I was thinking about the substance of the case this morning, and it may be
that a crime was not committed, or at least not committed intentionally,
which I guess is the same thing. But the real question here is: Why did the
White House offer to fire the person responsible for the leak if it's not
Now THAT reporter is a prick.
On 7/13/05, Robert Munn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006955
~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble
Ticket
I think because they are going to play a Clintonesque word parsing game.
I will fire whoever leaked _CLASSIFIED_ info was the jist of Bush's statement.
And I think they are going to say, without a conviction, that there
was no crime, and if there was no crime, there was no leak of
classified
Clintonian word parsing = creating ambiguity about the meaning of plain words,
e.g. is.
Bush word parsing = staying narrowly within the literal meaning of plain words.
I thought you guys all believed that Bush was too stoopid to be so clever with
words.
Bush is sticking by the plain meaning
But don't either violate Bush's stated goal of returning integrety and
honor to the White House?
On 7/13/05, Robert Munn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clintonian word parsing = creating ambiguity about the meaning of plain
words, e.g. is.
Bush word parsing = staying narrowly within the literal
Um lets see, you have the name of Wilson, you know where he lives. In
less than five minutes you can get Valerie Plame's name. Its just
footwork.
So lets see, Rove knew the couple, knew whom she worked for, may have
even know her cover (yes she did work in the area for a CIA cover
firm), and Rove
Rove apparently didn't know her name and only knew that she worked for the CIA
from other journalists, not from classified info.
The way the law is written, in order to be guilty, he would have had to:
1. known she was an undercover agent
2. a. revealed her identity
b. for the purpose of
Robert wrote:
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006955
I saw that - that's hilarious! I think he also found a cure for cancer.
Mr. Rove is simply guilty of treason. He allowed his political
desires to get ahead of US security which shows either poor or
arrogant
Robert wrote:
Bush is sticking by the plain meaning of his words- if anyone leaked her NAME
or
CLASSIFIED INFO about her, they would be dismissed. It is now clear that Rove
did
neither. End of story.
That's a lie of omission and making the law an ass - living by the
letter, but not
Robert wrote:
Rove apparently didn't know her name and only knew that she worked for the
CIA from
It is not up to Mr. Rove to describe, via unauthorized leaks to the
media, the problem with Mr. Wilson's testimony. That's up to the
President and Vice President.
Now - if Mr. Rove's leak was
Oh are we removing politicians from the White House?
-Original Message-
From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:22 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Karl Rove, whistleblower
But don't either violate Bush's stated goal of returning integrety
If he's guilty of a crime or not is a technicality. He'll probably never
been indicted.
But from the information so far, I've made up my mind that what he did was
treacherous, weasely, and downright wrong. Whether what he did is
technically a crime or not doesn't change my impression of him.
So I take it that you approve of what he did and have no qualms about
Ms. Plame's contacts in Niger, Zimbabwe etc who have been put in
danger by Rove's leak?
It looks like Treason doth prosper.
larry
On 7/13/05, Robert Munn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rove apparently didn't know her name and only
I truly do not understand how you can defend Rove and crusify the reporter.
Rove should have had the guts (which it appears he finally did, at the
last second) to release the reporter from his promise when it was
apparent he was heading to jail.
But even if Rove did not break the law, do you
Given his expertise in smearing, I would not be all that surprised he
would do something like this. It fits well within his MO, just look at
the smear and whispering campaign he conducted against McCain during
the 2000 primary campaign in South Carolina.
larry
On 7/13/05, G [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now's a good time to reiterate how much i hate politicians...all
politicians. I guess i need to lump political strategists in with them,
cuz after all it is the strategy of politics that makes it so disgusting.
Given his expertise in smearing, I would not be all that surprised he
would do
Ethics and Karl Rove - now there's a good definition of never the
twain shall meet. Except in a negative sense. We're talking about a
person who engaged in some of the more vile slander campaigns in
almost 100 years the McCain takedown in 2000 for instance.
larry
On 7/13/05, Jerry Johnson [EMAIL
Cooper's notes state very emphatically that Rove spoke on double secret
background- meaning off the record- for the purpose of casting doubt on
Wilson's
story, not to expose Plame. Cooper broke his word by revealing this
information.
Isn't there a caveat to off the record in that
the McCain takedown in 2000 for instance.
He did the same thing with Ann Richards in Texas by instituting a
phone campaing and subtly campaign suggesting that she was a lesbian.
He got the vote out...same as with SC.
--
will
If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
and that would
Lawyer: Cooper Burned Karl Rove
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507121626.asp
Civil War, D.C.-style
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/col/story/327547p-279954c.html
Maybe the real target is Sandy Berger or Terry McCauliff? Someone told
those reporters her name.
On 7/13/05, Larry C.
good thing we have Karl Rove to protect us from the media, eh? Geez.
Even if Mr Wilson was recommended by his wife for the mission -- and I
have yet to see this claim substantiated -- this does not prove that
he was unqualified, OR lied.
In fact, it seems he did not. So who then is the
nope off the record means you can't publish it, ever, therefore nobody
ever agrees to this. Background means not for attribution. If I were
an editor and a reporter told me something was on double secret
background I'd interpret this as meaning that the info was fair game
but that it could not be
Dana wrote:
Even if Mr Wilson was recommended by his wife for the mission -- and I
have yet to see this claim substantiated -- this does not prove that
he was unqualified, OR lied.
Rove was a leaker acting on his own or with the knowledge of the
President. Either way he should resign.
By
I doubt the president is thinking that hard about it. His position
seems to boil down to Karl Rove is my friend.
I was thinking about this earlier. Is it me or is this a more naked
ingroup politics than we have had in the past?
Dana
On 7/13/05, Gruss Gott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dana wrote:
So I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not...
nope off the record means you can't publish it, ever, therefore nobody
ever agrees to this.
Nobody meaning a reporter? So then the defense it was off the
record is still meaningless, right?
Background means not for attribution. If I were
::taking a look at what you said:::
Right. background is telling, with the understanding that you will
not publish it as an interview with the source. So yes he would have
needed to be released from this ethically, but no he was not burning
anyone by revealing the information.
The off the
This explanation seems a bit unclear as I re-read it.
People like press secretaries often talk on background. The ground
rules for this are usually that the information can be used but it
cannot be attributed to that person. You are free to find another
source for the quote or to use the
Treason is a very specific crime defined in our Constitution, Article III,
Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against
them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person
shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony
okay.
:-)
This explanation seems a bit unclear as I re-read it.
--
will
If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
and that would just be unacceptable.
- Carrie Fisher
~|
Find out how CFTicket can increase your
It's amazing how many people discover patriotism now that Rove's scalp is on
the line.
I don't approve of the leak, but I don't automatically blame Rove. Apparently
he isn't even the target of the grand jury investigation. I'll bet a dollar
that he never even gets indicted for anything.
So
I doubt he'll be indicted either. Probably for different reasons
however. Isn't the focus of the investigation how the agent's name
came out? Seems like we now know.
Dana
On 7/13/05, Robert Munn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's amazing how many people discover patriotism now that Rove's scalp is
Robert wrote:
Treason is a very specific crime defined in our Constitution, Article III,
Section 3:
If the American Taliban isn't going to be charged with treason, the Karl Rove
certainly isn't.
I agree, however outing a CIA agent who is undercover for the war on
terror is certainly
Robert wrote:
It's amazing how many people discover patriotism
Maybe it's that they were always patriotic, but this clear line that
Mr. Rove has crossed allows you to see it in them.
~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading
Robert wrote:
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006955
I just got this note from Howard Dean:
Dear Gruss,
All Americans - Democrats, Republicans and independents alike - are
asking the Bush administration to come clean about the White House
leak that revealed the
does that make sense?
On 7/13/05, William Bowen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
okay.
:-)
This explanation seems a bit unclear as I re-read it.
--
will
If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
and that would just be unacceptable.
- Carrie Fisher
look, if Rumsfeld can cause who knows how many unnecessary death and
keep his job, they aren't going to fire Rove for this.There is what
they should do, and what they won't.
On 7/13/05, Gruss Gott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert wrote:
look, if Rumsfeld can cause who knows how many unnecessary death and
keep his job, they aren't going to fire Rove for this.There is what
they should do, and what they won't.
For what it's worth, I find such distortions offensive.
jd
I have yet to see any indication that Rove is a subject of the criminal
investigation. Rove testified before the grand jury a long time ago. The reason
this probe is still ongoing is that there is apparently at least one other
source in the White House who provided information to Bob Novak and
distortions?
On 7/13/05, John Dowdell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
look, if Rumsfeld can cause who knows how many unnecessary death and
keep his job, they aren't going to fire Rove for this.There is what
they should do, and what they won't.
For what it's worth, I find such distortions
You're forgetting one thing, Rove has proven multiple times that he is
not an honourable person.
larry
On 7/13/05, Gruss Gott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert wrote:
Treason is a very specific crime defined in our Constitution, Article III,
Section 3:
If the American Taliban isn't
not sure, I think I saw something saying he was a subject but not a
target. I think you may be right as to Miller's source. And perhaps
you are right that this source is the target.
Dana
On 7/13/05, Robert Munn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have yet to see any indication that Rove is a subject of
I read she hasn't been undercover for 10 years.
What danger?
On 7/13/05, Gruss Gott wrote:
I agree, however outing a CIA agent who is undercover for the war on
terror is certainly giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
I'll reiterate that Mr. Rove, a Whitehouse staffer, leaked
unauthorized
No, I'm saying it is only a crime if the information is classified, if the
source finds out about the information via official channels and knows that the
information is classified but reveals it nevertheless. In that case, absolutely
that is a crime and it should be punished.
I hear a lot of
On 7/13/05, Gruss Gott wrote:
This is bigger than politics -- every American should agree that this
administration needs to come clean immediately about this leak, and
any White House official's role in it. The only way to pressure this
administration is to show that Americans will not
Sam wrote:
I read she hasn't been undercover for 10 years.
What danger?
Hey, he's letting facts get in the way of our Two-Minute Hate, off with
his head... ;-)
jd
~|
Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's
for some reason I am finding it very hard to buy Rove as victim. Also,
since he apparently knew the couple and attended the same church, he
probably did not learn of her employment through Miller.
All cynicism aside, you are right that there are elements that must be
proven and that are likely to
does that make sense?
Yes. Sorry, I guess my response was a bit on the murky side this time.
:-)
Thank you.
--
will
If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
and that would just be unacceptable.
- Carrie Fisher
just checking I have learned that it is often hardest to explain
the things that seem clearest. Have you ever tried to explain to
someone how to suck through a straw?
On 7/13/05, William Bowen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
does that make sense?
Yes. Sorry, I guess my response was a bit on
Sam wrote:
I read she hasn't been undercover for 10 years.
What danger?
I dunno - ask the CIA. They're preventing Ms. Plame from publishing
an article about her role as they claim it would hurt their work.
~|
Discover
Robert wrote:
I have yet to see any indication that Rove is a subject of the criminal
investigation. Rove testified
before the grand jury a long time ago.
I don't think it matters who the target is now because it's still
investigative. Once the investigation is over the charges will
50 matches
Mail list logo
