Karl Rove Betrayed CIA Agent's Cover - Anyone Surprised?
POSTED BY: Knibblet
UPDATED: Thursday, July 18, 2024 00:11
VIEWED: 14186
PAGE 10 of 12
For those of us who actually pay attention to testimony under oath, here's another Bush administration appointee behaving in an unpatriotic and unethical manner-
Quote:www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/cia.leak/index.html
Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff [ Libby] confirmed the identity of a CIA agent [to Matt Cooper]
This pretty much confirms CIA sources: a perpetrator is in the Old Executive Office Building. I challenge anyone to find out who actually works in that building; as a matter of security, it's not easy to find a building directory on-line or anyplace else for that matter. In fact, I believe I posted the info when the leak and its potential sources became a news item two years ago. But to make things easier on everyone, there are two relevant offices in that building- the office of the Vice President (Cheney) and the Office of the National Security Advisor (at the time Rice).
Don't forget that we have not found the person who actually told NOVAK about Valerie Plame. There is still a major untold story here.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So let me get this right, now your story is that Rove didn't have anything to do with it? 
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I agree. Many people on the left accept her incarceration on the basis that she was protecting government retaliation against a whistleblower. BUt the ruling seems pretty broad. Unfortunately, it contains eight redacted pages (due to sensitive information) which would probably explain why this particular ruling should be an exception. Here is an interesting view: editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000977538
There is one aspect that is troubling me, and that's Judith Miller being incarcerated. Much as I think she deserves to be in jail for serving as a pipeline for Chalabi disinformation in the lead up to the Iraq War, I don't think she should be jailed for refusing to name her sources.
Until the reason for her incarceration is made clear and/or the limits of the ruling are tested, Miller's incarceration ALREADY has had a chilling effect on investigative reporting. The Cleveland Plain Dealer spiked two articles based on confidential sources. Miller has effectively wrapped herself in the mantle of a reporter, and it's impossible to touch her without touching everyone else. www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/07/10/news/scribes.
php
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I have been clear throughout my postings that there is more than one source. Just to make it pellucidly clear, I underlined another in my previous post.
So let me get this right, now your story is that Rove didn't have anything to do with it?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
response to various topics:
Quote:Previously answered - constitutional first amendment protection. As to dodge words, that's a lengthy topic I don't have time for. But it was quite inventive of you to pick an argument with uninvolved people and then blame me. You really gave yourself a stellar reputation with that one. Does it feel good?
Curious. I don’t remember either you or rue calling for Churchill’s suspension.
Quote:In my job I too need to keep certain information confidential. With that responsibility one becomes sensitized to approaches toward that information. The standard reply is something like - I'm not able to discuss that. (Repeat as needed.) Perhaps he was caught short the first time. But if that mastermind Rove couldn't figure out a way to keep his mouth shut the second, third and fourth time the topic he shouldn't have been discussing came up, he doesn’t deserve his security clearance.
It is possible that Rove ... may have been a victim of a reporter’s fishing scam.
Quote:And what are the standards specifically?
There are different standards for different things.
Quote:Which he did not get. According to UN charter NO country is allowed to attack another country under the GUISE of UN action without a SPECIFIC authorizing vote. It was absent. US action in Iraq was illegal. Honestly, get yourself a different excuse.
President Bush was fully within his rights to go to the UN and to seek "severe consequences".
Quote:So, in your opinion, were they there?
we never found the "massive stockpiles" but that does not mean they did not exist in the recent past, only that we could not find them.
Quote:Now there you go again. Equating the lack of legal consequences (up until now) with virginal virtue. Despite the fact you've already admitted he certainly talked with several reporters about Valerie Plame. C'mon man! Get a grip on yourself! Something most assuredly did happen. Whether it was a crime or not is a completely different question.
I do not believe Karl Rove has done anything wrong and until someone is able to prove otherwise he will remain "innocent until proven guilty".
Quote:I remember it from back then. I tried my darndest to find out and, despite the fact that I consider myself to be pretty good at that kind of thing, didn't come up with anything after a few hours of searching. I still have some envy that you managed and I could not.
I challenge anyone to find out who actually works in that building ...
Wow, that's a broad scatter of topics.
Bye all for now, it's back to several more hours of following the money.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
This from the guys that have assumed the "entire Bush administration is corrupt" and Karl Rove is an underhanded criminal before the Special Prosecutor has even filed a single charge against him? Please, spare me the histrionics and melodrama.
AJ, I've been trying to follow your reasoning throughout this thread, and it appears to me to come down to the following: "If Rove had done anything wrong, he would have been indicted and/or convicted. Rove hasn't been indicted or convicted, so therefore he hasn't done anything wrong". In other words, you are using a lack of a result as a priori evidence of a lack of any wrongful conduct (and here I'm only referring to the Plame affair, not the rest of Rove's political record). In addition to its complete circularity, this is some very seriously fallacious reasoning. Logic just doesn't work this way (illogic, on the other hand, flies free....).
Quote:
I do not believe Karl Rove has done anything wrong and until someone is able to prove otherwise he will remain "innocent until proven guilty". Demonize me all you want but you cannot change the facts.
Wow! That's a pretty amazing assertion. Since you were rather unspecific here, I'll take my leave to re-raise the issue of the rest of Rove's record. Do you know anything about Rove's political record? It makes an open sewer smell like perfume. I'll not repeat the specifics that others have already noted in this thread, but I do have to wonder what a political operative would have to do to have it be considered "wrong" in your 'verse.
I shake my head in wonderment.
perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Lynch asks:
Quote:The answer is
Where are the facts that Karl Rove did something wrong?
Quote:If Rove said the information was about to be declassified he obviously knew it was classified.
But Cooper said he was told by Mr Rove that information was about to be “declassified” and made public to discredit the woman’s husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who had accused the Bush Administration of exaggerating the threat of Iraq’s weapons.
Cooper said Mr Rove told him that Mr Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA on weapons of mass destruction issues, and ended the call by saying: “I’ve already said too much.”
Cooper said yesterday: “This could have meant he was worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting . . . but that sign-off has been in my memory for two years.” Cooper also disclosed for the first time that the other White House source for an article he wrote about Mr Wilson in July 2003 was Vice-President Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter ” Libby, who also did not mention Ms Plame by name.
Rove was required to sign Standard Form 312 (SF-312) which requires not only that he not divulge classified information, but also that
Quote:Both Rove and Libby have certainly violated the terms of their security clearance. Now that Bush has an idea how deep in shit Rove is, Bush is flip-flopping from his original stance to fire anyone who was "involved" to anyone who is convicted of a crime. Criminals will protect criminals, I guess.
Before ... confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, ... confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Note to readers: I have selectively edited the post to which I am responding. Please scroll up a bit if you’d care to see the context in which it arose.
Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Since we are analyzing each other now, let me see if I understand YOUR position. In short, since no one can PROVE Karl Rove is innocent, therefore he must be guilty of wrong doing because you suspect he is up to no good. Did I capture it?
This is not my reasoning at all, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the post you are responding to. Some of my reasoning as to the point of this thread can be analyzed in my earlier posts in this thread, though I have yet to throw my full opinion as to Rove into the breech. Further, I wasn’t analyzing you at all (unless you have no personality or life beyond your posts on this board - I presume that you do). My post covered 2 independent points, neither of which you have responded to. I hope you will actually read this post and think about it before you respond.
The first point was a serious intellectual criticism of your reasoning process, to which I shall return below. It’s actually much the most important of the two, but the second is easier:
The second point was a pair of questions, and I must confess that I was rather snarky in the way that I asked them. I apologize for that; I actually try to avoid the ad hominem, though I fail more often than I’d like. But, there really are 2 serious questions here that have great bearing on how I and others on this thread might interpret your posts. So, please let me try to restate them in a less snarky manner:
1) What is the degree of your awareness of (and what are your sources for said awareness) of Karl Rove’s record as a political operative, in the GHW Bush Presidency, in Texas in the GW Bush political era, and during the GW Bush Presidency? Does that awareness include recognition that there are multiple credible allegations that he (Rove) has engaged in ethically questionable conduct (not proof, not indictments, but allegations that have been publicly acknowledged as credible even by mainstream Republicans)? Any recognition at all?
2) I honestly want to know what kinds of conduct by political operatives within the US you might consider to be wrongdoing in the light of national and international politics, where the reputations, careers and the lives of human beings (Americans and others) might be at risk. This is not remotely trivial; killing is obviously beyond the pale, but what about character assassination or career destruction? Please tell us what you think is acceptable. I suggest you might want to consider your answer carefully in the light of your defense of Rove in the thread above.
Quote:
Pathetic.
Disgusting
Andrew Lynch.
This are quotes from your response to my previous post (and I’m not being snarky by pointing out that out). Nor in pointing out that those statements are not a particularly effective form of reasoning or argument.
So now we get to the (much) more important point:
You have not responded to my most serious criticism, about your reasoning. As best I can parse it, your arguments (repeated multiplex throughout this thread) amount to a syllogism, which, if properly followed, is an extremely powerful form of logical argument. A syllogism is a form of deductive reasoning, in which two premises (or three or a few more, in the expansive form of formal logic), are put forth. A conclusion is drawn from the premises, and if the premises are complete and correct, then the conclusion is necessarily correct. That’s how deductive logic works.
So here’s the lynchaj syllogism (repetitively argued by him and others on this thread):
Premise 1) If Rove had done anything wrong, he would have been indicted and/or convicted.
Premise 2) Rove has not been indicted or convicted.
Conclusion: Rove didn’t do anything wrong.
This is a deductively valid argument as stated, but all such arguments depend on two absolutel
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
perfessergee, I wish I could hug you. This is exactly what Andrew needs to wrap his head around, but I posess neither the background in logic nor the eloquence to express it to him.
Andrew, don't blow this off, man.
Absorb.
This does compute Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm gonna have to do the unexpected here and defend AJ.
His statements, as they were written and as analyzed by perfessergee, do lead to the logical fallacy described above. But, I think it's mostly a matter of presentation. I think (and correct me if I'm wrong AJ) that his point was something more like this: Rove hasn't been convicted of anything yet and it's wrong to treat him as if he's guilty until he has been.
I certainly feel differently. From my point of view, the wrong that was done has already been openly acknowledged. To me, the wrong part was starting a whispering campaign to damage the credibility of a critic. It just seems underhanded and something that ought to be beneath officials at the White House.
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