Karl Rove Betrayed CIA Agent's Cover - Anyone Surprised?
POSTED BY: Knibblet
UPDATED: Thursday, July 18, 2024 00:11
VIEWED: 14186
PAGE 8 of 12
Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
However, as it stands right now no charges are filed against Karl Rove and the grand jury has not decided to send him to trial. Unless something dramatic happens we really can only assume the same thing about Karl Rove as we can about MJ: that he is not guilty. At least that is the court's apparent position so far.
Like with MJ, I don't think anyone should be referring to Karl Rove as someone who has committed a criminal act because he is innocent until proven guilty. Calling Karl Rove nasty names based on unproven beliefs is an unjustified smear. I haven't seen any facts indicating his guilt but a lot of unfounded assertions. I think the first step the special prosecutor should do is establish IF a crime has been committed at all -- even that basic fact is less than clear at present.
So.... you would send your kids to MJ's for a sleepover?
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
Quote:
If it can be proved that civil servants told the truth and were retaliated against then it is a violation of federal law. I assure you that we would have heard about it if that had occurred.
http://actforvictory.org/act.php/truth/articles/admitted_medicare_liar
_is_bushs_new_health_care_surrogate/
Bush lied about cost to Medicare
Quote:
...Thomas Scully was issued a $84,933 fine for illegal acts last month. “The Bush administration illegally withheld data from Congress on the cost of the new Medicare law, and as a penalty, the former head of the Medicare agency, Thomas A. Scully, should repay seven months of his salary to the government federal investigators said Tuesday… [Source: New York Times, 9/8/04]
On June 11, 2003 Chief Medicare actuary Richard Foster estimates the cost of Bush’s Medicare bill at $551 billion. [Source: New York Times, 3/18/04] Yet despite this estimate, Congress was assured that “the cost would not exceed $400 billion over 10 years, the amount proposed by President Bush” [Source: Newy York Times, 3/14/04] Defying the cost estimate [that] his chief actuary came up with, Bush Medicare chief Thomas Scully refuses to answer a Congressman’s inquiry about the cost of Bush’s Medicare bill. Scully threatens his actuary, Richard Foster, warning him not to give out the true estimate of the Medicare bill’s cost. Scully tells the inquiring Congressional staffer, “If Rick Foster gives that to you, I’ll fire him so fast his head will spin.” [Source: New York Times, 3/18/04]
“President Bush urged Congress on Thursday to quickly finish work on a Medicare prescription drug bill and said he was not deterred by concerns that the $400 billion program would add to budget deficits...” [Source: AP , 9/23/04]
January 29, 2004: Bush White House concedes that the real Medicare cost is nearly $550 billion.
EDITED TO ADD: The context of this LIE was that a critical number of Republicans had said they would not vote for the bill if the cost exceeded 400 billion.
The Bush Administration was so disturbed by Scully's underhanded and illegal actions that it offered him a place on the campaign trail.
Do you agree with such actions? Is it right or wrong for the President and his appointees to lie to Congress or the American people? Is it right or wrong for the President or his appointees to threaten civil servants not to tell the truth, or in retaliation for telling the truth?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:AJ: Let me toss another softball to you: Am I to assume that this ethical standard should apply to the Bush administration as well?
Advancing negative unfounded assertions based solely on personal beliefs is a smear.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AJ
Yowza! Are you arguing for its own sake and not really cognizant of how bent it seems?
This is a serious question. There are so many other things you accept (like WMD) without requiring this level of proof (in fact, on faith almost like a religion, without any proof at all).
Rue
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:
There apparently is not enough evidence against Karl Rove to file charges or get a grand jury to indict. Therefore, there is no trial. So without a trial, Karl Rove retains the presumption of innocence.
