Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4
Be Careful What You Promise; It Might Bite You on the Rove
Topic Started: Jul 12 2005, 06:38 AM (1,091 Views)
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Rick Zimmer
Jul 12 2005, 05:58 PM
(Don't you just love the right's spin --
you're right jon.. at least on this Board they are all waxing Clintonian)

I was going to post with "Quod Erat Demonstratum" but you beat me to it.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Everyone in Washington knew who this woman was and what she did long before Rove said anything. If you are so concerned about the safety of CIA agents and their networks where is the outrage for the reporters who passed it on to the public. here is every indication that Rove was not trying to disseminate this to the public (he was trying to warn the reporter about going out on a limb over something that was not the truth) and a reporter should have an affirmative obligation to act responsibly when given such information.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
JBryan
Jul 12 2005, 06:19 PM
There is every indication that Rove was not trying to disseminate this to the public (he was trying to warn the reporter about going out on a limb over something that was not the truth) and a reporter should have an affirmative obligation to act responsibly when given such information.

Thats rich, JB!

So Rove, political operative extraordinaire, has no desire to discredit Wilson-the-whislte blower, he's just trying to make sure Matt Cooper (husband of a Democratic operative) does right by Time magazine.


Your killin' me.

:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

Somebody make him stop!

In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Matt Cooper contacted Karl Rove not the other way around ostensibly to discuss welfare reform. When Cooper brought up Joe Wilson's allegations that Dick Cheney's office sent him to Niger, Rove straightened him out. Cooper burned him. There is plenty of documentary evidence to support this but laugh your ass of if you so desire.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Well, JB, I posted a quote from El Presidente himself reaffirming his pledge to fire anyone involved in leaking Plame's identity. Since you said that the President never said that he'd fire anyone involved in the leak, would you care to comment on that?

I haven't been able to find the original pledge in W's own words. I suspect that this quote from McClellan was it:

Quote:
 
Oct. 7, 2003 briefing: "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, that's not the way this President expects people in his administration to conduct their business. . . .

"If someone sought to punish someone for speaking out against the administration, that is wrong, and we would not condone that activity. No one in this White House would condone that activity. . . .

"It's absurd to suggest that the White House would be engaged in that kind of activity. That is not the way this White House operates."
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Jul 12 2005, 02:58 PM
Well, JB, I posted a quote from El Presidente himself reaffirming his pledge to fire anyone involved in leaking Plame's identity. Since you said that the President never said that he'd fire anyone involved in the leak, would you care to comment on that?

I haven't been able to find the original pledge in W's own words. I suspect that this quote from McClellan was it:

Quote:
 
Oct. 7, 2003 briefing: "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, that's not the way this President expects people in his administration to conduct their business. . . .

"If someone sought to punish someone for speaking out against the administration, that is wrong, and we would not condone that activity. No one in this White House would condone that activity. . . .

"It's absurd to suggest that the White House would be engaged in that kind of activity. That is not the way this White House operates."

Quote:
 
Q. And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so? And …

A. Yes.


From the middle of a press conference, this is not exactly strong evidence that Bush ever made an original pledge, only that a reporter implied it and Bush did not correct it. Is that the fire to which you'd hold his feet?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Seriously. Thumperino, you can't really believe that.

You mean to tell me that you don't think McClellan was authorized to make that original statement? You're prepared to throw McClellan under the bus in order to save Rove?

Let's assume for a moment that McClellan wasn't authorized. He said that Bush would fire someone, and nobody told him he could say that. That's the kind of person you would continue to trust doing press briefings for the next two years? You wouldn't immediately say to him, so, Scott, have you thought about what you'd do with your life after government?

Let's continue down that train of thought. McClellan made a huge, virtually unforgiveable gaffe for a press secretary. It has to be the worst mistake by a press secretary that I can remember in 30 years. That's not the kind of thing W would remember? A reporter mentions McClellan's huge mistake, and ginormous (Webster's added that word this year) red warning lights don't go off in the President's head? He just says "yes" and moves on?

Whatever you may think of the Bush White House, they aren't the Three Stooges. Mistakes like this don't get made, and then re-made.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Quirt: You are extrapolating wildly about my impressions of the whole affair. I don't care about Bush or Rove or McClellan. All I did was ask you if that was the best evidence that you could offer. Is it?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Let's see:

1. McClellan saying it.

2. Bush reaffirming it.

3. The press asking about it repeatedly, and no one ever disavowing it.

4. The fact that McClellan is still press secretary, which wouldn't be possible if he'd gone off the reservation in #1.

At the moment, that's all I've got. Seems like plenty to me.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
OK, fair enough. And I would be interested to see more as you uncover more. After all, you did indicate that Bush said "a couple of times", and so far I have not seen even one actual statement, only an agreement with a reporter's statement.

Though, as you said, no evidence of a prosecutable crime, so I am correct in thinking that for you this is a matter of principle?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Disclosing a covert operative's identity is more than a matter of principle. It puts people's lives in danger. It endangers our intelligence-gathering capability. It makes potential informants wonder whether it's safe to deal with us.

All of that is more than a matter of principle.

