Rove outted Plame - grand treason

[MODU]

Unlike the right, the left actually challenges things before they're accepted.

*dies laughin* 

I hope you didn't support the Iraq war.

You bet I do.  I've supported it since it started in 1991.  I've had many friend, co-workers, and relatives serve proudly over there.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Unlike the right, the left actually challenges things before they're accepted.

*dies laughin* 

I hope you didn't support the Iraq war.

You bet I do.  I've supported it since it started in 1991.  I've had many friend, co-workers, and relatives serve proudly over there.

So you don't challenge Bush's lies? Why were you laughing?

[Gabu]

Personally, I think that the following is a comprehensive list of what should be challenged before it's accepted:

- Everything

I think it would do a lot of people good if, before they posted something they randomly found on the internet as fact, they checked to see if it falls in this list.

Unlike the right, the left actually challenges things before they're accepted. The right had us invade Iraq for no good reason.

You didn't seem to exactly challenge this accusation against Rove all that much.

[ATFFL]

Personally, I think that the following is a comprehensive list of what should be challenged before it's accepted:

- Everything

I think it would do a lot of people good if, before they posted something they randomly found on the internet as fact, they checked to see if it falls in this list.

Unlike the right, the left actually challenges things before they're accepted. The right had us invade Iraq for no good reason.

You didn't seem to exactly challenge this accusation against Rove all that much.

The irony of Mr. Fantastic saying wha the just did in this thread is too rich.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Personally, I think that the following is a comprehensive list of what should be challenged before it's accepted:

- Everything

I think it would do a lot of people good if, before they posted something they randomly found on the internet as fact, they checked to see if it falls in this list.

Unlike the right, the left actually challenges things before they're accepted. The right had us invade Iraq for no good reason.

You didn't seem to exactly challenge this accusation against Rove all that much.

Sure I did. There were rumors on the Internets a while ago about Rove outing Plame, but I only started talking about it in the last few days when it was confirmed that he was involved.

[MODU]

So you don't challenge Bush's lies? Why were you laughing?

We've had numerous discussions in the past over this.  It is the opinion of some that he lied.  Everyone else knows that he (and the rest of the world) had faulty information, which was determined after-the-fact.  And like I said a long time ago, I'm still not convinced we will discover WMDs in larger quantities other than a few shells here, banned mines here, etc.  We knew he had it since we sold it to him in the past.  So, are the hidden, or did he, in turn, sell/smuggle it to someone else?

And I'm laughing at your hate-blinded statement about only the left questioning things. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So you don't challenge Bush's lies? Why were you laughing?

We've had numerous discussions in the past over this.  It is the opinion of some that he lied.  Everyone else knows that he (and the rest of the world) had faulty information, which was determined after-the-fact.  And like I said a long time ago, I'm still not convinced we will discover WMDs in larger quantities other than a few shells here, banned mines here, etc.  We knew he had it since we sold it to him in the past.  So, are the hidden, or did he, in turn, sell/smuggle it to someone else?

And I'm laughing at your hate-blinded statement about only the left questioning things. 

The opinons of some? What does that mean? It's currenly 59% against the Iraq war.  Did you accept the reasons he gave for war? Sounds like you didn't challenge him.

[Gabu]

Personally, I think that the following is a comprehensive list of what should be challenged before it's accepted:

- Everything

I think it would do a lot of people good if, before they posted something they randomly found on the internet as fact, they checked to see if it falls in this list.

Unlike the right, the left actually challenges things before they're accepted. The right had us invade Iraq for no good reason.

You didn't seem to exactly challenge this accusation against Rove all that much.

Sure I did. There were rumors on the Internets a while ago about Rove outing Plame, but I only started talking about it in the last few days when it was confirmed that he was involved.

jmfsct posted an article that contradicts the assertion that Rove outed Plame, which you seemed to have simply ignored.  I'm curious what challenging of it you have actually done.  Being skeptical and/or unsure for a few hours after it breaks does not exactly count.  Have you checked other sources?  Have you seriously considered the opposition's arguments?  If your answer to any of these is "no", then you have not really seriously challenged it.

[MODU]

The opinons of some? What does that mean? It's currenly 59% against the Iraq war.  Did you accept the reasons he gave for war? Sounds like you didn't challenge him.

There is a difference between being against the war and thinking Bush lied.  hahaha . . . nice try though, son.

As far as the reasons for going to war, yes, I've accepted them.  Saddam had WMDs (we've seen him use them AND we had sold them to him), he was in violation of UN resolutions, he oppressed his citizens, killed thousands of his own citizens, invaded a sovereign nation, etc.  All are documented.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The opinons of some? What does that mean? It's currenly 59% against the Iraq war.  Did you accept the reasons he gave for war? Sounds like you didn't challenge him.

There is a difference between being against the war and thinking Bush lied.  hahaha . . . nice try though, son.

As far as the reasons for going to war, yes, I've accepted them.  Saddam had WMDs (we've seen him use them AND we had sold them to him), he was in violation of UN resolutions, he oppressed his citizens, killed thousands of his own citizens, invaded a sovereign nation, etc.  All are documented.

Saddam admitted that he had once had WMD. That wasn't the question. The question is whether he still had them in 2003. The answer was no. There are lots of crappy 3rd world dictators. What's so special about Iraq as opposed to Saudi Arabia? Also, invaded a sovereign nation is a pretty stupid reason for invading a sovereign nation.

[MODU]

Also, invaded a sovereign nation is a pretty stupid reason for invading a sovereign nation.

We were already at war with them, just like we are already at war with North Korea.  You might want to brush up on your military history.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Also, invaded a sovereign nation is a pretty stupid reason for invading a sovereign nation.

We were already at war with them, just like we are already at war with North Korea.  You might want to brush up on your military history.

If you assume that I didn't know about the Gulf War, there's no point in having further dicussion with you. You'd rather attack me for not knowing stuff that I do know then really challenge any of what Bush said.

[MODU]

Also, invaded a sovereign nation is a pretty stupid reason for invading a sovereign nation.

We were already at war with them, just like we are already at war with North Korea.  You might want to brush up on your military history.

If you assume that I didn't know about the Gulf War, there's no point in having further dicussion with you. You'd rather attack me for not knowing stuff that I do know then really challenge any of what Bush said.

Oh, you know I'm not attacking you.  Just responding to your remark about the invasion.  We can't invade someone we are already at war with, which is something most people don't seem to understand, especially in the left and the media.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Also, invaded a sovereign nation is a pretty stupid reason for invading a sovereign nation.

We were already at war with them, just like we are already at war with North Korea.  You might want to brush up on your military history.

If you assume that I didn't know about the Gulf War, there's no point in having further dicussion with you. You'd rather attack me for not knowing stuff that I do know then really challenge any of what Bush said.

Oh, you know I'm not attacking you.  Just responding to your remark about the invasion.  We can't invade someone we are already at war with, which is something most people don't seem to understand, especially in the left and the media.

Points

1. The US has not formally been at war since 1945
2. Why not attack North Korea? They actually seem to have or are working on WMD. If we're as powerful as we think we are, we should be able to take them out easily. North Korea is a crazy country. Iraq is hardly anything out of the ordinary for a 3rd world dictatorship.

[MODU]

Points

1. The US has not formally been at war since 1945 - That is correct, but under the War Powers resolution, Congress allows the President to go to war with limits.

2. Why not attack North Korea? They actually seem to have or are working on WMD. If we're as powerful as we think we are, we should be able to take them out easily. North Korea is a crazy country. Iraq is hardly anything out of the ordinary for a 3rd world dictatorship. - Because N. Korea hasn't violated the cease-fire with the UN.  We would have to have the UN authorize the violation of the cease-fire.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Points

1. The US has not formally been at war since 1945 - That is correct, but under the War Powers resolution, Congress allows the President to go to war with limits.

