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
  • 3
Be Careful What You Promise; It Might Bite You on the Rove
Topic Started: Jul 12 2005, 06:38 AM (1,090 Views)
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
JBryan
Jul 12 2005, 09:27 PM
Come on, Rick. Damage to America's security? Give me a break.

You must be waxing satirical.

In all of the investigations about went wrong with our intelligence services dealing with 911, one of the major deficiencies the CIA has been criticized for is the lack of human intelligence.

When a CIA operative is exposed, any and all individuals he/she had worked with to provide her information are compromised and, in fact, placed in danger. They are no longer available to the CIA for the human intelligence the CIA needs. In addition, further investigation by other intelligence services based on this knowledge, especially those services of our enemies, can lead to other links and identify other networks and people who the CIA used.

This compromises and damages the nation's security.

It is why there is a law which makes identifying CIA operatives illegal.

Rove broke this law.

He damaged our security.

You can minimize this if you want. You can argue that "everyone" in Washington already knew she was a spy. You can say anything you want.

The fact remains that anyone she used to gather intelligence were also compromised by Rove's actions and our security has been irreparably harms.
[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
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Rick, she wasn't even an active agent. Her husband had "outed" her a long time ago. Rove didn't "out" her anyway. You need to stop and pay attention to the details of this.

Now - ready to discuss the damage done to our national security by pacifist antiwar liberals and self serving Democrat politicians? For someone so worked up over the condition of our national security, it seems to me you'd want to dig right into that.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Larry
Jul 12 2005, 10:01 PM
Rick, she wasn't even an active agent. Her husband had "outed" her a long time ago. Rove didn't "out" her anyway.

Source, please.
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Larry
Jul 12 2005, 10:01 PM
Rick, she wasn't even an active agent. Her husband had "outed" her a long time ago. Rove didn't "out" her anyway. You need to stop and pay attention to the details of this.

Now - ready to discuss the damage done to our national security by pacifist antiwar liberals and self serving Democrat politicians? For someone so worked up over the condition of our national security, it seems to me you'd want to dig right into that.

Larry,

Let's not change the subject. This is about Rove and the damage he did. If you would like to discuss other actions which you feel harm our security, it is a valid topic but should rightfully be placed in another thread. Let's stick to Rove's actions here, OK?

There is a law about outing a CIA operative. The law is there because doing so damages the nation's security. I have explained above why it does so.

Rove broke the law. If you want to "wax Clintonian" (I love that phrase!) and quibble over words and phrases, that's fine.

I prefer to look at what he did, what the law says and simply compare the two. When this is done, only one conclusion can be reached.
[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
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
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.


I think you missed the word "just". Of course, there are principles involved, but it isn't "just" a matter of principles. When an operative's identity is revealed, real people are put in harm's way. That's "more" than a matter of principle.

But yes, principles are involved too.

As for larry's claim that half the town knew her name anyway ... it's highly dubious. If that were the case, then there would be no Republican prosecutor investigating the outing of her name. If that were the case, W wouldn't have been so initially outraged. If that were the case, McClellan would have said that, instead of saying that anyone who did so wouldn't remain part of this Administration.

My guess is that this will be another of those attacks claiming that the Schiavo guardian ad litem was biased and unprofessional. When called on it for sources, Larry will ignore that call and just keep repeating the lie.
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
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
JBryan
Jul 12 2005, 11:29 PM
There would be Congressional investigations right now if Democrats controlled Congress.

Yes, as there would be with the current congress if we had a Democratic administration.

In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Quote:
 
Larry,

Let's not change the subject. This is about Rove and the damage he did. If you would like to discuss other actions which you feel harm our security, it is a valid topic but should rightfully be placed in another thread. Let's stick to Rove's actions here, OK?

There is a law about outing a CIA operative. The law is there because doing so damages the nation's security. I have explained above why it does so.

Rove broke the law. If you want to "wax Clintonian" (I love that phrase!) and quibble over words and phrases, that's fine.

I prefer to look at what he did, what the law says and simply compare the two. When this is done, only one conclusion can be reached.



If Rove broke the law then why is he not being indicted?

You seem to be trying to push your argument in very general terms without addressing the specifics of the case. That won't fly. I would indeed be concerned if Rove had deliberately burned intelligence assets for political revenge. He did not as even the Grand Jury has apparently determined so attempting to rub our noses in the failure of our intelligence community is rather galling. Especially when you consider all the left has done over the years to undermine our intelligence capabilities.
"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
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Should Karl Rove be fired? Maybe. If only for being foolish enough to tell a reporter something he did not want the whole world to know. As far as the 'secrecy" of Valerie Plame's profession goes, this was at least rumored amongst the Washington elite if not commonly known.

Karl Rove was certainly not the sole source of this information. If he was then why the focus on Judith Miller? Who was her source? Surely it was not Karl Rove or she would have saved herself a stay in the cross bar hotel by revealing that. Surely she is not keeping herself in jail over an abstraction like a general vs. specific waiver. Could it be that she was the reporter that was Novak's source? It would seem to fit the facts and explain why the Grand Jury would be interested in her even though Karl Rove has been exposed.

It would also be interesting (and this is, admittedly, speculation) if her source was Joe Wilson himself who seemed to be in the company of many in the Washington press corps on a regular basis and may have been trying to inflate his own credentials with them.
"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
Quote:
 
As far as the 'secrecy" of Valerie Plame's profession goes, this was at least rumored amongst the Washington elite if not commonly known.


JB, what's your source for this? Are you on the D.C. cocktail party circuit?
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
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
He did not as even the Grand Jury has apparently determined


I think you are guilty of premature supposition.

According to CNN, the grand jury is meeting again today, at which time the Time reporter will testify.

But, as I've said, I don't think Rove broke the law. I think he's just a malicious, lying jerk who burned a CIA operative for political revenge, but I don't think he broke the law.

So you'll be right, eventually. Just not this morning.
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
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Quote:
 
I think he's just a malicious, lying jerk who burned a CIA operative for political revenge...


I don't really know about the "lying malicious jerk" (I have never seen any evidence for it) but the facts seem pretty clear that he did not burn a CIA operative for political revenge. Matt Cooper did.
"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
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Jul 13 2005, 04:18 AM
Quote:
 
He did not as even the Grand Jury has apparently determined


I think you are guilty of premature supposition.

According to CNN, the grand jury is meeting again today, at which time the Time reporter will testify.

But, as I've said, I don't think Rove broke the law. I think he's just a malicious, lying jerk who burned a CIA operative for political revenge, but I don't think he broke the law.

So you'll be right, eventually. Just not this morning.

You have me confused again, Counsellor. Above you stated
Quote:
 
When an operative's identity is revealed, real people are put in harm's way. That's "more" than a matter of principle.


Now as I understand from Rick,
Quote:
 
It is why there is a law which makes identifying CIA operatives illegal.

Rove broke this law.


Yet you say that no law was broken. You of course are not bound by Rick's statements, but neither are you forthcoming to correct Rick on this.

So if no law was broken, and (for the sake of discussion), granting your assertion that Rove is "just a malicious, lying jerk who burned a CIA operative for political revenge" (which has yet to be determined, and motive as you know is most difficult to prove), then why the fuss? Even if it was a bad judgment on his part, the vitriol seems out of proportion. If he did indeed break the law and commit treason as Rick holds, then I would want him prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But if it was an error in judgment? A prudential matter? It hardly seems worth the emotion (while I agree that a full investigation is still called for).

BTW, I did note that it was more that just principles above. By that, I meant actual criminal action. Do you know that any agents were put in harm's way by Rove's statement? This is, of course, why we have laws that prohibit disclosure. So either actual agents were put in harm's way -- which would give added grounds for prosecution; or they weren't, which would make this more a matter of principle (and I do think that people can be prosecuted for violating laws even when no actual harm is done as 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
"You of course are not bound by Rick's statements, but neither are you forthcoming to correct Rick on this."

I've already said why I don't think he violated the law, don't be obtuse.

He didn't violate the law, insofar as I can tell, because the law is very narrowly written, with carefully drawn loopholes.

You can disclose an agent's identity, and put that agent in harm's way, without violating the law.

The Senate staffer responsible for drafting the legislation has already said publicly, this week, that the law was meant to be narrow, and that it was meant to make it hard to prove that someone had violated the law.

"I did note that it was more that just principles above. By that, I meant actual criminal action."

Sorry, but I divide the world into more categories than criminal action and principles.

"why the fuss? Even if it was a bad judgment on his part, the vitriol seems out of proportion. "

Why the fuss when Clinton lied about having sex with that woman? Lies are wrong. Clinton was wrong when he lied. It was reprehensible. I expect more from people in the White House. Rove lied when he said he had nothing to do with the disclosure of her identity. It was reprehensible. I expect more from people in the White House.

Moreover, the underlying act that Clinton lied about didn't, and couldn't, put anyone in danger. Rove's underlying act very well could cost someone their life.
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!
Clinton lied under oath.

Big difference, counsellor.

(If Rove lied under oath -- in a grand jury hearing for instance -- then the same with him).
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
Big difference, counsellor.


A legal difference. Not a moral difference.

It astounds me that you are reduced to arguing legal technicalities. Whether the behavior has criminal consequences or not should not make one whit of difference to a man of faith.
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 13 2005, 08:24 AM
Quote:
 
Big difference, counsellor.


A legal difference. Not a moral difference.

It astounds me that you are reduced to arguing legal technicalities. Whether the behavior has criminal consequences or not should not make one whit of difference to a man of faith.

But what we are talking about is the rule of law -- not the theology of it. Lying is not a crime, perjury is. Not all pervarications are strictly immoral, it depends on whether in justice the inquisitor has a right to know.

If again, you want to make this a matter of principles then I am happy to discuss this with you on moral or political grounds. But please try to stick to a field of inquiry. :)
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
please try to stick to a field of inquiry.


You're the one bringing questions of law into it, and trying to subdivide the world into issues of principle and criminal actions. I've consistently said that I don't think he violated the law, and I've consistently said that outing a covert agent is more than a question of principle. You're the only one (of the two of us) raising issues of criminal actions and perjury.
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 13 2005, 08:57 AM
Quote:
 
please try to stick to a field of inquiry.


You're the one bringing questions of law into it, and trying to subdivide the world into issues of principle and criminal actions. I've consistently said that I don't think he violated the law, and I've consistently said that outing a covert agent is more than a question of principle. You're the only one (of the two of us) raising issues of criminal actions and perjury.

All I was doing was trying to determine what the grounds were and what the fuss is about. You have only stated that it is not a legal question, and that it is more than principles, which does not really define the field significantly. And I was not the one bringing the question of law into it. Rick accuses Rove of treason. You do not. OK. But that was already on the table before I posted on this. I already acknowleded that you do not see this as a criminal action. And that you see it as more than a matter of principles. And I agree with you that outing an agent is a bad thing -- if that is indeed what Rove did, which has yet to be determined. But I still have no idea of exactly what import you give this matter (apart from the apparently political one).
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
"But I still have no idea of exactly what import you give this matter (apart from the apparently political one).

1. Outing a covert agent is bad.

2. Lying is bad.

3. Promising to fire a leaker, and then backing off when it turns out that the pain of doing so is too large because of who the leaker is, would be bad.

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 13 2005, 09:24 AM
"But I still have no idea of exactly what import you give this matter (apart from the apparently political one).

1. Outing a covert agent is bad.

2. Lying is bad.

3. Promising to fire a leaker, and then backing off when it turns out that the pain of doing so is too large because of who the leaker is, would be bad.

Agreed. Very good principles, counsellor. :)
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
1. She wasn't covert. She was working in research, in an office.
2. Rove didn't lie.
3. Speaking on background is an age old and honored tradition. The reporter was the one who screwed up.
4. After 8 years of hearing Democrats minimize Clinton's lies as nothing more than sex, it really rings hollow when one of them tries to build a case against Rove over moral issues.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Keep twisting guys. This is fun!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Glad you're enjoying yourself but the only twisting I see is from those who want to turn this nonsense into treason.
"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
Take off the Republican-colored glasses and read the transcripts of McClellan's press conference on Monday, JB.

Maybe twisting isn't the right word. Do you prefer squirming?
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
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
I dunno, I am not a legal expert. Is it treason to burn a CIA operative with different political beliefs to settle a grudge? This is a hard one. Gotta call in the Constitutional lawyers here. I'll just call it burning a CIA operative to settle a political grudge. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3