Don't Play "Gotcha" With The President

On the subject of what President Bush has said about leakers and the Plame investigation, The press seems to be trying to move the goal posts on the President.  Here, for example, is how the WaPo recently summarized his position:

Bush has said if any White House officials were involved, they would be fired.

The Times, in a pop-up attached to  this story says the definitive Bush statement came on Sept 30, 2003:

And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.  And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.

However, in the body of the story, the Times gleefully characterized the President's statement thusly in their lead sentence:

Nearly two years after stating that any administration official found to have been involved in leaking the name of an undercover C.I.A. officer would be fired...

Later in the story, they gave us this:

[WH Press WhippingBoy Scott McClellan] brushed aside questions about whether the president would follow through on his pledge, repeated just over a year ago, to fire anyone in his administration found to have played a role in disclosing the officer's identity.

And this:

Mr. McClellan and Mr. Bush have both made clear that leaking Ms. Plame's identity would be considered a firing offense by the White House. Mr. Bush was asked about that position most recently a little over a year ago, when he was asked whether he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked the officer's name. "Yes," he replied, on June 10, 2004.

Well, on June 10, 2004, "Yes" was about all Bush said, at what seems to have been a hectic press conference.

So, let's not expect the President to be bound by the way a reporter re-phrased his original statement nine months later.  The President said, on Sept 30, that "if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of".  He also said that for a leak of classified information, they would take "appropriate action".

Plenty of folks who were "involved" with the leak won't be fired, the WaPo's phrasing notwithstanding.  Colin Powell, for example, seems to have requested the fateful memo that may have brought forward the notion that Wilson's wife was involved in selecting him for the Africa trip.  That makes him "involved", but hardly in line to be sacked.

Let's see if any crimes have been committed, or classified info leaked.  And let's see whether the leak of classified info was unwitting before we decide the "appropriate" response.  Bush was clear enough, without rewriting him.

MORE:  A longer excerpt from June 2004:

Q    Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

THE PRESIDENT:  That's up to --

Q    And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.  And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

Comments

[Neo]

It's good to see the one thing that the Washington Press Corps really didn't want out of the Palme case is the one item hopped on with such glee. I'm talking about firing those who break the law by leaking classified information. There are a bunch of folks at the CIA who had such glee doing such during the pas few years .. I wonder if they think it such a good idea ?

[xristian]

Where does the buck stop? Where is the integrity?Is it Rove's White House or Bush's White House? What if this were Clinton who pulled these dirty tricks?

[ed]

Hmmm.

You mean like taking 1,400 secret FBI files on various political opponents, and rifling through them for dirt?

How unimaginable.

[kim]

By succumbing to the lure of advocacy, MSM has repudiated its touchstone, the truth, and its attendant aura of objectivity. Like an honored scientist found to be fudging the data, MSM's fall from grace will be cataclysmic.

The truth of this whole episode is shameful to Wilson, the CIA, maybe Plame, the Democrats, many in the press, the list goes on and on. Those to whom shame will not attach are essentially collateral damage, like Rove.

Let's see if Patrick Fitzgerald is doing work of which he can be proud.
===============================

[Screwy Hoolie]

So having a treason suspect in the White House is o.k. ?

If Bush hadn't said anything at all for the media to paraphrase, the issue would remain: Why is Bush protecting a leaker who would give up one of our CIA operatives?

[kim]

So who, sayeth you, leaked, and leaked what?

The kettle is full of holes.

Criminality is not yet established in this case. Even Judith Miller is now in jail, civilly.

Oh, yes, Operative Schmoperative.
===========================
==============================

[Martin]

Thanks for adressing this Mr. Maguire!!!

A zero tolerance policy for leakers of classified info would only be the policy of a President with honor, integrity and who put the country's interests above his own.

You are so right that's that definitely not Bush, our Weasel-in-chief.

This bald attempt by the press to thrust integrity upon the President was totally bugging me.

Thanks again for giving the press the spanking they so richly deserve!

[kim]

And you too. Who leaked what?
==============================

[TexasToast]

"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."

