Karl Rove - Valerie Plame - Joseph Wilson - Exposing a CIA covert operative

[Blotan Hunka]

There just HAS TO BE a way to implicate Bush. Even if you have to make it up.

 

[michaeledward]

There just HAS TO BE a way to implicate Bush. Even if you have to make it up.

Why?

I mean, why other than for you to build a false 'Straw Man Argument'...

The only thing of which I accuse President Bush is that he failed to honor his commitment to the American People that if someone who worked in his White House leaked classified information, that person would no longer work in the White House.

Karl Rove continues to draw a salary at the taxpayers expense.

http://newsmine.org/archive/cabal-elite/w-administration/cia-identity-leak

 

[Don Roley]

You make no attempt to answer any of the questions I raise .... Matthew Cooper? Judith Miller? You dismiss them.

Because this is something that a friend sent to me a while ago.

A lot of times, people will interject stuff into arguments that have
nothing to do with the subject at hand, but if you try to follow their logic
then you fall into their trap.

So in regards to the idea that the white house tried to smear and expose a CIA operative, your comments are not on topic. You have no proof for your theory that there was a conspiracy. There is not even any good indications of intent other than what could be used against me if my mother in law fell off her broom to her death.

And my sources for the white house not being involved are confirmed.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Now keep in mind I'm neither a republican nor a democrat.

As of late, it seems everything bad is due to right wing negligence or conspiracy, and everything good is due to the virtuous left wing.

Then again, ten years ago, it was just the opposite.

Jeff

 

[michaeledward]

You have no proof for your theory that there was a conspiracy. There is not even any good indications of intent other than what could be used against me if my mother in law fell off her broom to her death.

Well, there you go again ... Being a TROLL.

It is not whether I have any proof. What prosecutor Fitzgerald has is evidence. I quote:

. . . The annotated Wilson Op Ed is relevant and admissible for two principle reasons. First, the article itself lies at the center of the sequence of events leading to the defendant's alleged criminal conduct. The article, and the fact that it contained certain criticism of the administration, including criticisms regarding issues delath with by the Office of the Vice President ("OVP"), serve both to explain the context of, and provide a motive for, many of the defendan'ts statements and actions at issue in this case. In particular, admission of the Wilson Op Ed is necessary to assist jurors in understanding how, beginning on July 6, 2003, and continuing through the following week, the attention of the defendant, his colleagues, and the media was heavily focused on responding to the issues raised in the article. Although the substance of the Wilson Op Ed is relevant and admissible was required, and to provide context for the defendant's statements and actions, the government will propose an instruction to the jury that the statements made in the Wilson Op Ed may not be considered as proof of the truth of the matters asserted but, rather, may be considered solely as evidence that the statements in the article were made and published, and may have cause others to take action in response.
. . . The second principal reason for the admissibility of the annotated Wilson Op Ed lies in the annotations placed on a copy of the article by the defendant's immediate superior, the Vice President. Those annotation support the proposition that publication of the Wilson Op Ed acutely focused the attention of the Vice President and the defendant - his chief of staff - on Mr. Wilson, on the assertions made in his article, and on responding to those assertions. The annotated version of the reflects the contemporaneous reacton of the Vice President to Mr. Wilson's Op Ed article, and thus is relevant to establishing some of the facts that were viewed as important by the defendant's immediate superior, including whether Mr. Wilson's wife had "sen[t] him on a junket."
​

Again, Are you responsible for your Mother-in-law's fall to her death?

 

[Don Roley]

Well, there you go again ... Being a TROLL.

Well that is a little over the top and rude.

And the stuff that you posted seems to be no proof of any sort. Merely it is an argument to include the article in the possibility that it may have led others to take action.

And of course, Fitzgerald has not filed against Rove or anyone else. If he had proof and the will to prosecute as you say then he would have. Or you can say that he did not file because of a conspiracy to stop and silence him. But that would kind of blow your theory of him presenting proof out of the water.

It is kind of like the fact that when my mother in law dies I will get part of her estate- and in the logic you use that would seem to convict me in her death.

. . . The annotated Wilson Op Ed is relevant and admissible for two principle reasons. First, the article itself lies at the center of the sequence of events leading to the defendant's alleged criminal conduct. The article, and the fact that it contained certain criticism of the administration, including criticisms regarding issues delath with by the Office of the Vice President ("OVP"), serve both to explain the context of, and provide a motive for, many of the defendan'ts statements and actions at issue in this case. In particular, admission of the Wilson Op Ed is necessary to assist jurors in understanding how, beginning on July 6, 2003, and continuing through the following week, the attention of the defendant, his colleagues, and the media was heavily focused on responding to the issues raised in the article. Although the substance of the Wilson Op Ed is relevant and admissible was required, and to provide context for the defendant's statements and actions, the government will propose an instruction to the jury that the statements made in the Wilson Op Ed may not be considered as proof of the truth of the matters asserted but, rather, may be considered solely as evidence that the statements in the article were made and published, and may have cause others to take action in response.
. . . The second principal reason for the admissibility of the annotated Wilson Op Ed lies in the annotations placed on a copy of the article by the defendant's immediate superior, the Vice President. Those annotation support the proposition that publication of the Wilson Op Ed acutely focused the attention of the Vice President and the defendant - his chief of staff - on Mr. Wilson, on the assertions made in his article, and on responding to those assertions. The annotated version of the reflects the contemporaneous reacton of the Vice President to Mr. Wilson's Op Ed article, and thus is relevant to establishing some of the facts that were viewed as important by the defendant's immediate superior, including whether Mr. Wilson's wife had "sen[t] him on a junket."

Where in the above is the smoking gun?

 

[michaeledward]

Now keep in mind I'm neither a republican nor a democrat.

As of late, it seems everything bad is due to right wing negligence or conspiracy, and everything good is due to the virtuous left wing.

Then again, ten years ago, it was just the opposite.

JeffJ,

Which party occupies the White House?
Which party holds the majority, and thus controls all of the conferences, and thus sets the agenda, in the House of Representatives and Senate?
On the Supreme Court of the United States, there sit nine federal judges. Those judges are appointed by the President of the United States. Which political party was the appointing President from, for each of those judges?

One last question to ponder --- the current President has vetoed exactly one Congressional bill --- have the past three sessions of Congress been so virtuous that no Executive restraint via a veto was required ... or might there be something else to keeping the number of vetos to a minimum?

I'll answer my own question JeffJ.

If the Republican Party controls all of the levers of government, everything will be laid upon them - good or bad. So, if there is a lot of bad going on .... well, there you have it.

I'm wondering also, specifically, what 'everything good' you are meaning when you call upon the virtuous left wing. I would tell you the Democratic Party has been neutered for the past six years. So there is little for which they can be responsible.

 

[michaeledward]

Well that is a little over the top and rude.

And the stuff that you posted seems to be no proof of any sort. Merely it is an argument to include the article in the possibility that it may have led others to take action.

And of course, Fitzgerald has not filed against Rove or anyone else. If he had proof and the will to prosecute as you say then he would have. Or you can say that he did not file because of a conspiracy to stop and silence him. But that would kind of blow your theory of him presenting proof out of the water.

Don Roley .. I have not offered it as proof. I have offered it as evidence. And how exactly do you wish me to characterize your continued and repeated misrepresentation of what I state?

Don Roley .. in the American System of Criminal Justice Prosecutors bring evidence before juries, not proof.

Don Roley ... it is established and undisputed fact that Mr. Rove revealed classified information to Matthew Cooper, who was not authorized to received that classified information, which is a violation of the law, and of the oath he swore.

Don Roley, as to why Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald did or did not bring an indictment against members of the Administration - by the way, I am not a special prosecutor, so what I feel is irrelevant - but he has stated that Libby's perjury has prevented him from gathering appropriate evidence to file indictment.

 

[Don Roley]

Don Roley .. I have not offered it as proof.

So you have no proof. You have nothing to support your theory aside from possible motive.

Rove was asked directly by someone if Valerie Plame was a CIA operative and he said, "So you heard that too?" Aside from outright lying to the press (a bad thing) or suddenly clamming up (sure sign that it was on the mark) it was about the only thing he could probably do. It is not even usable as a confirmation unless you have another good source.

So it is far from someone calling someone up to let them know that someone was a CIA operative as has been portrayed.

 

[Swordlady]

Moderator Note:

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=427486 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Jennifer Yabut/Swordlady
-MT Moderator

 

[SFC JeffJ]

I'm wondering also, specifically, what 'everything good' you are meaning when you call upon the virtuous left wing. I would tell you the Democratic Party has been neutered for the past six years. So there is little for which they can be responsible.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was thinking more along the lines of a "historical" everything good. It looks like I am guilty of subconsciously going for the good "sound byte" there.

