Karl Rove Betrayed CIA Agent's Cover - Anyone Surprised?
POSTED BY: Knibblet
UPDATED: Thursday, July 18, 2024 00:11
VIEWED: 14186
PAGE 6 of 12
Finn,
Just because certain words can be used as dodge words, doesn't mean that in every instance they are.
I think, therefore, I am.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue- Are you sure??? heh heh heh!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Perfessergee, with great trepidation (knowing that he’s going to get flamed), throws his opinion into the breech. He, using the unusual editorial 3rd person singular, expresses his incredulity (translation, he wonders what the hell some people are using for logic) as to the following:
Why on Earth has Ward Churchill’s name come into this thread at all?
Response: It’s mostly a red herring, but it is related and by no means trivial. Churchill expressed a personal political opinion. It may have been an idiotic and hateful opinion, but any rational and objective person must concede that under US political tradition there happens to exist this perhaps trivial document called the US Constitution, which claims that every person has the right to express his/her political opinion. Personally (dropping the 3rd person bit for a moment), I rather like that little document. It lets me proclaim that Churchill’s opinion is idiotic without having to worry about whether powerful individuals and political institutions might proclaim that he’s right.
Pause for thought: Have powerful individuals and political institutions ever proclaimed that despicable and idiotic ideas are “right”? Well, yes, of course, and many times over in human history, but in the US? Could such a thing be? Is it possible that there might be any examples in our own history? Oh, come on, no American could do such a thing as to express and enforce despicable and idiotic ideas, right? Right? For a silly example, would we ever incarcerate anyone, let alone our own citizens, without recourse to the courts to defend their rights? Might there be any examples? Oh surely not……….
Perfessergee hopes that the reader might spend a moment or two in contemplation. Not in chauvinistic arrogance, but in thinking about human history.
History is such an inconvenient thing when you are convinced that you’re right.
Hoping you'll actually apply your brain-pan perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmmm
Now it seems that Rove did'nt say the name, but the journalist did.
Hmmm
And also it seems the husband of said outed cia covert operative has stated on record that his wife was not a "covert operative" when her name came up. In fact she had not been an operative for at least six years before her name came out.
She's been sitting behind a desk at Langley touting her husband as the perfect guy to go on fact finding missions for the cia.
Hmmmmm, interesting.
Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.
BarnStormer
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"But the context of the interview on the July 14 edition of CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports demonstrates that the AP misconstrued and falsely reported Wilson's remarks. In stating that "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," Wilson was simply noting that Plame's identity was no longer secret after Novak publicly revealed it."
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Evidence indicates that Plame did in fact engage in CIA business abroad between 1998 and 2003, even if she was not stationed abroad. For example, the Post suggested on October 8, 2003, that Plame remained undercover "in recent years" as an "energy consultant," while actually serving as a weapons proliferation analyst for the CIA, and was known by friends and neighbors as someone who "traveled frequently overseas":
For the past several years, she has served as an operations officer working as a weapons proliferation analyst. She told neighbors, friends and even some of her CIA colleagues that she was an "energy consultant." She lived behind a facade even after she returned from abroad. It included a Boston front company named Brewster-Jennings & Associates, which she listed as her employer on a 1999 form in Federal Election Commission records for her $1,000 contribution to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign.
Administration officials confirmed that Brewster-Jennings was a front. The disclosure of its existence, which came about because it was listed in the FEC records, magnifies the potential damage related to the leak of Valerie Wilson's identity: It may give anyone who dealt with the firm clues to her CIA work. In addition, anyone who ever had contact with the company, and any foreign person who ever met with Valerie Plame, innocently or not, might now be suspected of working with the agency.
Friends and neighbors knew Valerie Wilson as a consultant who traveled frequently overseas.
CNN national security correspondent David Ensor reported on the September 29, 2003, edition of Wolf Blitzer Reports:
ENSOR: All I can say is my sources tell me that this is a CIA operative. This is a person who did run agents. This is a person who was out there in the world collecting information.
Both the USA Today report and a separate July 14 article in The Washington Post described Toensing as a co-author of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act without revealing that she is a partisan Republican and personal friend of CNN host and columnist Robert D. Novak, who originally outed Plame in July 2003."
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
By the way- Karl Rove is quoted as saying that Valerie Plame was "fair game". This is in the context of discrediting her husband, Joe Wilson.
Karl Rove, in the past, also bugged his own candidate's office and then claimed it was the opposition that did it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Now it seems that Rove did'nt say the name, but the journalist did.
And also it seems the husband of said outed cia covert operative has stated on record that his wife was not a "covert operative" when her name came up. In fact she had not been an operative for at least six years before her name came out.
She's been sitting behind a desk at Langley touting her husband as the perfect guy to go on fact finding missions for the cia.
So wait a minute here, I'm not quite following your argument. Are you saying that because Plame had a Langley desk job at the time that Novak outed her (let's put our feeble memories together and try to remember who, as a matter of indisputable and very public fact did reveal her name) that she wasn't actually working for the CIA and therefore couldn't really have anything like classified status? And are you also arguing that revealing her previous (or even then-current) job status could have no effect on those who had worked with or for her in what clearly appears to have been clandestine and classified service to the US government?
Well, if that were the case, then perhaps you might be able to explain why the current administration didn't just simply state that Ms. Plame wasn't a protected CIA employee, and that therefore there couldn't be any problem with mentioning her name? Wouldn't this argument quell all but the most ardent conspiracy-theory detractors? Not to mention saving a whole lot of money, and also embarrassment for people who now stand revealed as having dispensed untruths in very public fora (the White House spokesman, for example)?
I don't think I'm the only one who noticed that no such argument was put forth. Could this be that such an argument might contradict the written record (even though the record might be classified - oh, but damn, there's that classified status thing again).
Let's get serious folks. At the very least, somebody violated their security clearance in a most egregious way. As best can be told from the public record, there were 2 such persons, and they both work in or have access to the White House. Security clearances are normally only given to those who can be trusted not to violate confidentiality (and who explicitly agree to maintain confidentiality, under penalty of law). But to not violate the concept, one would have to understand what it actually means. I'm personally pretty confident that no dictionary includes "political expediency" as part of the definition of "confidentiality".
Somebody in the administration abrogated their duty in this matter. Every person who participated in that abrogation should be publicly identifed and pay the full price. Is it right that the only person paying any penalty for holding the administration to account for its conduct in this matter is a journalist (whatever you might think of her recent record) who didn't even actually publish?
Not in my 'verse. And I hope not in any 'verse where people have a sense of common decency.
perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry folks, I just realized that I screwed up in the message I just posted. I said that a journalist was the only person paying a penalty in this appalling affair. I should have acknowledged that everyone who pays US taxes is also paying a penalty, and it ain't a cheap one. Personally, I can think of many, many ways I'd rather have my money spent, but then that would require that malfeasants take responsibility for their actions...........
wishing it would happen perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I couldn't agree more AJ. That's the really frustrating part about all of this. IF his latest story is the truth, why didn't we get it two years ago when it could have saved us all a lot of time and money.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME