Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Nicely done, Stephen.

I’d like to take this opportunity to remind people what the president said in February of 2004:

“If there’s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is,”
“If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.
“I welcome the investigation. I am absolutely confident the Justice Department will do a good job.”
“I want to know the truth. Leaks of classified information are bad things.”
“I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information.”

Adrienne, and he does not WANT to know of anyone in his administration who has leaked such information if their name is Karl Rove or any other personal friend and confidant. It is Karl Rove’s and Dick Cheney’s and others job to insure that he has credible deniability.

This is Whitehouse politics as usual that dates back decades upon decades.

Well, we’ll see. The people who do these things aren’t always as smart as they think they are.

They’re all dirty, rotten, and corrupt, and look the other way whenever they see corruption. They dare not rat on anyone, lest they be ratted on.
But, if anyone gets convicted, maybe they can get a pardon.

Stephen,
Good article.

A cautious approach to this topic might be a good idea. There are still too many missing pieces, some of which we may never know.

For example, six reporters were originally contacted. Two seemed to be under investigation, and Novak refuses to publicly comment. What is going on with the other three reporters?

In the original rumors- and these were only rumors- Card & Libby & Rove were all mentioned as possible culprits.

The prosecutor is going after this hard. Eight pages of Grand Jury testimony are blank due to their classified nature.

It’s possible the prosecutor’s zeal is due to the extent of damage caused by the leak. It might be worse than we think.
Then again, it’s also possible that someone lied to the prosecutor & jerked him around. Something has set this guy off, something serious.

Stay tuned, folks! One or more high ranking officials will go down. Disingenuous circumlocutions like those floated by Rove won’t fool anyone. Someone will learn a hard lesson; loyalty to your country & its laws comes before loyalty to your party, or even your president.

Stephen, some of the facts in the sequence of events you’ve presented are egregiously and wildly wrong. Or if they’re not wrong, then they’re based on information which none of us has. I feel like you’re getting miles and miles ahead of the known facts here.

You write: “The Advisor told the Reporter not to put too much stock in the Whistleblower’s story, as he knew that the Whistleblower’s Operative wife had brought him in on it. 3)He never named her, but the information that she was an Operative was together with the information that she was the Whistleblower’s Wife, implying directly who she was, as the Whistleblower had only one Wife.”

What are you basing any of this on? On Cooper’s email, the most specific account of the exchange in question that we have?

Here is the quote in from Cooper’s email upon which you seem to base your whole rickety logical edifice: “[I]t was, KR said, wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.”

You’ve thrown the word “Operative” around repeatedly, a word that definitely does NOT appear in Cooper’s words. All Cooper seems to know is what Rove appears to know, and that’s that Wilson’s wife “appears” to works at the agency, which is the truth. So far, all of this is as clear as mud.

The vast majority of those whow work at the CIA are not operatives, and neither Rove nor Cooper seems to know the truth about Plame’s actual status. In fact, none of us knows the truth about the matter to this day, which is another reason this case is so murky. Apparently it’s possible to be a top secret operative while riding a desk in Washington. I didn’t know that. Did you?

Also, you write: “A Reporter got word that this Advisor wanted a very hush-hush meeting.” Where are you getting information that Rove sought Cooper out for some kind of cloak-and-dagger secret meeting?

Frankly, your post here on Watchblog is the first I’ve heard of this anywhere. What Cooper said, and what all the media reports I’ve seen have quoted, is that Cooper “spoke to Rove for about two minutes before he went on vacation.” It’s true that Rove asked for confidentiality, but how do we know whether Rove asked for this meeting or was just indulging a reporter before heading off to Bermuda or whereever? This could be a very important point because Rove can’t be said to have launched a campaign to “out” Plame” (whose name and actual job he knew only in the vaguest of terms) if he didn’t even initiate the exchange and was just trying to answer questions to the best of his ability.

More important than that, however, is that Cooper’s email clearly shows that he was trying to figure out who sent Wilson on his fact-finding trip, and that Rove, based on the spotty information in his position, tried to answer the question accurately. A campaign to “out” somebody? Hardly.

All that we know at this point is that Rove responded to a reporter’s probing by alluding to an individual whose job he was uncertain of and whose name he was even uncertain of moments before heading off to vacation.

The real lesson here, I think, is this: if we really do have top secret desk-jockeys working in the CIA, it makes no sense for them to send their publicity-seeking spouses on high profile and politically charged diplomatic missions.

Sanger,
“Apparently it’s possible to be a top secret operative while riding a desk in Washington.”

Careful! One thing I’m sure of; we’ll never find out much about Valerie Plame. When it comes to the CIA, there are layers upon layers.

Let’s put on a tin hat for a moment, and speculate. If you wanted to downplay the importance of an operative, what story would you use? Desk jockey? Lightweight?

By being the wife of an ambassador, she would have been ideally suited for insertion into high political social circles.

Anyone she met with abroad will now be under suspicion of being a traitor to their country. An Iraqi Baathists innocent shopping expedition with Valerie Plame in Bagdhad could now result in someone facing assassination.

Any spouse of an ambassador will now be viewed as a potential agent (if they weren’t already). That particular cover will never work again.

