All such documents in the Senate Intel report appear well after Wilson's trip.

I find Joe Scarboroughs take on the Rove affair interesting.

What amazed me was the attempt at spin by Rep Peter King (R,NY) on Tuesday.

A medal? For outing a CIA agent whose only offense, according to King, was in not speaking to the press, when she probably couldn't?

So much for Republican=patriot. I still can't believe the spin he tried to put on this.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...14/wbr.01.html

That doesn't mean it's over, although Wilson could have mentioned this earlier.

Scarborough's stopped clock was right yesterday. The twisting and turning to get out of this has included downright anti-American anti-patriotic weaseling, and it's sick.

And it's why I'm a swing voter. Once you choose sides, the truth, and/or doing the right thing, becomes less important than having your side win the game.

He meant as of the day her cover was blown.

And I advertise myself as a professional psychic ...

It could be.

Come on.

They were trying to use the photo shoot to cast doubt on whether she was really clandestine. His response was that the photo shoot was after her cover was already blown, and he mentioned the explicit incident that blew her cover.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8577190/

D'oh

Either way Rove is a scumbag. :mad:

Is this supposed to be news? Even a Nixon 'dirty tricks' campaigner like Donald Segretti seems like a guy running a hot dog stand compared to Rove, who has refined and almost institutionalized the process. Sort of a Mayor McSleaze.

It would be news to Bush since I heard him saying what a moral, upright, honorable man Rove is, just the other day. :vomitblu:

Maybe Bush really is that clueless.

Bush: Karl, where have you been? My god, is that blood on your hands?

Rove: I was just out for a walk Mr. President. The blood? Oh, I thought I would help out the cook and kill some, uh, chickens for dinner. Yeah, that's right - chickens.


Actually, I always thought he resembled the Gestapo agent in "Raiders of the Lost Ark".

http://us.ent4.yimg.com/movies.yahoo...l_freeman2.jpg

And Bush's dad fired rove for leaking information to Novak. Everyone knows Rove is dirty, Bush just doesn't care as long as it works.

Guy on NPR was chatting this case up this morning. He made an offhand comment that Plame donated 2k to the Al Gore campaign using her cover company as her place of work. That sounds like a violation of campaign funding laws to me. I know laws don't apply to folks inside the Beltway but I like to know when Fed Gov types contribute to those who steal the money that goes into their paychecks.

In what way?

She lied about her main source of income.

I still want Rove to fry.

Wouldn't her checks and W-2 have the name of the cover company on them? ;)

Admittedly, I've always had this funny idea that if you get a gumint paycheck you shouldn't be allowed to vote. This would extend to folks who work for companies who do guv biz as well. Of course, the way our economy is structured we wouldn't have much of an electorate.

She was undercover CIA! As far as the law was concerned, the cover company WAS her employer.

I don't care. :) I know laws are for the rest of us.

Ah, you weren't serious. Sorry. Sometimes it's hard to tell satire from the actual excuses.

I'm much more concerned with the CIAs snatching suspects on the streets of our allies than this stuff. It is worrisome when laws don't apply to folks in government, but the line probably shouldn't be drawn at something as irrelevent as campaign finance.

And the hits just keep on coming.

Why is this story different? Is this an abberation of the normal behavior? Is this the odd time the WH made such remarks, or is this the odd time the WH has been "caught" or is this the odd time the WH is unable to spin it completely in their favor?

**news flash** This just on the radio right now

GWB has clarified his position on the investigation

"Now, I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we can know the facts, and if somebody committed a crime, they would no longer work in my administration."

Also:

"We have a serious ongoing investigation here, and its important that people wait."

EDIT: Got the quote right from another newsbreak.

<strike>ARRRGH. Sh*t. I was trying to type as I heard the item on the radio and missed the last part of the sentence, so don't quote me on quoting the President.</strike> The essence of the sound bite that I heard is that the WH is no longer content to let their previous stance on the issue go unqualified. Why do they feel the need to revise their remarks? <strike>(Hell, for that matter, what were the remarks. I have tried to scare up the quote and failed. I'm sure it'll be available soon, though.)</strike>

Bush said anybody in his administration who committed a crime would be out, unless they were part of the center ball of scum. ;)

:vomit:

Funny, I don't remember a crime being commited by Dan Rather. He was never convicted of libel, because noone could ever prove intent on his part, either. And yet he was forced into retirement.

I'm not buying the 'Karl Rove set up Dan Rather' conspiracy theory. However, I would like to point out that most of Mr. Rove's most ardent defenders are the same people who demanded Rather's head when he screwed up, even though no 'crime' had been committed.

I've been hearing a few whines from Republicans lately that the anti-Karl rhetoric is 'just politics'. Well, duh. However, at the center of it is someone who used his position to attempt to nail a working CIA agent, declaring her 'fair game', with no regard for the importance of her work or her usefulness as an intelligence asset. Also, with no proof that she was in any way actively engaged in any activities against the President, other than her association with her husband. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, Ms. Plame has kept her mouth shut, which makes her seem to me to be the most professional individual in this whole circus.

For some reason, I keep flashing back to the Army vs McCarthy hearings. Joe McCarthy finally tanked trying to make it appear the the Army was harboring Communists because one of his aides got drafted. It appears that Karl was picking on a publicly non-political CIA agent because he was in a snit over comments her husband made.

Will this be a bridge too far for Mr. Rove?

I sure hope so.

Rather did screw up, and thereby corroded his credibility, and fatally impugned his own judgement. WRT whether Valerie Plame was actually undercover or not, National Review Online thinks she was not, and had not been for some years' time.

National Review Online -- McCarthy, July 19

The CIA thinks she was.

Getting closer. Fitzgerald opens an Official Website.

Read the article and the article that it linked to and found this quote.

Ok, so because the Russians think they have identified her, she is no longer undercover? That's not what the law says. Next.

Was Libby or Rove the anonymous sorce for that one Rich? :right:

We know, however, based upon what we have read and seen and heard that someone created fake documents related to Niger and Iraq and used them as a false pretense to launch America into an invasion of Iraq. And when a former diplomat made an honest effort to find out the facts, a plan was hatched to both discredit and punish him by revealing the identity of his undercover CIA agent wife. TomPaine

So far the Republican line on this is bad intel. If Fitzgerald proves the conspiracy we should throw a neck tie party for the whole bunch, but I'll settle for impeachment.

Senate Intelligence Report, Niger section, page 11:
Oops

There's still the fishy documents, weird timing, and even an Italian connection. How very Rovian!

Found it! David Corn taking on the interpretation of an Iraqi visit in the big scheme of things. Oops to you?

Another angle here. (And a Daily Kos thread discussing it)

There's also this Post story: Check the correction box on the side.

I'm just glad we could get to the right part of the debate. Now we have everyone (except for the Post correction, which is a non-entity IMO) agreeing that:

1. Iraqi went to Niger.

2. They wanted uranium. (It's the only meaningful export Niger has.)

3. They were turned back.

The Crooks and Liars take, which I have seen before, concludes that (and I quote) the intelligence community discounted the notion that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger; but this is Monday morning, and given the 1-2-3 facts on the table, do you come to that conclusion? Isn't it a direct contradiction to #2? Why would Crooks and Liars do that?

It gets hard to follow; but how did Wilson get those 1-2-3 facts?

4. He was a former ambassador, and highly regarded, but not an ambassador to Niger. He was ambassador to Gabon. It was 10 years ago.

5. When he went to Niger, he was told not to speak with anyone currently in the government because it could hurt further negotiations about the restrictions of yellowcake sale.

6. He was only there a week, and all he did was talk with people; they assured him that all was well and even though the Iraqis had been there, no transfer could have happened because of those restrictions.

Here are the hard questions.

Given 4-5-6, and the 1-2-3 already established, do YOU believe that Wilson could come to a very complete and total conclusion that Iraq was not seeking uranium?

When Brit intelligence comes to the conclusion that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Niger, does Wilson's trip negate that intelligence?

If you're Wilson, and the Pres makes his S.O.T.U. speech saying that Brit intel finds Iraq seeking uranium from Africa, do you then write to the New York Times about what you've found? Or do you wait six months until the war starts, the first invasion is over, and no stockpiles are found?

When you write to the Times, do you omit fact #2? How about #4? How about #5?

And finally, the biggest question for y'all: Is it OK that Iraq went to Niger in 1998 seeking uranium even though they were prohibited from having it? Are you copasetic with that because they did apparently get turned down? Do you think they wanted it for peaceful purposes?

What does that mean?

It's a correction, there's no by-line, and it contradicts everything in the Senate Intel Report specifically mentioned in the story. I'm saying it's flat-out wrong.

Update on that: a poster in the dkos thread says that Iran has its own uranium mines. Some Googling around shows that to be true.

Do I want Iraq to buy uranium, make bombs and kill me? no.
Do I want the US to create manipulative intelligence to support their deadly move for regime change when they can't make a real case to put before the American people with fact? no.
Why is Colin Powell so ashamed of it all?

Why were these forgeries that supported the incorrect claim so ellusive, essential and crude? Would the British spread false intel, even for a little while? Would we? Why?

Why not make a real case for war? Who would think of such a thing? How about Michael "Iran-Contra" Ledeenor one of his crowd? There's a track record of traitorous wheeling and dealing with national security secrets.

Upon his return, talking with whoever and for however long, Wilson's intel was deemed good by the CIA who sent him.
As the case for war was built, Wilson smelled a rat, and who knows what else he learned. That he came forward at all, well, that has proven to be a bold move.

I will be very interested to see what Fitzgerald make of all of this mess.

Here's a juicier link onLedeen. Who knows what's true? hmmm.

chek chek chek

testing 1 2 3

is this thread on?

uh... not since about a year ago...

Hitchens put the whole thing together Tuesday, in Slate:
WaPo piece followed Friday, "End of an Affair":
Ya got that? The Plame "outer" is anti-Iraq war.

And it concludes:
Fred Barnes in righty Weekly Standard lists a Hall of Shame

I was right this time, as I am 50% of the time, and I am bending over backwards to pat myself on the back for it.

Congratulations. Batting .500 is also a fantastic average.



That shows if you read, research, cross check, ask the right questions, wade through the rhetoric and bullcrap, dedicate the time, trouble and resources to the quest...... you too can be as accurate as flipping a coin.

OK, I'm a smartass, but there has to be more to it. Personal satisfaction, dare I say even fun, like a hobby. One that's a hell of a lot cheaper and safer than most hobbies, too. I mean you still get only one vote at the polls unless you count people you influence or sway to your beliefs, your truth.

The question is why do we even bother? Why not wait till it all comes out in the wash? Or will it not come out in the wash, if we the people don't demand it? I suppose they wouldn't bother with all the lies, spin and pure bullshit if people didn't care..... if people didn't question.

I guess distracted or even dumb people don't really want to be sheeple. Even if they appear to be clueless or claim not to care about politics or international affairs, they don't want to be lied to, betrayed by the people they voted for.

The fact that I'm rambling, thinking on the keyboard, proves i don't have the answer. Sorry, carry on. :redface:

No, you've brought that up before and I agree. It's very much like a hobby to me. I could spend my time doing more productive things.

A lot of news stories are soap operas, and others are mystery stories, that play out in real time. But it holds my interest like a soap opera or mystery story.

I hate it when a perfectly good conspiracy theory dies. Now let's see how serious people are about retracting. Daniel Schorr on NPR's Weekend Edition dedicated a segment to it.

[quote=Undertoad Ya got that? The Plame "outer" is anti-Iraq war.[/QUOTE] One can only say that if a political agenda justifies the spin - lying by telling half truths. Armitage is a founding member of Project for New American Century. Does that sound like someone anti-Iraq war? He was Sec of State Powell's assistant and good friend. He was not anti-war as UT so intentionally misrepresents. Armitage was not a 'gun slinger' - somebody who would routinely and publicly lie to disparage others. UT, you knew that. Why then did you post that misrepresetation of Armitage – as only a ‘gun slinger’ would do?

I didn't remember Armitage was PNAC, that does change things. I wonder why Schorr gave him a pass?

This is the WaPo point, I quoted it once, I can quote it again until you read it.

Nothing is more productive than doing something you enjoy.:thumb:

Enjoying it, being entertained by the way it unfolds, is a legitimate reason to do it. What I'm asking is, are there any other reasons to do it?
Are there any benefits to staying on top of the real time news?
I suppose stock analysts/brokers/speculators would do well to be informed, maybe? Anyone else?

One winter I saw my neighbor breaking up an ice dam that formed in front of our sewer grate. I thought, damn, I can hardly be bothered to shovel my walk. He's always the first guy to do his, and I'm usually the last to do mine. But it's not enough for him to do his; once his is done, he starts doing the street.

And what's the point? In a few days there will be a warm period and that ice dam will be taken care of by itself. And if not we can call the local township and they will salt it until it's fixed.

If I asked him, I know he'd say he enjoys doing it, and would rather get some exercise and get away from the wife by chipping up some ice.

No reason to do it, except for a miniscule civic benefit. Two things we need in our society: A) clear streets and B) informed citizens. Well, fuck if I'm going out in that cold.

So, your saying Karl Rove only gave away her first name (50%)?:rolleyes: