Karl Rove WON'T BE Charged

[maxwell's demon]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/13/america/web.0613rove.php

By David Johnston The New York Times

Published: June 13, 2006


WASHINGTON The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Rove.

The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.

In a statement, Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said he would not comment on Rove's status.

For months Fitzgerald's investigation appeared to threaten Rove's standing as Bush's closest political adviser as the prosecutor riveted his focus on whether Rove tried to intentionally conceal a conversation he had with a Time magazine reporter in the week before the name of intelligence officer, Valerie Plame Wilson, became public.

The decision not pursue any charges removes a potential political stumbling block for a White House that is heading into a long and difficult election season for Republicans in Congress.

Fitzgerald's decision should help the White House in what has been an unsuccessful effort to put the leak case behind it. Still ahead, however, is the trial of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., on charges for perjury and obstruction of justice, and the prospect that Mr. Cheney could be called to testify in that case.

In his statement Luskin said he would not address other legal questions surrounding Fitzgerald's decision. He added, "In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Rove's conduct."

But it was evident that Fitzgerald's decision followed an exhaustive inquiry into Rove's activities that had brought the political strategist dangerously close to possible charges. In October, when Libby was indicted, people close to Rove had suggested that his involvement in the case would soon be over; speculation about Rove's legal situation flared again in April when he made his fifth appearance before the grand jury.

A series of meetings between Luskin and Fitzgerald and his team proved pivotal in dissuading the prosecutor from bringing charges. On one occasion Luskin himself became a witness in the case, giving sworn testimony that was beneficial to Rove.

At the case stands now, Fitzgerald has brought only one indictment against Libby. The prosecutor accused Libby of telling the grand jury that he learned of Wilson from reporters, when in reality, the prosecutor said he was told about her by Cheney and others in the government. Libby has pleaded not guilty in the case, which is scheduled to begin trial early next year.

...
* ** * * * ** * * * * * *


I'm.
I just don't know anymore.
I'd like to just trust Fitzgerald.
i just don't know.

[Danalys]

maxwell. :)

[Palpadious]

If there was a god, asswipes like this would get what's coming to them.

[raybia]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/13/america/web.0613rove.php

By David Johnston The New York Times

Published: June 13, 2006


WASHINGTON The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Rove.

The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.

In a statement, Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said he would not comment on Rove's status.

For months Fitzgerald's investigation appeared to threaten Rove's standing as Bush's closest political adviser as the prosecutor riveted his focus on whether Rove tried to intentionally conceal a conversation he had with a Time magazine reporter in the week before the name of intelligence officer, Valerie Plame Wilson, became public.

The decision not pursue any charges removes a potential political stumbling block for a White House that is heading into a long and difficult election season for Republicans in Congress.

Fitzgerald's decision should help the White House in what has been an unsuccessful effort to put the leak case behind it. Still ahead, however, is the trial of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., on charges for perjury and obstruction of justice, and the prospect that Mr. Cheney could be called to testify in that case.

In his statement Luskin said he would not address other legal questions surrounding Fitzgerald's decision. He added, "In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Rove's conduct."

But it was evident that Fitzgerald's decision followed an exhaustive inquiry into Rove's activities that had brought the political strategist dangerously close to possible charges. In October, when Libby was indicted, people close to Rove had suggested that his involvement in the case would soon be over; speculation about Rove's legal situation flared again in April when he made his fifth appearance before the grand jury.

A series of meetings between Luskin and Fitzgerald and his team proved pivotal in dissuading the prosecutor from bringing charges. On one occasion Luskin himself became a witness in the case, giving sworn testimony that was beneficial to Rove.

At the case stands now, Fitzgerald has brought only one indictment against Libby. The prosecutor accused Libby of telling the grand jury that he learned of Wilson from reporters, when in reality, the prosecutor said he was told about her by Cheney and others in the government. Libby has pleaded not guilty in the case, which is scheduled to begin trial early next year.

...
* ** * * * ** * * * * * *


I'm.
I just don't know anymore.
I'd like to just trust Fitzgerald.
i just don't know.


Thank God. I was really worried.

[Emrys]

is anyone surprised with the outcome? These people always manage to get off the hook.:down

[Armand Z Trip]

Thank God. I was really worried.