And maybe my tin hat is getting heavy because of all the coat hangers, which disrupt alien microwave beams quite nicely… But for all his capabilities, Joe Wilson might have been the tail, and Valerie Plame the dog.

The entire story is so full of potential pitfalls and blank spaces, again, I’d just urge caution before jumping to conclusions.

At the end of the day Rove’s behaviour has been atrocious. He said he didn’t leak the name of the operative, that he only verified after the Novak column. In fact, he spoke to reporters before the Novak column and told people that Wilson’s wife was an operative at the CIA. He has continued to dodge and obfuscate his role to the press since then. Straight-shooter, he’s not.

But I find Novak the most reprehensible. He has stated that the CIA asked him not to reveal Plame’s name, but he felt it was a “weak request”. To me, that’s a jailable statement. The guy is a jerk, plain and simple. He has a history of going after people, specifically individuals in Republican administrations he finds too “liberal”. Robert Novak is not an elected official, yet it is my argument that he has consistently prevented legislation (including health care reform) from passing on the hill, because he deliberately targets and harasses individuals whose only crime is to be competent at doing their jobs in a bipartisan manner. (For instance, going after Sheila Burke)

Robert Novak should not be allowed to work as a journalist.

Phx8, I’m actually trying to avoid jumping to conclusions about the Rove case. I don’t have or offer any conclusions and that’s because there aren’t any to be offered based on the thin threads of information that are available to date.

What I am saying, however, is thatI find it utterly foolish to think that in the media culture we live in we could keep a top secret clandestine “operative” undercover while her husband is meanwhile living in the media spotlight. It makes no logical sense.

It would be beyond idiotic, for example, for somebody who wanted to keep a low profile—who wanted, in fact, for their name never to be mentioned—to be married to Brad Pitt or Julia Roberts. Perhaps this isn’t even a partisan observation. It’s just common sense.

Sanger

Why is it so unrealistic to suppose that a CIA operative could stay undercover? Does public outing of CIA agents happen all the time or something, unbeknownst to the rest of us? I certainly can’t think of any examples. Thus, I would posit it doesn’t happen all the time, and thus I have less of a problem believing that the Plame outing was the result of a concerted effort by high-echelon officials.

Still, I hesitate to believe it wholesale, yet. As you all have pointed it, the information is still pretty sparse. But, I definitely think there is virtually no possible excuse for Rove’s behavior. Even if he was, as you say, just trying to answer an honest question accurately, clearly it’s the kind of subject that one has to be enormously circumspect and exceedingly careful about, and at teh very least, it seems he was neither.

Unkind, the very way you pose the question makes all kinds of unfounded assumptions: “Why is it so unrealistic to suppose that a CIA operative could stay undercover? Does public outing of CIA agents happen all the time or something, unbeknownst to the rest of us?”

To start with, we don’t know even know that she really was an “operative.”

The email does not show Rove saying that she is an operative. What is shows is that he does’t even know her job OR even her actual name for crying out loud. Some outing that is!

All he says is that she works on WMD issues for the CIA—and that’s it. Nada mas.

One thing I’ve never heard anyone mention is that being an “operative” is a clandestine job that usually employs the cover of another job. For example, a diplomat may be a spy who uses his diplomatic post as cover for clandestine This is acutally pretty common.

Therefore, if you mention that that person is a diplomat, you have not given away his cover as a spy. By the same token, mentioning that a person works on WMD is NOT the same thing as saying that she is engaged in work as a spy.

Considering the murkiness and contradictory nature of this case, it’s clear what’s really going on here: people want to “get” Rove because they’re angry about him helping Bush get elected. Logic be damned—they want revenge.

Unfortunately for them, the weakness of their position spells yet another defeat at the hands of Karl Rove.

Heh. No one mentions that Bush lied about the Niger Connection in his SOTU Address. “British Intelligence”, my ASS!!!

Actually, Valerie Plame has a job that gives her access to the Nucleur Programs around the World. The Fact that she was outed not only compromised her, it also compromised the CIA-Front Corporation she worked for. That means that ALL their past work is compromised. All Data now worthless.

Nice Job.

Sanger:

1) That whole post was sort of convenient dodge of my question, which is, why is strange to suppose that a CIA agent, operative, or whatever else, could maintain a cover? Moreover, if the diplomat/operative scenario is as commonplace as you say, and diplomats are public figures, why does it make “no logical sense” for the spouse of a politician, also a public figure, to be able to maintain secrecy?

2) I’ll admit it may not be altogether clear what Ms. Plame’s position was, but I believe all the law that Mr. Rove is alleged to have violated requires is that the government make some effort to conceal the agent’s identity, and the violator reveal the person to be a CIA agent. So, if my recollection of the law is correct, the only element missing is, was the government trying in any way to mask Ms. Plame’s identity at the time Rove told the reporter that she was an agent for the CIA? If so, he’s guilty.

3) You’re right, this is a murky issue, with a lot of info still missing. Funny that you can still infer that Karl Rove is going to come out squeaky clean? Situation unclear = republicans win? A curious standpoint. In a murky situation, how can anything be clear? All that seems to be happening is that the public is demanding information upon which to find the truth or at the very least form an opinion, and the white house is typically maintaining a chokehold on the information, ostensibly to cover its own ass.

