FOX News anchor John Gibson just said onair that he thought Karl Rove deserves a medal if he outed Valerie Plame. Let me repeat: John Gibson, anchor at the FOX News Channel, says he believes that we ought to expose our covert government agents and harm national security… as long as it benefits Republicans.
These people are sick, and a danger to America.
UPDATE: Now with video
Link to the video
Related
National Review’s John Derbyshire: Hispanic Students = "Invasion"
When Anti-Semites Need A Propaganda Outlet They Turn To Fox
Kill Osama, Redeploy from Iraq
FOX News anchor John Gibson just said onair that he thought Karl Rove deserves a memo if he outed Valerie Plame.
Deserves a memo? Is that a typo?
“Medal”. I fixed it.
It’s not a typo. The bureaucrats reward their ilk in ways that seem strange to outsides. But who are we to disrepect their customs?
Memos all around!
Dang. Too slow.
Plame sounds kinda French, maybe then using Gibson’s logic “they deserve to worry about….” i.e. She should be outed. Sounds about right?
I also posted the video over at DEMbloggers.com
FOX News Video Link
It’s Fox; television’s equivalent of the Weekly World News.
Some people say that Rupert Murdoch – a foreigner – may be trying to divide the nation so that he can take over American corporate media altogether. If you were a conspiracy buff what better way could you imagine that to hire a 5th estate of news casters and commentators that constantly divide and disrupt a real American consensus from developing on the issues that we face by lying, twisting, spinning and just plain old treason-talk,
Now I don’t know for a fact that Rupert Murdoch and his hired lackies are really trying to undermine the United States from within but it stands to reason that if one wanted to do that, Murdoch’s method id pretty effective. I’m just saying.
And if the same thing happened 6 years ago he would have been frothing at the mouth!
He is another “Douchebag for Liberty”.
The most torturously convoluted defense of Rove yet, which is saying a lot.
Nice response , JK.
The problem is Gibson isn’t a “news” anchor. He’s another right-wing Fox News Mouthpiece.
They disguise these people…Gibson, O’Reilly, Hannity……as “journalists.” They aren’t, at least in the mold of a Brokaw, for example. Fox made a decision LONG ago to be America’s answer to the percieved (and overstated) liberal bias in the media. They have gone SO far overboard, that they are now charicatures of themselves (eg; O’Reilly and the sexually charged tapes).
Subtract 8 years from today’s date, and we were all arguing about a blue dress and wondering whether or not things found on that dress could lead a President to impeachment.
Today, we have 1,700 dead American troops that were sent to war based on false intelligence. Now, there’s convincing evidence that the President’s KEY political advisor leaked information to damage the credibility of someone who questioned that “intelligence.”
Does that put things in a little bit of perspective folks?
Sometimes, all I can do is shake my head and wonder about the future of my country when people like Gibson will do anything, SAY anything, to cover their guys’ ass.
All because they like him. He makes them feel good about being a conservative, 1,700 dead troops aside.
It’s just not that complicated to understand. Americans have become so polarized, that even a mild concession is seen as betrayal.
At some point, even the most loyal “hack,” if he/she is moral, has a conscience and concept of right vs. wrong, and good vs. evil, has to jump ship.
Knowing what we now know about the war, the events leading up to it, and the defense of it after it began, it is perfectly fair, and reasonable, to question the moral judgement and character of those on the right who continue to make excuses for this administration.
JK
I’m so F@#%ING angry right now I can’t even think straight. What has become of this country when a news anchorman can go on the air and say that an act of treason should be rewarded? I have no words except that we must be in the twilight zone.
OMG! Rep. Peter King on Scarborough just opened with the “Karl Rove deserves a medal” theme. The shameless bastard even said what Rove did was important because “we are in a time of war and the truth needed to come out about Joe Wilson.” Expect to hear a lot of this in the coming days along with “The yellowcake story was true”, “Wilson is a self-promoter”, and “Wilson lied about who sent him to Niger”
Your arrogance, not to mention your pomposity and hyperbole, are staggering.
Keep in mind that no one “jumped ship” during eight years of Clinton scandals, with the possible exception of Vince Foster who exited the Clinton administration via the “bullet express”.
First comment, not a troll. When do we start hanging these fuckers? I mean, it’s one thing to say something controversial and even hateful. It’s quite another to condone and encourage and REWARD treason against the nation, treason which puts all of our lives at risk.
Well, let’s see:
Condi: Biggest national intelligence failure ever happened on her watch, Refused to brief the “president” about national security bulletins warning of an attack. Promoted.
Tenet: Chief architect of the Iraq Disaster. Fudged intelligence. Overall general screw up. Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Wolfowitz: Original member of PNAC; huge backer of Operation: Haliburton’s Rich. Supports pre-emption. Mentioned we’d be greeted with candy and flowers. Promoted.
Yeah, considering BushCo rewards failure and punishes dissenters, I’d say it’s a given he’ll be getting a medal soon.
Gibson just proves more and more to be nothing but an arrogant, xenophoebic bigot every day. Why give him the time of day any more.
Glad to see you admit that people should be “jumping ship” from the Bush administration, Frank. Got any candidates for the “bullet express” too, you classy family man, you?
Hmmm. Gibson, for some reason, doesn’t note that the then U.S. Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Fitzpatrick, as well as Marine Gen. Carlton W. Fulford Jr., also investigated the Niger-yellowcake claims and both came to the same conclusion as Wilson.
Wonder why that is.
Frank bleated>>Your arrogance, not to mention your pomposity and hyperbole, are staggering. Keep in mind that no one jumped ship during eight years of Clinton scandals, with the possible exception of Vince Foster who exited the Clinton administration via the bullet express .
You just made my point for me, you silly little man. Back in those days, the worst we had to worry about were files left on a desk by Hillary Clinton.
Nobody’s son or daughter died because of Web Hubbell, despite what tin-foil beanie, microwave fearing, conspiracy promoting nutballs on the right say.
That doesn’t excuse anyone’s behavior in those days, it simply puts it into perspective. And the fact that you call me arrogant and pompous (and even BOLD the text) for simply stating the truth, tells me that you’re on the defensive.
Welcome to OUR world, Frank. And be ready, because there’s a world of hurt coming from the left in 06 and 08.
There’s some truth to be told to America, and we’re going to tell it. Deal with it.
JK
Republican Tourette’s Syndrome strikes again.
Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. Say it enough times and click your heels three times and all the bad winged monkeys go away.
Which, of course, doesn’t excuse the type of mindset that allows such reprehensible behavior as Gibson’s. Or Rove’s. Or Bush’s.
If Karl Rove deserves a medal for outing Valerie Plame then Aldrich Ames deseves the entire treasury.
Nasty side bar – Remember when GW said that he most wanted to det to the “bottom” of the Plaime affair? Jim/Jeff Guckert/Gannon’s ads made clear he was a top. Somebody want to run with this?
“det” should be “get”, please fix me
You never make personal attacks on anyone, do you Frank? No, you are pure as the driven snow.
How’s the reconstruction of that glass house coming along?
[...] Big Media, Hypocrisy, Irony, Sarcasm, Hilarity, Stupidity John Gibson: Rove should get a medal even if he di [...]
I didn’t bold the text (I don’t know how that happened), as if that matters.
I see that the attack has turned on me, now. Why is that? Ran out of clever sound bites about Bush and Rove?
I’ll tell you something about ‘06 and ‘08: This will blow up so thoroughly in the face of the Left, that once again you’ll be scratching your heads, saying what is weong with the American people
BTW, Mouse, I never said I never attacked anybody. What I said was that in view of the number and nature of attacks against me, my tolerance was actually pretty good. Not the same thing, except maybe to you.
But, you see, Mouse, silas, TomY, and JK, try as you might, this is not about me. This is about Joe Wilson’s lying to the President of the United States, and whether or or not Karl Rove decided to “get him back”, by outing his wife, as ineffectual as such a move might prove to be.
TomY, It was JK who implied that, not I. Don’t start putting words in my mouth like you did in the other thread. I’m not taking the bait this time.
Fox News: Objectively Anti-American
That’s Fox News for you.
Advocating compromising National Security at every turn.
And nobody’s son or daughter died because word got out that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. If what Rove (or anyone else) did was illegal then he should pay the price. But to suggest that national security was compromised because someone who was likely NOT an undercover CIA agent’s identity was made (outside of D.C.) public (which, of course, if true that she was not an undercover agent, would obviate any illegality) is sheer folly. Yes, if the allegations are true it is a crime, but treasonous? Hardly.
Concentrate your energies on smearing Bush’s Supreme Court nominee(s).
[...] that ultraconservatives can only be funny unintentionally. Case in point: please go to this internet homepage, and watch the video. Here you see one of my favo [...]
So Frank outs himself as another bs Vince Fostr conspiracy theorist. That clears so much up.
Wow. THAT didn’t take long, did it, Hedley? I spent about five minutes this afternoon trying to get my brain around what the right’s strategy would likely be: dogpile on Rove? No–Karl’s a pretty good mercenary, so he’s got lots of stuff on too many people on the inside to be cut loose. Hire a bunch of lawyers to spin what the word “fire” might mean? Too Clinton-esque, but that’s OK because Fox would paper over that. So, that still might happen. Stay tuned.
Wait! A great short-term idea: play down the importance of the leak! Right! Rove leaked a CIA agent’s name in a move that’s obviously retaliatory, but who cares as long as it’s not somebody out of a Clancy novel?
OK–I admit. That actually took more like 30 seconds to work through. I spent the remaining 4 1/2 minutes appreciating the right’s skill at getting everybody to read from the same playbook. Nothing like having marching orders, huh guys?
I would like to point out that Bush and his folks told us there were WMDs. There weren’t. Why inquiring minds want to know? There was Bad Intelligence so Bush & Co. should be excused. WHat we seem to be skipping over is that they KNEW IN ADVANCE THE INTELLIGENCE WAS BAD. This whole Plame affair is proof of that. He was vocally saying some of the intelligence was bad, so in defense of the bad intelligence they tried to smear the man.
They revealed Valerie Plame was a covert asset. The Bush Administration has been very bad with national secrets. Remember Ahmed CHalabi and the Iranians? Who ever gave him Top Secret information anyway? Condoleeza Rice revealing we had turned an AL Qaeda computer specialist who could have turned in dozens of AL Qaeda members? This behavior isn’t new or unusual at all. If Valerie Plame had been part of Dick Cheney’s energy task force, her cover would still be safe, she was just the politically wrong kind of secret.
One last note. Bush & Co. also revealed and risked every contact Plame had, the CIA front company she used, every other covert agent that used the same CIA front company, and everyone who was a contact of those agents. It doesn’t stop with just Plame.
Hey, in all fairness to Frank, the autopsy ruled it a suicide, but Christopher Ruddy and the Newsmax team know better then to believe the coroner. Like judges, college professors, and journalists, they are known to be 99% liberal! Why do you think the Schiavo autopsy conveniently revealed that she WAS in a PVS… don’t you know its only up to God* to decide if someone is in a PVS?!
Video of this truth being spoken- http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/06/29.html#a3690
What boggles my mind, is that in the face of what we know about the war now- that there never were WMD (since the early 90’s), and this adminstration went from saying that Saddam had weapons, and whittled that accusation down to “he was pursuing Weapons-of-mass-destruction-program-related-activities”- in spite of all this, apologists for this war can still scream LIAR at Joe WIlson because he happened to also oppose the war (as if that changes the facts), yet when speaking for the president’s decision to go to war on false information, their voice softens, they shrug, put their palms up and mutter “Ehh, it was bad intelligence.” Besides, we didn’t find any yellowcake yet, right? Nah… didn’t think so. Yet this joke of a journalist can muster up the nerve to feign outrage over Joe Wilson, demanding to know why someone who was opposed to the war was sent to investigate the yellowcake charges (he was a diplomat too, lets not forget) because his wife recommended him. I wonder if we have any footage of Gibson demanding answers to why we DID go to war when the “intelligence” was 180 degrees from the truth, and whether this was because Dick Cheney was associated with the company that won a no-bid contract to help rebuild Iraq, and feed and house the troops.
[...] ties and engaging in the other two: 1. Smearing Joseph Wilson and pooh-pooh ing (or cheering) the well-documented and now admitted burning of a CIA operative [...]
Oliver: I didn’t think my writing was that poor. Must be your reading. I said he exited the Clinton administration. I didn’t even hint that he didn’t kill himself. Keep trying.
A list of people who did believe there were WMD’s:
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998
“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Robert Byrd, October 2002
“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.” — Tom Daschle in 1998
“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Bob Graham, December 2002
“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” — Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002
“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” — Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” — Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
“Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 – 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.” — Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.” — Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
“Saddam s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration s policy towards Iraq, I don t think there can be any question about Saddam s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.” — Henry Waxman,
Oct 10, 2002
And if the intelligence was false, do we now return Hussein to office?
Finally, I didn’t say Wilson was a liar because he opposed the war, I said he lied because he opposed the war. The truth was that Iraq had approached Niger for yellow cake.
“A list of people who did believe there were WMD s”
I wonder how long of a list of people we could come up with who believed Clinton “did not have sexual relations with that woman. Ms. Lewinsky.” I bet some still believe he “did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky,” depending on what your definition of “sexual realtions” and “is” is. People generally try to put their trust in a man who has been elected to the office of the POTUS. They try to trust what he says until it becomes no longer possible to do so. The truth is, Frank, you don’t know the truth and wouldn’t recognize it if it bit you on the ass.
Tom Y,
The existence of an investigation is not proof of a crime, but you know that.
Frank, don’t bother with those comments. Any time I’ve seen them the only excuse put forward by the ABB is that those honorable people were just repeating the LIES of the Bush administration.
But everybody should take a deep breath and think back a little. Because now that Rove’s name has surfaced, everybody is basically repeating the same breathless nonsense they were yelling about last summer. Let’s get a few things straight because all this talk of treason and endangering our national security is just plain laughable (oh and people should bitch about bringing up Clinton’s name when it was JK who first mentioned him).
1. Valerie Plame’s status within the CIA at the time this happened is still unknown. First of all, the government had to have been taking “affirmative measures” to keep her identity a secret. The fact that she was working a desk job at Langley doesn’t bode well for the notion that she was a covert operative. And it doesn’t matter if she was working as an “energy analyst” at some front company. I personally know somebody who works for the CIA in South Korea. Yet he works as an “export manager” at a Hyundai automobile plant. For any law to have been broken, Rove had to intentionally do this with the knowledge that the government was trying to conceal her indentity.
2. Joe Wilson lied about his wife’s involvement with getting him the assignment. He said his wife “had nothing to do with the matter.” Not only did she have something to do with it, but she’s the one who sold her bosses on the idea.
3. The bi-partisan Senate Intelligence report released last summer reached a different conclusion than Joe Wilson.
4. No matter what you think about John Gibson’s idea of giving Rove a medal, he does raise a legitimate point. Wilson was an outspoken opponent of the war. His wife knew this. In addition, Wilson was a former diplomat, not an investigator or spy and had no experience with nuclear weapons. Yet, his wife was able to sell her bosses on the idea of him going. In addition, the CIA failed to have somebody acting as an agent for them keep the mission a secret and the information gained on the trip, confidential. This is what allowed him to spout off in the NY Times, making a bunch of charges we now know to be untrue.
Try and retain some perspective.
activex controls makes the baby firefox cry.
Think of the baby firefoxes!
I for one, welcome our new Microsoft Overlords.
The view of a former CIA agent who knew agent Plame -
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340
And yet, no proof. Typical.
[...] ; Hey, I never claimed to be reporting the news.
Anyway, here s a link to an Oliver Willis article about how some Faux news [...]
The truth was that Iraq had approached Niger for yellow cake.
Demonstrably false. You’re basing this claim on the account of Niger’s former PM, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, saying he was approached by an Iraq businessman interested in “expanding commercial relations” with Niger. Mayaki said he thought this meant Iraq may have been looking to purchase yellowcake. But Mayaki let the matter drop and no further meeting took place.
On its face, this is pretty weak evidence. But t gets weaker when the CIA says the agency didn’t believe Iraq was trying to procure yellowcake from Niger.
The view of the Wall Stret Journal, that believes Rove to be a whistleblower -
http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=5623
(The WSJ link requires a paid subscription – http://online.wsj.com/public/page/0,,opinion,00.html?mod=1%5F0045)
“1) Valerie Plame s status within the CIA at the time this happened is still unknown.”
I simply can’t understand why the right wing so desperately clings to this weird assertion. Yes, it’s unknown to us, the public; but it’s most definitely NOT unknown to the CIA, who recommended the investigation, and it’s NOT unknown to the prosecutor’s office. It’s obviously incumbent upon you, Jay, to explain why this investigation has gone on for two years before this would have occurred to them before your assertions will carry any weight at all on this matter.
Points 2, 3, and 4, are all completely irrelevant to a) whether Rove broke the law, and b) whether he should have broken the law, which is what is driving this story. Otherwise you’re just shifting the issue into “war critics are bad,” which is understandable but not germaine at all tot he topic at hand, which is that the WHITE HOUSE EXPOSED A CIA OPERATIVE FOR POLITICAL GAIN DURING A TIME OF WAR.
But t gets weaker when the CIA says the agency didn t believe Iraq was trying to procure yellowcake from Niger.
Interesting that you leave out that the CIA was chastised by the Senate Intelligence Committee for not investigating further the possible efforts made by Iraq to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998 which was destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin.
In addition, people are once again focusing on Niger, when Bush clearly stated ‘Africa’ in his SOTU speech. The Butler report showed that Iraq had made overtures to the Republic of Congo in 1999 in order to purchase uranium and that there was evidence in 2002 that some kind of agreement had been reached.
Dave M,
Former agent is very much right – like he last worked for the CIA in 1989. Like Perp Walk Wilson, this guy is partisan political operative – trying to use his out-of-date-by-16 years credentials as leverage for a partisan hatchett job and to make bucks.
Dugger, Your One Stop Shopping Source for, Like, Sortin’ Stuff Out
Dugger, I really love the way you can read an article, respond with nothing but smears — absolutely no substance at all — and then claim to be “sortin stuff out.” Your homespun down-to-earth wisdom is like what I imagine Andy Griffith would be like if he’d been a John Bircher and had a couple of strokes. It positively makes me nostalgic for the South of yesteryear. Three cheers for skillet-fried smugness!
4) is not a legit point at all. I am an opponent of the war, but I work in the defense industry building the finest damn weapons I can. I am an opponent of the war, but if I were qualified to determine if a nuke connection had existed, I would damn sure do the best job that I could.
Given Wilson’s amazing service to our country under GHWB as our charges d’affairs to Iraq and the one American that faced Saddam down, (4) is nothing more than vicious calumny.
Also, how I wish my bosses would do everything I ask. Usually they do what they want and take credit for what works….
Jay C is off the deep end. Her status was unclear? Right. Her front company was compromised as well. Other operatives used that front company. They are compromised as well. She met with contacts in her job. They are compromised.
Then the rest of your defense seems to revolve around 1) Karl Rove had to know her status was a secret. Rove had security clearance, obviously he tried to do some digging on Joe Wilson to find his wife worked for the CIA. Rove should have to KNOW to check with the CIA before calling every newspaper and journalist in a 50 mile radius with the information. That is Rove’s responsibility.
And 2) you think Joe Wilson is a liar and that makes it alright if Bush & Co. want to try and smear him by ruining and endangering his wife and also compromising National Security. Nice. Get some perspective, seriously.
Her status was unclear? Right. Her front company was compromised as well. Other operatives used that front company. They are compromised as well. She met with contacts in her job. They are compromised.
Please explain how a covert agent maintains a desk at Langley? It doesn’t make sense to me. If you want to keep your identity a secret, going in and out of CIA headquarters doesn’t seem to the best way to do that.
1) Karl Rove had to know her status was a secret. Rove had security clearance, obviously he tried to do some digging on Joe Wilson to find his wife worked for the CIA.
You’re doing nothing but speculating.
Rove should have to KNOW to check with the CIA before calling every newspaper and journalist in a 50 mile radius with the information. That is Rove s responsibility.
If her identity was supposed to be secret and Rove came across it inadvertently, how should he have known to call anybody? You’re making this statement based on the assumption that Rove dug up that Plame was a covert op and just decided to tell everybody.
And 2) you think Joe Wilson is a liar and that makes it alright if Bush & Co. want to try and smear him by ruining and endangering his wife and also compromising National Security.
Oh please. First of all, how could Wilson be ’smeared’ when he was the one telling all the lies? He gave false information to reporters under the guise of anonymity, lied about his wife’s involvement with his trip, claimed Dick Cheney was involved with his trip, failed to report all his findings during his Niger trip in his little NY Times piece. I can go on. Why do you think John Kerry, who supported and paid for Joe Wilson’s website, http://www.restorehonesty.com was dropped like a bad habit? Coincidence? I don’t think so.
