The Other Side of the Rove Story

[Kelly the Dog]

From the link at the very start of this thread.

 

JM isn't a scapegoat.  She's in jail because she wouldn't disclose her sources (due to 'journalistic integrity' whatever the hell that is).  At the end of the day, I doubt the investigation was designed to land people in prison.  But it was time to clear things up or else the rumors would've never stopped and this thing would get bigger than it is.

381071[/snapback]

You're quoting an opinion. The investigation is going on to find out if there was indeed a crime committed that requires an indictment. There needed to be an investiagtion to find that out. When it started, they didnt know it was Rove, and they didn't know if there was a crime committed. They obviously thought there could have been a crime committed. They found out that it was Rove, and now they are trying to find out if he indeed committed a crime. That is up in the air right now. I don't think he broke the letter of the law and committed a crime. He's too smart for that.

 

What I am saying is that they didnt know if a crime was committed, they are investigating to find out. But they never would have started this blasted mess had there been a clear indication, as you are suggesting, that no crime could have been committed because Plame was already outed.

 

What I am also saying, again, is this isn't the kind of case they would let a big reporter go to jail over if they knew there was no crime committed and there could not have been a crime committed from the get-go. They just wouldn't do it. They would drop it or let it drag on until she didnt have to go to jail or make some deal with her. They would not let her go to jail, IMO, under the hypothetical you're trying to imply.

[Kelly the Dog]

BTW, are you a journalist?

381073[/snapback]

No, but a writer and I took journalism in college and a family member is.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

The article in question is from the Wall St Journal Editorial Page. Therefore, I would not take this opinion as fact. I don't think it matters what the Democrats and Republicans want to spin about it. The truth will come out in the grand jury and if Rove did it, they will indict him for it or for perjury.

 

If the grand jury doesn't indict him, you can be reasonably certain that he did nothing wrong, as grand juries are stacked in the prosecutors favor since the burden of proof is a lot lower for indictment than for conviction.

 

It is a little telling that Bush distanced himself a little today from supporting Rove. I think Bush is leaning towards letting the investigation be the final arbitor on this matter. This is probably the fairest way to handle it.

[Terry Tate]

The article in question is from the Wall St Journal Editorial Page.  Therefore, I would not take this opinion as fact.  I don't think it matters what the Democrats and Republicans want to spin about it.  The truth will come out in the grand jury and if Rove did it, they will indict him for it or for perjury.

 

If the grand jury doesn't indict him, you can be reasonably certain that he did nothing wrong, as grand juries are stacked in the prosecutors favor since the burden of proof is a lot lower for indictment than for conviction.

 

It is a little telling that Bush distanced himself a little today from supporting Rove.  I think Bush is leaning towards letting the investigation be the final arbitor on this matter.  This is probably the fairest way to handle it

I'd say that's one of the more accurate descriptions of the current situation that I've read throughout I don't know how many threads on the same subject.

 

BTW, I still think that dog has that look on his face - he hasn't forgotten who took him to the vet to get "fixed". Lock him up at night and sleep with one eye open.

[blzrul]

The article in question is from the Wall St Journal Editorial Page.  Therefore, I would not take this opinion as fact.  I don't think it matters what the Democrats and Republicans want to spin about it.  The truth will come out in the grand jury and if Rove did it, they will indict him for it or for perjury.

 

If the grand jury doesn't indict him, you can be reasonably certain that he did nothing wrong, as grand juries are stacked in the prosecutors favor since the burden of proof is a lot lower for indictment than for conviction.

 

It is a little telling that Bush distanced himself a little today from supporting Rove.  I think Bush is leaning towards letting the investigation be the final arbitor on this matter.  This is probably the fairest way to handle it.

381147[/snapback]

Yes I think the "Pontius Pilate" approach is what we're going to see here.

Assuming it is Rove, or anyone close to him. And no-one with a grain of sense takes an editorial as gospel truth...or for that matter a pundit...no matter WHICH side of the issue they're on. Sad that so many do...I guess it's easier than thinking for themselves, eh?

[SilverNRed]

The article in question is from the Wall St Journal Editorial Page.  Therefore, I would not take this opinion as fact.  I don't think it matters what the Democrats and Republicans want to spin about it.  The truth will come out in the grand jury and if Rove did it, they will indict him for it or for perjury.

 

If the grand jury doesn't indict him, you can be reasonably certain that he did nothing wrong, as grand juries are stacked in the prosecutors favor since the burden of proof is a lot lower for indictment than for conviction.

 

It is a little telling that Bush distanced himself a little today from supporting Rove.  I think Bush is leaning towards letting the investigation be the final arbitor on this matter.  This is probably the fairest way to handle it.

381147[/snapback]

I produced a Washington Post article from June 2004 a couple days ago that cites the same information as the editorial.

 

You are aware that editorials are allowed to cite facts, right?

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

I produced a Washington Post article from June 2004 a couple days ago that cites the same information as the editorial. 

 

You are aware that editorials are allowed to cite facts, right?

381279[/snapback]

 

Yes, editorials sometime include facts, but they always include opinions. I would rather see the facts without someone's opinion of what the facts mean.

[SilverNRed]

Yes, editorials sometime include facts, but they always include opinions.  I would rather see the facts without someone's opinion of what the facts mean.

381285[/snapback]

So you can't read the editorial and form your own opinion of the case being made?

[Alaska Darin]

So you can't read the editorial and form your own opinion of the case being made?

381294[/snapback]

Nope. Hurts.

[Wacka]

Here's some more info:

 

Exploding liberal myths

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

So you can't read the editorial and form your own opinion of the case being made?

381294[/snapback]

 

I can form my own opinion, but it seems that a lot of the posters here are Conservatives who would rather read Right wing editorials or the RNC talking points in order to understand an issue. Just because listening to Rush gives you a hard-on, it doesn't mean that it is the unadulterated truth. It also doesn't do your car any good to slap the dashboard and shout "Amen" everytime Rush finishes a thought.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

Here's some more info:

 

Exploding liberal myths

381326[/snapback]

 

Just what we needed...some more partisan rhetoric.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I can form my own opinion, but it seems that a lot of the posters here are Conservatives who would rather read Right wing editorials or the RNC talking points in order to  understand an issue.  Just because listening to Rush gives you a hard-on, it doesn't mean that it is the unadulterated truth.  It also doesn't do your car any good to slap the dashboard and shout "Amen" everytime Rush finishes a thought. 

381379[/snapback]

 

Just an FYI...not all right-leaning people listen to Rush. I don't.

 

He's more a tool of the sort-of-right-wing Republican Party than I care to like.

 

He's not right ENOUGH.

[SilverNRed]

I can form my own opinion, but it seems that a lot of the posters here are Conservatives who would rather read Right wing editorials or the RNC talking points in order to  understand an issue.  Just because listening to Rush gives you a hard-on, it doesn't mean that it is the unadulterated truth.  It also doesn't do your car any good to slap the dashboard and shout "Amen" everytime Rush finishes a thought. 

381379[/snapback]

In my entire life, I've listened to Limbaugh twice and that was during the Florida recount when Jim Rome went to commercial over on WGR.

[Kelly the Dog]

In my entire life, I've listened to Limbaugh twice and that was during the Florida recount when Jim Rome went to commercial over on WGR.

381499[/snapback]

Just what we need. A loner lemming.

[Mickey]

Here's some more info:

 

Exploding liberal myths

381326[/snapback]

Where did that crap come from, perhaps GOP USA the republican spin machine that served as home sweet home for male prostitutes with White House press credentials?

 

So, Plame was not a covert agent? Hmmmmm.... lets see:

 

Robert Novak's original column, July 14 2003:

 

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.

 

 

David Corn in the Nation, July 16 2003:

 

....a CIA operative who apparently has worked under what's known as "nonofficial cover" and who has had the dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material....a woman known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm.

 

 

Newsday, July 21 2003:

 

Intelligence officials confirmed to Newsday Monday that Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson, works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity

....A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked "alongside" the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger.

 

 

Washington Post, September 29, 2003:

 

She is a case officer in the CIA's clandestine service and works as an analyst on weapons of mass destruction. Novak published her maiden name, Plame, which she had used overseas and has not been using publicly. Intelligence sources said top officials at the agency were very concerned about the disclosure because it could allow foreign intelligence services to track down some of her former contacts and lead to the exposure of agents.

 

MSNBC, September 30, 2003:

 

CIA lawyers answered a series of 11 questions "affirming that the woman's identity was classified, that whoever released it was not authorized to do so and that the news media would not have been able to guess her identity without the leak."

 

 

Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst, September 30, 2003:

 

I know Joseph Wilson well enough to know that his wife was in fact a deep cover operative running a network of informants on what is supposedly this administration’s first-priority issue: Weapons of mass destruction.

 

 

Larry Johnson, former CIA analyst on NewsHour, September 30, 2003:

 

I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades....she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised.... she's a woman of great integrity....This is a woman who is very solid, very low key and not about show boating.

 

 

CNN, October 1, 2003:

 

Sources told CNN that Plame works in the CIA's Directorate of Operations -- the part of the agency in charge of spying -- and worked in the field for many years as an undercover officer. "If she were only an analyst, not an operative, we would not have filed a crimes report" with the Justice Department, a senior intelligence official said.

 

Mel Goodman, former CIA analyst, Washington Post online Q&A, October 1 2003:

 

....I've worked in Washington for the past 38 years, including 24 years at the CIA...and I know Ambassador Wilson....and I did not know that his wife was an agency employee. Let's face it....this was targetted information as part of a political vendetta....a pure act of revenge.

 

 

Jim Marcinkowski, former CIA case officer, LA Times, Ocotber 1, 2003:

 

The exposure of Valerie Plame — who I have reason to believe operated undercover — apparently by a senior administration official, is nothing less than a despicable act for which someone should be held accountable. This case is especially upsetting to me because she was my agency classmate as well as my friend.

 

New York Times, October 2, 2003:

 

Valerie Plame was among the small subset of Central Intelligence Agency officers who could not disguise their profession by telling friends that they worked for the United States government.

 

That cover story, standard for American operatives who pretend to be diplomats or other federal employees, was not an option for Ms. Plame, people who knew her said on Wednesday. As a covert operative who specialized in nonconventional weapons and sometimes worked abroad, she passed herself off as a private energy expert, what the agency calls nonofficial cover.

 

New York Daily News, October 2, 2003:

 

Two former senior intelligence officials confirmed that Valerie Plame, 40, is an operations officer in the spy agency's directorate of operations - the clandestine service.

Plame "ran intelligence operations overseas," said Vincent Cannistraro, former CIA counterterrorism operations chief.

 

Her specialty in the agency's nonproliferation center was biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and "recruiting agents, sending them to areas where they could access information about proliferation matters, weapons of mass destruction," Cannistraro said.

 

Okay, that's 4 ex-cia employees who say she was a covert agent and numerous senior intelligence officials as well. On top of that, consider that indeed, if she wasn't covert, there could be no crime yet the CIA asked the Justice Department to investigate and it affirmed the need for an investigation and thus a Special Prosecutor was set up who is pursuing the matter with vigor. It seems reasonable to believe that all three have concluded that she in fact was covert for otherwise there would be no need for an investigation. Against that is your link to Joe Mariani "computer consultant and free lance writer". You'll have to excuse me if for now I go with the CIA, the Justice Department, the Special Prosecutor, ex-CIA employees and "senior intelligence officials" rather than Mr. Mariani.

[Ghost of BiB]

Her specialty in the agency's nonproliferation center was biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and "recruiting agents, sending them to areas where they could access information about proliferation matters, weapons of mass destruction," Cannistraro said.

 

Uh huh. Worked great, didn't it? Google WINPAC.

[Wacka]

And your sources are bastions of impartiality?

The Nation

MSNBC

Newsweek

CNN

LA Times

 

Sure as hell aren't slanted to the right.

 

What don't you understand?

Her cover was blown by Ames in the 90s. She was an analyst behind a desk for about 10 years. The law states that he had to KNOWINGLY expose a covert agent within 5 years of them not being covert any more. Mickey, I think you are a lawyer. Have you read the law?

Everybody in the DC social circles they were in knew she worked at the CIA, she would tell people that at cocktail parties. Rove warned the Newsweek guy that if he submitted the story he had, that the VP sent Wilson, it would blow up in his face and that it was likely his wife, Plame. who got him the assignment. Rove did not break any laws. Period.

 

All this is a case of the lefties thinking they have something on the "Dr. Strangelove" of the Bush administration and wanting to desperately win at anything. Anything!

[Reuben Gant]

And your sources are bastions of impartiality?

The Nation

MSNBC

Newsweek

CNN

LA Times

 

Sure as hell aren't slanted to the right.

 

 

 

382113[/snapback]

You forgot Newshour. At least he is sourcing things.

Where was that Ames link?

[SilverNRed]

Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst, September 30, 2003:

 

I know Joseph Wilson well enough to know that his wife was in fact a deep cover operative running a network of informants on what is supposedly this administration’s first-priority issue: Weapons of mass destruction.

382087[/snapback]

This one is interesting. This guy knew Joseph Wilson well enough to know that his wife was a "deep cover" operative. What the hell does that mean? It's a secret but if you know the husband, it's not? Alrighty.

 

What kind of deep cover involves leaving your house and driving to Langley for work every day? Maybe her specific job at the CIA was secret but where she worked sure wasn't. And it sounds like anyone who knew these people and had basic reasoning skills could figure out where Plame worked.

 

BTW, you could dig up about 300 million Americans who didn't know where she worked before any of us ever knew her name, but the issue is how many people did know where she worked prior to this 'outing' that technically were not supposed to. How much of a secret was this thing before Novak's column.

 

I'd like to know who Judith Miller is hiding. Not to play conspiracy theorist but if Wilson and Plame knew the truth was coming out about his trip, his "whistleblowing" column, and how he got his job (his wife abusing her job) - they might've both been in a lot of trouble. Something to think about. I still don't see reporters going to the mattresses for Karl Rove.