Plus, read your last line again. Pretty funny. Makes Rove sound like a superhero or something. :)

Cower, wrongdoers! You have suffered another grueling defeat at the hands of Rove, defender of… well, nothing.

Good points, Sanger, too many people getting in from of the facts on this story and jumping to their own political conclusions. There is no direct evidence Rove was the source of this leak and unless and until there is, pointing fingers is just partisan speculation. If Rove is behind the leak, then I will join the chorus demanding reprimands, however I also enjoyed the article in Vanity Fair complete with pictures and a lovely description of the life those two live. I didn’t know it was common for “secret operatives” to have their identity and life stories revealed in national publications.

Sanger-
Novak referred to her as an operative in his column. Assuming we don’t have a second leaker her, Rove had to tell him.

The “apparent” piece of information that Cooper got from Rove was too damn accurate to be considered muddy. He knew she was CIA. How do you find that out? Does somebody just bump into you and say “Wilson’s Wife is CIA”? No. People in this White House knew who Plame was. Either Rove was in this circle of people, in which case he had to know her full identity and status, or he was told by somebody from that.

You speculate at length that there were all these random possibilities as to what people knew, but the reality is, there is nothing random about who knows a piece of information like that.

As for secret meetings, Coopers own notes tell of him having that meeting. Check back, and see just how random the encounter was.

The uncertainty built into what was said was intentional. It was meant to be a legal excuse, to give Rove the plausible deniability to leak sensitive information and not get punished.

Somebody knew, and told. Some folks might say the CIA was not going to lengths to conceal her real identity, but the fact that it had to be leaked for people to know that there was a layer of concealment there. Folks were not spilling their guts over drinks about this. This was revealed, and the revelation is at least grounds for firing, if not a criminal offense.

Really Stephen, then I assume you would also elevate Dan Rather’s mishap to a criminal offense. After all, Dan merely used knowingly forged documents on national TV in an attempt to discredit and unseat a sitting President days before an election. It is unfortuante that Dan is allowed to retire with dignity, in my opinion, he should be sitting in jail and while I am not at all excusing Rove’s actions in this, I will wait for ALL of the facts to come in before I convict. I trust you will do the same.

Sanger-
Additionally, her profile as a private citizen was public, not her status as CIA. Valerie was not a diplomat herself, though her husband’s status may have raised a few questons There’s a difference. You don’t have to be recluse to be a spy. After all, Aldrich Ames rose pretty high. What matters is that your covert identity remains such. Not even her friends and family knew, and it seems nobody at the agency talked. It was a secret and should have stayed that way.

This is not weak, Sanger, no matter what the flaks at the GOP say. This is national security. This is a NOC agent outed, an agent who likely had sources in the field, and people she talked to who are now under suspicion. This is the president’s political advisor, who has helped to arrange some of the most vicious campaigns this country has seen in some time.

Rationalize it as Partisan revenge. Rationalize his actions as fair play. Rationalize everything until nothing is wrong with the country or with those leading it. And then step back and see how close to the truth you still are. It is Rove’s penchant for pushing the limits of what is decent and legal in a campaign that has made him the hated figure he is. This is merely the final result: when one plays with fire, one eventually gets burnt. Rove has been playing with fire from the start, and he has burnt many people to get where he is. He has been tempting fate for some time now, and something like this was bound to happen some day. I’m just sorry he chose to compromise national security to finally tempt fate one too many times.

Stephen, why are you dodging the Dan Rather question? Was he not playing with fire, did he not burn alot of people? It is a two way street Stephen, answer the question.

Stephen writes: “Novak referred to her as an operative in his column. Assuming we don’t have a second leaker her, Rove had to tell him.”

How can you make any such assumption? The jump from “somebody told” him to “Rove must have told him” is a huge one. You’re itching to make it, but that email actually undermines that likeiehood as it show Roe NOT even mentioning her name or job.

“As for secret meetings, Coopers own notes tell of him having that meeting.” But Stephen, what you said was that Cooper got word that Rove wanted this meeting. This is not a small point—who wanted to meeet—because it goes to whether Rove was trying to “get Plame.” You were eager to make this claim, and now you don’t seem eager to support it.

Also, it is not illegal to mention that somebody works at the CIA. Novak has already addressed this in his public statements, odd considering how mu he’s been in general. He said that Plame’s CIA job was an “open secret” around Washington. Not surprising considering what a publicity hound she’s turned out to be.

It’s obvious as day why Plame was being discussed in the slightest—because she had recommended her husband for a highly public mission and a reporter was trying to find out why.

“The uncertainty built into what was said was intentional. It was meant to be a legal excuse, to give Rove the plausible deniability to leak sensitive information and not get punished.”

Or we could use Occam’s razer and say that the uncertainty was a result of uncertainty.

Ironically here, the only reason we know about Cooper’s email is that somebody has illegaly leaked Grand Jury testimomy. Using Stephen’s logic, we’re all committing a crime by talking about this right now.

