View Full Version : Peter King is insane, and careless with hate speech


homechicago
07-14-2005, 11:21 PM
SCARBOROUGH: Now to the storm over the president's top adviser, Karl Rove. Did he leak classified information to a reporter, and should he be bounced from the White House?

With me now to talk about that is Congressman Peter King.

Thank you so much for being with us, Congressman.

It's a fascinating case. And I just got to start by saying, you and I served together during the Clinton administration. We attacked the Clinton administration for not taking national security more seriously. I got to just tell you, I mean, bottom line is, if Clinton's chief of staff or top adviser had leaked the identity of a CIA agent, you and I would be up in arms and say, Clinton had to fire that person immediately.

Should Karl Rove be treated at the same standard?

REP. PETER KING ®, NEW YORK: No, in fact, I think Karl Rove should get a medal, Joe. I really mean that.

I think this is much do about nothing, because let's look at the facts very clearly.

SCARBOROUGH: For revealing a CIA agent's identity?

KING: First of all, it's only a crime if she was undercover, if he knew she was undercover, and he did it deliberately.
I think, Joe, this thing was such a hoax. Joe Wilson was a shameless self-promoter. Everything about his story was either a lie or a hoax or he was incompetent. And when Karl Rove—even just looking at the e-mail. If you are talking to a reporter and you have someone like Joe Wilson, who was totally discrediting the president of the United States, unfairly and untruthfully, and you say, how come this guy was sent over to do this?

And to say, you know, looking at the fact that he is—was sent over by his wife, who was in the CIA.

SCARBOROUGH: All right, Congressman. Hold on. Let me just stop you right there, Congressman King.

KING: Yes.

SCARBOROUGH: That still doesn't justify Karl Rove or anybody—and we don't know if Rove did it for sure—but justify the outing of CIA agent, does it?



SCARBOROUGH: A White House official should not reveal the identity of a CIA agent. And if that White House official had done it, or let's say they had done it in the Clinton administration, you and I would be calling for the resignation of that official, would we not?

KING: No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't, Joe, because I think this is important.

If we are in time of war and you want to know what the president said, what the president didn't say, whether it's accurate or not, and you have someone who says, I am sent over there by the vice president of the United States and George Tenet to investigate this, and instead it turns out, he was sent over at the recommendation of his wife, that to me became a key element.

It's not just because you're outing her or you're saying she was in the CIA to take a shot at Joe Wilson. You are taking it to undermine the credibility of his case, which was attempting to undermine the president of the United States in time of war about a key allegation that was made. I think once...

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: But, Peter, what I would say if I were a Democratic...

KING: Yes.

SCARBOROUGH: If I were a Democratic senator, what I would say was, the last thing you want to do, because you keep talking about the fact we are at a time of war.

KING: Right.

SCARBOROUGH: The last thing you want to do at a time of war is reveal the identity of undercover CIA agents.

KING: No.

And Joe Wilson has no right to complain. And I think people like Tim Russert and the others, who gave this guy such a free ride and all the media, they're the ones to be shot , not Karl Rove. Listen, maybe Karl Rove was not perfect. We live in an imperfect world. And I give him credit for having the guts.

And I really—I tell you, Republicans are running for cover. They should be out attacking Joe Wilson. We should throw this back at them with all the nonsense that has been said about George Bush and all the lies that have come out.

SCARBOROUGH: Well...

KING: Let's at least stand by the guy. He was trying to set the record straight for historical purposes and to save American lives. And if Joe Wilson's wife was that upset, she should have come out and said that her husband was a liar, when he was.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Congressman, I appreciate you being with me.

Debaser
07-15-2005, 01:11 AM
The desperate Republican defense of Karl Rove is amazingly disconnected from the facts.

-Wilson never said that Cheney sent him, only that the vice president's office had questions about an intelligence report that referred to the sale of uranium yellowcake to Iraq from Niger. Wilson, in his New York Times article, said CIA officials were informed of Cheney's questions.

``The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office,'' Wilson wrote.

-Wilson's wife was not in a position of authority to send him to Niger. It's quite plausible that she herself recommended her husband to her superiors and they sent him to Niger. Afterall, Wilson is a highly respected diplomat with extensive experience in that area.

wiki-
Joseph C. Wilson IV (born November 6, 1949) was a United States career foreign service officer and later a diplomat between 1976 and 1998. He served as ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe under President George H. W. Bush, and helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton. He was hailed as "truly inspiring" and "courageous" by George H. W. Bush after sheltering more than a hundred Americans at the US embassy in Baghdad, and mocking Saddam Hussein's threats to execute anyone who refused to hand over foreigners. As a result, in 1990, he also became the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein (Wilson, 2003)


Furthermore, this crazy Republican spin to smear Joe Wilson is irrelevant to the fact that Karl Rove outed an undercover CIA agent.

Now I'm hearing the right desperately shrieking that Valerie Plame wasn't really undercover. What the?! Then why is there an investigation in the first place? Why did Bush say many times that he wanted the "leaker" to be found and dealt with if there was nothing to be leaked?

These karl rove defenses are just sad.

Corganist
07-15-2005, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by Debaser
-Wilson's wife was not in a position of authority to send him to Niger. It's quite plausible that she herself recommended her husband to her superiors and they sent him to Niger.
But Wilson expressly said on multiple occasions that his wife had nothing do with the decision to send him. Plame might not have sent him, but recommending him for the job (as it seems she did) is definitely having something to do with it. If that doesn't undermine the legitimacy of his being sent there, then why did he lie about it?