Andrew Lynch
Well, that remains to be determined, but you're still missing my point. (Intentionally perhaps?) I'll lay it out there again, just in case I wasn't clear. When someone is repeatedly suspected of foul play, even if they're clever enough to avoid prosecution, is that really someone we want in a position of power and leadership? What does that say about the character of the Bush 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
General comment. You seem to believe quite emphatically there are/were massive stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. As the basis for your position you cite intellgence reports.
OTOH you say that because nothing has legally happened to Rove (caveat - yet), it means that nothing happened at all. You seem to think Rove did not talk to reporters and reveal the identity (named or not) of an agent, despite ample testimony from those who talked directly with him that yes indeedee-do, that's what he did. (That's not hearsay BTW, it's direct evidence. Hearsay would be the testimony of someone who heard of the conversation from someone involved, or even further removed. The person who was directly involved proffers direct testimony as a witness.)
If you were to bring the same 'Rove' level of disbelief to the WMD question, you'd say - well of course they were only intelligence estimates, and estimates depend on what assumptions you make, and so of course they could have been wrong.
And the other way around.
But your demands vary depending on who you cite, which leads me to think you accept whatever the administration says with a religious faith.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Bush is ... a man of his word, honest, and his administration has been free of scandal."
It boggles the mind that ANYONE today could be so totally blind and uninformed as LYNCHAJ.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
So far, I haven't seen ANY indications of foul play by Karl Rove or the President Bush administration....
riiiiight!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
Several selected points that I have not been able to address due to prior commitments.
Quote:I don’t mind at all. Furthermore, I don’t see anyone preventing you.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Whatever nit-picking feud you may have going with Rue here, the rest of us still get to say what we think is obvious. None of us has the power to fire any of these folks, so we're all just mouthing off here. Do you mind?
Quote:Perhaps you might have explained this to rue. Now, for what it’s worth, I agree with you. Phrases like “I think” are essential to intelligent debate, qualifying statements as opinion instead of asserting them as fact. This is one of the hallmarks of intelligent fair-minded discussion.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Ah, now, what are you dragging me into this nonsense for? I added the "I think" precisely because I wasn't sure of my facts and was too lazy to go look 'em up.
Quote:Actually I have yet to see any evidence that Rove did anything wrong. Maybe Rove was responsible for illegally releasing classified information about a covert government agent or maybe he was not, but you stating so, does not make it true.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- Look, I know you're on the defensive here, but at this point you're in blatant denial of reality. It has already been verified that Plame's indentity was classified. It has already been verified that Rove was ONE OF the sources. Ipso facto, Rove mishandled classified information. Whether he did this maliciously or stupidly, whether he placed CIA officers in jeopardy or broke a law has yet to be determined, which is why I said it APPEARS that he has broken a law. You don't wait until AFTER the investigation is concluded to suspend someone. Suspension is normal operating procedure when serious ALLEGATIONS are made against a government official or employee, and is invoked while the invetigation is taking place. Here are some examples of allegations that would probably result in suspension: sexual harassment, mishandling accounts, mishandling sensitive information, or (in the case of police officers) excessive use of force.
Quote:Curious. I don’t remember either you or rue calling for Churchill’s suspension.
Originally posted by SignyM:
If it seems like I'm beating this dead horse, it is because you appear to fail to understand what suspension is and when it is used.
Quote:Oh, I have no doubt. If a Liberal Democrat espouses a Postmodern Liberal opinion by qualifying said opinion with the words “I think,” undoubtedly you would find such an opinion appropriately stated. This is simply a rhetorical stunt by which you are able to insulate yourself from any opinion that you don’t happen to agree with. From your point of view, evidently, the only opinions that are honestly stated are those with which you agree. That is a degree of closed mindedness that is so well crafted that one imagines it to be basically impossible for you to learn anything that doesn’t adhere to previously conceived or accepted ideas.
Originally posted by rue:
Finn,
Just because certain words can be used as dodge words, doesn't mean that in every instance they are.
Quote:I think that what Barnstormer is arguing is that by definition within the law in question Plame was not, in fact,
Originally posted by perfessergee:
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?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME