Reuben Gant Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 " 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 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 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 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 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 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 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 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 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 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 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 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 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.
SilverNRed Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 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 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 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 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 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 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 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 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 Are you really that remarkably stupid? 380182[/snapback] Rhetorical question?
SilverNRed Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 Why would PUBLIC knowledge matter in the least? Are you really that remarkably stupid? 380182[/snapback] Would anything matter at this point?
Gene Frenkle Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 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 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 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 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 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 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 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 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 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 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 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.
Recommended Posts