Karl Rove, Whistleblower

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Karl Rove, Whistleblower

He told the truth about Joe Wilson.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying for Karl Rove's head over his role in exposing a case of CIA nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. On the contrary, we'd say the White House political guru deserves a prize--perhaps the next iteration of the "Truth-Telling" award that The Nation magazine bestowed upon Mr. Wilson before the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed him as a fraud.

For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real "whistleblower" in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He's the one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility. He's the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove.

Media chants aside, there's no evidence that Mr. Rove broke any laws in telling reporters that Ms. Plame may have played a role in her husband's selection for a 2002 mission to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking uranium ore in Niger. To be prosecuted under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Mr. Rove would had to have deliberately and maliciously exposed Ms. Plame knowing that she was an undercover agent and using information he'd obtained in an official capacity. But it appears Mr. Rove didn't even know Ms. Plame's name and had only heard about her work at Langley from other journalists.

On the "no underlying crime" point, moreover, no less than the New York Times and Washington Post now agree. So do the 36 major news organizations that filed a legal brief in March aimed at keeping Mr. Cooper and the New York Times's Judith Miller out of jail.

"While an investigation of the leak was justified, it is far from clear--at least on the public record--that a crime took place," the Post noted the other day. Granted the media have come a bit late to this understanding, and then only to protect their own, but the logic of their argument is that Mr. Rove did nothing wrong either.

The same can't be said for Mr. Wilson, who first "outed" himself as a CIA consultant in a melodramatic New York Times op-ed in July 2003. At the time he claimed to have thoroughly debunked the Iraq-Niger yellowcake uranium connection that President Bush had mentioned in his now famous "16 words" on the subject in that year's State of the Union address.

Mr. Wilson also vehemently denied it when columnist Robert Novak first reported that his wife had played a role in selecting him for the Niger mission. He promptly signed up as adviser to the Kerry campaign and was feted almost everywhere in the media, including repeat appearances on NBC's "Meet the Press" and a photo spread (with Valerie) in Vanity Fair.

But his day in the political sun was short-lived. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report last July cited the note that Ms. Plame had sent recommending her husband for the Niger mission. "Interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD [Counterproliferation Division] employee, suggested his name for the trip," said the report.

The same bipartisan report also pointed out that the forged documents Mr. Wilson claimed to have discredited hadn't even entered intelligence channels until eight months after his trip. And it said the CIA interpreted the information he provided in his debrief as mildly supportive of the suspicion that Iraq had been seeking uranium in Niger.

About the same time, another inquiry headed by Britain's Lord Butler delivered its own verdict on the 16 words: "We conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded."

In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know.

Rest of the Article

[WarTim 3,457]

Alas, libs are not interested in the TRUTH. They want to get KR on anything possible. Even if they must LIE to do it!

[Piglet 0]

Alas, libs are not interested in the TRUTH. They want to get KR on anything possible. Even if they must LIE to do it!

168644[/snapback]

Tim, you're bull***ting yourself. Don't you know the Eleventh Commandment? "Thou Shalt Not Bull**** Thyself".

The Bible says it's a bad deal to trade your soul for the whole world. And here you are, doing it for NOTHING. Just 'cause Rove is a Republican, your crowd is willing to give him a free pass on treason. Shame on you.

Sure, all the talking points come out "factually" disecting everything that Rove "did and did not say" when, at this point, Rove hasn't budged an inch from his (carefully worded in case, you know, the truth came out) position ("I din do nuttin") and nobody knows what the hell he said to the various reporters he apparently didn't leak anything to even though he also did.

There's all that obfuscation about "analyst" vs. "operative," which comes straight from Robert Novak and is total road apples, partly because Valerie Plame's cover was as an analyst for a business that was a CIA front, not as a "CIA analyst." ( Rove and Novak, poor widdle naive dears, want everybody to believe that they just didn't know she worked in the Secret Department, but this is bogus.) Also, Novak flat-out identified her as an "operative" in his original article, although he's been Ministry of Truthing that fact ever since.

And of course, everything's really the fault of Joe Wilson himself, I guess because Wilson didn't expose his wife's position with the CIA in his NYT op-ed piece.

You remember all the Clinton apologists running around swearing that Tricky Dick never touched Monica, and then when that didn't work, turning on a dime, and saying that of course he did and it was nobody's business, and it was all Linda Tripp's fault for pointing it out? You remember how disgusting that was to watch? Well, don't go looking in the mirror any time soon, because right now, that's YOU.

If you believe Rove, I've got some great Louisiana real estate to sell you.

[WarTim 3,457]

What about "INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty? I know a whole lot of the bed wetting libbys remember those words..right?(Hint: "I did not have SEX with that woman, Ms. Lewinski".)

p.s. There are only TEN commandments. You would do well to polish up on them.

[TrueBlue72 0]

Piglet, you need to get back on your medication! You're sounding more delusional each day.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

You're sounding more delusional each day.

168698[/snapback]

Pretty funny coming from you.

Okay, how's this sound: "Rove's a hero! Give him a medal!"

[Tigermike 3,053]

Just 'cause Rove is a Republican, your crowd is willing to give him a free pass on treason.  Shame on you.

If you believe Rove, I've got some great Louisiana real estate to sell you.

168648[/snapback]

Actually it's just the opposite of your rant. At this point I am not willing to listen or believe anything coming from the democrats. Their agenda is to smear and convict Rove and with those acts attempt to destroy the Bush administration.

I will choose to believe the prosecutor. But anything coming from the DNC automatically needs to be filtered thru a BS meter. Anything coming from the RNC needs to be filtered thru an anti BS meter.

If you want to be fair about things cut down on the talk of treason. At this point we don't know.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

Okay, how's this sound:  "Rove's a hero!  Give him a medal!"

168702[/snapback]

You and John Gibson are on the same page: Link

I say give Karl Rove a medal, even if Bush has to fire him.

Why? Because Valerie Plame should have been outed by somebody. And if nobody else had the cojones to do it, I'm glad Rove did — if he did do it, and he still says he didn't.

Why should she have been outed? Well despite her husband's repeated denials, even in the face of a pile of evidence and conclusions from a Senate investigation, it appears all evidence points to Joe Wilson's wife, spy Valerie Plame, as the one who recommended him for the job of going to Niger to discover is Saddam was trying to buy nuke bomb materials.

Why is this important? Because Wilson was opposed to the war in Iraq, opposed to Bush policy, and pointedly and loudly said so.

Consequently, it was of some interest how he got chosen for this sensitive job which people at the time might have thought would be a fulcrum point for a decision about the war.

You wouldn't send a peacenik to see if we should go to war, if we need to go to war, now would you?

That's exactly what happened, and as they say in the news biz: Inquiring minds wanted to know, "How the heck did this happen?"

Well, turns out the wife did it.

She touted husband Joe, her CIA bosses bit, and off Wilson went to completely knock down any notion Saddam wanted Niger's nuke bomb making stuff, which is called yellow cake.

Problem is, the report of the Select Committee on Intelligence says the information showed no such thing. That, in fact, it was still a bit of a mystery and Saddam could well have been trying to buy the nuke bomb material.

So why should Rove get a medal?

Let's just assume that spy Valerie Plame knew her husband's attitudes about the war in Iraq and George W. Bush's policies. Sending him off to Niger could be regarded as an attempt to influence national policies.

Where I come from, we want to know who that is. We do not want secret spymasters pulling the puppet strings in the background. That is something that should be out in the open and the person doing it should own up to it.

Rove should get a medal — if he did what he says he didn't.

That's My Word.

Watch John Gibson weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on "The Big Story" and send your comments to: myword@foxnews.com

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Okay, how's this sound:  "Rove's a hero!  Give him a medal!"

168702[/snapback]

You and John Gibson are on the same page: Link

I say give Karl Rove a medal, even if Bush has to fire him.

Why? Because Valerie Plame should have been outed by somebody. And if nobody else had the cojones to do it, I'm glad Rove did — if he did do it, and he still says he didn't.