2. Why not attack North Korea? They actually seem to have or are working on WMD. If we're as powerful as we think we are, we should be able to take them out easily. North Korea is a crazy country. Iraq is hardly anything out of the ordinary for a 3rd world dictatorship. - Because N. Korea hasn't violated the cease-fire with the UN.  We would have to have the UN authorize the violation of the cease-fire.

Who cares about the cease-fire? They're working on nukes. Imminent threat. You look pretty silly claiming that the reasons for attacking Iraq don't apply to other coutnries, too.

[MODU]

Who cares about the cease-fire? They're working on nukes. Imminent threat. You look pretty silly claiming that the reasons for attacking Iraq don't apply to other coutnries, too.

I have no problems attacking North Korea. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Who cares about the cease-fire? They're working on nukes. Imminent threat. You look pretty silly claiming that the reasons for attacking Iraq don't apply to other coutnries, too.

I have no problems attacking North Korea. 

Then how come we haven't? Aren't there some other countries we should attack too? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Syria? Sudan? Let's attack them all.

[MODU]

Then how come we haven't? Aren't there some other countries we should attack too? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Syria? Sudan? Let's attack them all.

I would say we have our hands tied by the UN with N. Korea, hence the reason why we are pressuring them by getting their neighbors (including the historical supporter China) involved. 

Saudi Arabia - as I mentioned a few weeks ago, we needed them in order to maintain a sizable foothold in the region.  Now that we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can now pressure the Saudi's, which we have.  They are 'attempting' reform, as well as begun policing their own for terrorists (which they have been doing).  Failure to follow through, and I would expect US sanctions.

Iran - We've been expecting an internal revolt, and I was sure it was going to happen last year when they barred many pro-western candidates in the local elections.  There is a strong Kurdish movement and college youth movement demanding reform.  Unfortunately, they all stayed home on election day last month.

Syria - I think we already have special forces/operatives in their borders hunting down terrorists.  In addition, we are pushing heavily on them diplomatically.  They will most likely be our next target once Afghanistand and Iraq are settled and there hasn't been any change in their refusal to complay with the UN.

Sudan - That should be a UN police state.

[J. J.]

Whomever did leak the information might have planned it this way:

1.  Leak the info.

2.  Cast Rove (who's innocent) as the leaker.

3.  Reveal information that Rove didn't do it, and discredit people like Jfern, who were screaming for Rove's head.  They look like fools, Rove looks like a victim, and the leaker gets away with it.  Nasty, but effective.

And I get accused of having conspiracy theories. No, it's pretty clear that Rove was involved in this.

Being interviewed by a reporter, who doesn't run the story, doesn't equal involvement.

But Novak did. The players are Novak, Miller, Cooper, and Rove here. BTW, Miller is very connected to Chalabi.

Chalabi is irrelevent at this point.  Now, we don't have any evidence yet that Novak and Rove talked.  We don't have any evidence that Miller and Novak talked.  Novak published the story?

Now, let's look at the situation.  Wilson, a Democrat but also a career diplomat (retired), was sent to Niger.  That is unusual, especially when dealing with WMD's.  He's an ex-diplomat and has contacts in Sub-Sahara Africa, but he isn't a WMD expert.

Palme is the WMD expert.  It does make sense, if something turns up, for Palme to "visit her husband (Wilson) while returning from her business trip."  It is a perfect excuse to get Palme into Niger; she is "visiting" her spouse.  It is ideal cover.

Now the story that Palme was an undercover CIA agent is leaked to "discredit" Wilson, according to Wilson.  How does this "discredit" him?  He's served the country in the foreign service and now he's serving it as cover for intelligence gathering.  It doesn't discredit him; it makes him look more patriotic, if anything.  Does it reflect badly on the White House?  Not really.  They say, as they did, "We shouldn't have included the yellowcake stuff in the speech."  They reversed on the prior to Palme being named, IIRC.

Okay, why leak it?  That's the question that we need to ask.  It's not to discredit Joe Wilson. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

From the DNC:

For Immediate Release
July 6, 2005

Contact: Karen Finney - 202-863-8148

Karl Rove: UNCOVERED

Until recently, Karl Rove had denied even knowing Valerie Plame's name. Now,
after the release of emails from Time Magazine reporter Matt Cooper revealing
the name of the White House source, Rove's lawyer confirmed that Rove did speak
with reporters about the case. With his history of questionable campaign
tactics and his penchant for leaking information critical of his rivals, Rove
should come clean with the American people: Did he endanger our national
security by leaking a CIA operative's name?

First, Rove Denied Any Involvement

August of 2004: Rove Claimed He Did Not Know Who Plame Was. In August of 2004,
facing questions of his role in the Plame leak scandal, Rove denied his
involvement, saying that he did not even know who Plame was at the time of the
leak. "Well, I'll repeat what I said to ABC News when this whole thing broke
some number of months ago. I didn't know her name and didn't leak her name."


McClellan Said Rove Never Told Reporters that Plame Worked for CIA. In October
of 2003 White House Press Secretary, Scott McCllelan was asked during a White
House Briefing, "Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove,
Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard
to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of
them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?" McClellan
responded by noting that Rove and the others had assured him that they had not
leaked any classified information. "Those individuals - I talked - I spoke with
those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were
not involved in this. And that's where it stands."

McClellan Said He Knew Karl Rove, and Karl Rove Would Never Do Something Like
Leaking. White House Spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that, "I've known
Karl for a long time, and I didn't even need to go ask Karl, because I know the
kind of person that he is, and he is someone that is committed to the highest
standards of conduct*It is not something I needed to ask him, but I like to,
like you do, verify things and make sure that it is completely accurate. But I
knew that Karl would not be involved in something like this." 9/29/03]

But Now That the Heat Is On, Rove Changes His Story

Rove's Lawyer Confirmed He Had Contact with Reporters About Plame. During
interviews with the Los Angeles Times and Newsweek magazine, Rove's personal
lawyer, Robert Luskin, revealed that Rove had spoken to Time magazine reporter
Matthew Cooper days before Bob Novak ran his column outing Valerie Plame, and
that Cooper interviewed Rove for his story on Plame. The same Newsweek article
also contained quotes from "lawyers representing clients sympathetic to the
White House" that said internal Time magazine emails between Cooper and his
editors, identify Rove as Cooper's source. These admission contradicted earlier
statements by White House staff that Rove had not revealed Plame's identity to
any reporters.

White House "Concerned" That Rove is Focus of Prosecutor's Investigation.
According to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, Rove has testified before the Grand
Jury "two or three times." According to a lawyer "representing clients
sympathetic to the White House", Rove's repeated visits to the Grand Jury has
begun to make the administration "concerned" that Rove is a target of the
special prosecutor.

Not The First Time: Rove and Novak

Rove Was Fired For Leaking A Damaging Story About GOP Fundraiser. Esquire's Ron
Suskind reported that, "Sources close to the former president Bush] say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he
planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with
campaign fundraising chief and Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr. It was smoked
out, and he was summarily ousted." 1/2003 Issue]

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Judith Miller supports terrorism. Funny little coincidence with her and Fitzgerald, the guy investigating the Plame scandal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51840-2005Feb24.html

[J. J.]

Judith Miller supports terrorism. Funny little coincidence with her and Fitzgerald, the guy investigating the Plame scandal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51840-2005Feb24.html

I hate to tell you this, but reporters do call the subjects for news stories.  She had the information from someplace, but the raid occured the next day.  It is very unlikely that Rove would know the day of the raid.