Then, add the fact that Bush (well, McClellan, speaking for Bush) said that he'd never tolerate someone doing that in his White House. They'd be gone.

Someone once said that it's really easy to have principles and honor when it doesn't cost you anything. You can't tell whether those principles and that honor are real until it costs you something to hold onto them.

W is facing that cost now. We'll see how he reacts.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Where is the anger from the right? And righteous anger it would be!

We are in the middle fo a war. We need to locate and find those who would attack us.

We need human intelligence.

Rove destroyed an entire network of intelligence by outing a spy, thus compromising all who ever worked for/with her.

And yet, we hear excuses, prevarications, allegations against those who were wronged.

But no one on the right seems to be angry. We are at war, we need spies, and Bush's White House outed one simply for political retribution!

But no anger. No demands for him to resign.

No reaction that would seem to be logical reactions when a spy is compromised in the middle fo a war.

Just circle the wagons and protect this traitor.

Absolutely amazing.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Edit
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
A little extreme there, Rick. There's nothing to get upset about. Rove hasn't done anything to get angry about. Rove didn't "out" the woman, because 1, he didn't even know her name, and 2, half the town already knew it. Look at the facts instead of your ideology.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Rick and Quirt:

Again, I have no stake in this poker game -- I am just trying to figure out what is going on, and it would not have even crossed my radar unless you brought it to my attention. But I would at least like for you guys to get your story straight so that us benighted red staters can understand.

Quirt said
Quote:
 
In fact, given the way the law is written, I very much doubt a crime was committed.


And yet Rick is calling him a traitor, which is I understand a crime. Well, is he or is he not a traitor? Do you have proof that he committed an act of treason? If not, perhaps you ought to says "alleged traitor" ...

Quirt, you said that no crime was committed, yet this is not just a matter of principle, then list a whole series of principles such as (1) in principle it is not a good idea to put people's lives in danger; (2) in principle it is not a good idea to
endanger our intelligence-gathering capability; and (3) in principle it is not a good idea to build doubt with potential informants. Then you wax on about principles. So if no crime has been committed, and the only way that you would see for Bush to save face is to have Rove thrown to the wolves, why is this not a matter of principles for you?

Just trying to understand, guys.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
The traitor here is Matt Cooper who revealed what he was told under a "don't use". However, let's tone down the hyperbole and all this feigned outrage over intelligence being compromised. I have no doubt that there would not be nearly this much outrage expressed if the information revealed was damaging to the Administration no matter how many intelligence assets it burned. The fact is that (as I understand it) Valerie Plame had been pretty much "out" for a long time and no lives or assets were really put in danger.

As to Rove, well, technically he was not revealing the identity of a CIA operative since he did not reveal her name and was not intending for the information to be made public. Of course, the Grand Jury has covered all of this ground long ago which is why we have not, to date, seen Karl Rove 'frog marched" out of the White House. Clearly, the President in his remarks did not intend to include something like this. If it can be shown that Rove intentionally "leaked" Plame's identity then he should be fired. As it is, this business of him taking revenge on a whistle blower (whistle blower with his pants on fire) by deliberately burning intelligence assets is overblown to the max.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Ya'll seem to be going an awful long way out of your way to protect this guy.

Why is that?
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Ya'll seem to be going an awful long way out of your way to hang this guy.

Why is that?
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
JBryan
Jul 12 2005, 10:27 PM
I have no doubt that there would not be nearly this much outrage expressed if the information revealed was damaging to the Administration no matter how many intelligence assets it burned.

Fair enough.

But do you doubt that there would be congressional investigations of the matter if this were a democratic administration?
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
There would be Congressional investigations right now if Democrats controlled Congress.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
jon... you're dressed in mypiano teacher's avatar.. :eek:
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Steve Miller
Jul 12 2005, 07:35 PM
Ya'll seem to be going an awful long way out of your way to protect this guy.

Why is that?

Yep, they are.

At a time when we are at war, a White House official undermines the security of this country and we get people tap dancing all around the issue, calling reporters traitors and a host of other things -- anything but calling Rove what he is.

None of them will say it is quite simply wrong to reveal a CIA operative's name.

Makes Johnny Cochran's (God rest his soul) defense of OJ seem tame in comparison.

[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
JBryan
Jul 12 2005, 08:29 PM
There would be Congressional investigations right now if Democrats controlled Congress.

Given the damage this man has done to America's security, there should be a full fledged investigation in Congress even with the GOP in control.

And the investigation should also include what Buch knew about all of this.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Come on, Rick. Damage to America's security? Give me a break.

You must be waxing satirical.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Rick, you've gone from merely irrational to all out hysterical. You're blaming the wrong guy. If you want to get all worked up over someone "damaging America's security", let's talk about the moron left wing hack journalist who was about to write a lie for a story, and who didn't have the journalistic ethics to keep an off the record remark off the record.

For that matter, if you want to have a discussion of outrage over damaging the country's security, let's talk about the ongoing damage the Dimocrat party is doing as they put their own political interests ahead of the nation's. Or we could talk about the damage that's been done by the antiwar pacifist left.

You're letting your hatred of Bush undermine your common sense. In another week or two when all the details fall into place, you're going to end up looking foolish.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4