Me too! I'm going to start a thread asking people to support Scooter! That poor man!

[War Lord]

is anyone surprised with the outcome? These people always manage to get off the hook.:down

Does it surprise you that there wasn't anything worth charging in the first place?

Many DA's in the states will often hold charges over people in order to financially break them and get them to cop a plea, so the DA can rack up wins.

[jaguarr]

Max? Is that you? :confused:

jag

[maxwell's demon]

yes.

Happy Birthday, Jag!

And Jonty? you don't know what you're talking about.

[lazur]

yes.

Happy Birthday, Jag!

And Jonty? you don't know what you're talking about.

Of course he doesn't. If a republican gets off, it's a crime against humanity! After all, ALL republicans are guilty if someone says so, right??!! If a democrat gets off, however, justice was served! Because NO dems could be guilty of anything!!

:rolleyes:

[Emrys]

Of course he doesn't. If a republican gets off, it's a crime against humanity! After all, ALL republicans are guilty if someone says so, right??!! If a democrat gets off, however, justice was served! Because NO dems could be guilty of anything!!

:rolleyes:

Not quite, I'd say all Politicians have dirty hands, quite frankly I haven't met one who isn't corrupt to the core in my lifetime yet.

[PLAS]

last time I remember a democrat being charged with something was with cheating with his wife... what was this Rove guy charged with? if they let him off the hook then it must have been something minor, like a parking violation

[Ronny Shade]

Who's Karl Rove

[lazur]

Not quite, I'd say all Politicians have dirty hands, quite frankly I haven't met one who isn't corrupt to the core in my lifetime yet.

I'm just pointing out the blatant partisanship involved with ANY criminal or other investigation into a politician. Democrats believe a republican 'did it' no matter what the facts are. The guy could be completely innocent of any wrong doing, but if he was accused, that's ALL that matters. And republicans are the same way toward democrats.

It's totally ridiculous. I hate our two party system. One is always a slave to the other.

[War Lord]

yes.

Happy Birthday, Jag!

And Jonty? you don't know what you're talking about.

It's an old tactic.

Having lawyers to defend you is expensive and most people can't afford to have one on retainer for extended periods of time. Most people will often cop a plea because they can't afford to shell out a couple hundred grand to have a lawyer shuffle paperwork.

[maxwell's demon]

Of course he doesn't. If a republican gets off, it's a crime against humanity! After all, ALL republicans are guilty if someone says so, right??!! If a democrat gets off, however, justice was served! Because NO dems could be guilty of anything!!

:rolleyes:


come on Lazur. you know better. did i say ANYTHING like that? no. you did.

Oh, but nice to see you again. seriously. But come on, can't we get beyond that partisan stereotyping? or is that what you really still think of me?

It's an old tactic.
I know- and all i meant is that it doesn't apply here. Fitzgerald is well known as a tough prosecutor who is NOT biased, and who has a good track record of cleaning up corruption in North Illinois. He's not going to do things "just to beef up his record".

so yes, its an old tactic- maybe used by SOME -but i dont' see how its appropriate to bring it up with regards to Fitzgerald.

[Emrys]

I'm just pointing out the blatant partisanship involved with ANY criminal or other investigation into a politician. Democrats believe a republican 'did it' no matter what the facts are. The guy could be completely innocent of any wrong doing, but if he was accused, that's ALL that matters. And republicans are the same way toward democrats.

It's totally ridiculous. I hate our two party system. One is always a slave to the other.

Agreed, the two party system should be going the way of the dodo.

Actually I think it starting to become kinda scary how hatefull the two parties have become of each other. I mean what's next, will they start to beat each other up when the senate is in session. Just look at sites like "Freerepublic" or "Democratic Underground", the sheer bile that is spilled by the members there about the opposition is incredible.

really, I ask, when did the moderates loose control of the parties? both of them seem to be made up of extremist loonies nowadays.

[PLAS]

I'm just pointing out the blatant partisanship involved with ANY criminal or other investigation into a politician. Democrats believe a republican 'did it' no matter what the facts are. The guy could be completely innocent of any wrong doing, but if he was accused, that's ALL that matters. And republicans are the same way toward democrats.

