Rove was Time reporter's source.....Follow

Clearer now?

It does not matter if a reporter releases the classified information to the public or not. If they do not have the clearance for the information they should never get it. The ones who should get the most punishment are the sources.


So if information is given out, that is not known it is classified, that person is not guilty? In that case did you have no problem with what Riviara tried to do in Iraq?

Why won't Gbaji answer?

every one is focusing on the small issue and ignoring the bigger isssue, just like the torture thing.

does anyone really think Rove or Libby would expose a CIA agent WITHOUT the Presidents knowledg and or consent?

does any one really think a solder would take it upon himself, or herself, to take a prisoner out of his cell and do what was done WITHOUT the consent or direct order from a superrior?

does anyone really think an interroagator could subject a prisoner to torture without an order to do so?

we are squabbeling over the technicalities like a bunch of children while everything this country USED to stand for gets trampled on. our integrity, our honor, and our faith are not hinged on technicalities, but on our actions.

to not act is to condone the action.

this entire addministraition needs to go, or the people of this country need to accept responsibility for their action.

YOU are letting these things happen. YOU who voted republican.

YOU need to stand up and take credit for this mess, or lead the charge for ending it. squabeling about the technicalities of dishonor does not make it any less dishonorable.

the world is watching, AND waiting. we will be judged according to what we do about this mess, not how we hide it behind a technicality.

What mess? Everything the liberal media has thrown at the Bush administration has been utterly disproven. From the b*llsh*t torture charges to the accusations that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.
------------------------------------------

this, people, is exactly why Bush is pesident. ignorance. blind faith. stupidity.

Ahhh... so it's the liberals fault that Bush didn't give a complete answer. Of course. How silly of me.

How goes the okra crop, Gbaji?

Because it's *not*. "leaking secure information" means you have to know it's supposed to be secure and tell someone else. That also, coincidentally enough, happens to be a crime.

You're ignoring parts of the quote. You can attempt to twist the words around, but the fact is that the administrationn was *very* clear about what it considered a "leak" in this case. You're trying to redefine "leak" as anyone who heard something and told someone else. A "leak" is someone who knows some priviledged information and tells someone who's not supposed to know.

You're still playing semantic games to try to imply what you want. Unless Rove had access to the fact of Plame's status via some official mechanism and then knowingly passed that information on, he's not "the leak", he didn't commit a crime, and he should not be fired.

Get it? You don't fire someone unless they do something wrong. Rove didn't. He heard that Plame worked for the CIA from Novak, and told Cooper. At no point was he leaking anything since he had no way to know that this was information that should not have been in the field in the first place. Until someone comes up with even a shred of evidence to suggest that Rove knew this was classified information, there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

Why would you demand someone be fired when they didn't do anything wrong?

Yes and no. It's talked about all the time. If you're refering to Novak's decision to use her cover identity "Valerie Plame", you'd be correct. If you're talking about someone mentioning to someone else that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, that really wouldn't be that unusual, especially in the context of explaining why Wilson was sent by the CIA to investigate the Niger-Iraq uranium thing in the first place.

In the second case, it's a significant "hole" filled in the story. Wilson's accounts aside, there's no reason why the CIA would approach Wilson for this assignment. While he's been to Niger in the past and worked in Iraq for a number of years, those aren't the same sort of qualifications one would look for to investigate something like this. Certainly, noting that his wife worked for the CIA, and in the WMD investigations unit no less, is a significant piece of the story and helps to explain a hell of a lot.



Since I haven't read the memo, I can't comment on what it says. That depends entirely on who said the words "fair game" and what the person meant. Fair game in that the relationship between her and Wilson and how that ties to him going to investigate a potential WMD purchase in Niger? Yeah. Fair game in terms of knowingling outting her as a covert agent? I'm reasonably sure that's not at all their intent.


Heck. According to Wilson, Novak told someone who he thought was a random stranger on the street (it was actually a friend of Wilson's sent to troll for info and find out what Novak was working on) that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and that she was the person who arranged for Wilson to go in the first place. If the "news" was her identity alone, and the objective was just to out her, and he thought this was "secret" information that he and he alone would be revealing in his article, would he have told a random person on the street about it? Novak at least didn't think her identity was that much of a secret. His article was about connecting the dots between Wilson's trip to Niger and the CIA's investigation into the same. It was not about Valerie Plame.

I have worked in the Intel field for over 10 years and know plenty of CIA agents. The fact that they work there isnt classified and while I dont go shouting from the roof tops everyday I have talked about them with other people. (who arent cleared) Granted what I say never ends up in the papers or on National TV but it really isnt that big a deal. NoC agents make up such a small number of the people at the CIA that it would be an anomoly to meet one, and even if you did you wouldnt know it.



Edited, Thu Jul 21 00:02:02 2005 by DamthebiTch

Jophed,



Since when does the burden of proof lie with the accused? Shouldn't you be the one providing sources to support your wild and unsubstantiated claims from reporters quoting anonymous sources? Oh that's right he's a republican and in your own words you always "assume the worst" That is of course unless it's a democrat that's under the microscope then unless it affects how they do their job everythings ok.

Varus

See? I knew I shouldn't turn off the filter but it's a slow morning and.. bleah.

Whether or not Rove is the accussed has nothing to do with asking Gbaji to cite information. Given that Gbaji was apparently unaware of how many reporters are at a press conference and tried to base an argument on the idea that a single reporter was repeatedly hounding McClellan, I'm really loathe to just take him at his word when he starts spouting off about how the media regularly handles discussing CIA agents.

Again, Gbaji has a history of speaking very authoritatively on topics it turns out he knows jack about. Which I'm sure sounds very convincing to people unused to it.

Heh.. I was referring more to Gbaji's claims about common chit-chat.

Again, what we do know so far is that (A) there was a leak, (B) It was a serious enough breech to investigate it with some fairly important people at the helm for a couple years and (C) Rove (and Libby) has been named as a source in the leak.

Since (C), the Administration has suddenly become rather evasive about the whole deal as opposed to firm stances that no one from the White House had any dealings and the actions they would take. Some people are apologetic about it, most people are viewing it with suspicion. Last poll (from earlier this week) I saw had less than 25% of Americans believing Bush and the Administration are being square about it at this point. Which, admittably, is conjecture but it goes beyond a fringe group of liberals creating conspiracy theories.