And what does it say of our national security concerns when anti-war partisans with no investigative experience nor expertise in nuclear weapons are dispatched by the CIA at the strong request of that person’s spouse to sit around for 8 days drinking tea and merely talking with people?
“The existence of an investigation is not proof of a crime, but you know that.”
I didn’t say it was. What I said was that the existence of the investigation is proof of her status as a covert agent.
Two quotes from Jay C that amuse me:
1) “If you want to keep your identity a secret, going in and out of CIA headquarters doesn t seem to the best way to do that.”
2) “You re doing nothing but speculating.”
Love. It.
Wow Dug, it sounds like you’re really going off the deep end now. Here’s a little more about Mr. Johnson – “Mr. Johnson, who worked previously with the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. State Department s Office of Counter Terrorism, is a recognized expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, crisis and risk management.
Mr. Johnson has analyzed terrorist incidents for a variety of media including the Jim Lehrer News Hour, National Public Radio, ABC’s Nightline, NBC’s Today Show, the New York Times, CNN and the BBC. He was even employed as a Fox News Contributor during 2002. Mr. Johnson has authored several articles for publications, including Security Management Magazine, the New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times. He has lectured on terrorism and aviation security around the world, including the Center for Research and Strategic Studies at the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, France. He represented the U.S. Government at the July 1996 OSCE Terrorism Conference in Vienna, Austria.
From 1989 until October 1993, Larry Johnson served as a Deputy Director in the U.S. State Department s Office of Counter Terrorism. He managed crisis response operations for terrorist incidents throughout the world and he helped organize and direct the US Government s debriefing of US citizens held in Kuwait and Iraq, which provided vital intelligence on Iraqi operations following the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Mr. Johnson also participated in the investigation of the terrorist bombing of Pan Am 103…From 1985 through September 1989 Mr. Johnson worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. During his distinguished career, he received training in paramilitary operations, worked in the Directorate of Operations, served in the CIA s Operation s Center, and established himself as a prolific analyst in the Directorate of Intelligence. In his final year with the CIA he received two Exceptional Performance Awards.
Mr. Johnson is a member of the American Society for Industrial Security. He taught at The American University s School of International Service (1979-1983) while working on a Ph.D. in political science. He has a M.S. degree in Community Development from the University of Missouri (1978), where he also received his B.S. degree in Sociology, graduating Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa in 1976.”
It sounds like he’s been actively involved in defending the U.S. against terrorism for many years. And without any reason whatsoever, except to smear his good name, you claim his comments are merely a partisan hatchet job. How sad it is that one who claims such moral clarity as you must resort to such Rovian tactics to belittle a patriotic American. How sad it is that those such as yourself who have done absolutely nothing in the fight against terrorism resort to such tactics against a man who has made it his life’s work to study and fight that menace. And by the way here’s some info about the so-called partisan Johnson: “Johnson, a registered Republican who has contributed to President Bush, said the alleged leak was “the most egregious one I’ve seen” but added political party is not a relevant factor.
“It doesn’t matter who the president is, Republican or Democrat, there’s always political pressure brought on the analytical community to tell a particular story, depending upon what the issues are,” Johnson concluded. “But to ‘out’ an officer?…It’s a political attack.” http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1222947.html
Jay C still hasn’t explained why, if Valerie Plame wasn’t covert, that this never occured to a) the CIA when the recommended the case to the DOJ, and b) the prosecutor’s office. How has this gone on for 2 years without them discovering this “fact?”
I swear to christ I hate fox news, gibson, bush, that idiot mcclellen and every other neocon sonovabitch who is actively ruining this country. they lie, distort, backpeddle, stonewall, and manipulate to no end. Why in the hell are these people allowed to remain in positions of power?
#1 Rove is obviously guilty, he did the same deal back in ‘92 and was fired by bush sr of that campaign. #2 the sonovabitch lied, saying he had nothing to do with the leak. #3 that sonovabitch bush stated he would fire anyone
Frank_D
A list of people who decided to invade Iraq (most likely) knowing there were no WMD:
George W. Bush
Jay C still hasn t explained why, if Valerie Plame wasn t covert, that this never occured to a) the CIA when the recommended the case to the DOJ, and b) the prosecutor s office. How has this gone on for 2 years without them discovering this fact?
Hello. That’s why it’s called an INVESTIGATION. They are doing that to determine if a crime had been committed.
Here’s a question for you. If Patrick Fitzgerald reaches the conclusion that no crime has been committed, are you going to accept it? Or will you join the chorus of what I am sure will be a whole host of conspiracy theories as to how the Bush administration “got” to Fitzgerald or attacks on the man’s character?
Zappa,
??????
Are those people in the list not spreading the “lies” as well? Didya’ happen to look at the dates? Some of the same people showed up quite a few times saying the same things in 1998 as 2002. Was bush lying to them in 1998???????
Jadegold
The only thing you can say for sure is that the CIA refered it to the DOJ. Its not the CIA’s job to determine whether a crime took place or not. That job belongs to the DOJ, hence the investigation. Someone there might think criminal activity is involved, they could actually feel quite strongly about it, but until someone is indicted, and there is a trial, and whoever is indicted is convicted, you are only guessing. And any other conclusions you arrive at are based on speculation. End of story.
Rather than address the facts of Johnson’s claim, you questioned his motives by saying he was doing it for “bucks,” and characterized his piece as a hatchet job. That was the smear — an entirely ad hominem response with not a single reference to any argument the man made.
“Its not the CIA s job to determine whether a crime took place or not.”
But it *is* the CIA’s obligation to cooperate with an investigation, and one can only assume that the first thing a prosecutor would do in investigating a crime about secret agents getting revealed would be to ask the CIA “was she secret?” Your scenario, that Fitzgerald would wait two years to ask, is a guess, like mine. But your guess assumes that the DoJ is run by retards, and mine assumes that they are professionals.
Frank – nice list of folks there…
The question is: Who is to blame – those that believed the lies about WMD’s or those that spread them?
Z — To blame for what?
The question is, “Why was it such a goos idea to topple Hussein during the Clinton years, and how did it become a bad idea after Bush became President?”
TomY,
Sorry, buts its true. He’s been out of the CIA since 1989. If its a smear to say that, then I guess I smeared him. I now going to smear the sky: its blue.
Dave M.
You promulgated Johnson’s CIA credentials, not I. I just said what they really were. He’s been out since 1989 – no special code word clearances (do you know what code word clearances mean?), no inside knowledge.
As to his partisanship, do you know about DemocracyNow. Mr Johnson is a welcome guest there. Are you aware that he virtually charged the president with treason in Salon. Are you also aware his professional judgement is highly suspect. Think its only evil ol Dugger saying that? How about Slate: gave him a whopper of the week award. He’s famous for chastizing the country in July 2001 (get the time?) for worrying so much about terrorism threats. Prior to that,he played down OBL threats.
He’s your guy. Your “expert”. Too bad people can check his credentials and audit his performance.
Dugger, Ain’t We Got Fun
Tom Y is correct; the CIA referred this case to DoJ. This means the CIA is convinced a crime took place. No Govt. agency refers matters to DoJ just for the fun of it.
But let’s suppose for a moment that absolutely no crime took place. How does attacking Wilson’s wife as a CIA agent make Rove and crew admirable?
“Make the call then, and let us know what you find out.”
Hardy har. Since you’re the one proposing the more complicated and therefore more unlikely option, at least give an explanation for why it’s taken TWO YEARS for Fitzgerald to “make the call” to the CIA and ask “hey, was Plame covert or wasn’t she?”
The simplest explanation, of course, is that Fitzgerald already has made that call, and that the answer was yes.
TomY,
Make the call then, and let us know what you find out. Because JayC is right, the answer to that question has not been concretely answered. I’m not saying that I know one way or the other either, but you are presenting her status to us as though it is 100% sure she was a “covert” opperative, and then providing inferrals and circumstantial evidence to back up your claim. The only thing any of us can say for sure, at this point, is that we won’t know what the investigation will reveal until its over. Until then all of this is a bunch of crap.
Insane. Just insane. I still can’t believe someone would say something like that.
INSANE!
“Here s a question for you. If Patrick Fitzgerald reaches the conclusion that no crime has been committed, are you going to accept it?”
Yes. I don’t know if a crime was committed. I think Bush should stand by his word about firing leakers, though, and it seems clear that Rove did do the leaking.
“That s why it s called an INVESTIGATION.”
Seriously, you think that the prosecutor’s office hasn’t yet determined the basic question of whether Plame was covert or not? Really? Two years into it? Why don’t you explain it a bit more, because that fact — covert or not — could be resolved by the CIA with one phone call, no?
You don’t like Johnson? Well, how about the other three former CIA analysts who say Plame was undercover? Are they just “partisans” too?
Jay C is just going deeper. Joe Wilson’s resume was impeccable and just what was needed for the job. He had contacts in Iraq and Africa and was able to use them to complete his mission. He wasn’t chosen out of a hat. And Jay, I hate to tell you that being against the Iraq fiasco does not necessariloy make you an anti-war nut. Being against that particular boondoggle was foresightful and correct. If you go from the Bush Administration lying in the lead up to the war, screwing up the diplomacy, and completely fucking up by invading while not being prepared in any way shape or form for the aftermath, yes, being against that invasion was only wise.
It just goes on. Think about this, the CIA asked for the investigation, that incidently, intuits that her status was a secret. You can argue the definition of “is” all you want. Outing Plame compromised national security, other CIA assets and was very unethical and immoral without having to debate the legal issues. On top of all other arguments, what message does it send to other agents and recruits to tell them that they will be sold out at the first politically opportune moment.
If it was a slam dunk that she was undercover it wouldn’t have taken 2 years to investigate the leak. Bear in mind, before you get to whether or not there was a leak and whether or not it was deliberate, etc., the prosecutor must first determine that (a) she was undercover and (b) that the CIA was actively trying to conceal her identity. If she had a desk at Langley, as has been alleged, then it is hard to make a case for (b).
Moreover, the CIA is protecting its turf and would certainly prefer that its employees, undercover or not, have their names withheld from newspaper articles. Tenet referred the matter, as he should have, in an effort to not be viewed as political.
If it was a slam dunk that she was undercover it wouldn t have taken 2 years to investigate the leak.
It’s a nice meme but it doesn’t wash for the simple reason that perpetrators have to be dentified and a case made to prosecute them.
I’m not going to argue with anyone about whose version of things is true, and who’s isn’t, because none of us know. Great, you’ve reached some good conclusions TomY, but they are still only based on inferrals and circumstantial evidence. And I never said he didn’t ask. Maybe he did. Politics and leaks aside, none of us would know when he asked “the question” or if he had or what the answer was until an indictment was issued. When someone gets indicted we will know for sure whether (a) she was covert, (b) the CIA was actively seeking to conceal her identity, and (c) there was intent to do her or the US intellegince community harm by revealing her name. That would mean that the DOJ officially thought that a crime had been committed. Then it would be up to the jury to decide if the indicted party was actually guilty.
Ahhh, changing the subject again Dug. But that’s par for the course. You stated Mr. Johnson was a partisan hack who wrote what he did for profit and partisanship. I showed he was not. You attacked him not for being wrong in the past, but for saying what he did about Plame without regard to WHAT he said. You just attacked him. How about some analysis from an ex-CIA agent of your choosing who believes outing Agent Plame was justified or who disagrees with what Mr. Johnson says. And just so the record is clear here’s what Slate said: “(Not quite) Whopper of the Week – It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson’s op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson’s piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson’s prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.”
Ironic isn’t it that you would support going to war based on faulty and fixed intelligence that the administration sought to hide from the public, and apparently support an administration which leaked the identity of an active CIA agent to get at her husband. But you attack someone who made a wrong call (publicly) in an op-ed that was at least meticulously researched and argued. It really is Republican right or wrong for you isn’t it?
Looks like calling Plame covert isn’t based “on inferrals and circumstantial evidence” after all, nawoods. Kevin Drum has a roundup of all sorts of sources for whether Plame was covert or not. Lots and lots of anonymous CIA folks saying that, yeah, she was covert. Who are the only people saying she wasn’t? Conservative pundits.
“CIA lawyers answered a series of 11 questions ‘affirming that the woman’s identity was classified, that whoever released it was not authorized to do so and that the news media would not have been able to guess her identity without the leak.’”
“‘If she were only an analyst, not an operative, we would not have filed a crimes report’ with the Justice Department, a senior intelligence official said.”
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2003_10/002318.php
I really want to understand the conservative position on this. You’re saying that her status is too complicated to be categorized in a legal sense? That *that* is what’s making this drag out for two years? That it’s not a simple yes or no question?
Frank y Nawoods -
I think that one of the differences here is that they did not rush to war.
Look, I don’t claim to know everything. This is a complicated story. But I assumed that Plame’s status was the least complicated part of this story. Either she’s covert, or she isn’t. I still don’t understand why that wouldn’t be the case. Since obviously there’s no crime to investigate if she’s not covert, why a prosecutor wouldn’t make that determination one of the first things he cleared up even before deciding to investigate?
Apparently, she was assigned to the desk in Langley after being OUTED by Novak. And we may never know if anyone died because of her outing and the outing of the cover firm. The fact that it could cause any patriot working undercover for US is what makes it all so repugnant. I am so sick of this “attack the messenger” mentality but the Repugs are going to keep it up to take the heat off of Rove until the Supreme Court Nomination process gears up (this was noted in their RNC talking points). So everyone who calls them on their shit is practicing PARTISAN POLITICS. Nice bunch here…thanks to all the idiots who voted them back into office.
The only thing you can say for sure is that the CIA refered it to the DOJ.
No, can categorically state the CIA believes a crime took place.
Think about it; would you call the police and report you were a victim of a crime if you had no reason to reasonably suspect you were? Or are you saying we should all contact the police to have them investigate if a crime has been perpetrated aganst us?
Let’s remember the CIA isn’t exactly a neophyte when it comes to matters involving the law and security policy.
Curses, Quaker beat me to the punch!
This is just asinine. If Valerie Plame wasn’t a covert operative, why did this whole thing start? Because a player in the administration leaked her name to some reporters. Why would he leak her name if she wasn’t covert? What would be the value of revealing her status if she had no status to reveal?
She’s been characterized as using her influence to get her husband sent over in order to further her anti-war agenda. Is her influence at the CIA such that she could just drop her husband’s name and the higher-ups that make the decisions automatically agree with her and send him? If that were so, it rather argues against the idea that she’s a low-level flunky and that exposing her is no big deal.
Jadegold
Perhaps you have something against your neighbor, and you want to cause them some trouble. So you file a complaint even though nothing actually happened, or you exagerate what did happen. Again, its the DOJ (or local law enforcement in this example) that will conduct an investigation to find out if something criminal actually took place. Because thats what they do. Presumption of innocence and all that good stuff.
TomY
First off, because someone is a conservative pundit does not automatically make them wrong. Second, I could point you to people with lots and lots of links as well pointing to the conclusion that she was not covert. Check out Tom McGuire’s place. There is a host of evidence pointing the other way as well, and resonable people could conclude she was not covert. Its fun to speculate and make connections, even to shout for someones head if its the politics you love, but the fact remains that no one, “liberal” or “conservative”, and myself included, KNOWS for a fact what happened. Thats why, in my opinion, the calls for Rove to resign or that he should be in jail are rather premature.
“I m not going to do your research for you.”
Nor are you going to make any arguments other than “hey, here’s a conservative who speculates…” and you expect me to give that equal weight to news reports sourcing from the DoJ and the CIA? Listen to yourself, why don’t you? But thank you for making it clear that Democrats are the ones using evidence in their arguments, and Republicans are down to mere speculation. Go team!
nawoods: Here’s the problem: if AWOL George and ‘lil Scottie McClellan are as eager to “get to the bottom” of this “ongoing investigation”—why doesn’t AWOL George order his people to waive Miller’s confidentiality agreement?
After all, no crime was committed–right?
Sigh, I give up. I’m not arguing with ya’ll. One more time. Jadegold. It does work. The CIA thought that someone committed a crime. Yes, I am quite sure they are not neophytes when it comes to security and legal matters, and they ver well could be right. But the DoJ has the last word. They decide whether a crime was actually committed or not.
TomY
Whatever. I’m not going to do your research for you. I don’t care about the quotes. I don’t care about any of it. I stand by my assertion that none of this matters. What matters is the investigation, and anything else, from both sides, is speculation. And the conclusions people reach depend on which team they cheer for. Its stupid. Wait for the investigation to finish, and then you can call for peoples heads.
You want to speculate? Hell, Judith Miller is still sitting in jail. Why? If we all know that Rove was “the source”, then she has no reason to protect him, right? So maybe there are some other players involved. Maybe Rove isn’t the guy afterall. I know you all would love it to be him. As for me, I could care less. I have nothing for the guy or Bush or republicans in general for that matter. But what if it wasn’t?
Perhaps you have something against your neighbor, and you want to cause them some trouble. So you file a complaint even though nothing actually happened, or you exagerate what did happen.
Doesn’t work. Remember the CIA isn’t calling DoJ to put the FBI on report–it is calling DoJ because they–the CIA–felt their organization was the victim of a crime.
Again, we can’t forget the CIA isn’t a neophyte when it comes to security and legal matters.
I don’t think the speculations of conservative pundit are automatically wrong, but as far as authority goes, it’s simply not good enough when we’ve provided articles sourced to people who do know at the DoJ or the CIA, nawoods. At least get an article from the moonie times or the WSJ with a quote from SOMEBODY at those agencies.
“Wait for the investigation to finish, and then you can call for peoples heads.”
No doubt that’s what you’d be saying if this happened in a Democratic administration.
This is asinine. Where did you get “But thank you for making it clear that Democrats are the ones using evidence in their arguments, and Republicans are down to mere speculation”? I’m not a republican, nor a democrat. I belong to the “Politicians are lying, greedy, worthless sacks of shit” party (and yet, I’m a political junky, it doesn’t make sense). The only people using real evidence here are the DoJ and the people investigating this mess. Follow your advice and listen to yourself, and then listen to me, because we are talking past each other. Your arguments have all along been based on speculation, because thats all ANY of us really have, including republicans and their pundits. Thats what I’ve been saying. Yeah, I did throw out a scenario, but that was to play devil’s advocate. Sorry if that confused you. But to connect Rove to a crime that has not even been called one yet, and then call for his resignation or jailing is premature. The only way you can get to that point is through speculation and guessing. That also goes for the people calling the man a hero. They don’t know either. None of us will have the full picture until there is an indictment and trial, or a statement from Fitzgerald telling us to move along, there’s nothing to see here.
But, if I’ve helped you feel superior, then fine. I guess I should say your welcome and be on my way.
If you ever wondered what happened to Beavis, Butthead and Winger, they grew up to become Gibson, Holmes and Hannity. They should use these clowns in a breeding experiment and sell registered dumbasses, might help lower the deficit.
[...] recommending her husband to her CIA superiors. Charming, John. Here s a link to his lovely rant. It s seriously disgusting, but the crux of his argumen [...]
More very bad things for Karl Rove, and Bolton was probably involved with Yellowcake as well
Stay tuned here for one hell of a scandal…. Damn skippy, things are blowing up all over the place. The Star Tribune just put up a pretty scathing editorial about Rove, Wilson and the case for war, for the July 14 newspaper, “Karl Rove/Real issue is…
News reports. Quoting officials. At the CIA and DoJ.
Vs.
Republican Pundits
I didn’t say I’d made up my mind on whether KR committed a crime, but I fully stand by the statement that, as of now, the side that’s got more facts on its side AINT the White House.
Fox News John Gibson should resign!
This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen a national “news” anchor say – FOX News anchor John Gibson said onair that he thought Karl Rove deserves a medal if he outed Valerie Plame.
Yes, read it again – Gibby is happy a NOC was ex…
This is National Security we’re talking about right? Someone in the White House seems to have been very loose with handling classified information, appearances indicate Karl Rove at least, does he have to be guilty before restricting Security Clearances? If Rove were Arab he would probably be down in Gitmo right now.
TomY,
Sorry, I don’t know how to turn these into links, but go here and keep scrolling:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/
and here
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_07_10-2005_07_16.shtml#1121326634
Neither writer can be called strict partisans, though they would fall on the Republican side. You will note, however, that democrats do not have a monopoly when it comes to news reports and quoting officials when speculating on what is going on here.
[...] OX News fucking maniacal John Gibson (QT video) and the rest of the media reaction. Gibson is even more scary today (QT video). Valerie Plame should h [...]
[...] ay think that these people deserve these crappy awards, but as far as I m concerned, they all deserve a medal!
[...]
ndgym anet dwjlfme stixehzvg ykmqzl rhnsa cjkqbdo
ndgym anet dwjlfme stixehzvg ykmqzl rhnsa cjkqbdo
iyfnuxh veqwflik uzpxehaf pktclxfbn ukwbl kbfchz rwmabklgs http://www.xvugojbz.dncgmo.com