It's totally ridiculous. I hate our two party system. One is always a slave to the other.
although, every time a politician is accused of something, the chances of him being guilty are much, much higher, regardless of the party

it's a corruption prone porfession, just like stunt driving is an injury prone profession

[maxwell's demon]

... I hate our two party system. ....

agreed:up:

[ScottyBBadd]

Does it surprise you that there wasn't anything worth charging in the first place?

No, not really.

[Emrys]

It's an old tactic.

Having lawyers to defend you is expensive and most people can't afford to have one on retainer for extended periods of time. Most people will often cop a plea because they can't afford to shell out a couple hundred grand to have a lawyer shuffle paperwork.

Ahhh something else we guys in europe don't have to worry about, we got something called law security insurance that takes the whole cost of off our back. :p

[ScottyBBadd]

Ahhh something else we guys in europe don't have to worry about, we got something called law security insurance that takes the whole cost of off our back. :p

That will never happen here.

[War Lord]

I know- and all i meant is that it doesn't apply here. Fitzgerald is well known as a tough prosecutor who is NOT biased, and who has a good track record of cleaning up corruption in North Illinois. He's not going to do things "just to beef up his record".

so yes, its an old tactic- maybe used by SOME -but i dont' see how its appropriate to bring it up with regards to Fitzgerald.

He may be a tough prosecutor, but that doesn't mean he didn't use that tactic for that reason. If he had evidence that Rove actually did something criminal, he wouldn't have just dangled Rove. There would have been actual charges.

[tomahawk53]

Agreed, the two party system should be going the way of the dodo.

Actually I think it starting to become kinda scary how hatefull the two parties have become of each other. I mean what's next, will they start to beat each other up when the senate is in session. Just look at sites like "Freerepublic" or "Democratic Underground", the sheer bile that is spilled by the members there about the opposition is incredible.

really, I ask, when did the moderates loose control of the parties? both of them seem to be made up of extremist loonies nowadays.


Again Emrys I agree with you 100%.

It's sheer lunacy between the two parties. Somethings got to give or something bad is gonna happen.

Any way. HEY MAX! Nice seeing you again. ;)

[Emrys]

Again Emrys I agree with you 100%.

It's sheer lunacy between the two parties. Somethings got to give or something bad is gonna happen.

Any way. HEY MAX! Nice seeing you again. ;)

True true, but it's not just the parties, The Us seems to drift apart into to equally powerful camps, One is liberal progressive the other conservative religious I mean last election was sure a sign that ther is no significant majority for both sides. The nation is split down the middle.

[Addendum]

Who's Karl Rove
http://ericlindbloom.com/wp-content/Rove.jpg
Karl Rove on American Dad.

As to who he really is, I don't know. I never heard of the man until I saw the above on American Dad last year

[TheSumOfGod]

http://ericlindbloom.com/wp-content/Rove.jpg
Karl Rove on American Dad.

As to who he really is, I don't know. I never heard of the man until I saw the above on American Dad last year

He's the mastermind behind the infamous tactics of the Bush administration, and he's often called "Bush's brain". He's apparently pure manipulative evil, and he lives in the south of France. :o

[Addendum]

Oh...

He's a Visitor/Gorn/lizard people you like to go on about.

Hint: read the above with a sense of mockery

[TheSumOfGod]

Oh...

He's a Visitor/Gorn/lizard people you like to go on about.

Hint: read the above with a sense of mockery

No, what I've described him as is not a conspiracy theory, it's what most people who know him and who have observed his actions behind the scenes over the years describe him as. You should become more informed about who actually pulls the strings in your government.

[Addendum]

No, what I've described him as is not a conspiracy theory, it's what most people who know him and who have observed his actions behind the scenes over the years describe him as. You should become more informed about who actually pulls the strings in your government.
http://www.geocities.com/caleblauritsen/corporations.jpg
Here's a few...

[TheSumOfGod]

http://www.geocities.com/caleblauritsen/corporations.jpg
Here's a few...

Apart from those.

Karl Rove is Bush's ultimate PR spin doctor, the one behind his machiavelical and fascistic publicity campaigns, like his 2004 re-election "the liberal/terrorist wolves are out to get you!" bulls**t.

[bored]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/13/america/web.0613rove.php

By David Johnston The New York Times

Published: June 13, 2006


WASHINGTON The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Rove.

The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.

In a statement, Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said he would not comment on Rove's status.

For months Fitzgerald's investigation appeared to threaten Rove's standing as Bush's closest political adviser as the prosecutor riveted his focus on whether Rove tried to intentionally conceal a conversation he had with a Time magazine reporter in the week before the name of intelligence officer, Valerie Plame Wilson, became public.

The decision not pursue any charges removes a potential political stumbling block for a White House that is heading into a long and difficult election season for Republicans in Congress.

Fitzgerald's decision should help the White House in what has been an unsuccessful effort to put the leak case behind it. Still ahead, however, is the trial of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., on charges for perjury and obstruction of justice, and the prospect that Mr. Cheney could be called to testify in that case.

In his statement Luskin said he would not address other legal questions surrounding Fitzgerald's decision. He added, "In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Rove's conduct."

But it was evident that Fitzgerald's decision followed an exhaustive inquiry into Rove's activities that had brought the political strategist dangerously close to possible charges. In October, when Libby was indicted, people close to Rove had suggested that his involvement in the case would soon be over; speculation about Rove's legal situation flared again in April when he made his fifth appearance before the grand jury.

A series of meetings between Luskin and Fitzgerald and his team proved pivotal in dissuading the prosecutor from bringing charges. On one occasion Luskin himself became a witness in the case, giving sworn testimony that was beneficial to Rove.

At the case stands now, Fitzgerald has brought only one indictment against Libby. The prosecutor accused Libby of telling the grand jury that he learned of Wilson from reporters, when in reality, the prosecutor said he was told about her by Cheney and others in the government. Libby has pleaded not guilty in the case, which is scheduled to begin trial early next year.

...
* ** * * * ** * * * * * *


I'm.
I just don't know anymore.
I'd like to just trust Fitzgerald.
i just don't know.


*notices thread*


Go figure.


*notices who started thread*


Holy Monkies!:eek:

[sinewave]

welcome back, max!

yeah, this rove news sucks. he was obviously involved in some way and can't be trusted.

[dpm07]

He really exhibited conduct that was unbecoming and unprofessional for an individual in his position. I am rather disenchanted with the fact that nothing was done to punish him for his actions. It would be more proper to cite him in some fashion for his actions.

[cass]

Funny how liberals were praising Fitzgerald. "He's fair and impartial! He's doing his job!" But once they don't get the results they wanted from a witch hunt, it's time to question and doubt him.

[War Lord]

welcome back, max!

yeah, this rove news sucks. he was obviously involved in some way and can't be trusted.

He may have been involved in some way, but that doesn't mean anything criminal was done. The fact that nobody, not even Scooter or Novak, has been charged with anything should tell you something.

[sinewave]

Funny how liberals were praising Fitzgerald. "He's fair and impartial! He's doing his job!" But once they don't get the results they wanted from a witch hunt, it's time to question and doubt him.

there's always room to question everyone. i still think fitzgerald is doing a good job and we haven't heard for sure if rove's getting off scott-free. got anything important to add or is this another of your typical trolling sprees?

[cass]

there's always room to question everyone. i still think fitzgerald is doing a good job and we haven't heard for sure if rove's getting off scott-free. got anything important to add or is this another of your typical trolling sprees?

Oh no! He pointed out our hypocrisy, call him a troll or something!

[sinewave]

He may have been involved in some way, but that doesn't mean anything criminal was done. The fact that nobody, not even Scooter or Novak, has been charged with anything should tell you something.

what is that something?

there was obviously some underhanded things going on at the white house. someone leaked her name in retaliation to joe wilson's accurate portrayal of the lies that led us to war. someone better pay for it because that's a treasonous offense.

[sinewave]

Oh no! He pointed out our hypocrisy, call him a troll or something!

we call you a troll because all you do is pop up and make snide comments to people with differing political views than yours. i didn't see any evidence of hypocrisy. we're concerned about rove getting off scott-free, but nobody has come out and chastised fitzgerald for it. ask the rest of the conservatives on these boards if they're happy with the way you are representing them with your idiotic behavior.

