Jophed,
Like Wilson we're supposed to believe this Cooper guy? This is the problem with the liberal media. Cooper could be telling the truth but based on his association with the Times and the fact that he doesn't have anything other than his word to substantiate his claims why should those of us that don't believe everything the Times spew believe a word he's said?
Varus
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Rove was Time reporter's source.....
Rove was Time reporter's source.....Follow
ElneClare wrote:
I find this statement funny. My mother, who was as liberal as you can be, hated the Chicago Tribune for being a conservative hack job. We use to have to hunt down a Sunday NY Times, every time we visited my grandparents in Sandwich Ill. and Michican City In.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
AP wrote:
Bush said in June 2004 that he would fire anyone in his administration shown to have leaked information that exposed the identity of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. On Monday, however, he added the qualifier that it would have be shown that a crime was committed.
When all else fails, lower your standards.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Jophiel, last week, wrote:
Meanwhile, the Administration remains silent on a 9/29/03 pledge to remove anyone involved in the leak. I guess it's time to get legalistic and detail oriented on the word "involved".
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
I find this statement funny. My mother, who was as liberal as you can be, hated the Chicago Tribune for being a conservative hack job. We use to have to hunt down a Sunday NY Times, every time we visited my grandparents in Sandwich Ill. and Michican City In.
Well the Tribune editorial board has endorsed the Republican presidential candidate in every election since 1872.
But of course people still call it a liberal rag if something is printed that they disagree with.
They do have a good number of liberal columnists, and of course they use AP and Reuters and other news agencies with their evil socialist agendas.
What the President said in 2004 regarding the firing of whoever leaked the information
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/
If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.
What he said today regarding whoever leaked the information.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/cia.leak/index.html
"We have a serious ongoing investigation here, and it's being played out in the press. I think it's best if people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. I don't know all the facts. ... I would like this to end as quickly as possible. And if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."
So how is the President backpedalling on what he said on this issue in the past exactly?
McClellan at a September 29, 2003, press briefing:
McCLELLAN: The president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the leaking of Plame's identity], they would no longer be in this administration.
[...]
Q: You continue to talk about the severity of this and if anyone has any information they should go forward to the Justice Department. But can you tell us, since it's so severe, would someone or a group of persons, lose their job in the White House?
McCLELLAN: At a minimum.
Q: At a minimum?
McCLELLAN: At a minimum.
There is the 29 Sept 03 statement by McClellan. While he doesnt in this statement mention the violation of law caveat isnt it implied? It was to me. Since leaking this sort of info is against the law, therefore anyone doing so would have broken the law.
What's so funny is that accusations have been made, a special prosecutor is investigating, no formal charges have been levied as of yet let alone a conviction and you all are calling for a public lynching.
If it's proven that Karl Rove was involved and the President doesnt fire him (or whoever it is found guilty of leakin the info if they are in the administration) then by all means everyone has reason to call foul and raise hell about it. But until that happens isnt this all just political posturing and a chance to take pot shots at someone most Democrats hate?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/
If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.
What he said today regarding whoever leaked the information.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/cia.leak/index.html
"We have a serious ongoing investigation here, and it's being played out in the press. I think it's best if people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. I don't know all the facts. ... I would like this to end as quickly as possible. And if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."
So how is the President backpedalling on what he said on this issue in the past exactly?
McClellan at a September 29, 2003, press briefing:
McCLELLAN: The president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the leaking of Plame's identity], they would no longer be in this administration.
[...]
Q: You continue to talk about the severity of this and if anyone has any information they should go forward to the Justice Department. But can you tell us, since it's so severe, would someone or a group of persons, lose their job in the White House?
McCLELLAN: At a minimum.
Q: At a minimum?
McCLELLAN: At a minimum.
There is the 29 Sept 03 statement by McClellan. While he doesnt in this statement mention the violation of law caveat isnt it implied? It was to me. Since leaking this sort of info is against the law, therefore anyone doing so would have broken the law.
What's so funny is that accusations have been made, a special prosecutor is investigating, no formal charges have been levied as of yet let alone a conviction and you all are calling for a public lynching.
If it's proven that Karl Rove was involved and the President doesnt fire him (or whoever it is found guilty of leakin the info if they are in the administration) then by all means everyone has reason to call foul and raise hell about it. But until that happens isnt this all just political posturing and a chance to take pot shots at someone most Democrats hate?
