How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 How do you spell Machiavelli?
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

How do you spell Machiavelli?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


0 posted 07-11-2005 09:29 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel



In
today's news we find out that Karl Rove did indeed discuss Valerie Plame with Matt Cooper.  


quote:


White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified as a covert agent in a newspaper column two years ago, but Rove's lawyer said yesterday that his client did not identify her by name.


Rove had a short conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper on July 11, 2003, three days before Robert D. Novak publicly exposed Plame in a column about her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV. Wilson had come under attack from the White House for his assertions that he found no evidence Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger and that he reported those findings to top administration officials. Wilson publicly accused the administration of leaking his wife's identity as a means of retaliation.


The leak of Plame's name to the news media spawned a federal grand jury investigation that has been seeking to find the origin of the disclosure. Cooper avoided jail time last week by agreeing to testify before the grand jury about conversations with his sources, while New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for refusing to discuss her confidential sources.


To be considered a violation of the law, a disclosure by a government official must have been deliberate, the person doing it must have known that the CIA officer was a covert agent, and he or she must have known that the government was actively concealing the covert agent's identity.


Cooper, according to an internal Time e-mail obtained by Newsweek magazine, spoke with Rove before Novak's column was published. In the conversation, Rove gave Cooper a "big warning" that Wilson's assertions might not be entirely accurate and that it was not the director of the CIA or the vice president who sent Wilson on his trip. Rove apparently told Cooper that it was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip," according to a story in Newsweek's July 18 issue.


Rove's conversation with Cooper could be significant because it indicates a White House official was discussing Plame prior to her being publicly named and could lead to evidence of how Novak learned her name.






Going back to September 29, 2003 we find this
White House press briefing with Scott McClellan:



quote:


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 --


Q But how does --


MR. McCLELLAN: 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 But the President has a factual basis for knowing that Karl Rove --


MR. McCLELLAN: I said it publicly. I said that --


Q But 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.





And then
today there is this would-be humorous if it wasn't serious exchange;


quote:



Q: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"?

MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.

Q: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?

MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation...

Q: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?
MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.

Q: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?

MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

Q: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began.
Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?

MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that.....
And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.
I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

Q: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't.

MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to them.

Q: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?

MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.

Q: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

Q: Well, we are going to keep asking them. When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife in the decision to send him to Africa?

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.

Q: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been...

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to your questions.

Q: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the president's word that anybody who was involved will be let go?

MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

Q: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here?

MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.

Q: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?

MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this.

Q: So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff?

MCCLELLAN: You're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I'm simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation.

Q: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way?
MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions....




My own
previous remarks about the Plame case:



quote:


His (John Kerry's) core values also involve not compromising U.S. security by trumping up charges about WMD's in countries where they don't exist. They involve not risking national security or destroying a persons life by breaking the law, breaching security, and revealing the name of a covert CIA operative which was done in retribution by the White House against the wife of Joseph Wilson --because he had " publicly disclosed that he had investigated and debunked intelligence linking Iraqi nuclear ambitions to the African nation of Niger. Wilson's investigation concluded in March 2002, nearly a year before Bush made the assertion that Iraq sought uranium in Africa during his 2003 State of the Union. Days after Wilson went public, columnist Robert Novak revealed that his wife was a CIA operative. The Washington Post reported that "a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife," CIA operative Valerie Plame. [Washington Post, 9/28/03]"

To which Bush responded "I have no idea if we'll find out who the leaker is." If he can't even find out who a leaker is in his own administration -- how is he going to find terrorists halfway around the globe?





The irony here is that Judith Miller sits in jail protecting an anonymous source she didn't use for a story she didn't print, who's objective wasn't to blow the whistle on government corruption but to personally destroy two patriotic government employees.  


Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


1 posted 07-12-2005 12:30 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Scott McClellan also said the following in October of 2003:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031006-3.html

*****

"No one wants to get to the bottom of this matter more than the President of the United States. If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates."

*****

In addition, on October 6, 2003, Bush called the leak a "criminal action":

"And if this helps stop leaks, this investigation in finding the truth, it'll not only hold someone to account who should not have leaked -- and this is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action. But also hopefully we'll help send a clear signal we expect other leaks to stop as well. And so I look forward to finding the truth."

*****

I think the cat may have got its tongue here, and one of two is all but certain in my mind; either McClellan lied or McClellan was lied to by Rove, or Bush, etc.

*

I think the main question now here is not if a crime has been committed or not, which that will be investigated I'm sure, but now it's who directed that lie to the American people.

