White House mum on Karl Rove

Ah beautiful. I suggest you stop a moment to figure out that stealing 50 dollars is not as significant as stealing 50,000 dollars or even 5,000 dollars. We even have gradiated laws for various types of murder too. It's highly interesting should you choose to learn them. The most suprising thing to me is that you're upset about him lying about something that may not have even been illegal, merely extremely embarrassing and private.

Since murder is a fun example I'll use it again. Lets say you kill someone with a vehicle. Now there's a variety of things you could be charged with depending on what they think your motives were and what they could prove.

Example 1: You're a cold blooded evil bastard and you run over your wife as she's waving (or so you say) from the front walk. In court you take the stand and say that it was all an accident and you didn't see her, something was in your eye, whatever. The point is you lie. So the trial proceeds, some witnesses across the street note that your wife was actually giving you the finger and angry and shouting at you and you had slammed your car door extremely hard and proceeding to drive straight at her at full speed. So in this case, you've lied about something extremely serious adding onto an already serious charge. You're goin up the river for a long, long time, scumbag.

Example 2: You're a decent guy, you love your wife, and a horrible thing happened while you were backing out onto the street. Your wife is dead and you take the stand and relate that you were backing onto the street, she was waving goodbye when a car came at you from nowhere and you swerved to avoid it and heard a sickening thump. Witnesses report that there was no car, but you did hit the curb wrong when backing out, didn't notice your wife bending over to get the paper and hit the break instead of the gas and squished her good. Now you've lied about what actually happened because it's so sickeningly embarrassing that you killed your own wife that you can't really live with it, but it didn't really help you in testimony. Your neighbors did though as you have plenty of character witnesses and you had no motive for taking out your wife. It goes down as an accident, but you still have to deal with additional penalty/time for perjury.

Now what we learn in these examples is that it's stupid to lie, and get caught, either way. Whether you're innocent of wrongdoing or not. However, there's clearly a case where it is far more serious (although in murder it is always serious). In the instance of lying about a non-crime (to which you cannot even plead the 5th as no wrongdoing was commited), there can hardly be a punishment. Essentially you're trying to entrap someone after you've brought them in on something else to commit a crime of some sort (not talking about your sex life in Clinton's case) to which you can then charge them, which is completely nonsensical.


Back to the point. IF Rove was authorised, meaning he had appropriate security clearance and appropriate need to know about that CIA Agent. IF he did, he shouldn't have been talking about it and he'd know he shouldn't have been talking about it. IF Rove didn't, he was as clueless as you, me, and some reporters.

That begs the question, who DID have proper security clearance, need to know about that agent, and then passed it on to Rove(who didn't)? Was Bush himself responsible for the leak by accidentally giving information to Rove he should not have had? If he was, will he take the 'appropriate action' and remove himself from office?

Quite a train of Ifs.

First of all, you inserted an "as" that I did not have. I didn't say "as signifigant", I said "signifigant".



Condescending much?



It doesn't matter if it was illegal or not. He lied while under oath. How many times do I have to say that this is the important part? Stop ignoring that.

He lied while under oath.
He lied while under oath.
He lied while under oath.

Ok? It doesn't matter if what he was doing is illegal or not, he lied while He lied while under oath. That in itself is a crime. If he didn't want to answer, there is a fun little constiutional ammendment, #5, that states, among other things, "No person... ...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". In other words, he could refuse to answer the question. Lieing was not a valid option, yet he did it anyways.

Why is it you are surprised that it bothers me that the president of the United States of America lied while under oath in a court of law, while (just to compound the fact) he himself is a lawyer so he can in no way, shape, or form claim ignorance? Hell, it surprises me every time I get into one of these discussions that more people don't care.



We're going to have to agree to disagree, because like I say, I reject the entire line of logic that something wrong becomes in any way acceptable just because its not the *worst* thing that could have happened. I see both cases as equal, insofar as perjury goes.

I seem to remember, not too long a go, a quote from a certain unamed person, that seems quite appropo for this "conspiracy theory" thread.

Let's see if my tired old brain cels can dredge it up...

dig.. rummage.. dig.. scan.. rummage..

this.. no... toss... dig.. rummage

crumumple... squint.. ah

aha!

"I did NOT have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski!"

(Note... this particular quote relates to this thread in that (not pointing fingers at Dems and saying, "you did it too", but rather.. it's all a matter of perspective, it seems - whether lies appear gra, white or black to the listener.)

Interesting tangent. Maybe if the terrorists and leaders of the world were getting some good lovin' on a regular basis, they'd be less inclined to lay down their lives (or our lives, or the lives of handy bystanders).

In the interest of world peace, I recommend that we all get busy between the sheets. Be on the lookout especially for quiet men who keep to themselves, Texans and anybody in a black duster.

Hey, it may not be THE solution, but it couldn't hurt to try.

(No, I still will not sleep with Karl Rove. But I will salute anybody who does Rove in the name of international stability).

Yes or no is a binary response. It's not a shades-of-gray issue.

Hay! I were black leather duster! Really come on look at the middle east one of the most dangers places to live. Then look at Amsterdam. OK so it may be a poor scientific look but hay I think it is better then know. Get some and keep the peace.

Make Love not WAR!

If Rove did leak this information, the question I have is why?

Considering that this isnt the sort of thing that would be an "accident"

People are right in that Rove is basically the Republican party's voice in Bush's ear. The Staunch uncompromiszing party loyalist with an end justifies the means philosophy.

Similiar to the way Carville was with Clinton.

From earlier in the thread; "The Prince" by Machiavelli, was a sort of 'Cover Letter' written to the Medici familiy which ran Florence. Machiavelli was attempting to gain employment with them. Some contend not all the veiws it expresses are what he actually beleived.

The Book basically says that the governement needs to exist and make decisions where it is not limited by moral restrictions.

It certainly was a book which stressed a "End justifies the means" philosophy. The term Machiavellian means just that, and it seems apt to describe Rove.

Well one reason that is speculated was to discredit Ambassador Joe Wilson. At the time, he was exposing a lie told by Bush to the American people during his State of the Union address.

Specifically, Iraq's attempted purchase of yellow cake uranium from Niger. This was false and Bush knew it was false when he said it to the American people. Funny how some lies are more important than others.

It is an interesting scenario. Like the President, I will hold my comments on the investigation until is it complete.

I find it interesting that the RNC is answering the charges against Rove with charges that the Wilson article (which triggered Rove's disclosure) is not credible. Weak attempt at deflection, or do they really think that the accuracy of the article is in some way relevant to the investigation?

Guilt and punishment are shades of grey issues as dictated by our legal system (which is why we have judges, juries, lawyers, the whole thing), and as far as that goes I suppose you'd also want to slap a 5 year old with life imprisonment (maybe cut off his hand eh?) for stealing a 25 cent candy bar.

I read through this thread, and it is just amazing to me the way some minds work. This is all sooo simple. Let go of emotions, and think.

Rove (so far as anyone can tell, as pertains to Matt Cooper) did not 'out' Plame. He did not name her. In fact, if you read the contents of the email Cooper sent to his bosses at Time, it comes across quite clearly (as Cooper relayed the info to his bosses) that Rove didn't seem to know much about Plame. The language used by Cooper in the email (e.g. the word apparently) suggests that Rove only knew second-hand that Joe Wilson's wife (Plame) worked at the CIA in some area related to WMD, and that it was HER who pushed for Wilson being sent on the investigative trip- not Tenet or the VP.

Why was Rove telling Cooper this you ask? Because Wilson was spreading misinformation upon returning from his trip, for example that CIA director Tenet and/or VP Cheney sent him on the trip or otherwise authorized his trip. Rove basically said (again, according to Cooper himself), "Hey Matt you better be careful going too far out on a limb with what Joe Wilson says about his trip. He says Cheney or Tenet authorized it, but it was actually his wife who apparently works at the CIA in some WMD related function, who was actually pushing for Wilson. So be careful relaying in print everything Wilson says.... don't want you to have egg on your face for repeating his version of events that end up being debunked."

You see people, Rove was being a good guy in all this. You know what else? Cooper turned on him ('burned' him, so to speak) and misrepresented the conversation relayed in the aforementioned email in a story he published soon after the conversation. (One of those famous “Whitehouse out to get Joe Wilson” stories that got that whole ball rolling). Thank goodness this email came to light in this investigation! Or we would have never known the degree to which Matt Cooper was misrepresenting the truth in said story.

More interesting stuff: Since everyone now knows Karl didn't only not do anything illegal, and not only not do anything WRONG, but in fact did something with seemingly good and proper intentions, what have they turned their attention to?? To the White House press secretary denying on various occasions that he had nothing to do with the 'outing' of Plame. (Well, that's because he apparently didn't!) So of course the media is going berserk thinking they finally got their chance to get Rove (Bush) on something big. And in all this excitement and zeal, they have completely lost perspective on what's sensible and what's scandalous. That's right, they have lost all perspective. So here we see them yesterday in the press room screaming, "Ah ha!!!! We got Karl Rove on a technicality! He DID talk to someone about the matters involved in this story! Therefore the Whitehouse lied! Lied Lied Lied! Ah ha! We GOT YOU NOW!!!"

They think they can trick a large portion of the population into believing that Karl Rove (the Whitehouse) is now verifiably a liar and a crook, by attempting to get him on a technicality. Fortunately, they can no longer get away with such things. Meanwhile, those in the American public who can think (and who are not overly emotional, insanely zealous Bush and Rove haters) are wondering what the heck is wrong with the liberals and the media. And many of you that fall into either of those categories seem to be totally blind to this, but you are really doing yourself in. You are ensuring your own and the party's demise. (Fine by me…. It’s very entertaining!)

The Whitehouse all along said Rove had nothing to do with this story. And it is true, Rove had nothing at all to do with this story. This story being the leaking of a covert agent's identity, remember. The media of course is too quick to forget, revisionists that they are, and are now attempting to trick us into believing that the proper interpretation of "this story" is something that has anything to do at all with the characters in the story. Sorry, but Joe Wilson's great aunt who mentioned his wife by name (unlike Karl Rove) when discussing with family members why Plame was out of town during Thanksgiving can also safely say she was not involved in this story. So if The Whitehouse press secretary had made several comments over the last 2 years to the effect that Joe Wilson's great aunt had nothing to do with this story, even though she once mentioned Valery Plame by name, well the Whitehouse and Joe's aunt would also be in the clear, just like Karl Rove.

Facts the mainstream media will NOT tell you (or will at least attempt to underemphasize):

Karl Rove did not leak Plame’s identity. He didn’t know her identity. He didn’t know her job. He didn’t know she was covert. She wasn’t all that covert. Some reports are that she had not been covert in 10 or 15 years. If she was so covert, why subsequent to this story breaking did Joe Wilson and Valery Plame sit for a photo for the cover of a major magazine!!!? Craziness!!!- Boy don’t you feel sorry for Plame’s contacts in the field now?? LOL…. Now that she visibly IDed herself on a magazine cover, all suspicions erased, her contacts are officially dead meat!!! He did not leak and sensitive information to Matt Cooper. He had no ill intentions in his dealings with Matt Cooper. Matt Cooper called HIM. The conversation was actually about something else. Cooper ended the conversation with a quick question related to Joe Wilson. Bob Novak disclosed Plame’s identity. Judith Miller of the New York Times is in jail. She won’t disclose her source. The New York Times won’t reveal her source. Her article/s never made it to press. We don’t know what information she had and from whom she got it. Karl Rove released both reporters (Miller and Cooper) of any obligation to confidentiality TWO YEARS AGO. We most certainly know Karl Rove wasn’t her source. Bob Novak disclosed Plame’s name and covert status. Bob Novak cooperated with the prosecutor/investigator (no one knows to what degree) and is not in trouble. Yet Miller, whos work was not published, is still in jail.

What does this tell us?? It tells us the real meat of this story involves Judith Miller and the NYT and a source that is likely embarrassing to them. This ridiculous attention devoted to Rove is a distraction, and indicative that the media is once again covering up for their own. If they were doing their job, they would be all OVER the NYT and Judith Miller (who actually DID run afoul of the law, unlike KARL ROVE- that’s why she is in jail!) When the investigation is over, and the details are out, this ought to be quite embarrassing for the left, the media, and the NYT.

Why not take a lesson from the CBS / Dan Rather / fake documents case? Why not learn from experience? Instead, it’s the same old pattern…. Circle the wagons, distract, stonewall, etc. And more and more of the American populace will see who the left is. And their irrational-worldview-based governing philosophy (a foundation of sand) will continue to erode.

Cheers Mates!

I repeat, condescending much?

When a question is binary, it isn't shades of grey. "Did you do a thing, or did you not do a thing?" 1 or 0. Not 7. This is not about guilt or punishment as it stands in a court of law.

I'm not even going to address the second point of your post because it's a classic example of reduction to the absurd, and isn't supported by any comments I have made.

And those were the RNC talking points I was alluding to earlier, parroted almost verbatim.

They all miss the essential point that Rove outed a covert operative. Whether it can be proven that he did so 'deliberately' is the only question remaining.

It is kind of funny to watch the neo-cons flailing around on this. The only real strategy they've articulated is to take random pot-shots and hope the story gets buried by the Supreme Court nomination. That's the desperate hope of a movement that sees their own battlements crumbling beneath them... pretend it's the other side that's falling apart.

See ya at the polls! I am really looking forward to the next election.

Thanks Arc! I have not visited the RNC site or otherwise seen or been subject to any form of RNC message dispersion media in months! I don’t even have cable or satellite TV! That’s so reassuring! Thank you!


Hmm Arc… if you read my post, you will see that I clearly established that Rove did not out anyone. This is a given now. How can you out someone without giving their name or details to their covert activity, undercover identity, and so on? You can’t! (There you go ensuring your party’s demise again…)
That makes about as much sense as if I were to suggest that by my mentioning that your SL last name is Codesmith, I would be outing your FL identity.


Odd, it seems that it is the White House press corps flailing. I can’t wait for the investigation to be over so the details will come out. And I REALLY can’t wait for Supreme Court action! More of the left alienating non-Nihilists and non-existentialists! Exciting times!


Amen to that! Wouldn’t want to be one of you come election day, Heck no! The increasingly learned populace won’t to continue to support the pandering existentialists

My party is Green. I don't see our demise happening within your lifetime.

If I tell a reporter your wife works for the CIA, and her cover is that she works for an outside company, well then I've effectively blown her cover even if I don't mention her name or what she does for the agency.

And while I have no major issues with existentialism, I'm not, strictly speaking, an existentialist. I serve a divine purpose. It's just not the same divinity as yours.

One problem here:

Who?

(And wasn't it "former ambassador"?)

Anyway, if it's tough or impossible to prove that "Bush knew" something like this in a court (I'm assuming it is since there's no word of anything like it), how can we now say this was the case with such certainty?

My advice to people on this is to chill out and relax. Put down the nooses and pitchforks, go back home, disband the mob. There's an active investigation going on now. Wait for the facts before forming an opinion, otherwise you just risk making a fool of yourself.

You know, the current Republican National Committee chairperson has been making the rounds on the television talk shows, defending Rove and explaining the Bush administration's nonresponse to this issue. Word for word, nearly, his comments are your comments. He's even used the same phrases and grammatical constructions.

Welcome to Second Life, current RNC chairperson. Apparently it will be interesting to have you here with us. I just wanted to warn other SL'ers about who you are, to make sure that no one made a mistake about what's going on here - because apparently you're spreading misinformation. I want to make sure that no one repeats what you've said in print, in these forums, only to have it debunked later on. That would be embarrassing for them. And maybe for you.

I'm not violating the ToS by identifying who you are in real life, because I haven't actually used your name. I'm actually being a good guy in all this and trying to help people who might be misled by you. So even if I might be violating the ToS, maybe a little bit, my motive makes everything OK. Apparently, anyway.

Is that the gist of your argument, Ke -- err, Magnus?

Probably a good idea. And it might have been good for the Bush administration to have taken this advice and not talked incessantly about the issue before some of the facts came out about Karl Rove's involvement.

Actually Seth, I'm glad you said something first. The "cheers" thing outed him to me as someone that's been posting pretty prolifically on another, very popular forum/news website I frequent. You should have seen what he was spouting BEFORE the RNC "talking points" memo came out.

Yes, maybe, but I'm not sure what the situation and context was back then...the situation may have been different.

What I find funny though, is how people and the media think Scott M. (not sure how to spell) is so dazzled by the questions he's being asked, which obviously he is not even permitted to answer. If he/they did express an opinion now, while an investigation is going on, that would clearly be more wrong and much more stupid than saying "I can't comment".

Dear Sir,

Actually, Wilson didn't say any such thing.

In his Op Ed piece, "What I Didn't Find in Africa", Wilson writes: "In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report ... The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

Cheney's office asked for a report, and the agency - the CIA - asked Wilson to go. Not Cheney.

There's also a CNN interview with Wilson - which, incidentally, was given in August of 2003, a month after Rove's interview in question - where he again states that the CIA sent him to Niger, not direct orders from Cheney. But of course THAT'S a moot point, because this was an interview given a month AFTER Rove's little good-natured warning to Cooper.


Hard to be the good guy, stopping the spread of misinformation and all, when there wasn't any misinformation to begin with. However, it should also be noted that Rove has been caught leaking and lying before for political gain, so he's already established his credibility well before now.

Actually, what I think is funny is that he hasn't had problems commenting before.

Even if you no longer hold the post, you retain the title Ambassador.