Scott McClellan

I take it we can ignore what the President's spokesman says from this point forward?

Inoperative, or just problematic?
Gotcha!

[kim]

Again, who leaked what classified information?

Simple question, really.
=========================

[Martin]

Mr. Toast-the statement from the White House spokeman you cited clearly presupposes a policy of honor and integrity on the part of the White House.

As Mr. Maguire has ably demonstrated-that is not the policy of the Bush White House!

McClellan thus misspoke, and you, sir, are out of bounds.

[sgtjivanelli]

From a press conference last june:

Q: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President [Dick] Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

BUSH: That's up to --

Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

BUSH: Yes.

So, yes, he did say he'd fire anyone who leaked the name.

That press conference is here: http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/33463.htm

[kim]

Dance around the question again.

Hold on tight. The scaffoding Joe erected for you is not supported and won't take all that prancing and leaping about.
============================

[kim]

The operative word here is 'leak'. Who?

And, remember, Fitzgerald is not investigaing Bush's response during that press conference.
=============================

[Steve Carr]

Tom, are you really arguing that the President isn't responsible for his public statements. There's no complexity here. He was asked if he would fire anyone who leaked Valerie Plame's name, and he said yes. He didn't say "Well, only if we find out that Plame's identity was not common knowledge," or "Not if the leaking was in the service of dispelling a false assumption" or whatever. He said "Yes."

The questions of whether what Rove did was illegal, or whether it was well-motivated, or whether the info was really a secret, are, in that sense, irrelevant. Rove leaked the agent's identity to a reporter. Bush said -- that is, made a public commitment to the American people -- that he would fire anyone who did so. This is what this comes down to: either the President's word is good, or it's not. It's up to Bush to show us.

[TM]

So, yes, he did say he'd fire anyone who leaked the name.

That is the June 10 press conference to which I linked. A more complete excerpt:

Q Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --

Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

Q My final point would be -- or question would be, has Vice President Cheney assured you --

THE PRESIDENT: It's up to the --

Q -- subsequent to his conversations with them, that nobody --

THE PRESIDENT: I haven't talked to the Vice President about this matter, and I suggest -- recently -- and I suggest you talk to the U.S. Attorney about that.

The reporter restated Bush's pledge, but (in my view) that is a gotcha game - Bush's original pledge spoke to classified info and violations of the law, neither of which have been proven yet.

So, if Bush is saying "yes, I stand by my original pledge", what do I care if the reporter phrased it badly?

[kim]

This is a 'gotcha' game. Wilson lied, Rove responded appropriately, and all they've got is whether or not Bush knew all the details immediately that it is taking Fitzgerald this long to find out.
============================

[Steve Carr]

You care because Bush could easily have said "No. I don't pledge to fire the person unless the leak was criminal." He didn't. He was asked if he would fire the person found to have leaked the agent's name, and he answered simply "Yes."

[Steve Carr]

And by the way, what is this "Don't play gotcha with the president" nonsense? This is a democracy, not a monarchy. The president is not above other citizens. He's our employee. If he's asked a simple question, he has a responsibility to tell us the truth.

[Martin]

Mr. Maguire, Mr. Carr is correct.

You have crossed over from mildly amusing right wing nag to obsequious sycophant.

Bon voyage!

[Jack Link]

Please! The subtext of everything Bush said about the Plame affair was that anyone who ...illegally...revealed classified information would
be dismissed.

ALL the authors of the legislation protecting covert operatives
agree that Plame was not covered by the statute.

Therefore: no harm, no foul, no firing.

Attempts to get Rove fired for making an entirely legal and ethical reference to a government employee, in order to warn a journalist that he was about to print a false story, are nothing more than juvenile partisanship.
Ditto with the ridiculous assertion that Bush's one-word answer to a journalist's question at a press conference require him to fire Rove no matter what.

[kc]

Shame on the that reporter for tricking our poor retarded president like that.

[Jack Link]

Yep, I can see that this forum is infested with juvenile Bush-haters. IIRC Bush did better academically than Kerry when both were at Yale, but in the view of the mindless left Bush is still a retard, and Kerry the "nuanced" intellectual. And you folks wonder why no one takes you seriously!

[Steve Carr]

What is this "one-word" business? If the one word is "Yes" to a clear question, then the President is bound by it. Would you have bound Clinton to his word if he had been asked "Did you have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky?" and said "No." Of course you would. So don't tell us we're guilty of juvenile partisanship.

As for the idea that Rove's leak was "ethical," that's a remarkable statement. You're saying that we should effectively tell CIA agents who work undercover: "We'll try to keep your identity and the identity of the people you work with secret. But it's possible that somewhere down the road, if we need to make sure that the press is reporting a story correctly, we'll make sure that your name or the name of the people you once worked with is prominently featured in Time Magazine, the Chicago Sun-Times, and the New York Times." That's a really strong commitment to the intelligence community. And certainly it's ethical behavior of the highest sort.

[kim]

Steve, Steve, Steve. Go read the rest of the sentence your 'yes' appeared in. Context is everything, just as all argument is a matter of definition.
===========================

[TexasToast]

"He gave background to a reporter that sought him out, and for all we know, the reporter (or reporters) may have already known that Madame Plame worked at the CIA."

It doesn't appear that the foreknowledge of the reporters makes any difference under the statute. Still, it is interesting that you and Tom appear to take the position that there must be an actual violation of the law before Bush is “bound” by his pledge. A loophole – any loophole – makes it A-OK to tell reporters the identities of people who may be NOCs (as long as the actor is not sure her identity is classified). The intent of the IIPA statute is irrelevant as long as no one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Karl “inhaled” because he knew her identity was a secret.

Its interesting that this position means that Bush has only promised to fire convicted felons (who, interestingly enough, he thinks shouldn’t have the right to vote). Looks like we have our answer on the issue of “… how this White House operates.”

[kim]

No, you miss the point. The requirement is not 'convicted felons', it was stated as 'leakers', meant and understood as 'wrongdoers', and what Rove did was not wrong.
If Wilson used the authority of the CIA in his political attack on Bush, his relationship with the CIA, and all its parts, was pertinent and thus fair(game) to discuss. To think otherwise is absurd.

I'm from the CIA and I'm here to help you. Right.
===========================

[TexasToast]

Kim

I shouldn't bother - but ....

Its “fair game” to bandy the names of CIA agents to reporters on “double super secret background” as long as you have a self-determined legitimate political reason to do so? Than why, pray tell, emphasize “double super secret background”? Why not just shout it to the rooftops?

Your arguments sounds eeriely like what Phillip Agee might say. He had lots of legitimate political reasons.

[kim]

Bandy, Schmandy. It was a public service to delineate to the public just how Wilson was related to the CIA. Wilson introduced the subject.
============================

[The Kid]

TexasToast -

We may now ignore you. Rove did not bandy Plames name. Cooper called him to talk about one thing, then changed the subject to Wilson and Niber. Karl warned the report against going to far on that subject, warning that Wilson's trip was suggested by his wife, a CIA employee. Moreover, how Cooper represented the conversation - "double super secret background" - may have had little to do with what Rove said.

[Joe Mealyus]

"Mr. Maguire, Mr. Carr is correct.

You have crossed over from mildly amusing right wing nag to obsequious sycophant."

Mr. Carr has an excellent point - Bush (and McLellan, speaking for him)did make utterances which can be reasonably interpreted as a commitment to fire someone who's done what KR may have done.

But JOM's counter-point, if not necessarily persuasive, is certainly valid - how much weight does a "yes" answer to a somewhat misleading question deserve?

But in any case, the most important point right now is that it's still unclear just what Karl Rove was up to - ISTM it makes a big difference, in assessing whether Bush is under some sort of moral obligation to now fire Rove, whether Rove knew Plame was undercover and what his motive for the leak to Cooper was. There is a lot of conjecture on these points on both sides....

[TexasToast]

Kid

Correction noted. Bandying her identity then.

It was part of a deliberate political push-back. Cooper is the only one on the public record (so far) - but, IIRC, there were at least six reporters given the "scoop". Apparently, the political goal of dissing Wilson because he embarassed the President regarding the "sixteen words" was more important than being sure about whether or not Plame's identity might be compromised. National security violations are something democrats do, right? Republicans are merely "whistle blowers" per the WSJ.

PS Ignore at your pleasure!

[Martin]

Kid-that spin is just a lie.

Here's what Novak said about a week after his column appeared as quoted by newsday:

"I didn't dig it out, it was given to me. They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

It was given to me.

They thought it was significant.

They gave me the name.

Ok-insert your spin here.

[Steve Carr]

After reading all this stuff, I just don't get it. Why not just admit that what Rove did was wrong? What's your stake in defending someone who leaked the name of a CIA agent to a reporter (to whom the agent's identity was previously unknown)? You know it's wrong. If someone from the other side did it, you'd be justifiably up in arms about it. So just be serious, ethically consistent people, and admit it. Rove was wrong. He was derelict in his duty. That doesn't mean he should go to prison. He just means he shouldn't be sitting in the White House.

[Martin]

Rove was right about one thing, Steve Carr. These people need therapy.

[Joe Mealyus]

"What's your stake in defending someone who leaked the name of a CIA agent to a reporter (to whom the agent's identity was previously unknown)? You know it's wrong."

I would simply repeat that a lot depends on what Rove knew about Plame's status, and his motive. Whatever the odd blog comment (or WSJ editorial) here or there, I wouldn't necessarily assume that the weight of conservative opinion is firmly in Rove's corner right now. But I think it's natural for conservatives - who may not feel that the bureaucratic/media imperatives in operation right now are typically favorable for their side (e.g., the lack of media interest in Filegate) - to wait until all the facts are in before giving Karl the rhetorical heave-ho.

"If someone from the other side did it, you'd be justifiably up in arms about it."

It wouldn't surprise me. But note this doesn't mean conservatives would then necessarily be in the right. And it's always easier to spot this sort of inconsistency in the arguments of your opponents, than in your own. For example, would you be willing to bet your life that your own view of these events (or their importance) is completely uncolored by any pre-existing biases with respect to Rove?

[Steve Carr]

I'm not sure anyone's truly trustworthy when examining himself, but I really do have to say that I don't think my reaction to what Rove did would be different if it was a Democratic politico who had done the outing. I may be naive, but I think that there are certain things that are more important than party affiliation. National security, and respecting and protecting the people who spend their days in defense of it (as Valerie Plame did) is certainly one of those things.

[Martin]

Ultraliberal here. I freely admitted that Clinton lied about Lewinsky, and lied in his deposition. I supported his disbarment.

I wasn't totally down with impeachment-a little overly dramatic I thought-but I argued against it AS a punishment-I never denied the crime, and did not and would never engage in such dishonest hackery as is going on here.

If you want to argue about whether Rove and whoever else should be convicted or fired on the merits, fine, but quit denying reality.

[Mark Kleiman]

Tom, it's fun watching you squirm on this one, but I'm going to mercifully put you out of your mistery. On the question of whether revealing Plame's identity (which telling a reporter "Joe Wilson's wife works for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction" certainly did), we have the word of George W. Bush that it was "a criminal action." And he was certainly right: by contrast with the IIPA, the intent requirement under the Espionage Act is only that the disclosure be "willful" and that the discloser had "reason to know" -- not actual knowledge -- that the disclosure might be damaging. No one is moving the goal posts: once again, GWB is welsching on a promise.

And since it was known that Wilson's trip was on behalf of the CIA, just precisely what did it add to public knowledge to say that his wife worked there? If Rove had wanted to tell Cooper, "This was a CIA set-up job against the President," he could have said so: and not on "double super secret background."

[ed]

Hmmmm.

1. "word of George W. Bush that it was "a criminal action.""

You of course have a link that shows the entire speech and not just those little tidbits that you like right? Not to accuse, but I've read enough Dowd to mistrust when people pick out little phrases with no context available.

2. "the intent requirement under the Espionage Act is only that the disclosure be "willful" and that the discloser had "reason to know" -- not actual knowledge -- that the disclosure might be damaging."

You of course forgot the most important requirements, which if you did note them would utterly demolish your point. That the person named must be covert or covert within the last 50 years.

Plame was neither, so that makes your argument look pretty ridiculous.

3. "And since it was known that Wilson's trip was on behalf of the CIA, just precisely what did it add to public knowledge to say that his wife worked there?"

Oh a little point called *nepotism*. Tell the truth now. If a Bush administration official had arranged for her husband to fly to a foreign country on the taxpayers dime, you'd be screaming for blood.

This bit of information puts the entire trip into context. Including the fact that Plame was in the meeting where it was decided to send someone, where Plame promptly raised the possibility of sending her husband. Afterwards she wrote a long memo extolling her husbands virtues for this trip.

Isn't that something of interest? Particularly since Wilson had written an op-ed in the NYT?

4. And since you think you're feeling your oats there, what about that NYT op-ed? Am I to believe that someone who was a covert or undercover agent, working at Langley of all places, would be ok with her husband writing an extremely public and very explosive op-ed in the NEW YORK TIMES?

What? That wasn't going to generate interest? That wasn't going to induce thousands of people to start digging into the background and life of Joe Wilson, Ambassador and world traveller? Amd I to believe that nobody would ever have discovered that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA headquarters in Langley?

Why don't you go ahead and outline a scenario where Joe Wilson can write that op-ed and his wife's job couldn't possibly ever come out. Go ahead and post here a scenario where a cover or undercover operative would be ok with her *husband* writing that op-ed in the NYT.

Cause we all know that super secret undercover covert operatives of the CIA enjoy having their spouse writing op-eds for the NYT and going on every single TV show in America.

It's right in the CIA manual on how to remain a super secret undercover covert operative.

I'll be sitting here watching you squirm. But most likely outcome is that you'll run away until nobody remembers your post.

[ed]

Hmmm.

"last 50 years."

Whoops. Let that read "5 years".

Sometimes you never review a post enough.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

"but I really do have to say that I don't think my reaction to what Rove did would be different if it was a Democratic politico who had done the outing."

Then what is your opinion of the NYT article that outed many actual covert operatives of the CIA and destroyed a useful front company?

You know. Aero Contractors, Ltd.

Link

So. How about it? Prison time for the reporters? You'd approve prison time right?

[Joe Mealyus]

"...there are certain things that are more important than party affiliation. National security, and respecting and protecting the people who spend their days in defense of it..."

True, although of course invocations of "national security" are often mis-used by presidents and others as a means of ass-covering or flag-waving or rhetorical bullying. In this case, I'd still like to be certain that the CIA really cared about Plame's undercover status - which I think is in some doubt. (Call me crazy - I think there's a chance Novak is telling the truth about his contacts with the CIA, and I also think the CIA, as an institution, is capable of prevarication - of course, I still remember the liberals of the 70's, who were somewhat less trusting of the CIA's word).

So back to the point "Why not just admit that what Rove did was wrong?", I'd say the answer is, what would be the point? Who can be certain, yet? I think there's still a chance that Rove's conduct in this case will turn out to have been relatively (well, consider his occupation) ethically benign. I think this is the true point of JustOneMinute's postings on this matter, I don't think he's saying "Karl Rove is likely to come out of this smelling like a rose," I think he's saying "just one minute."

[ed]

Hmmmm.

"After reading all this stuff, I just don't get it. Why not just admit that what Rove did was wrong? What's your stake in defending someone who leaked the name of a CIA agent to a reporter (to whom the agent's identity was previously unknown)?"

1. It's not clear that Rove did anything all that wrong. Plame worked openly at Langley, you know. CIA headquarters. I admit I don't know all that much about terrorists and crazy third world crackpots, but I think having "Langley" on your resume is not a good thing.

2. What makes you think that Cooper didn't know about Plame prior to him calling Rove? What Cooper wrote was a summary of their conversation. What the memo didn't include was that Cooper received any sort of revelation.

So please show me, in that specific email of course, what would lead you to believe that Cooper learned of Plame's job from Rove?

[Joe Mealyus]

Note that Hugh Hewitt has a pretty interesting post re how much the CIA cared about maintaining Plame's undercover status. He quotes at length from a brief submitted by the press on behalf of Cooper and Miller, which argues that the CIA demonstrably did not care.

[Joe Mealyus]

Note also that Hewitt quotes David Gregory of NBC asking almost the same question as Steve Carr above: "So did the president think that Karl Rove did something wrong or doesn't he?...Even if it wasn't a crime?"

It may be a legitimate question asked of the man on the street, or the pseudo-person in the blog comments, but certainly not a question Bush can really answer, unless he *knows* (not thinks) one way or the other.

[bones]

What a bunch of legal weasels we have here. Bush should only care if a crime is actually committed? Really? The loss of the services of a n undercover CIA agent AND the company she worked for is of no consequence?

You don't really belive that.

Even if you can convince yourself that the leak was unintentional, it's STILL a pretty serious breach of security. It's pretty much proof that at the very least the leaker(s) cannot be trusted with access to confidential information.

On that basis alone Bush would sideline Rove pending the conclusion of the investigation if he cared at all about the Country.

When you screw up with classified information, you loose your security clearance IMMEDIATELY. Not 2 years later after you are formally charged with a crime.

If Bush were a man of his word, Rove would already be re-assigned to a no-clearance job at the very least. And if he really cared about the security of the country, Rove would be vacationing at Gitmo.

bones

[Martin]

"So please show me, in that specific email of course, what would lead you to believe that Cooper learned of Plame's job from Rove?"

Hey Ed-forget the e-mail-how about the fact that Cooper told the grand jury yesterday that Rove was his source for this little nugget o' treason?

[Martin]

Ok. Nevermind. I see the gameplan is to call Cooper a liar:

Sayeth Rove's attorney: "Cooper's truthful testimony today will not call into question the accuracy or completeness of anything Rove has previously said to the prosecutor or the grand jury."

As to his untruthful testimony however...

[Nutthuis]

Trying to warn Cooper off of a false story just doesn't pass the smell test.

When Newsweek asked the Pentagon about the Koran in the toilet story they didn't warn them off of a "false" story. They let it go out and days later when Newsweek published the right jumped all over it as being false. It discredited the story as well as Newsweek, a twofer. Why wouldn't this be the same way to handle Time; let them publish, denounce the story as false and discredit the story as well as Cooper.

Now we are to believe that Rove was just trying to help a repoter from looking foolish, bull.

[Rider]

Clear from Cooper's e-mail that Rove revealed classified information. I don't care if he did do it to save a magazine from failing to smear a whistleblower. ROFL. The instant the President found that out he should have yanked Rove's security clearance and blocked him from seeing any more classified materials ("pending the outcome of a case now under investigation," of course). How much would it take for Bush to get concerned about national security? I guess he's going to have to walk in on Rove talking to Joan Rivers and saying, "Can we talk?"

[Steve Carr]

If George Bush wants to know what Karl Rove did, all he needs to do is call him into his office and ask. When Rove tells him (if he hasn't already) that he leaked the name of a CIA agent to a reporter who didn't know her identity, that's it: Bush should fire him. Rove used classified information to burn a loyal employee of the intelligence community who had done nothing wrong. That is a firing offense. Period. For God's sake, stop pretending otherwise.

[conspiracy is nuts]

The bottom line is that Bush, through McClellan (Bush never repudiated McClellan's statement of Bush's position), said he would fire anyone involved with leaking Valerie Plame's identity.

The only one here trying to massage the White House message into something else is none other than Tom Maguire himself.

In any event, Rove also lied, since he said Plame "authorized" Wilson's trip, an absolute falsehood.

But, then, lying gets you a promotion in this White House.

[worn]

Ah, it's so fascinating to see how the sides have flipped, with many on the right now resorting to the same kinds of semantic parlour tricks and "technically legal" defenses that we all remember so well from the days before pinning down the definition of "is". In all likelihood, Rove will get busted for the either perjury or obstruction of justice - we, after all, are all just idle speculators in the case of secret grand jury testimony - even if dispersing the identity of Plame doesn't stick as a provable criminal offense. It seems pretty clear that there is something to this, as show by Fitzgerald's rather dogged pursuit of this matter. That is, of course, unless one believes that this man appointed to the task by Ashcroft is also on a partisan witch hunt. But then, given the drivel that I've read from some of the posters here, they taking that position wouldn't surprise me at all.

Let's call it the chimpanzee defense: make 'em angry, get fistfuls of shit flung at you...

[ed]

Hmmm.

@ Martin

"Hey Ed-forget the e-mail-how about the fact that Cooper told the grand jury yesterday that Rove was his source for this little nugget o' treason?"

How about you stop dancing around and trying to avoid my point. Usually when people change the subject, and avoid directly responding to a point made in a debate, it's because they've got bupkis and don't want to admit it.

Be a man, admit it.

And I have to say I'm amazed. Most grand juries testimonies are secret. But here you are with knowledge of what Cooper said. That's really amazing.

So. How about a transcript then? You know. To actually prove your allegation. Wouldn't want to get the reputation of being all hat and no cattle now would you?

[ed]

Hmmm.

"When Newsweek asked the Pentagon about the Koran in the toilet story they didn't warn them off of a "false" story. "

sigh.

The Pentagon didn't warn them off because the Pentagon didn't know.

You do realise that the Pentagon is a huge-ass building with tens of thousands of workers and military personnel in it? You do realise that there are hundreds of military installations and deployments of varying sizes all over the world?

Take it from someone who did a lot of contracting work for the DOD. Nobody ever knows anything. If you ask them a question, the stock answer is that they'll go and find out.

The last thing anybody wants to do is pull an answer out of their hindquarters only find out it's completely wrong.

That goes double for dealing with the press. And yes, I've had to work with PAOs (Public Affairs Office) before. Risk adverse only begins to describe them.

[ed]

Hmmm.

@ Steve Carr

1. "Rove used classified information to burn a loyal employee of the intelligence community who had done nothing wrong."

I think you're going to want to wait until the prosecutor is done with his investigation. That might very well be the case, or it might not. There is a cabal of people in the CIA that have been working very hard to discredit Bush. In ways that are very illegal.

I frankly think both Wilson and Plame will end up indicted for something.

Oh btw.

What about my question to your statement:

"but I really do have to say that I don't think my reaction to what Rove did would be different if it was a Democratic politico who had done the outing."

Then what is your opinion of the NYT article that outed many actual covert operatives of the CIA and destroyed a useful front company?

You know. Aero Contractors, Ltd.

I provide a link up above.

[MaDr]

@ Martin

I'd like to see that transcript (or link) too. Not necessarily tyhe Grand Jury one, just where Cooper is quoted as saying Rove gave him Plame's name. All I've read, has reported that he's not syaing, because he doesn't want to scoop himself (he's writing a book).

[C B Kiteflyer]

>1. "word of George W. Bush that it was "a criminal action.""

>You of course have a link that shows the entire speech
>and not just those little tidbits that you like right?
>Not to accuse, but I've read enough Dowd to mistrust
>when people pick out little phrases with no context available.

The president did indeed use those words:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031006-4.html

However, I don't attach particular relevance to this. It was stated in the context of the charge that was flying around at the time, namely that somebody had intentionally leaked the identity of an undercover CIA officer. The response of: "...[T]his is a serious charge...We're talking about a criminal action..." makes perfect sense. Only later did we start to learn that what actually took place might be something very different.

"Bill murdered Joe! What do you say, Mr. President?"
"That's a serious charge...a criminal action."
...A few months later...
"Looks like Bill didn't murder Joe after all."
"SO WHAT?! THE PRESIDENT SAID IT WAS A CRIMINAL ACTION!!"

It's amazing how the burning desire to believe causes logical thought to go out the window.

[sophy]

I will thank for my friends bringing me in this world. I am not regret to buy flyff penya .

[cheap Archlord gold]

When you have cheap Archlord gold, you can upgrade.