And whether or not Rove is the guilty conscience here in terms of the leak directly, I already find Rove guilty for blatantly trying to polarize America with lies and brimstone as he did at that New York speech just a few blocks north of Ground Zero recently.

*

I believe the leaker must be charged for criminal actions, and if it is indeed Rove, I hope Bush keeps his word regardless of who it is.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


2 posted 07-12-2005 07:39 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Personally, I don't think he did anything wrong.  The 'interview' Rove gave was supposed to be 'off the record' and 'not used' and was given to dissuade an errorneus story being run.  Rove was trying to give a correction, again 'off the record'.  Now, correct me if I'm mistaken, but 'off the record' means 'off the record', i.e. not used, not printed.

Secondly, Rove did not mention the lady's name.  Rove did not 'out' her.  Her own husband gave her name, title, position and employer on his own website years before Rove was called and approached.  Rove did not seek an interview, but was asked if he'd permit one.

If anything, the reporter who ran the story even though some material was supposed to be 'off the record' should be fired for violating one of the core principles of responsible journalism.

As an addendum, I'm not surprised by the supposed national outrage.  Democrats, libertarians, progressives...everyone not a conservative or republican...are still pissed about The Great Pretender (George Bush) stealing one election then lieing to win another.  Since President Bush brushes all that off as sour grapes, they go for his point man, Karl Rove who engineered both wins.  Bitter partisan politics.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Senate and House Dems would much rather trounce a Republican than to actually serve their Nation and their State, since those actions are a double edged sword: actions, choices and decisions which will either win reelection or lose it.  Given that choice, anyone would rather character assassinate an opponent than to actually fulfill their Constitutional obligations.
JoshG
Member
since 11-16-2004
Posts 127
TX, USA


3 posted 07-13-2005 01:53 PM       View Profile for JoshG   Email JoshG   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JoshG

I agree with you 100%.  I have heard so much talk of impeachment investigations from the liberal perspective.  I have yet to have read, listen or seen one report that truly represents an accurate "Bush" crime.

I am not trying to start a political debate that would de-sensitize the London tradegy.  I would like to make this point.  There are so many aspects of terrorism that we the American public are not aware.  Decisions are made day in and day out on how to best defend our freedoms.  I really feel like we have to do more in our War efforts to keep the fight of our shores and do our best to defend our allies.

Again, not trying to start a war debate.  I just think it is all related to the non-stop attempt by anti-bush fanatics to find a smoking gun.  I have yet to have seen one valid story.
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


4 posted 07-13-2005 02:03 PM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

How do you spell it?
POLITICIAN. From any direction, left, right, middle...it's hard to separate truth from fiction, difficult to believe anyone recognixes truth even when it smacks you right/left/center between the eyes. And everyone interprets said 'truths' according to pre-conceived ideas anyway.
The turth is what is being constantly compromised, more so than any single person's identity.
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Caelestus
since 06-25-99
Posts 67715
Listening to every heart


5 posted 07-13-2005 02:20 PM       View Profile for Sunshine   Email Sunshine   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Sunshine's Home Page   View IP for Sunshine

quote:
Senate and House Dems would much rather trounce a Republican than to actually serve their Nation and their State, since those actions are a double edged sword: actions, choices and decisions which will either win reelection or lose it.  Given that choice, anyone would rather character assassinate an opponent than to actually fulfill their Constitutional obligations.


Thank you, Ali! Traditional mud-slinging, at its best.

Everyone should take a cold shower.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


6 posted 07-13-2005 02:27 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

If you truly aren't upset about what's happening here, then I'm convinced you're not paying much attention.

This WAS that political "trounce" or "character assassination" you speak of then, on behalf of Rove. His intentions were out of nothing but spite to Wilson. It's obvious.

You know what this was really all about? It was about the WMD issue that attempted to justify the war in Iraq.

Consider this sequence of evidents:

1) Joe Wilson happened to have written a column called "What I Didn't Find In Africa", completed after he was sent by the CIA to examine the country for seventeen months and published in the July 6, 2003 edition of the New York Times editorials page and in an interview with the Washington Post, where he presented credible evidence that Iraq had not made moves toward securing yellowcake from Niger. (Also note he has written other bold critiques of this administration's foreign policy intentions, like the March 3, 2003 essay in The Nation where he said the administration's war on Iraq was not about WMD's, nor terrorism, but about imposing a "Pax Americana" on the region)

2) Bush insisted that Iraq had done so in his 2003 State of the Union address, where Wilson's claim challenges his Iraq-Niger connection.

3) Rove sought payback/retaliation on Wilson in playing a role in exposing Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative. Coincidentally, she was currently working undercover to gather evidence of Iraq WMD and was coming up dry.

4) Instead of patiently waiting to get further results and for further doubt on the case for war to be made, Rove assisted in her outing.

*

This right here is an act of treason. Nothing about this wasn't political. Your point is EXACTLY why you SHOULD be upset.

Nevertheless, I won't be surprised whatsoever if he will be convicted. I happen to believe there's a great argument in why he should be fired, for it's just this sort of thing that's going to put a huge political price tag for the Bush administration.

The likes of Bush, of McClellan, of Gillespie, all admitted in 2003 that exposing the names of undercover operatives are crimes, yet if they're afraid it's someone loyal to their administration, all they show is silence. None of that same determination is there.

I'm well aware of Rove's history of other dirty tricks, but this particular act isn't merely about politics, it's about treason, which that particular act endangered that operative's life and also affected our national security.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


7 posted 07-13-2005 03:13 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Wilson was recommended by his spook wife to her superiors, claiming he spoke the language, had many contacts, and understood the culture.  Wilson was a heavy contributor to the Kerry campaign, something which was not divulged.  He obstensibly was sent to verify the British Intelligence question of whether or not Saddam was seeking yellow cake uranium from Niger, since that's what they had heard.  Sought <-- Keyword.

Wilson reported that Saddam had not yet bought any yellow cake uranium from Niger.  Bought <-- Keyword.

Wilson was not sent by Cheney, was not sent by Bush, was not sent by Tenet, not by the State Department.  He was sent by his wife's immediate superiors, some 3 or 4 steps below Tenet, off of her recommendations.  Can you spell 'conflict of interest'?  Then, after reporting his findings, Wilson then writes an Op-Ed piece for the NY Times where he gives the same details.  Can you spell 'dessimation of classified material'?  Given the timing, I really don't think anybody who had the authority gave him permission to divulge classified information.

quote:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

State of Union Address, 1-29-03 Emphasis mine.

Saddam had SOUGHT.  Not that he had BOUGHT.  Wilson reported that Saddam had not BOUGHT the materials he SOUGHT.  And frankly, to my simple mind, anyone who gathers national security information, then gives it to the media for mass publication, is guilty of treason and should be treated accordingly.

One thing I forgot to mention.  Wilson's wife was not 'in the field' from the time period 1998-2003.  She was a paper pusher.  It's only a federal crime if an active undercover field agent is outted, not a paper pusher.  And since Wilson, her husband, had everything about her job, including her name, on his own website in 2002, I quite fail to see how Rove 'outted' her in 2003.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


8 posted 07-14-2005 02:01 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Yes, Alicat, and thank you for making it clear Cheney was not the one who sent him to Niger.

What I want to know is why are Ken Mehlman and others lying, saying that Wilson said Cheney did send him there?

Observe this part of a transcript from the August 3, 2003 edition of CNN's "Late Edition", which Mehlman keeps referring to in trying to prove Wilson did say Cheney sent him, with the bold-faced parts of the transcript parts he chose to leave out:

***************

BLITZER: I know you were sent to go on this mission long before the State of the Union Address. When Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, was on this program a few weeks ago, on July 13th, I asked her about your mission. Listen to this exchange I had with her.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I didn't know Joe Wilson was going to Niger. And if you look in Director Tenet's statement, it says that counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, sent Joe Wilson. So, I don't know...

BLITZER: Who sent him?

RICE: Well, it was certainly not at a level that had anything to do with the White House.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Is that true?

WILSON: Well, look, it's absolutely true that neither the vice president nor Dr. Rice nor even George Tenet knew that I was traveling to Niger.

What they did, what the office of the vice president did, and, in fact, I believe now from Mr. Libby's statement, it was probably the vice president himself...

BLITZER: Scooter Libby is the chief of staff for the vice president.

WILSON: Scooter Libby.

They asked essentially that we follow up on this report -- that the agency follow up on the report. So it was a question that went to the CIA briefer from the Office of the Vice President. The CIA, at the operational level, made a determination that the best way to answer this serious question was to send somebody out there who knew something about both the uranium business and those Niger officials that were in office at the time these reported documents were executed."


***************

The full transcript is here, where Wilson at no point insinuates Cheney sent him there:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/03/le.00.html

Also there's Peter King (who also said on Scarborough this week the reporters should be shot) who said, "Listen, maybe Karl Rove was not perfect. We live in an imperfect world. And I give him credit for having the guts.".