Furthermore, this crazy Republican spin to smear Joe Wilson is irrelevant to the fact that Karl Rove outed an undercover CIA agent.
Maybe if you keep telling yourself that enough, then Karl Rove will magically decide to out a CIA agent thats really undercover. Valerie Plame wasn't undercover when the Novak article was published. Wilson admits that himself. And its still up in the air as to whether or not she had been undercover in the five years before that. If she wasn't, no laws were broken. And even if she was, then there's still the pesky matter of proving intent and knowledge (which wouldn't be likely).

Nothing we know thus far even comes close to indicating that Rove did anything illegal by saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Considering the fact that Rove found out Plame's name from Novak (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/politics/15rove.html?hp&ex=1121400000&en=15d2c0ff1133350b&ei=5094&partner=homepage) and not the other way around, I'd say that at the very least that this whole left-wing fantasy about Karl Rove dropping Valerie Plame's name all over town as some kind of petty revenge tactic has got a lot less weight to it than it used to. If the information in that article is right, then Rove most assuredly wasn't the person who told Novak Plame's name. Now perhaps Rove should have been a little less reckless about who he shared information with, but its seeming more and more like the information he gave Cooper was already pretty well circulated by the time that conversation took place. It keeps looking less and less like the dastardly and calculated "treason" that the left were hoping for.

What the?! Then why is there an investigation in the first place? Why did Bush say many times that he wanted the "leaker" to be found and dealt with if there was nothing to be leaked?
The investigation was probably just a way to kick the can down the road a little bit. That way, if there was any meat to the issue, they wouldn't be having to deal with it in the middle of an election year. I'm sure that this controversy is much more welcome (or less unwelcome anyway) in Summer 05 than Summer 04.

These karl rove defenses are just sad.
These Karl Rove attacks are just sad. The guy's no saint, but the rush to call him a traitor is just ridiculous...and more petty than the dastardly deeds that Rove is supposed to have perpetrated.

pastry sharp
07-15-2005, 09:33 AM
the fact remains that the president said that he would fire the turd blossom responsible for this leak (intent was not mentioned). the press secretary said that it was ridiculous to assert that karl rove had anything to do with this at all. regardless of the legal implications for rove, there is an ongoing credibility issue in the white house, and this is just the latest manifestation of that fact.

Debaser
07-15-2005, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Corganist

But Wilson expressly said on multiple occasions that his wife had nothing do with the decision to send him. Plame might not have sent him, but recommending him for the job (as it seems she did) is definitely having something to do with it. If that doesn't undermine the legitimacy of his being sent there, then why did he lie about it?

Maybe she did it behind his back, maybe Wilson did lie. Regardless, this is irrelevant to the fact that Rove outed Valerie Plame.


Originally posted by Corganist
Maybe if you keep telling yourself that enough, then Karl Rove will magically decide to out a CIA agent thats really undercover. Valerie Plame wasn't undercover when the Novak article was published. Wilson admits that himself. And its still up in the air as to whether or not she had been undercover in the five years before that. If she wasn't, no laws were broken. And even if she was, then there's still the pesky matter of proving intent and knowledge (which wouldn't be likely).

There wouldn't be an investigation in the first place if Plame was not supposed to be outed.


Originally posted by Corganist
Nothing we know thus far even comes close to indicating that Rove did anything illegal by saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Considering the fact that Rove found out Plame's name from Novak (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/politics/15rove.html?hp&ex=1121400000&en=15d2c0ff1133350b&ei=5094&partner=homepage) and not the other way around, I'd say that at the very least that this whole left-wing fantasy about Karl Rove dropping Valerie Plame's name all over town as some kind of petty revenge tactic has got a lot less weight to it than it used to. If the information in that article is right, then Rove most assuredly wasn't the person who told Novak Plame's name. Now perhaps Rove should have been a little less reckless about who he shared information with, but its seeming more and more like the information he gave Cooper was already pretty well circulated by the time that conversation took place. It keeps looking less and less like the dastardly and calculated "treason" that the left were hoping for.


LOL. Bullshit. What are you? -- You're such a right wing zombie that you cannot even read a news article correctly? That article says Novak called Rove about it, brought up Valerie Plame, and Rove CONFIRMED it.

After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."

It still doesn't change the fact that Rove outed Valerie Plame to Matt Cooper. It's these Rove defenses and smear campaign against Joe Wilson that's a fantasy.

Originally posted by Corganist
The investigation was probably just a way to kick the can down the road a little bit. That way, if there was any meat to the issue, they wouldn't be having to deal with it in the middle of an election year. I'm sure that this controversy is much more welcome (or less unwelcome anyway) in Summer 05 than Summer 04.

Um yeah, sure. That's the ticket...

pathetic.

Debaser
07-15-2005, 12:19 PM
Also, that article corgy ridiculously mis-interprets also highlights another Karl Rove lie:

"I didn't know her name and didn't leak her name." Karl Rove, August 2003

But the article says Novak brought up her name to Rove a month before.

Debaser
07-15-2005, 12:27 PM
There's a point that's probably worth raising with our scofflaw Republican friends. All of their arguments now amount to excuses, like those of a small child caught stealing cookies: Joe Wilson's a liar. Plame's covert status wasn't protected well by the CIA. It was just a short phone call. Rove really wanted to speak about welfare reform. Wilson said Cheney sent him to Africa. Plame sent Wilson to Africa. Rove leaked Plame's identity in the interests of good journalism. Wilson went on too many TV shows. On and on and on.

The salient point is not that each of these claims is false. The point is that they're irrelevant. It's the mid-life version of 'He hit me first!' or 'He called me a name!' or other such foolery.

No presidential advisor should ever disclose the identity of a covert agent at the CIA. That doesn't require elaboration.

If it's done knowingly, it's a felony. Joe Wilson could be the biggest hack in the world. Plame could have cooked the whole trip idea up to damage the president -- as some GOP loopsters are now claiming -- and it wouldn't matter.

Rove (and, though we're not supposed to say it yet, several of his colleagues) did something obviously wrong and reckless. And they probably broke several laws by the time it was all done.

Pretty much every Republican in Washington today works for Karl Rove. So they can't deal with that fact. But fact it is.

And nothing was done amiss? If Rove et al. didn't do anything wrong, why have they spent two years lying about what they did? No law was broken? Then what is Fitzgerald looking at? Why is a grand jury investigating Rove? A prosecutor like Fitzgerald, a Republican appointee, wouldn't be throwing journalists in jail unless he thought he was investigating a serious crime.

What's their answer to that? They have none. Rove runs the Washington Republican party, owns it. So it's anything but hold him accountable.

-- Josh Marshall

Trotskilicious
07-15-2005, 12:35 PM
Oh I thought this was about that fat fuck who thinks he knows about football.

"Craig Erickson will be a household name!"

Shut up.

Corganist
07-15-2005, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Debaser

There wouldn't be an investigation in the first place if Plame was not supposed to be outed.
WTF? The whole point of an investigation is to determine whether something wrong took place. Its still unknown whether or not she was supposed to be outed. The investigation is supposed to determine that. You can't say that the fact that the administration ordered an investigation to pacify the left-wing is proof positive someone did something wrong.


LOL. Bullshit. What are you? -- You're such a right wing zombie that you cannot even read a news article correctly? That article says Novak called Rove about it, brought up Valerie Plame, and Rove CONFIRMED it.

After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."
And? He confirmed what he had heard from other reporters' talking. He didn't "out" Plame to Novak. Novak already knew her name and identity. The article is pretty clear, and supports the point I was making pretty well. What part of what I posted represents a ridiculous misinterpretation of that article? If Rove was really out to punish Joe Wilson by revealing his wife's covert CIA status, he would have called Novak and gave him her name. Not the other way around.

What amazes me here is that you're still so focused on Rove, even as it becomes less and less apparrent that he was the true "leak". Whoever told Novak what he knew is probably the target of the investigation. You seem to be hoping that its Rove to the point that you dismiss things that exonerate him. How dumb.

It still doesn't change the fact that Rove outed Valerie Plame to Matt Cooper.
Notice how the left's calls for Rove's head have gotten shorter and shorter?

Last week: "Karl Rove outed Valerie Plame as part of an administration plot to punish Joe Wilson for his report on Niger!"

This week: "Karl Rove outed Valerie Plame!"

Next week: "Karl Rove!"

Right now it appears there was nothing criminal or malicious about Rove's conversation with Cooper. He apparently did not know Plame was covert (if she even was), and he apparently was not acting with the express intent of revealing her identity. His conversation with Cooper reveals no underlying motive other than to discourage the press from embarrassing themselves by relying too much on Wilson.

Now, I agree Rove probably might should have given a bit more thought to blabbing about the rumors he'd heard from the press corps. It was a stupid thing for him to do to carelessly talk about Plame's CIA employment without thinking about ramifications. But stupidity isn't an indictable offense. Its not really a firing offense. Its definitely not treason.

Someone did out Valerie Plame, but if Karl Rove is telling the truth, it wasn't him. He just let his mouth get ahead of his brain in repeating what he'd heard from the press corps. The real issue here is how the press members he'd heard the information from knew about Plame. That's where your real leak is gonna be found. Of course, whoever it is probably won't make Democrats' mouths water the way they've done with Rove on the chopping block. It'll probably be someone way less sexy...but the left haven't let go of the off chance they'll nail Rove on something...anything. So much for national security and all those hackneyed talking points the Dems have been spewing for the past couple weeks. This is all about having the big dog in the crosshairs, regardless of whether he's the one we want.

homechicago
07-15-2005, 04:09 PM
peter king is insane.

he wants to give rove a medal. why?

an innocent rove doesn't deserve a medal, and a guilty one doesn't either.

gross toadying.

pastry sharp
07-15-2005, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Corganist

Its not really a firing offense.

actually, according to the president, if you are to take him at his word (presumably, you would) it is.

i on the other hand expect the president to do everything in his power to not keep this promise, if for no other reason, than because no one wants to be on roves bad side.

Corganist
07-15-2005, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by pastry sharp


actually, according to the president, if you are to take him at his word (presumably, you would) it is.

i on the other hand expect the president to do everything in his power to not keep this promise, if for no other reason, than because no one wants to be on roves bad side.
I'll have to find the quote, but I beleive he qualified that "promise" with something to the effect of "if any laws were broken" or something similar.

There is the whole matter of whether Rove has been truthful with the President and the White House as a whole as to the extent of his involvement here. If he's been underplaying his role, and thereby causing people like Scott McClellan to go out on a limb for him and end up with egg on their face, then there's a possibility he could be fired. But thats between Bush and Rove. I don't think people are calling for Rove's head for making Scott McClellan look bad though.

homechicago
07-15-2005, 04:54 PM
“I don’t like it when a friend gets criticized. I’m loyal to my friends. All of a sudden this fellow, who is a good public servant and a really fine person, is under fire. And so, do I like it? No, I don’t like it, at all.”

i'll be getting out my iceskates for when hell freezes over and bush picks service to our nation over loyalty to a personal friend.

Debaser
07-15-2005, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Corganist
WTF? The whole point of an investigation is to determine whether something wrong took place. Its still unknown whether or not she was supposed to be outed. The investigation is supposed to determine that. You can't say that the fact that the administration ordered an investigation to pacify the left-wing is proof positive someone did something wrong.
You're revising history. So why was Bush saying over and over about finding and punishing the leaker if he only appointed the special prosecutor to determine whether a crime was committed in the first place?

Originally posted by Corganist
And? He confirmed what he had heard from other reporters' talking. He didn't "out" Plame to Novak. Novak already knew her name and identity. The article is pretty clear, and supports the point I was making pretty well. What part of what I posted represents a ridiculous misinterpretation of that article? If Rove was really out to punish Joe Wilson by revealing his wife's covert CIA status, he would have called Novak and gave him her name. Not the other way around.

First, Robert Novak admitted (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0722-04.htm): “I didn’t dig it out [Plame’s identity], it was given to me…. They [the White House] thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.” Second, Rove told Chris Matthews that Plame’s identity was “fair game (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/07/AR2005070702215_2.html).” Third, Time magazine reported (http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,493240,00.html) the orchestrated campaign against Wilson in October 2003: “In the days after Wilson’s essay appeared, government officials began to steer reporters away from Wilson’s conclusions.”


Originally posted by Corganist
What amazes me here is that you're still so focused on Rove, even as it becomes less and less apparrent that he was the true "leak". Whoever told Novak what he knew is probably the target of the investigation. You seem to be hoping that its Rove to the point that you dismiss things that exonerate him. How dumb.
Novak himself said he got Valerie Plame leak from two sources from the administration. Karl Rove is pretty much confirmed to be one of them.

Originally posted by Corganist
Notice how the left's calls for Rove's head have gotten shorter and shorter?

Last week: "Karl Rove outed Valerie Plame as part of an administration plot to punish Joe Wilson for his report on Niger!"

This week: "Karl Rove outed Valerie Plame!"

Next week: "Karl Rove!"
"Karl Rove outed Valerie Plame" and that's it. Next week is your wishful thinking.

Originally posted by Corganist
Right now it appears there was nothing criminal or malicious about Rove's conversation with Cooper. He apparently did not know Plame was covert (if she even was), and he apparently was not acting with the express intent of revealing her identity. His conversation with Cooper reveals no underlying motive other than to discourage the press from embarrassing themselves by relying too much on Wilson.
That's some funny ass spinning right there when it turns out that Wilson was completely correct about the Niger Uranium Forgery and Rove was wrong about Valerie Plame "authorized" Wilson's trip when she wasn't in the position to do so! You sit there trying to tell me that Rove was trying to correct Cooper's story by giving him false info? hah. It's still irrelevant to the fact that Karl Rove outed Valerie Plame to Cooper.

Corganist
07-15-2005, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by homechicago


i'll be getting out my iceskates for when hell freezes over and bush picks service to our nation over loyalty to a personal friend.
Wasn't that quote about Alberto Gonzales? I'm not seeing the connection here.

homechicago
07-15-2005, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by Corganist

Wasn't that quote about Alberto Gonzales? I'm not seeing the connection here.

he's loyal to his friends.

he's known rove over 20 something years. he'd no more fire that guy than he would allow his daughters to sign up for the war.

IF rove is found guilty of something, i don't see w firing him. he could be jailed without ever being officially fired.

i personally feel he is loyal to his friends needs and wants first, and loyal to the needs of americans second. his administration is certifiably tight, and persons like peter king only strenghten that inner bond by supporting whatever, no questions necessary.

Corganist
07-15-2005, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Debaser

You're revising history. So why was Bush saying over and over about finding and punishing the leaker if he only appointed the special prosecutor to determine whether a crime was committed in the first place?
Because at the time, people were shrieking as though a crime had taken place. The fact that its taken a two year investigation to determine that may not be the case just goes to show how confusing the whole mess was from the outset.


First, Robert Novak admitted (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0722-04.htm): “I didn’t dig it out [Plame’s identity], it was given to me…. They [the White House] thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.” Second, Rove told Chris Matthews that Plame’s identity was “fair game (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/07/AR2005070702215_2.html).” Third, Time magazine reported (http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,493240,00.html) the orchestrated campaign against Wilson in October 2003: “In the days after Wilson’s essay appeared, government officials began to steer reporters away from Wilson’s conclusions.”
So what? None of this does anything to contradict anything I just posted. Are you not reading what I'm saying? NOVAK KNEW PLAME'S IDENTITY BEFORE HE TALKED TO ROVE. That means that SOMEONE ELSE told Novak Plame's name and identity. Why aren't you addressing this simple point?

Novak himself said he got Valerie Plame leak from two sources from the administration. Karl Rove is pretty much confirmed to be one of them.
But the actual info came from the other source. Novak just called Rove and said "I heard Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame works for the CIA." And Rove said, "I've heard the same thing." Rove's confirmation was allegedly based on things he heard from the press corps. Not actual concrete knowledge. Apparently that conversation was the first time that Rove had learned the woman's name.

It's still irrelevant to the fact that Karl Rove outed Valerie Plame to Cooper.
You got it half right. It is irrelevant.

You keep clinging to this "Rove outed Plame" catchphrase, as though if you repeat the untruth enough it'll stick. Why can't you admit that its become apparent that your wildest dreams didn't come true and that Karl Rove was a minor player in this whole overblown affair? There's obviously some other actual leaker somewhere, very likely in the White House. The information on Plame didn't just appear out of nowhere. But it didn't come from Rove based on what we know. No matter how much you'd like to believe it.

Debaser
07-15-2005, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by Corganist

I'll have to find the quote, but I beleive he qualified that "promise" with something to the effect of "if any laws were broken" or something similar.

There is the whole matter of whether Rove has been truthful with the President and the White House as a whole as to the extent of his involvement here. If he's been underplaying his role, and thereby causing people like Scott McClellan to go out on a limb for him and end up with egg on their face, then there's a possibility he could be fired. But thats between Bush and Rove. I don't think people are calling for Rove's head for making Scott McClellan look bad though.


CNN, Feb 11, 2004 (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/)
"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."


NY Times, July 11, 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/politics/12rove-quotes.html?pagewanted=3)
Q: Given recent developments in the C.I.A. leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, suggestion that it might difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name? And ...
BUSH: That's up ...
Q: And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so? And ...
BUSH: Yes



Oct 1, 2003 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031001-6.html)
McCLELLAN: Let me make it very clear. As I said previously, he [Karl Rove] was not involved, and that allegation is not true in terms of leaking classified information, nor would he condone it.
QUESTION: He does not condone people pointing reporters toward classified information that's been released; he would not condone that either? Is that what you're saying?
McCLELLAN: The President doesn't condone the activity that you're suggesting, absolutely he does not.


Oct 6, 2003 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031006-3.html)
McCLELLAN: No one wants to get to the bottom of this matter more than the President of the United States. If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates.

Corganist
07-15-2005, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by Debaser



CNN, Feb 11, 2004 (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/)
"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."
I think that was the one I was looking for. Thanks.

Debaser
07-15-2005, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by Corganist

Because at the time, people were shrieking as though a crime had taken place. The fact that its taken a two year investigation to determine that may not be the case just goes to show how confusing the whole mess was from the outset.


Can't You Investigate The White House Any Faster?
(posted July 14 2:45 AM ET)

CNN’s Lou Dobbs on Monday repeated a common refrain for those complaining that Judith Miller is in jail for no reason:

We don't even know if a crime has been committed. We don't know why this special prosecutor in two years of investigation can't bring it to conclusion.

So why is Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald moving so slowly?

Trick question. He isn’t moving slowly.

Fitzgerald was appointed to lead The Leak probe on Dec. 30, 2003. (He actually has been investigating for little over a year and a half, not two years.)

He has said in a legal motion that: “By October 2004, the factual investigation - other than the testimony of Miller and [Matt] Cooper and any further investigation that might result from such testimony - was for all practical purposes complete.”

Matt 'n' Judy's attempts to avoid testifying have extended the investigation another 9 months and counting. Otherwise, it appears he would have been done in 10 months.

(Yes, we were thatclose to finding out the full truth in time for Election Day. Thanks Matt ‘n’ Judy for standing up for the public’s right to know.)

In any event, we’re at Month 19.

How does that compare to, say, the Iran-Contra investigation?

It took Independent Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh 15 months before his first indictments of government officials, including Ollie North and John Poindexter in March 1988.

(He scored a couple of early guilty pleas from people outside the government in 1987. Also, indictments and guilty pleas continued through June 1992, then George H.W. Bush pardoned six Iran-Contra figures as he walked out of the Oval Office in Dec. 1992.)

So Fitzgerald would have beat Walsh if not for Matt ‘n’ Judy. But even still, he’s only a few months past Walsh.

Considering that investigating the upper levels of the federal government is tricky business, and that Matt ‘n’ Judy put him on a significant detour, Fitzgerald appears to be working at a reasonable pace.
http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/071005.htm#071405

Debaser
07-15-2005, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Corganist

I think that was the one I was looking for. Thanks.

and you would have to pretend the other quotes i posted below it didn't exist in order for you to claim that bush didn't promise to fire the leaker. but hey, they're only facts, they don't mean much to you, apparently.

Debaser
07-15-2005, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by Corganist
You keep clinging to this "Rove outed Plame" catchphrase, as though if you repeat the untruth enough it'll stick. Why can't you admit that its become apparent that your wildest dreams didn't come true and that Karl Rove was a minor player in this whole overblown affair? There's obviously some other actual leaker somewhere, very likely in the White House. The information on Plame didn't just appear out of nowhere. But it didn't come from Rove based on what we know. No matter how much you'd like to believe it.

No matter how much you talk, it doesn't change the fact that Rove outed Valerie Plame to Matt Cooper. Just because he only confirmed it to Novak doesn't change this.

Debaser
07-15-2005, 05:58 PM
According to Rep. Henry Waxman, Rove still broke the law by confirming Valere Plame to Novak.

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20050715140232-17725.pdf

Intelligence professionals cannot confirm information that is classified even if you receive that information from a non-classified source.

Corganist
07-16-2005, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by Debaser


and you would have to pretend the other quotes i posted below it didn't exist in order for you to claim that bush didn't promise to fire the leaker. but hey, they're only facts, they don't mean much to you, apparently.
The other quotes are either referencing back to the initial promise or are vaguely worded answers by the press secretary (who, its becoming apparent, was either misinformed or completely out of the loop on this matter) . I'll take Bush's original words as the ones to hold him to. Not McClellan's.


No matter how much you talk, it doesn't change the fact that Rove outed Valerie Plame to Matt Cooper. Just because he only confirmed it to Novak doesn't change this.
I never said it did. But like I said, this evil revenge plot against Joe Wilson that Dems having been touting for the past few months has lost virtually all its steam. The bottom has dropped out on the conspiracy theory, and all you've got to cling to is an couple of offhand comments to a reporter that may or may not have been illegal. Yawn.

You either can't or won't make a case that Rove's conversation with Cooper had any ill intent or violation of the law whatsover. You just keep repeating the same phrase over and over as if the very fact that Rove told Cooper Plame was in the CIA is enough to confirm Rove is a bad apple. It just doesn't work that way, and you know it good and well.

According to Rep. Henry Waxman, Rove still broke the law by confirming Valere Plame to Novak.
"I heard that too" is not a confirmation, negligent or otherwise, of the accuracy of classified information any way you slice it. That will never stand up in any court. Moreover, the fact that now people are trying to play the "Its a crime if it was negligent" game just shows how much lower the bar has been set. Two days ago Karl Rove was a high traitor, and now the Dems are fishing for negligence? How far backwards are we going to have to bend before this witch hunt comes to an end?

"Well, we have word that Karl Rove was using a cell phone to talk to Novak...and we have video of him JAYWALKING when Novak called him. We can get him on that, right?"

You still refuse to even consider the reality that there is obviously someone out there who has done far worse than Karl Rove in this whole matter. If you really think this ordeal deserves the attention its gotten, then you should be doubly concerned that we still don't know who that person is. But you keep stretching and stretching to make this Rove allegation true. What for? Offhand comments to a couple of reporters is really more worth delving into than finding out whoever it was that expressly gave Plame's name and identity to Novak before Rove even spoke to the man?

Personally, I imagine this ordeal is going to hurt the White House one way or the other, but its getting pathetic just how badly the tunnel vision has set in now that Rove is in the crosshairs. We're seeing the same kind of looniness from the left wing that the right excelled at during the Clinton years. Is that really what you want?

Debaser
07-17-2005, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by Corganist

The other quotes are either referencing back to the initial promise or are vaguely worded answers by the press secretary (who, its becoming apparent, was either misinformed or completely out of the loop on this matter) . I'll take Bush's original words as the ones to hold him to. Not McClellan's.



NY Times, July 11, 2005

Q: Given recent developments in the C.I.A. leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, suggestion that it might difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name? And ...
BUSH: That's up ...
Q: And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so? And ...
BUSH: Yes



Furthermore, what the fuck is McClellan's job then? He doesn't speak for the president and the administration despite that being his job title? Don't cherry pick shit to suit your arguement, its stupid. Its even more inane that you actually post that that's in fact what you're going to do.

Debaser
07-17-2005, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by Corganist

I never said it did. But like I said, this evil revenge plot against Joe Wilson that Dems having been touting for the past few months has lost virtually all its steam. The bottom has dropped out on the conspiracy theory, and all you've got to cling to is an couple of offhand comments to a reporter that may or may not have been illegal. Yawn.


Only according to right wing media. It's just wishful thinking.


Originally posted by Corganist
You either can't or won't make a case that Rove's conversation with Cooper had any ill intent or violation of the law whatsover. You just keep repeating the same phrase over and over as if the very fact that Rove told Cooper Plame was in the CIA is enough to confirm Rove is a bad apple. It just doesn't work that way, and you know it good and well.

That's Fitzgerald's job, not mine.

Corganist
07-17-2005, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by Debaser



NY Times, July 11, 2005

Q: Given recent developments in the C.I.A. leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, suggestion that it might difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name? And ...
BUSH: That's up ...
Q: And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so? And ...
What "pledge" do you think they're talking about? The one where he said he'd fire the leaker if law breaking was involved! And you accuse me of cherry picking?

Furthermore, what the fuck is McClellan's job then? He doesn't speak for the president and the administration despite that being his job title?
He's there to deal with the press. Not to deal with setting policy on who gets hired and fired. Are you seriously arguing that national policy should be dependent on the words of the press secretary? With the way you've been ragging on the guy lately, I can't see how you'd like that outcome.

Corganist
07-17-2005, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by Debaser

That's Fitzgerald's job, not mine.
Exactly. So stop grasping at straws and jumping to conclusions.

Debaser
07-17-2005, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by Corganist

What "pledge" do you think they're talking about? The one where he said he'd fire the leaker if law breaking was involved! And you accuse me of cherry picking?


This investigation would have stopped over a year ago if no laws were broken, or else why is the prosecutor pursuing witnesses? Step 1: ask CIA if outing Valerie Plame was legal. Step 2: investigate and pursue witnesses.

We're on step 2, if you haven't noticed.


Originally posted by Corganist
He's there to deal with the press. Not to deal with setting policy on who gets hired and fired. Are you seriously arguing that national policy should be dependent on the words of the press secretary? With the way you've been ragging on the guy lately, I can't see how you'd like that outcome.

so the press secretary is allowed to lie? so when he personally speaks for the president, it doesn't count?

Debaser
07-17-2005, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by Corganist

Exactly. So stop grasping at straws and jumping to conclusions.
Originally posted by Corganist
But like I said, this evil revenge plot against Joe Wilson that Dems having been touting for the past few months has lost virtually all its steam. The bottom has dropped out on the conspiracy theory, and all you've got to cling to is an couple of offhand comments to a reporter that may or may not have been illegal. Yawn.

Corganist
07-17-2005, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by Debaser

This investigation would have stopped over a year ago if no laws were broken, or else why is the prosecutor pursuing witnesses? Step 1: ask CIA if outing Valerie Plame was legal. Step 2: investigate and pursue witnesses.

We're on step 2, if you haven't noticed.
No duh. But the President didn't say he'd fire random people if a criminal leaker was discovered. Presumably he meant he'd fire the person who actually broke the law. Karl Rove apparently isn't that person based on what's known. So why all the controversy over the fact that he hasn't fired Rove yet? All these calls for Rove's firing are premature at best. Maybe in the end he'll end up the evil criminal leaker you say he is, but until that's shown the President doesn't owe it to anyone to fire the guy.

Right now, it'd be much more interesting to figure out who Robert Novak's main source was (who is probably the same person Judith Miller is protecting). Whoever it was is much more likely to have broken laws than it appears Rove is right now.

so the press secretary is allowed to lie? so when he personally speaks for the president, it doesn't count?
It may be more convenient for you to take the Press Secretary's word for things, but that doesn't make what he says canon by any stretch. The President's words are what goes, and they were clear. McClellan's imprecise language doesn't bind the President to doing anything different than what he clearly already said.

Debaser
07-17-2005, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by Corganist
McClellan's imprecise language doesn't bind the President to doing anything different than what he clearly already said.

Imprecise? You're a fucking loon. While you call Bush's throw-in qualifier "clear".

Oct 6, 2003
McCLELLAN: No one wants to get to the bottom of this matter more than the President of the United States. If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates.

Yeah, McClellan was so ambiguous right there.:rolleyes:

Corganist
07-17-2005, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by Debaser


Imprecise? You're a fucking loon. While you call Bush's throw-in qualifier "clear".

Oct 6, 2003
McCLELLAN: No one wants to get to the bottom of this matter more than the President of the United States. If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates.

Yeah, McClellan was so ambiguous right there.:rolleyes:
It wasn't what Bush said. Simple as that. Therefore, he was imprecise. I can't take you seriously if you're going to go to the length of saying that the word of the White House press secretary is somehow more binding than that of the President himself. That's something a fucking loon would say.

Debaser
07-17-2005, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by Corganist

It wasn't what Bush said. Simple as that. Therefore, he was imprecise.

The Bush quote was said after McClellan's. How can he be imprecise about repeating something that Bush didn't say yet?


Originally posted by Corganist
I can't take you seriously if you're going to go to the length of saying that the word of the White House press secretary is somehow more binding than that of the President himself. That's something a fucking loon would say.

Who here is cherry picking a throw-in qualifier of one single quote out of many that otherwise paint a clear picture that Bush pledged to fire whoever leaked Valerie Plame?

Corganist
07-17-2005, 03:06 AM
Originally posted by Debaser


The Bush quote was said after McClellan's. How can he be imprecise about repeating something that Bush didn't say yet?
I didn't mean that he was imprecise about Bush's words. I meant that he was imprecise about saying what Bush intended to do about any potential leaker. The fact that McClellan said it first doesn't matter at all next to the fact that The President of the United States himself said something that was more specific and clear. The Press Secretary can't make promises that the President will fire someone any more than he can promise tax cuts or a social security plan. In the end, the President is the one who you have to hold to his words.

Who here is cherry picking a throw-in qualifier of one single quote out of many that otherwise paint a clear picture that Bush pledged to fire whoever leaked Valerie Plame?
That quote is the one that people are basing this whole "You said you'd fire Rove" talk on. A thousand quotes from Scott McClellan are never ever going to become the President's words no matter how politically expedient it might be to you. I'm sorry it ruins your "clear" picture, but facts tend to do that to fantasy. Bush said he'd fire the leaker if the law was broken, no more, no less.

Debaser
07-17-2005, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by Corganist

That quote is the one that people are basing this whole "You said you'd fire Rove" talk on.

No it isn't. That's just you and the right wing spin machine basing it all on that one single quote.

The reporters aren't forgetting the time when bush was directly asked if he would fire the leaker and he said yes.

Corganist
07-17-2005, 03:29 AM
Originally posted by Debaser


No it isn't. That's just you and the right wing spin machine basing it all on that one single quote.

The reporters aren't forgetting the time when bush was directly asked if he would fire the leaker and he said yes.
He was directly asked if he would honor his prior pledge. You're the one spinning here by trying to play off the actual question he was answering there. He wasn't forming an all new promise. He was reaffirming the original pledge he made to fire the leaker if laws were broken. Nothing you can say can get around that.

And oh yeah, turns out the Bush quote really was before (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030930-9.html) McClellan's. So he was imprecise in conveying the President's message and his actual words.

Debaser
07-17-2005, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by Corganist

And oh yeah, turns out the Bush quote really was before (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030930-9.html) McClellan's. So he was imprecise in conveying the President's message and his actual words.

ack youre right about the chronolgy, it's too fucking late at night, im tired.

So when is McClellan getting fired?

Corganist
07-17-2005, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by Debaser


So when is McClellan getting fired?
When he does something worth getting fired for. This ain't it I'm afraid.

Debaser
07-17-2005, 04:09 AM
Originally posted by Corganist

When he does something worth getting fired for. This ain't it I'm afraid.

You're right, it's not like he leaked the identity of a covert CIA agent to the press during a time of war in response to that agent's husband's stinging and correct criticism of the administration.

The circle is now complete, now I am the master.
http://www.spudart.org/blog/images/2002/darthvader_lg.jpg

Nimrod's Son
07-17-2005, 04:55 AM
Debaser, if your contention is that Rove "confirmed" what was already leaked to the press, why are you seemingly more concerned with a Rove witchhunt than finding who leaked it in the first place?

wally
07-17-2005, 08:31 AM
What you right wing dipshits fail to understand about the whole "Was Plame REALLY undercover?" is that the FUCKING CIA ASKED THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO INVESTIGATE THE OUTING OF A CIA UNDERCOVER AGENT.

End. Of. Arguement.

Debaser
07-17-2005, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Debaser, if your contention is that Rove "confirmed" what was already leaked to the press, why are you seemingly more concerned with a Rove witchhunt than finding who leaked it in the first place?

That's false and also irrelevant to the subject at hand.

I'm only talking about Rove to shoot down the ridiculous spinning defenses of Rove coming from the right wing media.

I just haven't talked about the other source since there is almost no information or evidence leaked from the case about the other source, it would be pure speculation.

Corganist
07-17-2005, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by wally
What you right wing dipshits fail to understand about the whole "Was Plame REALLY undercover?" is that the FUCKING CIA ASKED THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO INVESTIGATE THE OUTING OF A CIA UNDERCOVER AGENT.

End. Of. Arguement.
Faulty logic. An investigation isn't a sure sign that anything illegal has taken place, no matter who asks for it. No one even knows for sure right now that the crime that Fitzgerald is investigating is directly related to the leak, or if rather its something tangential like perjury in the grand jury or something.

God forbid anyone let the investigation run its course before they start handing out indictments.

wally
07-17-2005, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by Corganist

Faulty logic. An investigation isn't a sure sign that anything illegal has taken place, no matter who asks for it. No one even knows for sure right now that the crime that Fitzgerald is investigating is directly related to the leak, or if rather its something tangential like perjury in the grand jury or something.

God forbid anyone let the investigation run its course before they start handing out indictments.

But why in the hell would the CIA ask for an investigation to the outing of an undercover CIA agent if she wasn't undercover?

Not faulty logic.

Corganist
07-17-2005, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by wally


But why in the hell would the CIA ask for an investigation to the outing of an undercover CIA agent if she wasn't undercover?
Its a good question, but not one that answers itself. It is faulty logic to assume that it does. If she was undercover, that will be shown in time. Its not self evident.

wally
07-17-2005, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by Corganist

Its a good question, but not one that answers itself. It is faulty logic to assume that it does. If she was undercover, that will be shown in time. Its not self evident.

You seriously don't think the CIA knows the difference between who is undercover and who isn't and would go through the ordeal of sending it to the Justice Dept. if she wasn't? I find that absolutely absurd.

Like Patrick Fitzgerald knows better who is undercover than the CIA.

Corganist
07-17-2005, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by wally


You seriously don't think the CIA knows the difference between who is undercover and who isn't and would go through the ordeal of sending it to the Justice Dept. if she wasn't? I find that absolutely absurd.

Like Patrick Fitzgerald knows better who is undercover than the CIA.
Okay. So you're the CIA, and you hear the White House is leaking the names of undercover agents in order to get revenge on people who disagree with them. Now, the name that has been leaked wasn't undercover, but that doesn't mean that they didn't have more names that they were willing to leak that possibly were. It'd be worth the CIA's efforts to find out who the person with the loose lips is to make sure that they aren't going to out someone who really is undercover.

I'd say the CIA has a great interest in anyone who would give out information on its employees as part of a potential political smear. It'd be worth knowing who that person was and what they have access to. This is all speculative, to be sure, but no more so than the blind assumption that an investigation wouldn't exist without a crime.

Mariner
07-17-2005, 09:27 PM
The state this "discussion" has degenerated to, the way this story is being handled in the media, and the way the American public is (not) reacting to what's going on in their White House, no matter whose 'facts' you listen to, is sickening and terrifying. Pardon my dramatic speech, but all that I hear in my head when I encounter media coverage / public discussion of this issue is, "welcome to the end of the American Republic."

pastry sharp
07-21-2005, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Corganist


[A thousand quotes from Scott McClellan are never ever going to become the President's words no matter how politically expedient it might be to you. I'm sorry it ruins your "clear" picture, but facts tend to do that to fantasy. Bush said he'd fire the leaker if the law was broken, no more, no less.

uhhmmm, isn't scott mcclellan the mouth piece of the white house? and isn't bush still president?

homechicago
07-21-2005, 12:29 PM
REP. PETER KING ®, NEW YORK: No, in fact, I think Karl Rove should get a medal, Joe. I really mean that.


that peter king would say that in a serious tone, pathetic and retarded.

Corganist
07-21-2005, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by pastry sharp


uhhmmm, isn't scott mcclellan the mouth piece of the white house? and isn't bush still president?
I never said anything different. But the fact remains that McClellan is not there to say anything different than what the President wants him to. When there's a difference between the words of the Press Secretary and the words of the President, the President's words win out. Always.

I really shouldn't have to be explaining this.

pastry sharp
07-22-2005, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Corganist

I never said anything different. But the fact remains that McClellan is not there to say anything different than what the President wants him to. When there's a difference between the words of the Press Secretary and the words of the President, the President's words win out. Always.

I really shouldn't have to be explaining this.

your really don't have any obligation to explain it, you choose to because you enjoy it, its that simple... if you didn't i assume that you are resourcful enough to find something better to do with your time.

if the press secretary had made a mistake in white house policy in 2003, it would have been cleared up prior to 2005. the fact that bush was talking about the issue to reporters THE DAY AFTER mcclellan supposedly made the error, but didn't step up and say "i will fire anyone who committed a crime, not anyone who leaked information" indicates that there has been a flip flop on the stance of the administration on this issue.