And what if it had been Clinton?

[IJ]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050712/ap_ ... estigation

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/ ... 8216.shtml

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 27_pf.html

A few of the googlable articles on Rove's leak to the press. The sequence goes something like this:

1) Bush announces before congress that Iraq is trying to buy radioactive materials from Africa

2) U.S. Ambassador and Bush administration critic Joe Wilson publishes an article that discredits this assertion as based on forged documents. The yellowcake connection has of course been clearly disproven.

3) Bob Novak publishes an article revealing the fact that Wilson's wife works for the CIA, thus blowing her cover and potentially endangering the lives of US agents. It appears to many to be punishment for challenging the administration, but proof that a senior Bush aide was responsible is lacking and Bush laments that we're unlikely to find out who it is.

4) Bush promises to fire anyone in his staff responsible for the leak. Karl Rove says he's never heard of Valerie Plame (wilson's wife; "I didn't know her name and didn't leak her name.") and Scott McClellan, whitehouse spokeperson, says the idea that Rove was involved was "ridiculous."

5) The issue comes under investigation and Rove's involvement is revealed when a Time magazine reporter's emails reveal that Rove identified Plame's line of work a fact which was then publicly reported by Novak.

6) The white house refuses to comment because a criminal investigation is ongoing. This makes it public knowledge (if it wasn't already) that disclosing Plame's identity was probably illegal in addition to being ugly politics and unsound policy (since we compromised a national security resource during wartime for political aims).

7) America blinks quizzically at the news reports and instead of caring, continues to google links to that "Tom Cruise Kills Oprah" video on the increasingly wacky multimillionaire actor turned Scientology weirdo. Have you seen it? It's hilarious. Google it.

Questions not answered on the Cruise video:

--Why did Rove have this information?
--What did Bush know?
--Will bush keep his promise to fire anyone involved with the leak?
--What else is Bush Co willing to do to advance its agenda and discredit foes?

[Bill Glasheen]

Methinks this will drag on kind of like an "arms for hostages" thing, Ian. The Democrats and liberal press will try to drag their Republican enemies a bit through the mud and see if some of it sticks. Maybe it will; maybe not.

I'm not sure you have all your facts straight on this, Ian.

U.S. Ambassador and Bush administration critic Joe Wilson publishes an article that discredits this assertion as based on forged documents. The yellowcake connection has of course been clearly disproven.

Interesting use of "of course" and "clearly." I remember reading a spoof of research commentary that translated these little qualifications into what they really meant. So whenever I see them used, they amuse. I'm not sure that's your intent.

Better to let data speak for themselves.

Meanwhile...

No WMD Stockpiles in Iraq? Not Exactly

Oops!

The white house refuses to comment because a criminal investigation is ongoing. This makes it public knowledge (if it wasn't already) that disclosing Plame's identity was probably illegal in addition to being ugly politics and unsound policy (since we compromised a national security resource during wartime for political aims).

No... It means the lawyers told Bush to shut up. Do you know much about criminal investigations, Ian?

To the best of my knowledge, Carl Rove is innocent until proven guilty. Meanwhile, don't you think he's got a few gun turrets pointed his way? Carl Rove is a brilliant tactition, and one of the big reasons for Bush's success to date. The Dems smell blood, and would love nothing more than to take Bush's mastermind from him. The lawyers are circling the wagons.

America blinks quizzically at the news reports

Personally I need more data. All I see right now is a political food fight. Listent to CNN and you hear one thing. Listen to Fox, and you hear something entirely different.

Are you old enough, Ian, to remember things such as the Arms for Hostages debacle? This is a big deja vu for me.

The big questions at the end of the day are the following:

1) What did Rove say?

2) In what context did he say it?

3) What did he know about the CIA connections?

4) Did this woman indeed legitimately qualify as a covert agent under the definition of the law?

5) What was his intent?

All those questions need to be answered to deal with the legal case.

IMO the situation's not so pat yet, unless you have an agenda.

- Bill

[IJ]

What I mean by they're keeping silent because there's a criminal investigation is not that it means he's a proven criminal, because yes, the investigation is ongoing; rather, this is a reminder that the issue in question wasn't merely inappropriate but illegal. I know the man still gets a trial before he gets a sentance, naturally; nothing is holding back the court of Bush from doing something, however.

People have issues with Rove not because, or not just because, he's Bush's Brain, or at least a lobe of it. It's machiavellian maneuvers like this one. If he wanted to take issue with Wilson's point (that the document on which Bush was acting was forged, not unlike certain documents that prompted a $hitstorm over CBS's handling on Bush's military service and a lot of calls for firings before the dust had settled), then the ethical thing to do at that time would be to say that no one in the administration had sent Wilson; that appeared to be Rove's point. He was saying, we didn't send Wilson, it was his wife that sent him. His wife appears to have said he was one of the qualified people to go, which is a little different, but no exposing of her identity was required for him to defend Bush Co. That makes the disclosure retribution, although we may never have absolute proof, to the extent that some would want to find a videotape of Rove describing his plan.

As far as my agenda, it's primarily set by Bush. Bush said this issue was very serious. Bush said he would not tolerate anyone in his administration who had done this (Bush now has "full confidence" in Rove). If he now cooks this so that Plame isn't considered secret enough to count, it's not a waffle, it's a lie. As for ongoing investigations and prior Republican presidential responses to inpropriety in the ranks, Reagan fired North same-day when Iran Contra surfaced.

Like I asked, what if it was Clinton, exposing a dissenting national security asset to defend his strike against an aspirin factory?

What brilliant wartime "tactics." The same administration has unloaded more than a few arabic military linguists when they are needed most because they're not straight.

[chewy]

But it is the GOP that is determined to turn this into a "political issue". The more they scream about leftist/liberal conspiracies and attacks on KR, the more the puiblic at large will think this is all just a bunch of political bantering. Nothing can be farther from the truth. A criminal act as committed (else the CIA wouldn't be referring this matter to the Justice Department). The President and several people on both sides of the isle were outraged by this a incident a couple of years ago and they all seemed to feel, at the time, that a criminal investigation was necessary.

The type of agent she was or what her specific job was are not really relevant. In fact, given that she was an undercover asset, it is unlikely that we will ever find out what her assignement was. Suffice to say, she was undercover and then outed by somebody (directly by Novak, and indirectly by those who leaked her identity).

Hopefully the Justice Department will find out who broke the law and take appropriate action.


cheers,

chewy

BTW- Bill have a great deal of respect for you, but could you have posted a link to a more biased web site? I just did a quick review of the site and the "news stories" read more like political opinion columns in the Wall Street Journal.

[Bill Glasheen]

Bill have a great deal of respect for you, but could you have posted a link to a more biased web site? I just did a quick review of the site and the "news stories" read more like political opinion columns in the Wall Street Journal.

And that's a pejorative???

WSJ has a daily circulation of 2.1 million, second only to USA Today (2.3 million) which isn't really in the same league in its "McPaper" format. And it dwarfs the much-self-promoted, third place New York Times (1.3 million). (Source: The Drudge Report). Furthermore, a recent international ranking of newspapers on journalistic integrity had The London Times as first, and The Wall Street Journal as second. (Source: XM Radio). If anything, WSJ is noted for its unbiased presentation of the news. Yes, it focuses on a business format. But if you followed the most recent political election, you would find that they stayed relatively unbiased in their reporting. It was a wonderful refuge from the editorial noise coming from elsewhere.

Yes, Newsmax.com provides "Opinion, Commentary and Analysis." However, did you notice that it referenced The New York Times as its source? I gladly would have provided the link, but that requires an online subscription to get the two articles. I'd prefer to use this article which references the buried NYT report and op-ed. That news (however hidden) was startling considering the activist journalists there who were campaigning so heavily against both Bush and the Iraq campaign.

Also reference in that article were:

* David Kay (former weapons inspector),

* Charles Duelfer (his replacement),

* the IAEA,

* Dr. Norman Dombey (professor of theoretical physics at the University of Sussex who calculated that Saddam's stockpile of yellowcake could produce 146 nuclear weapons),

* Dr. Mahdi Obeidi (Saddam's theoretical physisicist who hid plans for a modern centrifuge in his garden).

So... These people did all the hard work for me, chewy. Why not reference them?

Read the article.

- Bill

[Panther]

In his speech to congress GWB said that Saddam sought nuclear materials from Niger. (In the first post of this thread, the statement is made that GWB told Congress that Iraq had "tried to buy", not that they did buy or were successful in buying.)

In Wilson's report after going to Niger, which many have claimed contradicts GWB, the statement is made that Saddam had not bought any nuclear material from Niger.

While I can understand the confusion of some... and I'm not pointing this out to defend or support KR... the fact is that it is despicable of the media (and anyone else) to use those two things to try and say that GWB lied. Re-read them... they say the same thing. Saddam wasn't successful in obtaining U235 from Niger! In Wilson's report he does acknowledge that middlemen working between the brokers in Niger and Iraq had made inquiries about obtaining the nuclear material.

He Sought... He had not Bought... Sheesh!

That dog don't hunt...

Now back at it...

BTW, the person who was "outed" was working at a desk job in VA at the time and was no way put in danger "while out in the field". Other folks in other administrations have left literally dozens of agents out in the cold through carelessly tossing around their names and files... and that's not an excuse or a defense, just an observation.

[Bill Glasheen]

The same administration has unloaded more than a few arabic military linguists when they are needed most because they're not straight.

Sore spot, Ian? GW's Evangelical beliefs and Clinton's military policy are another kettle of fish, although I share your disappointment.

I'm still watching on this one while happily sitting on my cynical fence. The more I hear about what actually happened and why, the more murky it seems to me and the more ambivalent I become.

- Bill

[IJ]

Making bad decisions for temporary, dishonest political gains? Sure, it's a sore spot, and a dead on, legitimately sore, sore spot. Here's another one: we had a covert op with a middle east country (south of saudi arabia, name evades me at the moment) and took out a hostile bigwig with an air strike. We'd kept this hush because it was politically difficult for that country to cooperate with us--but Bush Co made the strike public when they needed a PR boost and ticked off our hesitant friends.

Again, Bill, my agenda is my agenda, yours is yours, etc etc. But let's settle this by just using Bush's. He said this was very serious and he said he would fire those responsible. If he backpeddles now because Rove didn't use the exact name or makes up some other excuse, he is FOS. Plus, Rove is a liar. Can't trust these people farther than you can throw em, and that's what drives my agenda. The truth will quantum mechanically change to suit them once people are looking the other way.

Panther, thanks for the clarification. Now why did Bush Co have to go punish Wilson and his family when they could have themselves pointed out that you don't have to be a successful buyer to be a problem? THAT would have been a productive response.

[chewy]

Bill have a great deal of respect for you, but could you have posted a link to a more biased web site? I just did a quick review of the site and the "news stories" read more like political opinion columns in the Wall Street Journal.

And that's a pejorative???

WSJ has a daily circulation of 2.1 million, second only to USA Today (2.3 million) which isn't really in the same league in its "McPaper" format. And it dwarfs the much-self-promoted, third place New York Times (1.3 million). (Source: The Drudge Report). Furthermore, a recent international ranking of newspapers on journalistic integrity had The London Times as first, and The Wall Street Journal as second. (Source: XM Radio). If anything, WSJ is noted for its unbiased presentation of the news. Yes, it focuses on a business format. But if you followed the most recent political election, you would find that they stayed relatively unbiased in their reporting. It was a wonderful refuge from the editorial noise coming from elsewhere.

Yes, Newsmax.com provides "Opinion, Commentary and Analysis." However, did you notice that it referenced The New York Times as its source? I gladly would have provided the link, but that requires an online subscription to get the two articles. I'd prefer to use this article which references the buried NYT report and op-ed. That news (however hidden) was startling considering the activist journalists there who were campaigning so heavily against both Bush and the Iraq campaign.

Also reference in that article were:

* David Kay (former weapons inspector),

* Charles Duelfer (his replacement),

* the IAEA,

* Dr. Norman Dombey (professor of theoretical physics at the University of Sussex who calculated that Saddam's stockpile of yellowcake could produce 146 nuclear weapons),

* Dr. Mahdi Obeidi (Saddam's theoretical physisicist who hid plans for a modern centrifuge in his garden).

So... These people did all the hard work for me, chewy. Why not reference them?

Read the article.

- Bill

Bill,

We will have to agreee to disagree on this one. For your own reference I DID read the article. It was so chock full of the author's own opinions I had a hard time taking his sources seriously; given his clear slant I had to assume any "facts" he used were being taken out of context. Sorry Bill, but if walks like Rush Limbaugh and talks like Rush Limbaugh...


cheers,

chewy

[Bill Glasheen]

It does seem quite apparent, Ian, that parties have preconceived their opinions, and folks are assuming that any "facts" contrary to their picture of things are "taken out of context."

If it walks like partisan politics and talks like partisan politics.... At least the Republicans could entertain us with salacious details. Where's a bad-boy politician when we need one?

Let's see now... A CIA agent with WMD specialty not operating under cover is married to a Democrat from Congress, and tips him off on how he can go to Niger to create a story about buying (vs. trying to buy) yellowcake that the Iraqis already had 500 tons of, and a reporter getting information from a Whitehouse workerbee who doesn't name someone by name but says something like "Yea I heard that too." and a President who said he would deal with it and Democrats who want Bush to fire the workerbee or remove his security clearance and Republicans who want apologies and removal of Democratic Congressmen security clearances and Meet the Press interviews with point-counterpoint and... and...



Doesn't our government have any work to do??

- Bill

[IJ]

Yes Bill, the yellowcake purchase was irrelevant, that must be why Bush featured it prominently in his address to Congress explaining why we had to fight a war. He must have had the article you posted, prepublication, and decided not to leak it.