Jeff

 

[michaeledward]

So you have no proof. You have nothing to support your theory aside from possible motive.

Rove was asked directly by someone if Valerie Plame was a CIA operative and he said, "So you heard that too?" Aside from outright lying to the press (a bad thing) or suddenly clamming up (sure sign that it was on the mark) it was about the only thing he could probably do. It is not even usable as a confirmation unless you have another good source.

So it is far from someone calling someone up to let them know that someone was a CIA operative as has been portrayed.

you continue to ignore the other evidence all around you ... don't step in that pool of blood, as you look for your missing car keys.


Karl Rove = Matthew Cooper
Irving Libby = Judith Miller

 

[TonyMac]

So Karl Rove will get a television show like Ollie North and the message we will be sending young people will be commit high treason and get your own TV show.

 

[michaeledward]

New News hit the streets today from the upcoming book HUBRIS.

It seems that Valerie Wilson joined the CIA Counter Proliferation Division in 1997. Prior to 2001, she was given the opportunity to choose to work on North Korea or Iraq. She chose to work on Iraq with the CPD.

In the summer of 2001, apparently, Iraq was becoming a point of interest in the government and her little unit became bigger, as policy makers were working to determine Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction capabilities.

Ms. Wilson was in charge of the 50 person Joint Task Force on Iraq.

Nice work if the President wants to invade that country.

So, let's see:

• VP Cheney cherry picked and stove piped information around the CIA
• Invasion launched because of Iraq WMD's
• No WMD's are found
• Head of the CIA Iraqi group's husband - is embarrassing the White House.
• Kill two birds with one stone, right?

Seems like a good target for a vengeful Adminstration, don'tcha think?

 

[Don Roley]

[*]Kill two birds with one stone, right?[/LIST]Seems like a good target for a vengeful Adminstration, don'tcha think?

Well as long as we are talking about possible motives without any sort of proof, what about the idea that the Bush white house was behind 9-11? Or that I will be involved in the death of my mother-in-law? Seems to be about as much proof that I will kill her as I see here. Actually, there is more to show that I will kill her based on just my statements here on martialtalk.

 

[michaeledward]

Well as long as we are talking about possible motives without any sort of proof, what about the idea that the Bush white house was behind 9-11? Or that I will be involved in the death of my mother-in-law? Seems to be about as much proof that I will kill her as I see here. Actually, there is more to show that I will kill her based on just my statements here on martialtalk.

Karl Rove = Matthew Cooper
Irving Libby = Judith Miller
Karl Rove = Tim Russert

http://www.observer.com/20060911/20060911_Joe_Conason_politics_joeconason.asp

 

[Don Roley]

That is a pretty laughable source. Well, not really a source, more of an opinion.

When someone is confronted with a yes/no situation by a reporter, I suppose that saying something uncommital like, "so you heard that too?" is now high treason. Instead, people are expected to lie outright to the press. Disinformation to the press is now required....

 

[crushing]

Would someone please explain how being the spouse of a CIA employee discredits Mr. Wilson?

I've been critical of the Bush administration. I would hate to think that my credibility depends on my wife having, or not having, a government job.

 

[michaeledward]

Would someone please explain how being the spouse of a CIA employee discredits Mr. Wilson?

I've been critical of the Bush administration. I would hate to think that my credibility depends on my wife having, or not having, a government job.

I think the thinking is that Ambassador Wilson would not have been selected to go on the trip to Niger had his wife not selected / recommended him for the job - a greatly exaggerated claim by the way.

Nepotism is going to provide a credible source?

Of course, having been a former Ambassador to Africa and Iraq could be some measure of credibility.

 

[michaeledward]

That is a pretty laughable source. Well, not really a source, more of an opinion.

When someone is confronted with a yes/no situation by a reporter, I suppose that saying something uncommital like, "so you heard that too?" is now high treason. Instead, people are expected to lie outright to the press. Disinformation to the press is now required....

So, the source is good enough to accept Armitage as the original source, but not good enough to recognize elsewhere.

Karl Rove = Matthew Cooper, Tim Russert, Robert Novak
Irving Libby = Judith Miller, Matthew Cooper