rove may not have implicated her directly, and yes, we only know part of the story. I know there are some deep turf wars involving the State Dept, the FBI, the CIA and the White House now. I know that Chalabi's home was raided in Iraq earlier over one of these 'turf wars', I get that too.

 

But the real problem here is with integrity, honesty and security, although at the end of the day, that means nothing to the extreme wings of both parties. Regardless of what Rove actually said or not said, he got into this situation in the first place. He had a beef with someone so he went after his wife, the far-right can defend him all they want (and they have reasons to) but nothing says 'low-life kitty' more than a guy going after an enemy's wife.

 

Ok, this woman may or may not have had the most sensitive job at the CIA, but she worked for the CIA nonetheless. For Rove to be working for the very people we are trusting to take care of business overseas and to protect us, f-ing with the CIA sure makes me question how sincere he really is about protecting us. I really have to wonder if politics does come before security with the White House.

[SilverNRed]

Well, everyone is doing a good job arguing semantics here.  Was she a covert agent?  Did he name her by name?  Was her husband dirty? 

 

The real issue is that the White House stated a long time ago that Rove was not involved at all and that if the person who leaked the information is in the administration, that that person would be fired! 

 

It seems VERY VERY CLEAR that Rove was involved and talked to the reporter about Wilson's wife being in CIA.  This seems to be enough to be fired per the White House statement.

 

The rest is just spin...ummm...she wasn't a covert agent.  Ummmmm...he didn't name her by name, etc.  Ummmm...if we knew Rove would be caught, we would never have said that the person would be fired.

380262[/snapback]

The real issue is that political figures said one thing and are now going to do another? Yeah, there's a new one..........

[erynthered]

Just make sure that your boyfriend wears a condom. 

380269[/snapback]

 

 

You're an ass hole.