And clearly no crime was commited, which is why there's been an investigation Bush has publicly supported, and why Bush promised to fire whoever was responsible. It must be irrelevant if he did that.

No matter if personal attacks are used to silence administration critics, instead of facts and logic.

And obviously it doesn't matter if our president shifts his policies and ethical standards to suit the moment's needs.

Or if no one notices or cares.

Seriously, did everyone google that cruise video? It kills me. I'll save everyone a step:

http://mirror.randomfoo.net/memes/2005/ ... _Oprah.mov

[chewy]

Seriously, did everyone google that cruise video? It kills me. I'll save everyone a step:

http://mirror.randomfoo.net/memes/2005/ ... _Oprah.mov

That was great! Is Tom a loon or what? My only question is was he like this before he joined the Church of Scientology or is this the end result.

chewy

[chewy]

It does seem quite apparent, Ian, that parties have preconceived their opinions, and folks are assuming that any "facts" contrary to their picture of things are "taken out of context."

If it walks like partisan politics and talks like partisan politics.... At least the Republicans could entertain us with salacious details. Where's a bad-boy politician when we need one?

- Bill

It also seems apparent that some are prone to over-generalizations and assumptions about one's political leanings. I thought personal attacks were disallowed on this board, or is it OK if you refer to the party in the 3rd person. I never said I was a Demorcrat (or a liberal for that matter) Bill, which you appear to be implying.

My point was that, for me, it it hard to trust sources that mix facts with fiction... period.

chewy

PS- (back to your WSJ defense) If you believe a news paper's circulation or subscription rate is directly proportional to its level of political neutrality, then, in the TV new world, Fox News and the Daily Show must be the most balanced shows on TV? Also note that I wasn't slamming the WSJ's political slant, I was referring to the opinion columns in particular. I read the WSJ weekly at my local breakfast nook.

[Panther]

It also seems apparent that some are prone to over-generalizations and assumptions about one's political leanings. I thought personal attacks were disallowed on this board, or is it OK if you refer to the party in the 3rd person. I never said I was a Demorcrat (or a liberal for that matter) Bill, which you appear to be implying.

My point was that, for me, it it hard to trust sources that mix facts with fiction... period.

Hi chewy... and everyone... In response to your comment (which I put in bold above), you are completely correct... personal attacks are not allowed on this forum. However, please note that a LOT of folks make generalizations and assumptions about the various political leanings of others in the discussion. That isn't an attack, but more of an opinion/observation.

Another point is that, quite often, especially when taking a "devil's advocate" position, people make the wrong assumptions about the political leanings of others. (Such as those who think I'm a die-hard Republicrat when nothing could be farther from the truth, but because of some comments made or positions taken, that's what people believe. I admit that I generally lean "conservative", "libertarian" - little "l", and "constructionist", but not RepubliDemopublicrat! Never! ) But I don't take offense (too much, as long as I'm not considered a "socialist", "communist" or other "totalitarian" type anyway) at being classified incorrectly, I just do as you have done and point out that the shoe either doesn't fit or is the wrong size.

And finally, I'm not sure whether talking about it in the 3rd person is breaking the rules or not... My first thought is that it would be, but I can also think of times and situations where it wouldn't be. I guess it would depend in part on the situation and especially the civility of the posters. Everyone on this thread (at least so far) has been discussing their points of view openly, honestly, and pretty darn nicely/civily.

I'd hope that before lodging a complaint against someone for breaking the rules that the offended person would state that they were offended either on the thread, in a PM to the person who made the comment, or both. If folks can't "play nice", then go further...

Regardless, I hope this lets folks know that just because I don't always post doesn't mean that I don't read, learn, and know what's going on...

Take care and be good to each other...

PS: Fox News is the best... right?

[chewy]

Understood Pather. I was trying, not too subtly, to point out that some people could easily be offended using the method Bill was using to make his point. I'm not actually in any way offended (thus the little smilies in my message) and I'm not sure that Bill's post is easily characterized as a personal attack. Just playing "devils advocate".

I was ttrying to point out that this same method could easily be abused, for example: "Many Wall Street Journal fans/subscribers are nothing but racist cowards". In this example (keep in mind this is JUST and example) one could say "that's not a personal attack, he didn't reference anyone in particular". However, given the context of the current thread, one can easily see that it is a subtle assault on the one person who supported the WSJ.

Once again, that was just an example and I don't think Bill crossed the line, but he was definitely close. Just think if he had implied certain people were racist or terrorist, instead of simply "liberal" or "partisan", which are labels I don't mind wearing (even if I disagree with them).

Anyways, sorry for taking this thread on a tangent and apologies if Bill took any offense to this. It was not my intention.


cheers,

chewy