[cass]

what is that something?

there was obviously some underhanded things going on at the white house. someone leaked her name in retaliation to joe wilson's accurate portrayal of the lies that led us to war. someone better pay for it because that's a treasonous offense.

Joe Wilson was, in the words of many diplomats, a nobody. He was recommended by his wife to go to Niger and did so. His investigations consisted of asking "Hey, you guys aren't gonna sell uranium to Saddam Hussein, you know that guy in Iraq?" to low level Nigerian officials over dinner. He never filed a written report to Cheney or the CIA. Accurate portrayal of lies? Only in a liberal's mind.

[War Lord]

what is that something?

there was obviously some underhanded things going on at the white house. someone leaked her name in retaliation to joe wilson's accurate portrayal of the lies that led us to war. someone better pay for it because that's a treasonous offense.

That something was nothing in the end.

It may have been many things, but it wasn't a criminal activity. Her name was leaked well after she had served her function as a CIA agent.

If there had really been something criminal about the leak, there would have been charges.

[cass]

we call you a troll because all you do is pop up and make snide comments to people with differing political views than yours. i didn't see any evidence of hypocrisy. we're concerned about rove getting off scott-free, but nobody has come out and chastised fitzgerald for it. ask the rest of the conservatives on these boards if they're happy with the way you are representing them with your idiotic behavior.

Apparently Fitzgerald thought that Rove-gasp!- didn't do anything criminal! Oh no!

And unlike the liberals of the board, who seem really into gangraping conservatives, I don't need a back up team.

[sinewave]

Joe Wilson was, in the words of many diplomats, a nobody. He was recommended by his wife to go to Niger and did so. His investigations consisted of asking "Hey, you guys aren't gonna sell uranium to Saddam Hussein, you know that guy in Iraq?" to low level Nigerian officials over dinner. He never filed a written report to Cheney or the CIA. Accurate portrayal of lies? Only in a liberal's mind.

i'm not even going to respond to this idiotic post because it's completely and utterly uninformed. stick to picking on teenagers in the comicbook threads because you obvioulsy have no clue about politics.

[Matt]

Meh, he would've just got pardoned.

I mean, all these people who think Kenneth Lay's conviction is big are niave. He will be pardoned at the end of Bush's term. Libby probably will be too. Liberty is quickly becoming an illusion used only to keep the masses in line.

[sinewave]

That something was nothing in the end.

It may have been many things, but it wasn't a criminal activity. Her name was leaked well after she had served her function as a CIA agent.

If there had really been something criminal about the leak, there would have been charges.

we're not at the end, yet. the investigation is still ongoing.

"leaked after the had served her function as a cia agent?" where are you getting that? she was actively working in the wmd counterproliferation department and once she was outted her career was effectively over. you'll come up with any excuse to kowtow to your party, won't you?

[Matt]

That something was nothing in the end.

It may have been many things, but it wasn't a criminal activity. Her name was leaked well after she had served her function as a CIA agent.

If there had really been something criminal about the leak, there would have been charges.

By that logic Jonty, Clinton did nothing illegal because he wasn't prosecuted, right?

So let me hear you say it..."Clinton did not break the law"...no, not gonna say it? Didn't think so you partisan hack. Go get beat up by your nephew.

[cass]

i'm not even going to respond to this idiotic post because it's completely and utterly uninformed.

Oh man, Teddy Kennedy's nephew didn't say that, that has to be wrong!

[Matt]

By the way, welcome back Max. We missed you.

[War Lord]

we're not at the end, yet. the investigation is still ongoing.

"leaked after the had served her function as a cia agent?" where are you getting that? she was actively working in the wmd counterproliferation department and once she was outted her career was effectively over. you'll come up with any excuse to kowtow to your party, won't you?

Here's an article dealing with some of the points.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007508

Investigate the CIA
An "outing" was the result of either incompetence or an effort to undermine the White House.

BY VICTORIA TOENSING
Sunday, November 6, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

In a surprise, closed-door debate, Senate Democrats last week demanded an investigation of pre-Iraq War intelligence. Here's an issue for them: Assess the validity of the claim that Valerie Plame's status was "covert," or even properly classified, given the wretched tradecraft by the Central Intelligence Agency throughout the entire episode. It was, after all, the CIA that requested the "leak" investigation, alleging that one of its agents had been outed in Bob Novak's July 14, 2003, column. Yet it was the CIA's bizarre conduct that led inexorably to Ms. Plame's unveiling.

When the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was being negotiated, Senate Select Committee Chairman Barry Goldwater was adamant: If the CIA desired a law making it illegal to expose one of its deep cover employees, then the agency must do a much better job of protecting their cover. That is why a criterion for any prosecution under the act is that the government was taking "affirmative measures" to conceal the protected person's relationship to the intelligence agency. Two decades later, the CIA, either purposely or with gross negligence, made a series of decisions that led to Ms. Plame becoming a household name:

• The CIA sent her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, to Niger on a sensitive mission regarding WMD. He was to determine whether Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake, an essential ingredient for unconventional weapons. However, it was Ms. Plame, not Mr. Wilson, who was the WMD expert. Moreover, Mr. Wilson had no intelligence background, was never a senior person in Niger when he was in the State Department, and was opposed to the administration's Iraq policy. The assignment was given, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, at Ms. Plame's suggestion.

• Mr. Wilson was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement, a mandatory act for the rest of us who either carry out any similar CIA assignment or represent CIA clients.

• When he returned from Niger, Mr. Wilson was not required to write a report, but rather merely to provide an oral briefing. That information was not sent to the White House. If this mission to Niger were so important, wouldn't a competent intelligence agency want a thoughtful written assessment from the "missionary," if for no other reason than to establish a record to refute any subsequent misrepresentation of that assessment? Because it was the vice president who initially inquired about Niger and the yellowcake (although he had nothing to do with Mr. Wilson being sent), it is curious that neither his office nor the president's were privy to the fruits of Mr. Wilson's oral report.

• Although Mr. Wilson did not have to write even one word for the agency that sent him on the mission at taxpayer's expense, over a year later he was permitted to tell all about this sensitive assignment in the New York Times. For the rest of us, writing about such an assignment would mean we'd have to bring our proposed op-ed before the CIA's Prepublication Review Board and spend countless hours arguing over every word to be published. Congressional oversight committees should want to know who at the CIA permitted the publication of the article, which, it has been reported, did not jibe with the thrust of Mr. Wilson's oral briefing. For starters, if the piece had been properly vetted at the CIA, someone should have known that the agency never briefed the vice president on the trip, as claimed by Mr. Wilson in his op-ed.

• More important than the inaccuracies is that, if the CIA truly, truly, truly had wanted Ms. Plame's identity to be secret, it never would have permitted her spouse to write the op-ed. Did no one at Langley think that her identity could be compromised if her spouse wrote a piece discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her expertise? The obvious question a sophisticated journalist such as Mr. Novak asked after "Why did the CIA send Wilson?" was "Who is Wilson?" After being told by a still-unnamed administration source that Mr. Wilson's "wife" suggested him for the assignment, Mr. Novak went to Who's Who, which reveals "Valerie Plame" as Mr. Wilson's spouse.

• CIA incompetence did not end there. When Mr. Novak called the agency to verify Ms. Plame's employment, it not only did so, but failed to go beyond the perfunctory request not to publish. Every experienced Washington journalist knows that when the CIA really does not want something public, there are serious requests from the top, usually the director. Only the press office talked to Mr. Novak.

• Although high-ranking Justice Department officials are prohibited from political activity, the CIA had no problem permitting its deep cover or classified employee from making political contributions under the name "Wilson, Valerie E.," information publicly available at the Federal Elections Commission.

The CIA conduct in this matter is either a brilliant covert action against the White House or inept intelligence tradecraft. It is up to Congress to decide which.

[sinewave]

Oh man, Teddy Kennedy's nephew didn't say that, that has to be wrong!

you're brilliance never ceases to amaze me. :rolleyes:

[War Lord]

By that logic Jonty, Clinton did nothing illegal because he wasn't prosecuted, right?

So let me hear you say it..."Clinton did not break the law"...no, not gonna say it? Didn't think so you partisan hack. Go get beat up by your nephew.

Clinton did break the law and was duly punished for it.

[Matt]

Here's an article dealing with some of the points.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007508

It seems like typical spin from someone who worked for the Reagan administration...yea, he's not biased or anything.

[Matt]

Clinton did break the law and was duly punished for it.

But he wasn't charged, so there must've been no wrong doing.

Wait, I see your logic. If Clinton commits "perjury", is investigated, and found that there was not enough wrong to press charges, he is a criminal, but if Rove or a Republican commit TREASON by ousting a CIA agent, then it is simply an attack from crazy liberals. I see how it works.

[War Lord]

It seems like typical spin from someone who worked for the Reagan administration...yea, he's not biased or anything.

The fact remains, politics aside, that the prosecutor is not going ahead with charges. If there was provable criminal activity, the prosecutor would be laying charges.

It's fairly simple.

[sinewave]

Apparently Fitzgerald thought that Rove-gasp!- didn't do anything criminal! Oh no!

And unlike the liberals of the board, who seem really into gangraping conservatives, I don't need a back up team.

i'm waiting to hear it directly from fitzgerald, but if he's not prosecuted than i can only assume that it was due to a lack of evidence, not necessarily that didn't do anything wrong.

you're right you don't need a backup team. you make a big enough fool of yourself without any help.

[War Lord]

But he wasn't charged, so there must've been no wrong doing.

Wait, I see your logic. If Clinton commits "perjury", is investigated, and found that there was not enough wrong to press charges, he is a criminal, but if Rove or a Republican commit TREASON by ousting a CIA agent, then it is simply an attack from crazy liberals. I see how it works.

Clinton's wrong doing wasn't sufficient for criminal prosecution, hence it wasn't necessary.

Justice was done.

[sinewave]

Clinton's wrong doing wasn't sufficient for criminal prosecution, hence it wasn't necessary.

Justice was done.

the justice of humiliating him just to appease the conservatives? that's about all that happened with that lame witch hunt.

[War Lord]

the justice of humiliating him just to appease the conservatives? that's about all that happened with that lame witch hunt.

The lesson here is that it is better to be up front and take your lumps rather than try and get away with stuff.

[sinewave]

The lesson here is that it is better to be up front and take your lumps rather than try and get away with stuff.

something the republicans have yet to learn.

[War Lord]

something the republicans have yet to learn.

If they don't turn things around, they will be learning a few things come November.

But they have been very upfront about their intents, hence the lack of charges.

[sinewave]

If they don't turn things around, they will be learning a few things come November.

But they have been very upfront about their intents, hence the lack of charges.

i was referring to the many scandals that have rocked their party. not to mention a few lies that were thrown out to gain support for this war.

[War Lord]

i was referring to the many scandals that have rocked their party. not to mention a few lies that were thrown out to gain support for this war.

Faulty intelligence is not the same as a lie.

I've seen no scandals worth worrying about.

[sinewave]

Faulty intelligence is not the same as a lie.

I've seen no scandals worth worrying about.


no, but lying about the yellowcake in niger after you've been informed it was false 14 times is a boldfaced lie.

you're not concerned about public officials taking bribes to persuade them to vote one way or another? why not?

[bored]

Apparently Fitzgerald thought that Rove-gasp!- didn't do anything criminal! Oh no!

And unlike the liberals of the board, who seem really into gangraping conservatives, I don't need a back up team.


Because even Lazur and War Lord at least stay on topic, as opposed to you. Every thread I've ever seen you post in relating to politics (though they're the only ones I've seen you in), you've entered with a blanket statement about how mean and nasty us liberals are, and then you occasionally make asinine, generally completely baseless statements about liberals as a whole being dumb and/or hypocritical.

[cass]

Because even Lazur and War Lord at least stay on topic, as opposed to you. Every thread I've ever seen you post in relating to politics (though they're the only ones I've seen you in), you've entered with a blanket statement about how mean and nasty us liberals are, and then you occasionally make asinine, generally completely baseless statements about liberals as a whole being dumb and/or hypocritical.

Someone hand this boy a tissue.

[cass]

you're brilliance never ceases to amaze me. :rolleyes:

The truth cuts deep doesn't it?

[sinewave]

The truth cuts deep doesn't it?

yes, it hurts so bad i can hardly stand it. are you a wiener? you sound like a wiener.

[sinewave]

Here's an article dealing with some of the points.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007508

i noticed this post just now so i apologize, jonty, for not getting to it sooner. i've briefly scanned through it and noticed a few things i'd like to comment on, aside from the fact that it's from the notoriously right-wing wsj editorial page. i promise i'll post a proper response to it tomorrow.

[cass]

yes, it hurts so bad i can hardly stand it. are you a wiener? you sound like a wiener.

You can't deny it so you call me a wiener. Okay!!!!!!:up: :eek::up:

[LastSunrise1981]

Faulty intelligence is not the same as a lie.

I've seen no scandals worth worrying about.

Sounds like a Bush supporter statement. I thought the intelligence for Iraq was 100% proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction?

Then when THAT was proven to be a false statement, they went ahead and continued with the WMD lie that cost thousands of innocent lives to be lost.

But Matt brought up a good point. Clinton lied about having oral sex with an intern; all of a sudden they want to crucify him and make him out to be this criminal. Bush, Rove, and other republican cronies were calling for him to be ousted out of office and burned at the stake.

But anytime Bush, Rove, or Dick are exposed it's some crazy media liberal attack from Mars. :rolleyes:

I can't wait for you republicans to get a taste of your own medicine.

[bored]

Someone hand this boy a tissue.


Hey, I do NOT find internet message boards physically attract....


Oh, you meant to claim I'm a crybaby of some sort. I see.

[maxwell's demon]

who is this young pup: "cass"? can someone fill me in?

...i find him and his worldviews intriguing.


Meh, he would've just got pardoned.

Yeah, that's my only hollow comfort in this. That and knowing that with Fitzgerald at the helm, at least we had a straight shooter looking into it.

I mean, all these people who think Kenneth Lay's conviction is big are niave. He will be pardoned at the end of Bush's term. Libby probably will be too. Liberty is quickly becoming an illusion used only to keep the masses in line.

matt depresses me with his further honesty and insight:(

[kypade]

maxwell :(

[maxwell's demon]

pykade:(

[sinewave]

You can't deny it so you call me a wiener. Okay!!!!!!:up: :eek::up:

when did i label you a wiener?

[bored]

who is this young pup: "cass"? can someone fill me in?

...i find him and his worldviews intriguing.




Yeah, that's my only hollow comfort in this. That and knowing that with Fitzgerald at the helm, at least we had a straight shooter looking into it.


matt depresses me with his further honesty and insight:(


Oh dear me, you've missed out, Demon. Cass is a fairly new troll who has brought us untold levels of delight. Go looking through any political thread that is being frequented in Community now, and you'll basically see what he does. I'd recommend "Ann Coulter needs to go away". He's almost as fun as Fred_Fury, who actually returned to the Hype for about a day in your absence.

[Matt]

who is this young pup: "cass"? can someone fill me in?

...i find him and his worldviews intriguing.




Yeah, that's my only hollow comfort in this. That and knowing that with Fitzgerald at the helm, at least we had a straight shooter looking into it.


matt depresses me with his further honesty and insight:(

You're better off not knowing Cass.

As far as we can tell, she is just some crazy conservative but unlike crazy conservatives like Man-Thing, Jonty, and Lazur...she never really debates a point. She just pops in a random political thread once a month, says something along the lines of "LIBERALS ARE SCUM!" then disappears til next month.

[Rayne]

True true, but it's not just the parties, The Us seems to drift apart into to equally powerful camps, One is liberal progressive the other conservative religious I mean last election was sure a sign that ther is no significant majority for both sides. The nation is split down the middle.

I wouldn't say it's split down the middle. The United States people are 88% Christian. The progressive liberals just scream loud.

[TheSumOfGod]

I wouldn't say it's split down the middle. The United States people are 88% Christian. The progressive liberals just scream loud.

They have to scream loud, they're a minority and they have very little political power compared to the overwhelming majority. :o

[Emrys]

I wouldn't say it's split down the middle. The United States people are 88% Christian. The progressive liberals just scream loud.

It might come as a surprise to you but one doesn't have to be an atheist to be liberal progressive... and the result of the last election proved that the democrats and republicans are quite even represented, they only won by a short margin, sounds almost equally powerful to me.