Why should she have been outed? Well despite her husband's repeated denials, even in the face of a pile of evidence and conclusions from a Senate investigation, it appears all evidence points to Joe Wilson's wife, spy Valerie Plame, as the one who recommended him for the job of going to Niger to discover is Saddam was trying to buy nuke bomb materials.

Why is this important? Because Wilson was opposed to the war in Iraq, opposed to Bush policy, and pointedly and loudly said so.

Consequently, it was of some interest how he got chosen for this sensitive job which people at the time might have thought would be a fulcrum point for a decision about the war.

You wouldn't send a peacenik to see if we should go to war, if we need to go to war, now would you?

That's exactly what happened, and as they say in the news biz: Inquiring minds wanted to know, "How the heck did this happen?"

Well, turns out the wife did it.

She touted husband Joe, her CIA bosses bit, and off Wilson went to completely knock down any notion Saddam wanted Niger's nuke bomb making stuff, which is called yellow cake.

Problem is, the report of the Select Committee on Intelligence says the information showed no such thing. That, in fact, it was still a bit of a mystery and Saddam could well have been trying to buy the nuke bomb material.

So why should Rove get a medal?

Let's just assume that spy Valerie Plame knew her husband's attitudes about the war in Iraq and George W. Bush's policies. Sending him off to Niger could be regarded as an attempt to influence national policies.

Where I come from, we want to know who that is. We do not want secret spymasters pulling the puppet strings in the background. That is something that should be out in the open and the person doing it should own up to it.

Rove should get a medal — if he did what he says he didn't.

That's My Word.

Watch John Gibson weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on "The Big Story" and send your comments to: myword@foxnews.com

168727[/snapback]

Yeah, I'd seen that. Except I'm being very sarcastic.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Actually it's just the opposite of your rant.  At this point I am not willing to listen or believe anything coming from the democrats.  Their agenda is to smear and convict Rove and with those acts attempt to destroy the Bush administration.

I will choose to believe the prosecutor.  But anything coming from the DNC automatically needs to be filtered thru a BS meter.  Anything coming from the RNC needs to be filtered thru an anti BS meter.

If you want to be fair about things cut down on the talk of treason.  At this point we don't know.

168711[/snapback]

Well put, my friend. Tim made a great point as well when he spoke about reserving

judgement until he is proven guilty. Rove deserves that, right? I thought innocent until proven guilty was one of the protections of the law we Americans cherished. The press and the libs already have Rove convicted and sentenced. In my opinion, the witches of Salem received a fairer judicial hearing than Rove is getting.

Rove should take all this attention as a compliment though. It appears the extreme left is terrified of him and will pull no stops to get him out of the picture.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Actually it's just the opposite of your rant.  At this point I am not willing to listen or believe anything coming from the democrats.  Their agenda is to smear and convict Rove and with those acts attempt to destroy the Bush administration.

I will choose to believe the prosecutor.  But anything coming from the DNC automatically needs to be filtered thru a BS meter.  Anything coming from the RNC needs to be filtered thru an anti BS meter.

If you want to be fair about things cut down on the talk of treason.  At this point we don't know.

168711[/snapback]

Well put, my friend. Tim made a great point as well when he spoke about reserving

judgement until he is proven guilty. Rove deserves that, right? I thought innocent until proven guilty was one of the protections of the law we Americans cherished. The press and the libs already have Rove convicted and sentenced. In my opinion, the witches of Salem received a fairer judicial hearing than Rove is getting.

Rove should take all this attention as a compliment though. It appears the extreme left is terrified of him and will pull no stops to get him out of the picture.

168733[/snapback]

Yeah, well before Tim made his "great point" he made one that Rove was innocent because it was all liberal lies. You make the same insinuation. The fact is, I don't think anyone on this board knows the whole truth yet. But whether he is guilty of a crime, it is obvious that something is wrong with this picture:

Q All right. Let me just follow up. You said this morning, "The President knows" that Karl Rove wasn't involved. How does he know that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. I saw some comments this morning from the person who made that suggestion, backing away from that. And I said it is simply not true. So, I mean, it's public knowledge. I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove --. . . I'm not going to get into conversations that the President has with advisors or staff or anything of that nature; that's not my practice.

Q . . . I'm not asking what you said, I'm asking if the President has a factual basis for saying -- for your statement that he knows Karl Rove --

MR. McCLELLAN: He's aware of what I've said, that there is simply no truth to that suggestion. And I have spoken with Karl about it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030929-7.html

So did Rove lie to the President? To Scotty boy? Did Bush lie about what he "knew"?

We may not know if it fits the definition of a crime yet, but Karl was admittely "involved." Can we at least recognize the facts not in dispute while the others are being sorted out?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Yeah, well before Tim made his "great point" he made one that Rove was innocent because it was all liberal lies.  You make the same insinuation.  The fact is, I don't think anyone on this board knows the whole truth yet.  But whether he is guilty of a crime, it is obvious that something is wrong with this picture:

I hold him as innocent until something is presented that he knowingly committed a crime. The investigation is ongoing, so all this gossip being thrown about by both sides is nothing but speculation, accusation, and innuendo. Were this a civil matter, Rove would have every right to request the case be moved to a different locale based on the tainting of the jury pool.

We may not know if it fits the definition of a crime yet, but Karl was admittely "involved."  Can we at least recognize the facts not in dispute while the others are being sorted out?

168734[/snapback]

If it's not a crime, then what is he "involved" in? Why is the government wasting time with an investigation when it could be better spent on another important issue?

Why not wait, instead of getting our panties all in a wad, until the investigation concludes then make our judgements about what should or should not be done. This option makes more sense to me.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Yeah, well before Tim made his "great point" he made one that Rove was innocent because it was all liberal lies.  You make the same insinuation.  The fact is, I don't think anyone on this board knows the whole truth yet.  But whether he is guilty of a crime, it is obvious that something is wrong with this picture:

I hold him as innocent until something is presented that he knowingly committed a crime. The investigation is ongoing, so all this gossip being thrown about by both sides is nothing but speculation, accusation, and innuendo. Were this a civil matter, Rove would have every right to request the case be moved to a different locale based on the tainting of the jury pool.

We may not know if it fits the definition of a crime yet, but Karl was admittely "involved."  Can we at least recognize the facts not in dispute while the others are being sorted out?

168734[/snapback]

If it's not a crime, then what is he "involved" in? Why is the government wasting time with an investigation when it could be better spent on another important issue?

Why not wait, instead of getting our panties all in a wad, until the investigation concludes then make our judgements about what should or should not be done. This option makes more sense to me.

168735[/snapback]

Yeah, you've made no conclusions:

If it's not a crime, then what is he "involved" in? Why is the government wasting time with an investigation when it could be better spent on another important issue?

I didn't say it wasn't a "crime." Apparently the prosecutor thinks there is something potentially criminal that happened or he wouldn't be "wasting time with an investigation." What all he has, however, we don't know.

Okay, so if proven guilty through the justice system is the standard we are going to insist on for this board now, I'm sure you will get equally upset when folks call Teddy a killer or say that Clinton perjured himself. Neither were never convicted.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I haven't made any conculsions because I don't know all the details in the case. Right now we have "he said, she said" and members of both sides ratcheting up over something that might turn out similar to the national guard memo scandal of last fall. I'm sure if we gave the independent council enough time, the truth will eventualy come out. I initally offered a different perspective other than the typical liberal sabre rattling. He may be found guilty of committing a crime, or he may be the victim of nothing more than a liberal smear campaign. Time will tell. I prefer to wait and see.

If he's found guilty, then let the law handle it. I'm sure it will. If he's not guilty, will the liberal lynch mob rush forward to offer an apology to Rove for besmirching his name? I really doubt that will happen. They'll look for the next "witch" to burn.

Even you TexasTiger, with your donkey blue blinders on, have to see the differences in the Rove case compared to Kennedy and Clinton. When a cold, wet, lifeless body is found in the front seat of your car that has just been fished out of a river and you are yourself are standing around wearing sopping wet clothes, chances are you had direct involvement in whatever transpired there. If you are impeached for committing perjury by the US Senate, when your very words to the American people backed up the claim that you lied before Congress, chances are very good you committed the crime.

Like I said, time will tell in this case and, since I hate sitting around in bunched up drawers, I think I will wait on the results of the investigation before I get too excited.

[WarTim 3,457]

Here is the short version according to the libs: "Rove helped put Bush back into office for FOUR MORE YEARS, thus, he must be a vile human and GUILTY of any and all things possible."

Does that cover it?

UPDATE: Liberals do not like President Bush. As a matter of FACT, they HATE him with great glee. Anything that they can say or do to put ANY member of his cabinet or staff in a bad light, rest assured they will do it. (I just didn't want to be accused of not stating my thoughts in a clear and well thought out manner.)

[Auburn85 432]

if he's guilty...he should be punished...not have his head put on a platter. plus, if he's guilty, some dems will won't be satisfied with the punishment..... some will say the investigation took too long, they should have done it this way or that way.....and then throw in the WMD story about how this asminstration can't be trusted

if he's found not guilty...some democrats won't believe that...they will yell coverup

The dems ought to wait for the investigation to end and then attack

If some of the dems were smart, they would be looking to solve society's problems

instead they're on a campaign against Rove

The dems could be taking advantage of the situation because the r's are having to face this rove thing everyday now

and what do some dems do today? they try to get a piece of legislation to show up who? rove

its amazing that rove has been pushed to the top of the democratic agenda

I thought they were the party for the working people?

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Even you TexasTiger, with your donkey blue blinders on, have to see the differences in the Rove case compared to Kennedy and Clinton. When a cold, wet, lifeless body is found in the front seat of your car that has just been fished out of a river and you are yourself are standing around wearing sopping wet clothes, chances are you had direct involvement in whatever transpired there. If you are impeached for committing perjury by the US Senate, when your very words to the American people backed up the claim that you lied before Congress, chances are very good you committed the crime.

168748[/snapback]

While the facts are different for all cases, your bias won't let you see that the principle you claim to hold applies to all three.

Clinton tried to decieve Paula Jones attorneys and the American people, but was it the crime of perjury? That is a legal question for which he would have legalistic arguments. Perjury is a specific legal term with different elements that must be met. He was not convicted of it and likely would not have been in a court of law. And "lied before Congress"? Huh? An impeachment is essentially an indictment by a political body. The Senate did not find him guilty of the charges brought by the house.

The fact that Teddy drove into the water Chappaquiddick and a young woman died is not in dispute. It also appeared that there was inappropriate behaviour going on. A crime? That is a legal question. And he was never found guilty of a crime. It is also a fact that Laura Bush once hit someone when she was driving and killed him. Was it manslaughter or vehicular homicide? No court ever found it to be.

Rove has now admitted to having shared the information the WH once claimed he had no involvment in. His defense in regard to the violation of law is highly legalistic-- e.g. didn't say her name, just said it was Wilson's wife -- I love that Republicans can actually say that with a straight face-- shows a total lack of integrity. To Piglet it is as "obvious" that Rove had direct involvement in inappropriate, and perhaps illegal, conduct as it is for you that Clinton and Teddy were. It is indisputable that the WH lied about it.

People are either innocent until proven guilty or they are not. Don't cherry pick and claim principle is guiding you.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

While the facts are different for all cases, your bias won't let you see that the principle you claim to hold applies to all three. 

Clinton tried to decieve Paula Jones attorneys and the American people, but was it the crime of perjury?  That is a legal question for which he would have legalistic arguments.  Perjury is a specific legal term with different elements that must be met.  He was not convicted of it and likely would not have been in a court of law.  And "lied before Congress"?  Huh?  An impeachment is essentially an indictment by a political body. The Senate did not find him guilty of the charges brought by the house.

The fact that Teddy drove into the water Chappaquiddick and a young woman died is not in dispute.  It also appeared that there  was inappropriate behaviour going on.  A crime?  That is a legal question.  And he was never found guilty of a crime.  It is also a fact that Laura Bush once hit someone when she was driving and killed him.  Was it manslaughter or vehicular homicide?  No court ever found it to be.

Rove has now admitted to having shared the information the WH once claimed he had no involvment in.  His defense in regard to the violation of law is highly legalistic--  e.g. didn't say her name, just said it was Wilson's wife -- I love that Republicans can actually say that with a straight face-- shows a total lack of integrity.  To Piglet it is as "obvious" that Rove had direct involvement in inappropriate, and perhaps illegal, conduct as it is for you that Clinton and Teddy were.  It is indisputable that the WH lied about it.

People are either innocent until proven guilty or they are not.  Don't cherry pick and claim principle is guiding you.

168824[/snapback]

Whatever, dude. I'm not going to waste my day arguing what the definition of "is" is. You're right, Teddy was sober that night back in June of 1969 and didn't try to cover up anything, Clinton spoke nothing but the truth before the Judiciary committee and the impeachment was nothing more than a big vast right wing conspiracy to bring down the most honest man in the history of the United States of America......blah blah blah......

AP: Journos Told Rove of CIA Agent ID

Friday, July 15, 2005

WASHINGTON — Presidential confidant Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he learned the identity of a CIA operative originally from journalists, then informally discussed the information with a Time magazine reporter days before the story broke, according to a person briefed on the testimony.

The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, told The Associated Press that Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA.

Rove testified that Novak originally called him the Tuesday before Plame's identity was revealed in July 2003 to discuss another story. The conversation eventually turned to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was strongly criticizing the Bush administration's Iraq war policy and the intelligence it used to justify the war, the source said.

The person said Rove testified that Novak told him he had learned and planned to report in a weekend column that Wilson's wife, Plame, had worked for the CIA, and the circumstances on how her husband traveled to Africa to check bogus claims of alleged nuclear material sales to Iraq.

Novak's column, citing two Bush administration officials, appeared six days later, touching off a political firestorm and leading to a federal criminal investigation into who leaked Plame's undercover identity. That probe has ensnared presidential aides and reporters in a two-year legal battle.

<snip>

Rove told the grand jury that by the time Novak had called him, he believes he had similar information about Wilson's wife from another reporter but had no recollection of which reporter had told him about it first, the source said.

When Novak inquired about Wilson's wife working for the CIA, Rove indicated he had heard something like that, according to the source's recounting of the grand jury testimony.

Rove told the grand jury that four days later, he had a phone conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and — in an effort to discredit some of Wilson's allegations — told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, though he never used her name.

An e-mail Cooper recently provided the grand jury shows Cooper reported to his magazine bosses that Rove had described Wilson's wife in a confidential conversation as someone who "apparently works" at the CIA.

<snip>

In an interview on CNN Thursday before the latest revelation, Wilson kept up his criticism of the White House, saying Rove's conduct was an "outrageous abuse of power ... certainly worthy of frog-marching out of the White House."

But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said.

Federal law prohobits goverment officials from divulging the identity of an undercover intelligence officer. But in order to bring charges, prosecutors must prove the official knew the officer was covert and nonetheless outed his or her identity.

<snip>

Link

[TexasTiger 13,017]

While the facts are different for all cases, your bias won't let you see that the principle you claim to hold applies to all three. 

Clinton tried to decieve Paula Jones attorneys and the American people, but was it the crime of perjury?  That is a legal question for which he would have legalistic arguments.  Perjury is a specific legal term with different elements that must be met.  He was not convicted of it and likely would not have been in a court of law.  And "lied before Congress"?  Huh?  An impeachment is essentially an indictment by a political body. The Senate did not find him guilty of the charges brought by the house.

The fact that Teddy drove into the water Chappaquiddick and a young woman died is not in dispute.  It also appeared that there  was inappropriate behaviour going on.  A crime?  That is a legal question.  And he was never found guilty of a crime.  It is also a fact that Laura Bush once hit someone when she was driving and killed him.  Was it manslaughter or vehicular homicide?  No court ever found it to be.

Rove has now admitted to having shared the information the WH once claimed he had no involvment in.  His defense in regard to the violation of law is highly legalistic--  e.g. didn't say her name, just said it was Wilson's wife -- I love that Republicans can actually say that with a straight face-- shows a total lack of integrity.  To Piglet it is as "obvious" that Rove had direct involvement in inappropriate, and perhaps illegal, conduct as it is for you that Clinton and Teddy were.  It is indisputable that the WH lied about it.

People are either innocent until proven guilty or they are not.  Don't cherry pick and claim principle is guiding you.

168824[/snapback]

Whatever, dude. I'm not going to waste my day arguing what the definition of "is" is. You're right, Teddy was sober that night back in June of 1969 and didn't try to cover up anything, Clinton spoke nothing but the truth before the Judiciary committee and the impeachment was nothing more than a big vast right wing conspiracy to bring down the most honest man in the history of the United States of America......blah blah blah......

<snip>

Link

168849[/snapback]

Whatever, dude. You can't just make an intelligent response to a post you take issue with, you have to grossly distort and mischaracterize what the other person said. Fine. Just don't pretend you're taking some highly principled position, when all you ever do is spout partisan talking points.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

And once again, the brutally frank Ann Coulter offers her assessment: Link

MISSION IMPLAUSIBLE

July 13, 2005

Karl Rove was right. The real story about Joseph C. Wilson IV was not that Bush lied about Saddam seeking uranium in Africa; the story was Clown Wilson and his paper-pusher wife, Valerie Plame. By foisting their fantasies of themselves on the country, these two have instigated a massive criminal investigation, the result of which is: The only person who has demonstrably lied and possibly broken the law is Joseph Wilson.

So the obvious solution is to fire Karl Rove.

Clown Wilson thrust himself on the nation in July 2003 when he wrote an op-ed for The New York Times claiming Bush had lied in his State of the Union address. He said Bush was referring to Wilson's own "report" when Bush said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

But that is not what Wilson says he found! Thus, his column had the laughably hubristic title, "What I Didn't Find in Africa." (Once I couldn't find my car for hours after a Dead show. I call the experience: "What I Didn't Find in San Francisco.")

Driven by that weird obsession liberals have of pretending they are Republicans in order to attack Republicans, Wilson implied he had been sent to Niger by Vice President Dick Cheney. Among copious other references to Cheney in the op-ed, Wilson said that CIA "officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story" that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy uranium from Niger, "so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

Soon Clown Wilson was going around claiming: "The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked, and that response was based upon my trip out there."

Dick Cheney responded by saying: "I don't know Joe Wilson. I've never met Joe Wilson. I don't know who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back." Clown Wilson's allegation that Cheney had received his (unwritten) "report" was widely repeated as fact by, among others, The New York Times.

In a huffy editorial, the Times suggested there had been a "willful effort" by the Bush administration to slander the great and honorable statesman Saddam Hussein. As evidence, the Times cited Bush's claims about Saddam seeking uranium from Niger, which, the Times said, had been "pretty well discredited" — which, according to my copy of The New York Times Stylebook means "unequivocally corroborated" — "by Joseph Wilson 4th, a former American diplomat, after he was dispatched to Niger by the CIA to look into the issue."

So liberals were allowed to puff up Wilson's "report" by claiming Wilson was sent "by the CIA." But — in the traditional liberal definition of "criminal" — Republicans were not allowed to respond by pointing out Wilson was sent to Niger by his wife, not by the CIA and certainly not by Dick Cheney.

So important was Wilson's fact-finding mission to Niger that he wasn't paid and he produced no written report. It actually buttressed the case that Saddam had tried to buy uranium from Niger, though Wilson was too stupid to realize it. His conclusion is contradicted by the extensive findings of the British government. (I'm not sure, but I think that's what Bush may have been referring to when he said, "the British government.") One could write a book about what Joe Wilson doesn't know about Africa. In fact, I'm pretty sure someone did: Joe Wilson.

About a year later, a bipartisan Senate committee heard testimony from a CIA official that it was Wilson's wife who had "offered up" Wilson for the Niger trip. The committee also discovered a Feb. 12, 2002, memo from Wilson's wife gushing that her husband "has good relations with both the PM (prime minister) and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."

Wilson's response to the production of his wife's memo was: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."

Wilson's report was a hoax. His government bureaucrat wife wanted to get him out of the house, so she sent him on a taxpayer-funded government boondoggle.

That was the information Karl Rove was trying to convey to the media by telling them, as described in the notes of Time reporter Matt Cooper: "big warning"! Don't "get too far out on Wilson."

Democrats believe that because Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, the White House should not have been allowed to mention that it was she who sent him to Niger. But meanwhile, Clown Wilson was free to puff up his apocryphal credentials by implying he had been sent to Niger on an important mission for the vice president by the CIA.

Despite the colloquialism being used on TV to describe the relevant criminal offense, the law does not criminalize "revealing the name" of a covert operative. If it did, every introduction of an operative at a cocktail party or a neighborhood picnic would constitute a felony. "Revealing the name of" is shorthand to describe what the law does criminalize: Intentionally revealing a covert operative as a covert operative, knowing it will blow the operative's cover.

Rove had simply said Wilson went to Niger because of his wife, not his skill, expertise or common sense. It was the clown himself who outed his wife as an alleged "covert" agent by saying he was not recommended by his wife, and thus the White House must have been retaliating against him by mentioning his wife.

Wilson intentionally blew his wife's "cover" in order to lie about how he ended up going to Niger. Far from a serious fact-finding mission, it was a "Take Your Daughters to Work Day" gone bad. Maybe liberals shouldn't have been so insistent about that special prosecutor.

COPYRIGHT 2005 ANN COULTER

Wilson was sent by his wife (and not the VP) to Niger, not paid and produced no written report except for an op-ed rant in the WSJ. Boy, this case is getting curioser & curioser. I'd say the charge of treason against Rove is looking pretty weak about now.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Whatever, dude.  You can't just make an intelligent response to a post you take issue with, you have to grossly distort and mischaracterize what the other person said.  Fine. Just don't pretend you're taking some highly principled position, when all you ever do is spout partisan talking points.

168851[/snapback]

No, I refuse to get led off on another of your wild goose chases. I have stated my point clearly. Whether you accept it is a matter left up to you, and frankly, I could care less.

What is "partisan" about wanting to wait for all the facts to come out from the investigation before coming to a conclusion on the case? Have I come out directly and said, "Karl Rove is innocent" or "Karl Rove is guilty"?. No I haven't, and I won't until I read the results of the investigation.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Whatever, dude.  You can't just make an intelligent response to a post you take issue with, you have to grossly distort and mischaracterize what the other person said.  Fine. Just don't pretend you're taking some highly principled position, when all you ever do is spout partisan talking points.

168851[/snapback]

No, I refuse to get led off on another of your wild goose chases. I have stated my point clearly. Whether you accept it is a matter left up to you, and frankly, I could care less.

What is "partisan" about wanting to wait for all the facts to come out from the investigation before coming to a conclusion on the case? Have I come out directly and said, "Karl Rove is innocent" or "Karl Rove is guilty"?. No I haven't, and I won't until I read the results of the investigation.

168855[/snapback]

Yeah, you've been clear as mud. First of all, you don't just post the article, you highlight and emphasize all the assertions the author makes about Rove being innocent. Now you claim to have no opinion yet on guilt of innocence beause it would be premature.

Then you say this

Tim made a great point as well when he spoke about reserving

judgement until he is proven guilty. Rove deserves that, right? I thought innocent until proven guilty was one of the protections of the law we Americans cherished.

So I thought that was your point. But not if the people you want to pronounce guilty are in the party you hate so much. Then "proven guilty" under the "law" means nothing to you. Yeah, I understand exactly where you stand. You don't, though. Your posts on this thread are a model of hypocrisy and contradiction.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Should your posts that condemn him as guilty without benefit of a hearing not be countered by information that gives the other side of the argument? Oh, I see....only the liberal side of the argument is allowed.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Should your posts that condemn him as guilty without benefit of a hearing not be countered by information that gives the other side of the argument? Oh, I see....only the liberal side of the argument is allowed.

168884[/snapback]

You're funny. You don't mean to be, but you are. My posts "condem[ning] him as guilty"... Like this one?

I didn't say it wasn't a "crime." .

or this one:

The fact is, I don't think anyone on this board knows the whole truth yet.

or this one:

We may not know if it fits the definition of a crime yet

[Tiger in Spain 0]

OK, you've got me there. "Condemn"[ing] him as guilty was a little harsh. How about "assuming him guilty".