Like I said, the SP has access to mountains of data, testimony and evidence that I'll never see, so I'm content to let him cull through all of that and let us know if a crime was committed.
However, saying "well, he may have fu[i][/i]cked up the CIA but at least he didn't break the law, that we know of" is still a pretty low standard to apply to the chief advisor to the President of the United States. If he leaked information that destroyed the work of years in setting up a useful front company for the CIA to garner information about the policies and politics in the Middle East, whether out of ignorance or malevolence, then he is scum. If it wasn't Rove, then substitute whoever it was and apply the same statements.
However, saying "well, he may have fu[i][/i]cked up the CIA but at least he didn't break the law, that we know of" is still a pretty low standard to apply to the chief advisor to the President of the United States. If he leaked information that destroyed the work of years in setting up a useful front company for the CIA to garner information about the policies and politics in the Middle East, whether out of ignorance or malevolence, then he is scum. If it wasn't Rove, then substitute whoever it was and apply the same statements.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Baron von DamthebiTch wrote:
There is the 29 Sept 03 statement by McClellan. While he doesnt in this statement mention the violation of law caveat isnt it implied? It was to me.
Quote:
If it's proven that Karl Rove was involved and the President doesnt fire him (or whoever it is found guilty of leakin the info if they are in the administration) then by all means everyone has reason to call foul and raise hell about it. But until that happens isnt this all just political posturing and a chance to take pot shots at someone most Democrats hate?
You've got to stop taking it all so seriously before you turn in Gbaji and stand around declaring that us crazy Democrats are driving all the moderates away. I'm assuming most moderates don't read Forum=4 on Allakhazam.com and, in any event, having Gbaji say anything about the Democratic party is like listening to Charleston Heston give opinions on the Gun Control lobby.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Yeah Joph. But none of that changes the fact that you conveniently left out the bit from 2003 where Bush says *clearly* that the if someone *criminally* leaked the information, that person would be fired, when comparing it to virtually the exact same statement made again today.
Given that your entire point was to try to suggest that Bush had changed stances or added extra qualification, doesn't that pretty much blow your entire point out of the water? I think it does...
I know that to you and others on this forum, the goal of the investigation is to try to attack the Bush administration. But, lest we forget, the real goal here is to figure out how a NOC agent's identity was leaked from secret to "everyone in Washington knows this". Karl Rove didn't leak it. Novak leaked it to him. Rove may have told Cooper, but Rove himself didn't know he was passing on "secret" information.
That's not a crime. I know you guys love to try to simplify things when it's convenient for you, but you absolutely have to know that the information you are passing on is classified for you to be commiting a crime. Every indication is that Rove simply thought she worked at the CIA, perhaps as an analyst, at worst as an official operative. There is absolutely *zero* evidence that he knew her actual CIA status. Until we have that evidence, you can't argue he's commited a crime.
Again. How about we let the legal process figure this out instead of demanding some kind of action based on guesses and innuendo?
Given that your entire point was to try to suggest that Bush had changed stances or added extra qualification, doesn't that pretty much blow your entire point out of the water? I think it does...
I know that to you and others on this forum, the goal of the investigation is to try to attack the Bush administration. But, lest we forget, the real goal here is to figure out how a NOC agent's identity was leaked from secret to "everyone in Washington knows this". Karl Rove didn't leak it. Novak leaked it to him. Rove may have told Cooper, but Rove himself didn't know he was passing on "secret" information.
That's not a crime. I know you guys love to try to simplify things when it's convenient for you, but you absolutely have to know that the information you are passing on is classified for you to be commiting a crime. Every indication is that Rove simply thought she worked at the CIA, perhaps as an analyst, at worst as an official operative. There is absolutely *zero* evidence that he knew her actual CIA status. Until we have that evidence, you can't argue he's commited a crime.
Again. How about we let the legal process figure this out instead of demanding some kind of action based on guesses and innuendo?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Like Wilson we're supposed to believe this Cooper guy?
-----------------------------------------
rofl. lets see, Wilson, Cooper, Novack, and the three reporters all hatched a conspiracy to attack Rove and Libby.
and the rest of us are supposed to believe that Rove and Libby, who have access to classified informaion, DID NOT KNOW who valery wilson was, or that she was a CIA agent untill 3 reporters, who do not have acess to classified information, told them she was.
its possible i guess. god knows most republicans are willing to put their trust in career politicians over a CIA operative, three reporters, an ambassador in high standing, and a lawyer.
dont think the rest of the world or a jury will buy it though, but hey, good luck.
-----------------------------------------
rofl. lets see, Wilson, Cooper, Novack, and the three reporters all hatched a conspiracy to attack Rove and Libby.
and the rest of us are supposed to believe that Rove and Libby, who have access to classified informaion, DID NOT KNOW who valery wilson was, or that she was a CIA agent untill 3 reporters, who do not have acess to classified information, told them she was.
its possible i guess. god knows most republicans are willing to put their trust in career politicians over a CIA operative, three reporters, an ambassador in high standing, and a lawyer.
dont think the rest of the world or a jury will buy it though, but hey, good luck.
shadowrelm wrote:
Like Wilson we're supposed to believe this Cooper guy?
-----------------------------------------
rofl. lets see, Wilson, Cooper, Novack, and the three reporters all hatched a conspiracy to attack Rove and Libby.
-----------------------------------------
rofl. lets see, Wilson, Cooper, Novack, and the three reporters all hatched a conspiracy to attack Rove and Libby.
First off. Wilson is Valerie Plame's husband, not a reporter. He worked in the National Security Council under Bill Clinton. Basicaly, he was a diplomat. Not a reporter.
Let's get the story straight here. Wilson was critical of Bush's decision to go into Iraq. He wandered off "unofficially" to Niger to see if he could counter a Bush claim about Iraq attempting to obtain uranium there. When Novak was researching an article (he's actually a reporter!), he found out that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. His interest in that fact wasn't to out anyone, but purely to figure out why Wilson went in the first place. There was a gap in the story since without a connection to anyone in the intelligence branch, there would be no reasonable method for Wilson to do any fact finding. Finding out that his wife set him up with contacts so he could do some digging made the whole thing make sense.
Novak told Rove about Wilson's wife working for the CIA. At this point, we don't know who told Novak. However, Novak has stated that it was a matter of "public knowledge" that she worked for the CIA. That implies that while he did get confirmation from two senior White house officials, the information itself wasn't really "secret". It's the kind of thing one hears around a dinner table at a party perhaps. Again. We don't know yet how he learned this. However, it's clear that he had no way to know that she was a "secret" operative for the CIA. When he asked the CIA about it, he was simply told that they could not comment on her current status (pretty standard really). So it's not like he didn't try to find out. No one knew (which makes sense, since anyone telling him she was a NOC would have been violating the law even if Novak knew she was working for the CIA already).
Quote:
and the rest of us are supposed to believe that Rove and Libby, who have access to classified informaion, DID NOT KNOW who valery wilson was, or that she was a CIA agent untill 3 reporters, who do not have acess to classified information, told them she was.
Why on earth assume otherwise? Rove and Libby are advisors. Someone else pointed this out in a previous thread on this topic. Having a clearance does not automatically allow you to see anything you want. A NOC list is need to know only. Rove and Libby would have *no* reason to need to know who was working covertly for the CIA. None. Any request of such information would be known by the CIA, and they'd know who was told (and would have included a ton of paperwork and non-disclosure type stuff as well). You can wet dream about Libby and Rove looking her up in some database by typing in their super-secret passwords or something, but that's simply not how it works. If they'd been released to know that information there would be a paper trail about it. There wouldn't be any investigation since it would be obvious that they knew and they told. The fact that anyone's even asking questions of the two of them is the best evidence we have that they *didn't* have access to that information.
The point of the investigation is to find out how Libby and Rove found out. How Novak found out. What order they found out in. Who they learned it from. How that person/people found out, etc, until they hopefully find the source of the leak. That person, by definition will be someone for whom access to Valerie Plame's NOC status was released officially and who released that information to someone else who was *not* supposed to know it.
Quote:
its possible i guess. god knows most republicans are willing to put their trust in career politicians over a CIA operative, three reporters, an ambassador in high standing, and a lawyer.
dont think the rest of the world or a jury will buy it though, but hey, good luck.
dont think the rest of the world or a jury will buy it though, but hey, good luck.
Huh? What jury? Look. There isn't even the slightest evidence of a crime being commited here and you're already deciding what a jury would think? All we know is that Cooper (who is also a reporter) wrote a rather cryptic bit of an email after having a conversation with Rove. That's it. I have to assume that there's alot more to it then that, but at this point, you and I can't make any assumptions based on that. However, since we already have both Rove and Novak stating that Novak knew and told Rove that he knew *before* Rove talked to Cooper, we can't possibly point to Rove's conversation with Cooper and relate it to the outting of Valerie Plame. That conversation had zero bearing on the contents of Novak's article. At worst, you've got Rove passing on information as backstory to an article which neither he nor the person he was talking to believed had any importance (as Novak said, it was just a clarification as to why Wilson went in the first place).
The assumption that the intent of this information was to punish Wilson by attacking his wife is ludicrous. It's far more likely that the original point was to show self interest and nepotism involved in the Wilson account. By showing that the data and contacts were arranged by his wife, they would show that Wilson's investigation wasn't really "official" in any way, and perhaps was a misuse of CIA records and data for a private individual (ie: Valerie could have been breaking some laws by passing information to her husband about Niger and Iraq). That was the probable intent by including her in the story. It's incredibly unlikely that anyone involved (Novak, Libby, Rove, or Cooper) had any clue that she was technically a NOC (I say technically because there's still no verification that she qualified as such). Certainly, had they known then the last thing they would have done was write about it in a news article, right? You may not like Libby and Rove, but they just aren't that stupid.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Gbaji said in reference to Novak's article on Plame. Novak tries to claim he meant 'analyst' when he said 'operative', just a little slip of the typing fingers....unfortunately, Novak (or whoever proofs for him) never made that particular mistake before....when he meant analyst he said analyst...and when he meant field or undercover agent he said operative. Well, gosh, everybody makes a mistake sooner or later, right?
Oddly enough, I was sure I was going to find somewhere that Boosh said 'involved', and be able to SLAM his now-qualifying statement...but nope, Boosh always said if anyone in his administration had 'violated law', they'd be out the door. McClellan said, on more than one occasion, anyone 'involved' and they'd be gone...but not Boosh. Unfortunately for the neocons, instead of it looking like Georgie backpedaling, it looks more like Georgie knew....and yet he said, over and over again (as did McClellan) that Rove was not (ooo, here comes that word) "INVOLVED." No qualifications, no back door here....they both said repeatedly Rove was not involved in the Plame leak. Oopsers.
Two other quick points of interest...well, interesting to me anyways. First, Rove testified before the grand jury Oct 2004. Against the law for just about anybody to reveal his grand jury testimony...just about anybody except Karl Rove. Karl? Care to tell us what you said under oath in front of the grand jury?
Second, found this on a Plame leak timeline....Oct 2003
Ken Starr's advisor during Whitewater, Samuel Dash writes a Newsday article argueing that the PATRIOT Act should be invoked.
"If, as it now seems likely, top White House aids leaked the identity of an American undercover agent, they may have committed an act of domestic terrorism as defined by the dragnet language of the Patriot Act their boss wanted so much to help him catch terrorists."
He cited Section 802 which defines domestic terrorism as an act that endangers human life while violating criminal laws of the U. S. in order to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population." (Wilson 399 -401)
Yeah, I know, fat chance...but how neat would it be for Rove to be indicted under the Patriot Act? :yippee:
Quote:
However, it's clear that he had no way to know that she was a "secret" operative for the CIA.
Oddly enough, I was sure I was going to find somewhere that Boosh said 'involved', and be able to SLAM his now-qualifying statement...but nope, Boosh always said if anyone in his administration had 'violated law', they'd be out the door. McClellan said, on more than one occasion, anyone 'involved' and they'd be gone...but not Boosh. Unfortunately for the neocons, instead of it looking like Georgie backpedaling, it looks more like Georgie knew....and yet he said, over and over again (as did McClellan) that Rove was not (ooo, here comes that word) "INVOLVED." No qualifications, no back door here....they both said repeatedly Rove was not involved in the Plame leak. Oopsers.
Two other quick points of interest...well, interesting to me anyways. First, Rove testified before the grand jury Oct 2004. Against the law for just about anybody to reveal his grand jury testimony...just about anybody except Karl Rove. Karl? Care to tell us what you said under oath in front of the grand jury?
Second, found this on a Plame leak timeline....Oct 2003
Ken Starr's advisor during Whitewater, Samuel Dash writes a Newsday article argueing that the PATRIOT Act should be invoked.
"If, as it now seems likely, top White House aids leaked the identity of an American undercover agent, they may have committed an act of domestic terrorism as defined by the dragnet language of the Patriot Act their boss wanted so much to help him catch terrorists."
He cited Section 802 which defines domestic terrorism as an act that endangers human life while violating criminal laws of the U. S. in order to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population." (Wilson 399 -401)
Yeah, I know, fat chance...but how neat would it be for Rove to be indicted under the Patriot Act? :yippee:
Nom,
Can we say speculation? Altogether now. So if W's stories stay consistent he knew and engaged in a cover up but if his stories change he's a liar. Makes perfect sense to me LOL.
Could you cite me the law that forbids this?
Oh this is objective; "well it seems like they did so lets get em" by the way more speculation. Anyone else notice the abundance of catch phrases like "seems likely" or "may have" from the press core that's out to roast bush? I guess the days of actually concerning themselves with truth based on fact is long gone for the media.
Varus
Edited, Tue Jul 19 10:03:33 2005 by varrussword
Quote:
Unfortunately for the neocons, instead of it looking like Georgie backpedaling, it looks more like Georgie knew....and yet he said, over and over again
Can we say speculation? Altogether now. So if W's stories stay consistent he knew and engaged in a cover up but if his stories change he's a liar. Makes perfect sense to me LOL.
Quote:
Against the law for just about anybody to reveal his grand jury testimony...
Could you cite me the law that forbids this?
Quote:
"If, as it now seems likely, top White House aids leaked the identity of an American undercover agent, they may have committed an act of domestic terrorism as defined by the dragnet language of the Patriot Act their boss wanted so much to help him catch terrorists."
Oh this is objective; "well it seems like they did so lets get em" by the way more speculation. Anyone else notice the abundance of catch phrases like "seems likely" or "may have" from the press core that's out to roast bush? I guess the days of actually concerning themselves with truth based on fact is long gone for the media.
Varus
Edited, Tue Jul 19 10:03:33 2005 by varrussword
In answer to a direct question in June 2004, when asked if he would fire anyone involved in leaking this information, Bush responded, "Yes."
Now, we all know it's not a fair tactic to ask the President a direct question, because they confuse him. So it's possible that he answered a question other than the one asked.
I do find this interesting, from the AP wire this morning:
So, we're talking about going after someone for perjury and lying. Isn't that ironic? Don't you think?
Now, we all know it's not a fair tactic to ask the President a direct question, because they confuse him. So it's possible that he answered a question other than the one asked.
I do find this interesting, from the AP wire this morning:
Quote:
A former Justice Department official who talks frequently to people involved in the case said signs point to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald focusing on the aftermath of the leak, rather than the disclosure.
"I think he made his decisions months ago that there wasn't a crime when the leak occurred," said the former official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Now, he's looking at a coverup: perjury, obstruction of justice, false statements to an FBI agent."
A few discrepancies have emerged in public statements about the case, offering clues to potential contradictions being examined by the grand jury. Cooper wrote in his Time account of his grand jury appearance that "a surprising line of questioning had to do with, of all things, welfare reform." But Cooper wrote that he "can't find any record of talking about it with him on July 11, and I don't recall doing so." Rove has maintained the conversation was initially about welfare reform, according to a lawyer familiar with his side of the story.
"I think he made his decisions months ago that there wasn't a crime when the leak occurred," said the former official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Now, he's looking at a coverup: perjury, obstruction of justice, false statements to an FBI agent."
A few discrepancies have emerged in public statements about the case, offering clues to potential contradictions being examined by the grand jury. Cooper wrote in his Time account of his grand jury appearance that "a surprising line of questioning had to do with, of all things, welfare reform." But Cooper wrote that he "can't find any record of talking about it with him on July 11, and I don't recall doing so." Rove has maintained the conversation was initially about welfare reform, according to a lawyer familiar with his side of the story.
So, we're talking about going after someone for perjury and lying. Isn't that ironic? Don't you think?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
So, instead of firing people who were involved in the leak, Bush says he'll fire anyone who is convicted of a crime?
Unless the White House has a "work from prison" program I'm not aware of, explain to me how this is a bold stance to be taking. Either Bush has watered down his previous stance or else his initial "outrage" over the leak was a joke from the start.
Unless the White House has a "work from prison" program I'm not aware of, explain to me how this is a bold stance to be taking. Either Bush has watered down his previous stance or else his initial "outrage" over the leak was a joke from the start.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophed,
What part of Rove wasn't involved in the leak don't you understand. You can't leak something that's common knowledge. Rove isn't even under investigation. You liberal loonies are just struggling now that you have absolutely no control over the government. And I'm loving every minute of it. Now it's looking like Bush will get to appoint 2 supremes, times are good.
Varus
Quote:
So, instead of firing people who were involved in the leak, Bush says he'll fire anyone who is convicted of a crime?
What part of Rove wasn't involved in the leak don't you understand. You can't leak something that's common knowledge. Rove isn't even under investigation. You liberal loonies are just struggling now that you have absolutely no control over the government. And I'm loving every minute of it. Now it's looking like Bush will get to appoint 2 supremes, times are good.
Varus
Varruss wrote:
Hey, empty quotes didn't work
Edited, Tue Jul 19 13:02:19 2005 by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
CNN yesterday wrote:
Jack Valenti, a former aide to Democratic President Lyndon Johnson, said he would advise Bush to announce a nominee for the Supreme Court this week to "wipe the Karl Rove story off the front page."
CNN today wrote:
President Bush settled on a nominee for the Supreme Court on Tuesday and the White House made arrangements for a nationally televised prime time announcement.
Well, I guess it beats "Plan B" which was to have Cheney kidnap a pretty white girl
Awww... I'm just funnin' ya
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
He wandered off "unofficially" to Niger to see if he could counter a Bush claim about Iraq attempting to obtain uranium there.
--------------------------------------------------
uhh, no, the CIA recommended sending him to invastigate the claim, and washington approved it.
i love this part, and you will to. a bill Bush signed earlier in 2003 reguarding the leaking of classified material.
executive order 13292, in it, amoung other things,
"REQUIRES that appropriate and prompt corrective administraitive action be taken against ANY U.S. government official who knowingly, willfully, OR NEGLIGENTLY discloses classified information.....yada yada yada......the president MAY NOT WAIT untill crinimal intent and liability are PROVED BY A PROSECUTOR.....
rofl, Bush sponsered this order and signed it. it was in response to the alleged china leak thingy at the time. it gave Bush the authority to immediatly take corrective action BEFORE a prosecution proven crime.
lets see, whats the current stand on the situation?
"i will fire anyone involved..." err "i will fire anyone convicted of a crime" errrr "lets just wait untill the investigation is over"
only the first statement is in complaince with the order he authored. his actions, or inactions as it may be are breaking the order he sponsered just 2 years ago.
under this order he is REQUIRED to take action now.
but then, breaking and bending laws are the republican parties fortee. torture, invasions, defamation, no one does it better. the moral majority working for you....
--------------------------------------------------
uhh, no, the CIA recommended sending him to invastigate the claim, and washington approved it.
i love this part, and you will to. a bill Bush signed earlier in 2003 reguarding the leaking of classified material.
executive order 13292, in it, amoung other things,
"REQUIRES that appropriate and prompt corrective administraitive action be taken against ANY U.S. government official who knowingly, willfully, OR NEGLIGENTLY discloses classified information.....yada yada yada......the president MAY NOT WAIT untill crinimal intent and liability are PROVED BY A PROSECUTOR.....
rofl, Bush sponsered this order and signed it. it was in response to the alleged china leak thingy at the time. it gave Bush the authority to immediatly take corrective action BEFORE a prosecution proven crime.
lets see, whats the current stand on the situation?
"i will fire anyone involved..." err "i will fire anyone convicted of a crime" errrr "lets just wait untill the investigation is over"
only the first statement is in complaince with the order he authored. his actions, or inactions as it may be are breaking the order he sponsered just 2 years ago.
under this order he is REQUIRED to take action now.
but then, breaking and bending laws are the republican parties fortee. torture, invasions, defamation, no one does it better. the moral majority working for you....
Duchess SamiraX wrote:
In answer to a direct question in June 2004, when asked if he would fire anyone involved in leaking this information, Bush responded, "Yes."
Ok. Aren't you playing the semantics game here though? How is this different from when you guys were trying to assume Rove was going to play the "I didn't actually name her name" defense?
It's semantics. The word "involved" can mean a lot of different things. You're choosing an incredibly broad definition to say that anyone who found out that Plame worked for the CIA and mentioned it to anyone else is "involved" in the Plame leak.
Also. That's the questioners words, not Bushs. We have to assume that the prepared statement is the more accurate, since Bush can't control exactly what words someone will use when questioning him, or the possible alternative interpretations those words could have after the fact.
This is similar to when you guys were trying to argue Cheney had done something wrong because he was "involved" in the Pentagon decision to hire Halliburton. Of course, his involvement consisted of being informed of the decision after the fact, but that didn't stop many people from crying fould. This is kinda the same. Rove was "involved", but he was not the source of the leak. He did not do anything wrong. That level of involvement was not what Bush was thinking about when the question was asked.
By that logic, he should fire his own investigative staff, right? They're "involved" as well, right?
Stop playing semantics. It was very obvious to all what Bush was talking about when he answered that question. Twisting the words around to try to make Rove fit just makes you all look that much more desperate.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
That's what I said. Direct questions confuse and frighten him, and are therefore unfair.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
What, exactly, would be so hard about Bush answering the question with "If they committed a crime, yes." And, again, what exactly is so hardline about saying he'd fire anyone who committed a crime? I'd hope firing people who commit felonies while working in the administration is standard operating proceedure.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Duchess SamiraX wrote:
That's what I said. Direct questions confuse and frighten him, and are therefore unfair.
Lol! But in this case, we're talking about a double ended question. One that clearly means one thing in the context it was asked, but can be made to look like it means something else when taken out of context. The clear meaning of "involved" when Bush was asked the question was "involved in revealing Plames NOC identity". Rove doesn't satisfy that definition at all. First off, he didn't know she was a NOC. Secondly, while he did discuss the fact that she worked at the CIA with Cooper, Cooper didn't write the story that outted her. Novak did. Rove's "involvement" was peripherary at best.
Your definition of a "direct question" is pretty interesting to say the least...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
By the way, here's a nice quote from Bush in '01 regarding the importance of lip-zipping:
Now, of course, it ain't no thang. Leak all you want! No troops at risk now!
Quote:
Q.: Mr. President, when you meet with the congressional leadership tomorrow, will you be specific about what they can and cannot relay back up to the Hill? Or, do you just expect them not to relay anything?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m going to talk to the leaders about this. I have talked to them about it. I mean, when the classified information first seeped into the public, I called him on the phone and said, this can’t stand. We can’t have leaks of classified information. It’s not in our nation’s interest. But we’re now in extraordinary times. And I was in the — when those leaks occurred, by the way, it was right before we committed troops. And I knew full well what was about to happen. And yet, I see in the media that somebody, or somebodies, feel that they should be able to talk about classified information. And that’s just wrong. The leadership understands that…But I want Congress to hear loud and clear, it is unacceptable behavior to leak classified information when we have troops at risk. I’m looking forward to reiterating that message…But one thing is for certain, I have made clear what I expect from Capitol Hill when it comes to classified information.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m going to talk to the leaders about this. I have talked to them about it. I mean, when the classified information first seeped into the public, I called him on the phone and said, this can’t stand. We can’t have leaks of classified information. It’s not in our nation’s interest. But we’re now in extraordinary times. And I was in the — when those leaks occurred, by the way, it was right before we committed troops. And I knew full well what was about to happen. And yet, I see in the media that somebody, or somebodies, feel that they should be able to talk about classified information. And that’s just wrong. The leadership understands that…But I want Congress to hear loud and clear, it is unacceptable behavior to leak classified information when we have troops at risk. I’m looking forward to reiterating that message…But one thing is for certain, I have made clear what I expect from Capitol Hill when it comes to classified information.
Now, of course, it ain't no thang. Leak all you want! No troops at risk now!
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Duchess SamiraX wrote:
That's what I said. Direct questions confuse and frighten him, and are therefore unfair.
Damn it, Samira! Quit trying to cloud the issue with your partisan clarity!
Recent Visitors: 197
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (197)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Rove was Time reporter's source.....
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC