the facts are coming out in favor of Rove and making those who are speaking out for him to be fired as conclusion jumpers.
the facts are coming out in favor of Rove and making those who are speaking out for him to be fired as conclusion jumpers.Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
It is starting to appear that Novak was already aware of the leak prior to contacting Rove, and that Rove had simply mentioned in passing that he had heard about the leak while discussing another story with Novak...this hardly makes Rove the source of the leak, and it also doesn't explain who Miller is protecting in not disclosing her source.I'm beginning to lean towards the suggestion that Miller's leaker was Wilson himself. Why would the NY Times or Miller cover up for Rove or Ashcroft, or anyone else in the Bush admin? It's certainly nothing to do with principles because the Times certain has no principles about printing leaks from the GJ investigation or Wilson's original leak about his trip to Niger.
The facts as they stand right now do not make a compelling argument against Rove, unless you buy into the theory that he masterminded the whole fiasco...but it does not appear that the conversation between Rove and Novak was the source of the leak, nor does it appear that Rove was Miller's source.
Originally posted by: moshquerade
the facts are coming out in favor of Rove and making those who are speaking out for him to be fired as conclusion jumpers.Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
It is starting to appear that Novak was already aware of the leak prior to contacting Rove, and that Rove had simply mentioned in passing that he had heard about the leak while discussing another story with Novak...this hardly makes Rove the source of the leak, and it also doesn't explain who Miller is protecting in not disclosing her source.I'm beginning to lean towards the suggestion that Miller's leaker was Wilson himself. Why would the NY Times or Miller cover up for Rove or Ashcroft, or anyone else in the Bush admin? It's certainly nothing to do with principles because the Times certain has no principles about printing leaks from the GJ investigation or Wilson's original leak about his trip to Niger.
The facts as they stand right now do not make a compelling argument against Rove, unless you buy into the theory that he masterminded the whole fiasco...but it does not appear that the conversation between Rove and Novak was the source of the leak, nor does it appear that Rove was Miller's source.
Rove still was the source for Cooper. That is enough right there.Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
It is starting to appear that Novak was already aware of the leak prior to contacting Rove, and that Rove had simply mentioned in passing that he had heard about the leak while discussing another story with Novak...this hardly makes Rove the source of the leak, and it also doesn't explain who Miller is protecting in not disclosing her source.I'm beginning to lean towards the suggestion that Miller's leaker was Wilson himself. Why would the NY Times or Miller cover up for Rove or Ashcroft, or anyone else in the Bush admin? It's certainly nothing to do with principles because the Times certain has no principles about printing leaks from the GJ investigation or Wilson's original leak about his trip to Niger.
The facts as they stand right now do not make a compelling argument against Rove, unless you buy into the theory that he masterminded the whole fiasco...but it does not appear that the conversation between Rove and Novak was the source of the leak, nor does it appear that Rove was Miller's source.
Originally posted by: wiin
But wait, there is one more:
John Kerry
Sen. John Kerry, who called for Karl Rove to be fired over allegations that he revealed the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame, outed a genuine undercover CIA agent just this past April - even after the Agency asked that his identity be kept secret.
Hahahaha. Hahahaha
Yet outing her name really doesn't gain the push administration anything, even if it was in retaliation, as Plame was not in a position where such an outing would put her life at risk.Rove still was the source for Cooper. That is enough right there. Fitzgerald isn't pushing for one individual. All of the talk is that he is onto what amounts to a conspiracy to out her name.
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Yet outing her name really doesn't gain the push administration anything, even if it was in retaliation, as Plame was not in a position where such an outing would put her life at risk.Rove still was the source for Cooper. That is enough right there. Fitzgerald isn't pushing for one individual. All of the talk is that he is onto what amounts to a conspiracy to out her name.
It doesn't make such a disclosure acceptable, but their were no tangible or otherwise benefits to outing her in the first place.
A conspiracy requires proof of collusion and intent. That would be extremely difficult to prove. Nor do any of the facts around this case divulged thus far demonstrate that Rove colluded with either Cooper or Novak with the expressed purpose to out Plame. So far the facts seem to demonstrate that Rove didn't even know Plame was undercover, so how could he collude to out someone he didn't even know was in?Originally posted by: conjur
Rove still was the source for Cooper. That is enough right there.Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
It is starting to appear that Novak was already aware of the leak prior to contacting Rove, and that Rove had simply mentioned in passing that he had heard about the leak while discussing another story with Novak...this hardly makes Rove the source of the leak, and it also doesn't explain who Miller is protecting in not disclosing her source.I'm beginning to lean towards the suggestion that Miller's leaker was Wilson himself. Why would the NY Times or Miller cover up for Rove or Ashcroft, or anyone else in the Bush admin? It's certainly nothing to do with principles because the Times certain has no principles about printing leaks from the GJ investigation or Wilson's original leak about his trip to Niger.
The facts as they stand right now do not make a compelling argument against Rove, unless you buy into the theory that he masterminded the whole fiasco...but it does not appear that the conversation between Rove and Novak was the source of the leak, nor does it appear that Rove was Miller's source.
Fitzgerald isn't pushing for one individual. All of the talk is that he is onto what amounts to a conspiracy to out her name.
Well it would have to be "operative," as in singular, because the listing for the company showed Plame as Chief Executive with one single employee. If there were multiple operatives claiming employment under the company then it was sure a lousy cover job by the CIA.Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Yet outing her name really doesn't gain the push administration anything, even if it was in retaliation, as Plame was not in a position where such an outing would put her life at risk.Rove still was the source for Cooper. That is enough right there. Fitzgerald isn't pushing for one individual. All of the talk is that he is onto what amounts to a conspiracy to out her name.
It doesn't make such a disclosure acceptable, but their were no tangible or otherwise benefits to outing her in the first place.
Except that plame's cover company was also exposed and if she had operatives working overseas, they may have been exposed as well.
It was all an attempt to smear Joseph Wilson and discredit his claims that there was no yellowcake purchase attempt by Iraq.Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Yet outing her name really doesn't gain the push administration anything, even if it was in retaliation, as Plame was not in a position where such an outing would put her life at risk.Rove still was the source for Cooper. That is enough right there. Fitzgerald isn't pushing for one individual. All of the talk is that he is onto what amounts to a conspiracy to out her name.
It doesn't make such a disclosure acceptable, but their were no tangible or otherwise benefits to outing her in the first place.
Says the guy who speculates that Luskin is the leaker of the GJ testimony.Originally posted by: conjur
There's much we don't know yet for you to sit there and make such claims.
Who else knows all the details about Rove has said?Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Says the guy who speculates that Luskin is the leaker of the GJ testimony.Originally posted by: conjur
There's much we don't know yet for you to sit there and make such claims.
LOL.
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Don't you realize that a reporter could be on a "fishing" trip and just get someone to confirm somethign confidential by hinting around to it first? Even if Novak told Rove Plame's name, Rove is still just as guilty for CONFIRMING confidential information about something related to US security to someone that does not have the proper clearances. Rove should still go down NO MATTER WHAT!!
How many people are involved in the grand jury proceedings?Originally posted by: conjur
Who else knows all the details about Rove has said?Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Says the guy who speculates that Luskin is the leaker of the GJ testimony.Originally posted by: conjur
There's much we don't know yet for you to sit there and make such claims.
LOL.
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Well as it turns out she wasnt a covert operative nor had she left the country working for the CIA in the past 5 years prior to the leak. This is important, because it means no crime was committed by her name being disclosed. Furthermore, its been said again, that she and her husband made no secret that she worked for the CIA before the leak.
The other thing is a lot of misreporting, including in some of the papers today about what her role was. She was back in the States, had been back in the States since 1997. But she was still covert. She was considered a CIA officer, and a covert officer at Langley. Now she had previously been what was considered under non-official cover, which meant that she was of the deepest type of undercover spy overseas, meaning she had a job in a CIA front organization, a company that took years and years to establish. And that revealing her name was serious because anyone who ever dealt with that company or with her, any foreign national CIA agent, agent that is a term used for foreigners, that person or persons could then be suspect and could then be under life-threatening conditions.
That I don't know. But, it appears Novak's story doesn't jibe with the latest Rovian spin.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
How many people are involved in the grand jury proceedings?Originally posted by: conjur
Who else knows all the details about Rove has said?
Astute reader Ted just alerted to what appears to be a lie from either Novak or Rove.
Today's big story is that Rove supposedly never gave Valerie Plame's name to Novak - but rather that Novak mentioned Plame was CIA and Rove said "yeah I heard that too," or something to that effect.
In fact, here's what Novak said [l=in his first interview]http://foi.missouri.edu/voicesdissent/columnistnames.html/l] that we know of just after he leaked Plame's name in print:Read that again. I didn't dig it out, it was given to me - they gave me the name. That does not jibe with Rove's anonymous buddy telling the NYT that it was Novak who first brought up Plame as CIA and NOT Rove.Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."
Not that any of this matters. Rove confirmed the identity of a CIA agent to Novak, he affirmatively outed that agent to TIME, and then he and the White House lied about it to the media and the American public for two years. But it is interesting to note that this new story from Rove's handlers totally contradicts what Novak himself said two years ago.
So who's lying - Novak or Rove?
PS Another possibility is that Rove wasn't one of the "two administration officials" who told Novak about Plame. In that case, we've got two more, and not one more, Bush administration traitor on the loose.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050715-121257-9887r.htmOriginally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Well as it turns out she wasnt a covert operative nor had she left the country working for the CIA in the past 5 years prior to the leak. This is important, because it means no crime was committed by her name being disclosed. Furthermore, its been said again, that she and her husband made no secret that she worked for the CIA before the leak.
Yes, i'm sure she and her husband were blabbing to everyone about her working at the cia :disgust:
A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.
"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times.
Originally posted by: conjur
That I don't know. But, it appears Novak's story doesn't jibe with the latest Rovian spin.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
How many people are involved in the grand jury proceedings?Originally posted by: conjur
Who else knows all the details about Rove has said?
Novak's own statement contradicts story that HE told Rove about Plame, and not vice versa
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/07...s-own-statement-contradicts-story.htmlAstute reader Ted just alerted to what appears to be a lie from either Novak or Rove.
Today's big story is that Rove supposedly never gave Valerie Plame's name to Novak - but rather that Novak mentioned Plame was CIA and Rove said "yeah I heard that too," or something to that effect.
In fact, here's what Novak said [l=in his first interview]http://foi.missouri.edu/voicesdissent/columnistnames.html/l] that we know of just after he leaked Plame's name in print:Read that again. I didn't dig it out, it was given to me - they gave me the name. That does not jibe with Rove's anonymous buddy telling the NYT that it was Novak who first brought up Plame as CIA and NOT Rove.Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."
Not that any of this matters. Rove confirmed the identity of a CIA agent to Novak, he affirmatively outed that agent to TIME, and then he and the White House lied about it to the media and the American public for two years. But it is interesting to note that this new story from Rove's handlers totally contradicts what Novak himself said two years ago.
So who's lying - Novak or Rove?
PS Another possibility is that Rove wasn't one of the "two administration officials" who told Novak about Plame. In that case, we've got two more, and not one more, Bush administration traitor on the loose.