If by guts he means lying to the American people, well, I'll reserve my energy for other all-encompassing issues, but I am just saddened by this stonewall attitude.

I found it interesting yesterday, by the way, that Bush didn't confirm he defends Rove as McClellan claims he does. Maybe he will stay true to his word after all. I have my doubts certainly, but I still believe anything is possible.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


9 posted 07-14-2005 03:26 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

So even with the liberal tenet that one is Innocent Until Proven Guilty, even with an ongoing investigation, even with a Grand Jury still in session, Rove is as guilty as original sin?  Ones who've never liked Rove are baying that he be nailed to the barndoor, sans evidence, sans trial, sans investigation.  Just lynch him and be done with it.

Where's Novak?  Where's Wilson?  Why aren't they being hounded and burned at the stake for outting a CIA agent?  Why Rove?  That answer's almost too easy.

As to your question about Mehlman and others saying Wilson is lying about the claim that Cheney sent Wilson, that's simple.  Misunderstanding.  They misread, or heard the quote and took it quite another way.  Many have done that to Bush, especially given that he's a self-professed malaprop.  Some of the times, President Bush catches himself and makes a correction.  The rest, the media goes nuts with it, like pirahnas at feeding time.  Alternately, as you have illustrated, those with an axe to grind will always miscontrue and take out of context, twisting words and omitting inconvenient facts.
JoshG
Member
since 11-16-2004
Posts 127
TX, USA


10 posted 07-14-2005 04:47 PM       View Profile for JoshG   Email JoshG   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JoshG

"It's a sad day when the same man who urged restraint in prejudging [Al Qaeda mastermind Usama] bin Laden calls for Karl Rove's resignation when Rove is not even the target of the investigation. Such distorted logic makes it clear that Democrats are long on bitter partisanship and short on reason," said Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt. - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162485,00.html

I agree.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


11 posted 07-14-2005 06:36 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

I absolutely agree that Novak shouldn't be let off that easy as he is currently being. I'm not sure what the reasoning behind that is, but Novak is part of the center of this controversy.

You know no one is calling (or any sane person) on Rove to be lynched, nailed to the barndoor or burned at the stake as you say for what I find to be an act of treason. I do believe this sort of action deserves jailtime and proper indictment.

The investigation will see exactly what role Rove did play in the outing. I'm already convinced he assisted because contrary to what McClellan had said in that he he not played a role in leaking classified information, now we know otherwise, which strikes me as there is only one of two conclusions; McClellan lied or McClellan was asked to lie by Rove, Bush, etc.

The GOP are being no better right now anyway, as it is, in going on the offense against Wilson.

For instance, they're critiquing the fact that Wilson claimed his report was conclusive and significant. The CIA itself, in fact, gave the report high marks:

*

"The CIAís DO gave the former ambassadorís infomation a grade of 'good,' which means that it added to the ICís body of understanding on the issue," (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Communityís Prewar Assessments On Iraq," 7/7/04)

*

Both major parties are lost in the woods from mainstream America in my mind, but I believe the Democrats are closer to reason than the GOP right now.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


12 posted 07-14-2005 06:45 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

By Wilson's own words in his book, both he and his future wife were in the US in 1997, and did not leave again for long term international assignments.  The law says 5 years, and on a long term international assignment.  Wilson's own words nullifies his claim of his wife being outted, especially since he was the first to do the outting in 2002 with his 'who's who' website.  Statute of Limitations, Noah.  Law says 5 years, not 6.
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


13 posted 07-18-2005 05:33 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Yanno, the more I hear about this, and the more I think about this, one word keeps creeping into my mind: shakedown.  Karl Rove just happens to get a phone call out of the blue requesting an interview.  During the next two minutes, the reporter just happens to mention this story and asks for clarification.  Rove gives clarification.  Story gets run despite being off the record, despite Rove's effort to dissuade the reporter of reporting erroneus information.  Then lo and behold!  Karl Rove outted a 'deeply undercover CIA operative' (who cares she was a USA based paper pusher since 1997)!  The shame, the scandal, fire fire fire!

Shakedown.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


14 posted 07-18-2005 06:02 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Typical, 'cat. We shouldn't be surprised at these tactics, as many times as they have been used. The only thing to be surprised about is that the Democrats keep trying them....
Local Rebel will be notified of replies
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> How do you spell Machiavelli? Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors