New explosive Rove revelation to come?

Discussion in 'Your Bloody Soap Box' started by Wurm, Jul 10, 2005.

  1. Wurm

    Wurm New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Time to get ready for the Karl Rove frog-march?

    I don't usually log on Saturday evenings. But I've received information too good not to share immediately. It was only yesterday that I was bemoaning the probability that--after a week of apparent Rove-related revelations--it might be a while before any more news emerged about the Plame/CIA leak. Yet tonight I received this as-solid-as-it-gets tip: on Sunday Newsweek is posting a story that nails Rove. The newsmagazine has obtained documentary evidence that Rove was indeed a key source for Time magazine's Matt Cooper and that Rove--prior to the publication of the Bob Novak column that first publicly disclosed Valerie Wilson/Plame as a CIA official--told Cooper that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife apparently worked at the CIA and was involved in Joseph Wilson's now-controversial trip to Niger.

    To be clear, this new evidence does not necessarily mean slammer-time for Rove. Under the relevant law, it's only a crime for a government official to identify a covert intelligence official if the government official knows the intelligence officer is under cover, and this documentary evidence, I'm told, does not address this particular point. But this new evidence does show that Rove--despite his lawyers claim that Rove "did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA"--did reveal to Cooper in a deep-background conversation that Wilson's wife was in the CIA. No wonder special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald pursued Cooper so fiercely. And Fitzgerald must have been delighted when Time magazine--over Cooper's objection--surrendered Cooper's emails and notes, which, according to a previous Newsweek posting by Michael Isikoff, named Rove as Cooper's source. In court on Wednesday, Fitzgerald said that following his receipt of Cooper's emails and notes "it is clear to us we need [Cooper's] testimony perhaps more so than in the past." This was a clue that Fitzgerald had scored big when he obtained the Cooper material.



    This new evidence could place Rove in serious political, if not legal, jeopardy (or, at least it should). If what I am told is true, this is proof that the Bush White House was using any information it could gather on Joseph Wilson--even classified information related to national security--to pursue a vendetta against Wilson, a White House critic. Even if it turns out Rove did not break the law regarding the naming of intelligence officials, this new disclosure could prove Rove guilty of leaking a national security secret to a reporter for political ends. What would George W. Bush do about that?

    On September 27, 2003--after the news broke that the Justice Department, responding to a request from the CIA, was investigating the Plame/CIA leak--White House press secretary Scott McClellan said of the Plame/CIA leak, "That is not the way this White House operates, and no one would be authorized to do such a thing." He also declared that the allegation that Rove was involved in this leak was "a ridiculous suggestion, and it is simply not true." Days later, Bush issued a straightforward statement about the Plame/CIA leak:

    There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. If there's leaks out of my administration, I want to know who it is, and if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.

    Perhaps Bush won't have to "take care of" Rove if this new evidence does not lead to a prosecutable violation of the law. But Bush also called on any government official with knowledge of the leak to "come forward and speak out." Has Rove done so? No. So it seems he violated a presidential command. Would Bush be obliged to fire him for insubordination? And there's another key point to consider: whether Rove told the truth when he testified to Fitzgerald's grand jury. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, has acknowledged that Rove appeared before the grand jury, and Luskin has said that Rove did speak to Cooper prior to the publication of the Novak column. But what did Rove tell Fitzgerald and the grand jury about this conversation with Cooper? And--here's the big question--does Rove's account jibe with the new documentary evidence that Newsweek is scheduled to disclose. If it does not, Fitzgerald would have a good start on a perjury charge against Rove.

    At a public meeting in the summer of 2003, Joseph Wilson, responding to a question about the leak, quipped that it would be interesting "to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." He then had to pull back from that comment and concede he had no evidence to support his hunch that Rove was one of the leakers. (By the way, Novak cited two unnamed Bush administration officials when he published the Plame/CIA leak.) With Newsweek's latest article, we may be getting closer to frog-marching time.

    Reprinted from DavidCorn.com:
    http://davidcorn.com/
     
    Tags:


  2. Colorado Ryder

    Colorado Ryder New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh yes. Newsweek! The same as the one that screwed up their Gitmo story? Then did a retraction? Does Newsweek have any real credibility right now?
     
  3. Chance3290

    Chance3290 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2004
    Messages:
    621
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I don't usually log on Saturday evenings"- GAL. Don't they have BINGO or something else you could do on a Saturday evening. Maybe go find a girl.

    I'm sure the "Tinfoil Hat" crew believes every word Newsweek prints.
     
  4. zapper

    zapper Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    Newsweek got the story from Dan Rather....
     
  5. darkboong

    darkboong New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,556
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sadly Newsweek were quite correct. The only reason why they retracted is because their source stepped back from the brink of termination after the Whitehouse lent on them.

    Remember the Whitehouse doesn't move in the "reality based" community...
     
  6. Wurm

    Wurm New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,203
    Likes Received:
    0
    The newsmagazine has obtained documentary evidence that Rove was indeed a key source for Time magazine's Matt Cooper and that Rove--prior to the publication of the Bob Novak column that first publicly disclosed Valerie Wilson/Plame as a CIA official--told Cooper that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife apparently worked at the CIA and was involved in Joseph Wilson's now-controversial trip to Niger.

    So, I guess we'll see just what their evidence is. If it proves reputable, will you Neo-Con Sheep have yet more excuses/lies/obfuscations??

    Face it gentlemen: your boys WILL be caught out - sooner or later - as the Downing St. memos show. And not just on the Plame case and the DS memos, but on several other lies, illegalities, and blunders - including their complicity in 9/11. It is only a matter of time.

    You/they are running out of spin, eh?
     
  7. Colorado Ryder

    Colorado Ryder New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Funny how if the story is anti-Bush then it is a credible. If it supports Bush then those on the left say it is from the White House propanganda machine.
    Newsweek has been accused of pandering to the White House (aka apologists...whatever that means) by retracting the Gitmo story. Now it is being held up as a credible news source. Well which is it? Are they under the thumb of the White House or not?
     
  8. darkboong

    darkboong New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,556
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey denial freak : Your Whitehouse buddies authorise and excuse torture, regardless of what Newsweek have to say on the matter. Don't come over all morally correct on us folks living in the reality based community.
     
  9. Colorado Ryder

    Colorado Ryder New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Latch on to that Newsweek story. Just as long as it is anti-Bush. Someday you'll pull your head out of your ass.

    Was Newsweek apologists last month and are they ok now? Please we need your unbiased opinion as to what part of the news is not propaganda. We all know you wouldn't/couldn't be biased.
     
  10. Colorado Ryder

    Colorado Ryder New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wasn't that Texas Air national guard memo "documentary evidence"?

    If the Newsweek story proves to be false will you come back here and admit it? Or will you just grab on to the next anti-Bush story? We know what you will do.
     
  11. darkboong

    darkboong New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,556
    Likes Received:
    0
    I never latched onto the Newsweek story because I am wary of un-named sources. Quote me if you have any proof to the contrary.

    The Newsweek story you've dragged into an entirely unrelated thread is a red-herring at best. Whitehouse Apologists like yourself don't have anything to offer apart from lies, proven liars, convicted frauds, vested interests, drug-abusers, unnamed sources, male prostitutes and red-herrings.

    Going back to Rove vs CIA, I was surprised that the diplomat husband made such a specific and strong comment regarding Rove immediately after the outing. Check out the man's career if you want a hint as to how unusual. Regardless of what you think of me or the Reality Based Community (ie: the rest of the world), the Diplomatic services work hand in hand with the Intelligence services. His statement was almost certainly based on accurate information than anything you will ever hear from a Whitehouse press conference, a GWB speech, Karl Rove, Newsweek, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall St. Journal or any other "news" source you care to name.

    Condemn it as conspiracy as much as you like, but that's how the world really works regardless of what you, your cronies and the Whitehouse press conferences say.
     
  12. Wurm

    Wurm New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well then, maybe you can explain where the real evidence of GWB's AWOL/desertion records went to - since the Pentagon claims that they "no longer exist"?? Read: have been intentionally destroyed.

    ALL U.S. military personnel service records are routinely archived in St. Louis and/or Denver. I know this, because I'm former Army Intel.

    Where's Bush's??

    Shaddap CR - your ass is showing again.
     
  13. Colorado Ryder

    Colorado Ryder New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe you can tell us why CBS and Mr. Rather felt they needed to fake a memo? Seems you "conveniently" forgot that little tidbit. Maybe you need to shut up, because you are an ass.
     
  14. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,131
    Likes Received:
    115
    I think media/journalism standards in the USA are pretty poor at the best of times.

    Apart from Seymour Hersh that is.

    Although the series of lies expounded by the Bush Whitehouse makes the journalist ineptitude of the USA pale in to insignificance.
     
  15. lyotard

    lyotard New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    0
    indeed, the white house uses anonymous sources for media leaks frequently.
    usualy these are termed "high ranking official" or the like. this privelege is then restricted from the citizens, who are tried and jailed.
    another example of the hypocrisy of the day.

    "wave the flag, pop the bag" U.S. Blues, The Grateful Dead


     
  16. lyotard

    lyotard New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    0
    ah, yes, once again, the rationale of comparitive moralism makes it all right.

    thanks for your bogus virtue in saving us from greater criminal deception in these matters.


     
  17. Wurm

    Wurm New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,203
    Likes Received:
    0
    As I said - what Rather/CBS did is irrelevant. Bush never did produce his official documents to prove his service record (or lack thereof) - before OR after the Rather flap.

    Seems to me that this whole question should have been easily cleared up by the Cretin from Crawford over 4 years ago.


    *anxiously awaiting your dissemblage.
     
  18. davidmc

    davidmc New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,415
    Likes Received:
    0
    They pulled the same diversion tactics when it came to a senator comparing this admin. (Dubya's) to other authoritarian regimes such as the nazi's. They (the nazi's errr...I mean the neocon's) never denied it, only attacked the messenger. I'd rather get my new's from a bubble gum wrapper than this white house. Ever heard one of thier press conferences :confused: They're a complete waste of time. If they were in a court of law they face jail time for contempt. Scott McClellan is the resident disinformation officer. Real slime ball. He better hope there's not a (vengeful) God. It's like Fox New's raised to the 10th power. Pure obfuscation/disinformation :mad:
     
  19. davidmc

    davidmc New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,415
    Likes Received:
    0
  20. Colorado Ryder

    Colorado Ryder New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why should someone provide information because you make a unfounded allegation? The burden of proof is upon the accuser. Therefore provide more proof than a faked memo.
    Seems to me this whole question is bogus. Only hard core politicos seem to care. The average voter didn't give a rip about what Bush did or didn't do 30 years ago. Most voters saw it for what it was...a political operation.
    How come you're not questioning Kerry for not releasing his records during the election. Wonder why that is?
     
Loading...
Loading...