“This is a NOC agent outed.” Really? Again, you assume facts not in evidence. We have Plame and her husband’s word for this. Nobody else’s.

If you want to play the equvalency game here, let me suggest you stop now. The documents at the center of this whole controversy were a forgery. Only they didn’t discredit a newsman, they discredited us as a country, and the war we chose to fight because of the alarming information it and other poorly prepared intelligence led us to.

Where are your priorities? Is it more important that we keep a president, or that we keep this country safe? If Rove can compromise our national security for the sake of this president’s re-election, than is there anything forbidden to the GOP to maintain it’s power?

Just as I suspected Stephen, your blinded by partisanship on this one. The forged documents (illegal by that fact) were being used to discredit the Office of the President not a newsman. Dan Rather’s actions were intended to sway the election towards the party that was advocating a new approach to terrorism, that in my opinion would have made this country terribly unsafe. Whether or not Valerie Plame was some “secret operative” is questionable and I will submit to you, how in the world would some low level CIA desk jockey’s identity being revealed risk national security?

Jay, the fact that a special prosecutor was appointed to investigate says all that needs to be said about Valerie Plames’ status. What Stephen Daugherty says in his last post ( no pun intented ) comes across to me, as a non american, as the words of a vigilant and patriotic citizen. If you look for partisanship everywhere, you will find it. On the other hand, suppose for a moment a Republican had written what Stephen wrote. Would you for a moment suspend prejudice, and consider carefully what he had to say? I suggest that if you did this, you might well see the simple truth of what he says. That is, if you are not a died in the wool partisan, incapable of listening if the source is not to your taste. If that is the case, then debate is pointless.

Paul, the appointment of a special prosecuter only means that a potential crime is being investigated. Somethinge that hasn’t been established yet, despite the howling of the lynch mob.

I mean, it’s not like Rove stuffed a bunch of top secret documents in his pants here.

Personally, I think Plame “outed” herself to Miller and Miller told Novak, which is why Miller won’t talk about it now. I can’t prove this, but Stephen and the others can’t prove their theories eithier.

sanger, I think you miss my point. What i’m saying is that the appointment of a special prosecutor tends to confirm Valerie Plames’ status as a CIA operative. If she were not such, then it would presumably not have been a crime to “out” her, and therefore no need for a special prosecutor. QED

Incidentaly, Paul, if indictments ever do come down, we could all be very very suprised by who is named.

Wilson and Plame herself could be the ones who find themselves in court. Considering their conduct through all of this, this would actually be less surprising to me than Rove being the one.

Paul, appointment of a special prosecuter simply does NOT mean that a crime has been committed—it’s an investigative process. You’re being decieved by the word “prosecuter” here. No one has been indicted for a crime. In fact, the prosecuter hasn’t even said there was a crime. This isn’t like a District Attorney prosecuting.

Stephen
Your own words were: “If these are the facts.”
I realize this post is mostly partisan wishful thinking on your part, think of the ammo the left could get with this one.
But I would just like to thank you for writing a piece not about bashing Bush but asking people to keep an open mind about this issue and about doing whats best for our country if this turns out to be true.

Jay:
“why are you dodging the Dan Rather question?”

In my opinion, the forged documents of “Rathergate” were very likely yet another orchestrated maneuver courtesy of Karl Rove — to cleverly take the spotlight off Bush concerning all those sticky and uncomfortable questions that had been raised over his military service record.

It’s got all the hallmarks of Rove: Trickery. Deceit. Guiding the Media (away from the focus of the topic - the president going AWOL). All designed to make the Dem’s look like they set it up (and stupidly at that), while the president could grab sympathy as one being unfairly maligned.
In the process, it managed to douse all of the raging fires of speculation that were being aimed at Bush — who enacts the role of military commander-in-chief with all the utterly unconvincing, but self-important aplomb of a fifteen year old appearing in a school play.
Despite all of it though, the shameful truth appears to be that W actually did shrug off his military service in the champagne unit of the Texas air national guard like the spoiled, irresponsible, reality-disconnected rich boy he has always been — while far too many, far less wealthy American’s who’d been drafted, were fighting and dying or being rendered permanently disabled in Vietnam.

Adrienne!!!

Why? Why are you explaining about Rather and Bush’s military records? Or do you think that Jay doesn’t know all this already? I see this exact same thing with the political left. They are constantly being out-politicked by the right. Why? Because they are always trying to explain and defend stuff. You heard Jack - Never explain, never complain, never apologize! (BTW, excellent comments on Jack’s protest post) Have you heard any republican politicians say anything about this?

As for me, I like what Reid said.

I agree with the President when he said he expects the people who work for him to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration. I trust they will follow through on this pledge. If these allegations are true this rises above politics and is about our national security.

Adrienne,

I notice lately that you have been communicating partially in Gaelic but I am “Gaelically challenged” if there is such an expression.

In any case your most recent post actually makes a very strong case (right, wrong or otherwise) for the brilliance of the Bush Political Machine.

Deflecting all the negative stuff is a good thing right?

Hannah:
“You heard Jack - Never explain, never complain, never apologize!”

Yeah, but I think we should thank our lucky stars that we’re not the kind of people who share that cut-throat attitude — because I’ve got a strong suspicion it’s going to be the very thing that buries the Neocon’s.

“(BTW, excellent comments on Jack’s protest post)”
Thank you, Hannah.

Steve:

“In any case your most recent post actually makes a very strong case (right, wrong or otherwise) for the brilliance of the Bush Political Machine.”

I suppose you could call it DIABOLICALLY brilliant, yes.
But it’s also completely dishonest.

“Deflecting all the negative stuff is a good thing right?”

No doubt it would be considered so when there happens to be so very much to hide.

July 11, 2003 — Time magazine correspondent Cooper sends an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy:
“Subject: Rove/P&C” (personal and confidential),
“Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation.” Cooper then spells out some guidance on the story, then finishes with this:
“please don’t source this to rove or even WH [White House]” and then suggests that another reporter check with the CIA.

So, Time turns over that e-mail. Cooper agreed to testify before a grand jury in the Valerie Plame case, due to last-minute “personal consent” from his source, avoiding a jail sentence for contempt of court. It appears that Cooper heard from Rove — who told him it was okay to go ahead with his tesimony.

Big Question: Would Karl Rove agree to this if he felt it was at all possible that he could go to jail for it?

From Michael Isikoff’s Newsweek story:

In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson’s criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time’s editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine’s corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a “big warning” not to “get too far out on Wilson.” Rove told Cooper that Wilson’s trip had not been authorized by “DCIA”�CIA Director George Tenet�or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, “it was, KR said, wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.” Wilson’s wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: “not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there’s still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger … “

Now, nothing in Cooper’s e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame’s name, or knew she was a covert CIA operative. BUT, Rove was speaking to Cooper BEFORE Novak’s column appeared — ie. before Plame’s identity had been published in that column.

“Karl Rove has shared with Fitzgerald all the information he has about any potentially relevant contacts he has had with any reporters, including Matt Cooper,” Luskin told NEWSWEEK.

A source close to Rove, (who declined being identified because he didn’t wish to get in trouble with the prosecutor or government investigators), has now said that there was “absolutely no inconsistency” between Cooper’s e-mail and what Rove has testified to during his grand-jury appearances:

“A fair reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame’s identity, but was an effort to discourage Time from publishing things that turned out to be false,” the source said.
(This is in reference to claims at the time that Cheney and CIA Officials had actually arranged for Wilson’s to go to Africa.)

I think it is entirely possible that there will be no penalties at all for Karl Rove.
But, if it actually comes out that he was a direct participant it will be interesting to see what Bush will do since he told his administration to cooperate fully with the investigation, and asked anyone with knowledge of the case to come forward.

Which brings us to the next Big Questions:
If Rove told Bush he was the leaker, exactly how was Rove dealt with? There hasn’t been a single comment from W’s public relations team regarding Rove in any way.
Has he been admonished at all? Will he be fired?
And if he said nothing to W, then that would mean he was intentionally misleading the president, right? Doesn’t this then suggest that Rove should make the decision to step down?
Or will the statement that comes from the White House imply that since he didn’t technically violate the law, that Rove’s alleged role was perfectly all right?.

From all I can gather, it seems likely that Rove will not be prosecuted, even though it is glaringly obvious that he wanted to discredit and destroy anyone who stood in the way of the administrations objective to take the country into the Iraq war.

It is entirely likely that we could face a situation where even though Rove’s role is confirmed, Bush will say nothing at all in the way of his actions, and that Rove will not resign but will remain right where he is — with nary a legal, political or personal consquence — even though he is a treasonous bastard without a shred of ethics, morality, propriety or decency.

Question: What about credibility, you might ask? Will it bother the people who decried the honesty of Bill Clinton? Does credibility matter at all in this Neocon day and age? Or will this really be no big deal, because anything having to do with George W. Bush is simply above the law?

Adrienne, accusing Rove of the Rathergate incident is so far fetched that it bears no response, however let’s assume that is the case. Dan Rather is a supposedly professional unbiased news reporter that should have vetted his sources diligently, which, if done, would have exposed those documents as forgeries. The problem was that Dan, in his rush to get the dirt and pose problems for the President, did not properly vet his sources on this story. That shows bias, unprofessionalism and possibly, in my opinion, criminal action. Paul, if the shoe were on the other foot, I would hope that I would not display partisanship. In fact, I have previously stated that if Rove is behind this, then he should resign, however, this issue does not rise to the level of Rathergate, again, in my opinion.

Jay-
The problem in answering your questions is that you’re expecting me to treat your speculations and rationalizations as facts.

The forged documents were used whole-heartedly to encourage the belief among Americans that Saddam was close to getting nukes. It was one of many claims that even the Republican Congress, in their publically available report on the intelligence failures concerning the war in Iraq, could not credit as being founded on good evidence.

It is not questionable whether Valerie Plame was an undercover operative. It is questionable that she was a low level desk jockey. Also questionable was that the material she was working on was not essential to national security. That is, unless you consider the proliferation of WMDs to be unimportant. She knew people in other parts of the world, had sources who associated with her. Whether or not she was in the field when she was outed, those sources, past and present, became endangered the minute it became public that she was an operative. She had kept this a secret. The only reason her husband knew was that he was cleared for such knowledge. Her family, her neighbors didn’t know. She went out in public, often alongside her husband, but she did not reveal what she really did for a living at any time.

We have a reporter being told all the information he would need to know what Valerie Plame’s real job was, days before it became public knowledge. We have that reporter writing in his notes that he was going to Rove to get some super secret information. We have him giving this information, with the purpose quite plain even with the weasel words: he was telling the reporter not to go with Wilson’s report because his wife was CIA and had recruited him.

You can speculate and rationalize this behavior all you want to. It’s still wrong. At this point, the only thing that’s keeping him out of a jail cell is that in this instance, he didn’t name her.

Sanger-
Plame outed herself? It would be convenient to your party. But the question of convenience is irrelevant, so what’s your evidence?

When I said, “if these are the facts” I was making a conditional statement. It related to the fact that Cheney had to have known what the intelligence consensus on the documents was. After all, he sent Joseph Wilson in, through his wife, to find out what was going on with the documents in Niger. At the very least, he would have known what the CIA already knew, and what Wilson confirmed: the documents were fake.

If Cheney knew the documents were false months ahead of time, he had plenty of time to include that information in some conversation to the president. Cheney and Bush communicate well by all accounts. That this information was common knowledge in the administration should be obvious in that Colin Powell decided not to use it in his presentation before the UN.

If Bush knew that this potentially inflammatory charge was false at the time he made the speech then that means the president knowingly exaggerated the facts. Or that in this post 9/11 world, people were either keeping him in the dark, or conning him into believing other things were true. Would it not be disturbing to you if our CINC is

a)disregarding important information

b) being isolated from it, or

c)being manipulated by his advisors to the extent he doesn’t know what’s going on?

As for Novak’s source, It is only logical that if nobody else is leaking information to reporters in the White House, Rove has to be the one. Roves words were carefully chosen, but that care is telling in itself. As are Novak’s words. Does it suprise you at all that the journalist who gave out the secret that Plame was CIA would claim it was an “open secret?” It’s not as if Novak is disinterested in Plame’s status as an undercover operative. He could go to jail over it.

As for the mission: Why are you telling us it was public? At the time of the SOTU address, nobody knew about it. The president wouldn’t have put the sixteen words in in, if it were publically known that the documents supporting the charge were forged. Until Wilson blew the whistle, the public was not aware of the trouble with the president’s allegation.

As for Occam’s razor- Well, that’s all things being equal. Rove is not known for mispeaking himself, or letting out information he doesn’t want known. He’s known to be rather deliberate, and if he’s leaking something, he’s already considered his words carefully. He may be wrong about his legal interpretation, but he didn’t phrase what he said with that much uncertainty.

Why is it that I can give a straightforward narrative of events and their meaning, and all you can do is speculate, throw ad hominem attacks, appeal to ambiguities, and just generally try to throw doubt onto the evidence at hand? Why is so much easier to make these accusations of the president and his officials, than it is to defend them? This is Occam’s razor. All things being equal, the simpler explanation is best. All this ambiguity and hair splitting gels poorly. You’re having to make “no harm, no foul” arguments, and arguing the technicalities of what Rove said to avoid conceding that Rove betrayed an CIA agent, in deed, if not in law.

Stephen, I have stated and believe whole heartedly that if Rove is behind this he should resign, no question. What I am trying to point out here is selective outrage. If this incident upsets you so, and it should, then Rathergate should be equally as disturbing to you. Another case in point; DNC Chair Dean has been quoted, “I hate republicans and everything they stand for”, “the republicans are monolithic, mainly white christian”, “the republicans have never earned an honest living”, and these are just a few examples of his outbursts, yet when Rove states “when 911 happened conservatives prepared for war and liberals prepared indictments and understanding”, you would of thought he was the second coming of Satan. The outrage expressed from Hillary, Harry, and Chuck re: that statement was disturbing and completely off base considering the vitriol coming from their own Chairman. The current leaders of the Democratic party are prime examples of possesing selective outrage and it is hurting that party. And, yes, there are those on the right as well, though not as numerous nor as vocal.

If Cheney knew the documents were false months ahead of time, he had plenty of time to include that information in some conversation to the president. Cheney and Bush communicate well by all accounts.

Would it not be disturbing to you if our CINC is

a)disregarding important information

b) being isolated from it, or

c)being manipulated by his advisors to the extent he doesn’t know what’s going on?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 12, 2005 05:19 PM

Stephen, your words strike a very strong chord with me. Is Cheney still claiming that Saddam was implicated in 9/11? Certainly he was long after that claim was well discredited. You know, I have always had the impression that “W” was a front man for the real power behind the presidency. Anytime I’ve seen him interviewed where he is called on to respond extempore, he speaks like a moron. Now I know that many of you are going to be hugely offended by that comment, but I speak as I see, and I am being honest. I have never seem a POTUS with so little facility to express intelligent coherence as with 43. I have often wondered if he was selected because he would be so easy to control by the Cheney’s, the Rummies, the Wolfowitz’s and the rest of the Neo Con cabal. There is a conspiracy theory that there was a coup d’etat in 2000. Now I’m not usually given to conspiracy theories, but in this case, I often wonder. Apologies for any offence caused, that was not my intention.

Paul,
“Anytime I’ve seen him interviewed where he is called on to respond extempore, he speaks like a moron.”

I agree, he is extremely unpresidential. Moron describes it well — although other times, he strikes me as a total loon.

“Now I know that many of you are going to be hugely offended by that comment, but I speak as I see, and I am being honest.”

Yes, I am also being honest.

“I have never seem a POTUS with so little facility to express intelligent coherence as with 43.”

It’s so, SO embarrassing. He makes me cringe on behalf of all American’s!
But this reminds me of something I cracked up over in WB recently (Sorry, don’t remember who said it — and I’m paraphrasing here): That the man often appears so unbalanced, it seems he needs to be outfitted with a helmet!

“I have often wondered if he was selected because he would be so easy to control by the Cheney’s, the Rummies, the Wolfowitz’s and the rest of the Neo Con cabal.”

Actually, I’m pretty sure this is true.
I have a feeling that W is the kind of candidate the Neocon’s will pick to run for president from now on — find someone they believe to be likeable and aww-shucks enough to appeal to middle America, then use him as a puppet to do their nefarious bidding.

Jay-
There’s no selective outrage here. Both our parties make political hay stereotyping the other side in a generalized way. If we got outraged over that it would be just silly.

But that hasn’t stopped the Republican from being aggrieved about criticisms Dean made that I kind of feel are a bit immature.

But what Karl Rove did? It’s indescribably evil. I don’t use that word lightly. I watched those towers fall with hundreds of millions of other Americans, with the same seething rage inside. Even now to write about it is to burn, to shake with the visceral power of it.

This is the third rail Rove stepped on. This sort of political bullshit is how Rove turned half of this country against Bush, and the other half against their own fellow Americans. This is how he took what was good with this country and soured it like spoiled milk.

Your party maintains a vast network of talk show hosts, pundits and editorializers who shamelessly push their party’s talking points day in and day out. You have an entire cable news station, friendly to your ideology. What’s disturbing is that in the midst of all this, you guys feel like you’re waging a losing battle. You’ve won majorities everywhere it counts, and still you feel persecuted.

Wake up: Your party’s digging it’s own grave, and tolerating Rove’s amoral brand of politics is just one part of that self-destructive trend.

“Your party maintains a vast network of talk show hosts, pundits and editorializers who shamelessly push their party’s talking points day in and day out.”

Hey Stephen, speaking of talking points we’re sure to hear in the media in the next few days, take a look at this:
GOP talking points on Rove seek to discredit Wilson.

The problem with these talking points it that everything loops back into the headspace of the political Right. It’s the nature of these things.

For them, it’s always an attack from the left. It’s never the plain fact that Rove was talking about Plame’s indentity (indirectly or otherwise) before anybody else knew to a reporter. It’s all about people trying to get Rove. Can’t both things be true at the same time, that we we are competing with Rove, and that he’s left himself open by committing this mistake? It doesn’t say anywhere that you can’t play politics with the facts on your side. In fact, it really helps, because then your opponent has to lie to get out of trouble.

The good ones stretch the truth as little as they can. But still, it’s another thing to catch people at, and most often the easier crime to prove.

Wilson may have overstated his importance, but he did mistate the importance of the information. This report from congress itself confirms two things about that which I think are crucial. First, the 16 words were about more than just interest, they were about means. The document was supposed to be a deal for Niger to sell Uranium to Iraq. Second, the document was an utter forgery. The report plays a lot of games in its conclusions as to who is supposed to have gotten it right, but ultimately this is about the dependability of an administration that can’t get it’s facts straight, or worse, doesn’t feel obligated to.

I’m personally sick of a culture that thrives on the uncertainty and ambiguity rather than certainty and straight understandings. This administration just seems to be one more part of this culture that forsakes wisdom for egotism, and understanding for confusion. In these times where the dark corners of the world seem darker, the muddy waters muddier, and night brings more fear than ever, the last thing we need are leaders who are so secretive and manipulative.

I can only argue so much from passion, and I only want to argue so much from it. Too much, and I can only preach to the choir.

I don’t want to have to depend on Bush’s wish to save the world from evil or any of that. I want goals met and real things achieved. All he seems to offer is rationalized problems. War’s not going well because you’re complaining and hurting the brave soldier’s feelings or Rove was just steering the journalist away from lies and deceit The welfare of the Republican party becomes the idol all must bow down to, sacrificing differences of opinion and personal scruples for the sake of its saving power.

Rove knew plame was CIA. How? And knowing, what would he probably learn as well? Can Rove know that Plame is CIA without knowing she’s undercover? Can he really understand her role in the hiring of her husband for this little jaunt without knowing who she worked for and under what conditions? When we understand better how Plame’s husband becomes involved it becomes more unlikely that Rove can randomly know what he passed on to the reporter, in correction or in the course of a smear campaign, and not know the damning information that would make this a crime. Either that, or somebody else tells him, and Rove covers for that somebody else, which makes it even worse.

Something may be up about Novak. I don’t post Kos Links that often, but I thought this might take things in a somewhat interesting direction, if it bears out:

Novak asked a White House official about Plame’s status as an agent.

Another follow up on the talking points from the leftward blogosphere: Apparently, Joe Wilson never said in his original op-ed that Cheney sent him, nor Tenet.

Talking Points Memo on… Well, Talking Points

Facts can be such a burden for the defenders of Right Wing Right-thinking, can’t they?

Stepehen, with all due respect, I beg to differ. Digging their own grave and a self-destructing trend? I believe the Democrats are writing that book. The observation coming from the right, mine, is that the Democrats can not fathom how they have lost the last two elections and are lashing out at everything and anything. Can you imagine if somebody from the Reps said “I hate the Dems and everything they stand for”. I can’t. Secondly, the left has just as much media behind them, Air America, CBS, MSNBC, PBS, CNN, and Katie Couric and the Today show. I don’t believe the Reps feel persecuted, I believe that they feel like they are working with a bunch of immature, hysterical, children with no sense of pride, dignity or decorum, or in other words, the current leadership of the Democratic party I am refering to.

Jay-
Sure we have the media behind us. Of course, what their intentions are there is not always clear!

They supported the Iraq War with barely any questioning of what turned out to be very questionable premises. They piled on Lewinksy and Whitewater without a second thought. They accept many talking points for the right at face value without adequately factchecking them. They put Republican Pundits on regularly, along with all your pals from the thinktanks at the Cato Institute. Additionally, who do they give the talk show positions? Folks like Scarborough, Savage, and Matthews.

As for the leadership of the Democratic party, they can at least put forward the moral position in this whole thing: even if Rove did not break the law, he did something that reflects very poorly either on his judgment, and he should be held to account. I know he’s Bush’s right hand, but as a Christian, he should understand that it’s better to go to paradise maimed, than to be thrown into the fires of hell whole.

The right has been pounding on us as just being jealous of their power, of trying to rewrite history for the last two wins. It’s projection. They tried the same thing for the eight years they didn’t have the White House, and only complain about it now they have something to lose. Only we Democrats have a far graver offense to go after the president for than some marital infidelity, or somebody lying about sex. This is lying about national security. This is lying about why we’re going to war. This is lying about the War on Terrorism. Most Americans could care less about the president’s sex life. How he puts us and our soldiers at risk is another matter entirely, and not one you’ll ever get us to sweep under the rug.

Stephen, great posts.

I agree with you 100%, and the truth is, anyone with half a brain in their head should agree with what you’ve been saying here as well as in Andre’s thread on the same topic.

You know what we have here, don’t you? This is the exact same thing as “what the definition of is, is”, but now the shoe is on the other party!!!
Rove outted Plame, but didn’t use her name directly, so it will be hard to prove that he did so intentionally, and an obscure law written in 1982 is going to keep him from going to jail. The fact that he is a treasonous bastard who blew an undercover CIA opperatives identity in order to discredit someone who knew the president was lying seems to be beside the point to those who want to defend him simply because his brand of low down dirty politics has helped their party get elected. And Bush’s mindless cronyism is again on blatant and shameless display.

They’ve set the stage to brush this all aside - The president refusing to answer a question over whether Rove will be fired and McClellan coming out with “Any individual who works here at the White House has the confidence of the president. They wouldn’t be working here at the White house if they didn’t have the president’s confidence.”
And that says it all really, does it not? Nothing else matters but loyalty to these Neocon Clowns — and we have glaring evidence of the same ridiculous and outrageous sentiments in this blog as well.

That these people are completely crooked, morally bankrupt, horribly shitty leaders matters not — just because they’re Republicans.

The political bar has never been set lower — and what a f*cking disgrace!!!

Jay-

I don’t get your point on Dan Rather. His “equivalent” would be Robert Novak. And that’s a stretch.

Let’s compare:
Dan Rather - Story was investigated by his producer, who improperly vetted his source material, gave him the story to report, Which he then reported. He has a multi-decade newscaster history where he has reported stories positive to Republicans (including Reagan). Maybe the aggregate of his work has leaned left, but I would say the aggregate has been about human interest stories. He has been part of award-winning journalism many times. He has screwed up a few times, but overall his record is pretty good.

Robert Novak - actively pursued the Wilson story himself, and got the information directly from his own personal sources. Contacted the CIA to verify, and the CIA told him not to name Valerie Plame. He decided that their request “was weak” and went forward the story. Has a multi-decade extremely partisan career as a reporter where he actively takes part on shows like “Crossfire”, and spends his time personally vilifying individuals he thinks of as too “liberal”, and,in turn, has personally created a world where Republicans are prevented from working in a bi-partisan fashion with Democrats for fear of being attacked by him. Is known as being a mouthpeice for the extreme right.

Republicans demanded that Dan Rather be fired, and he retired shortly after the memo incident. Democrats defended him, but not ardently. Many agreed that his story was irresponsible, but certainly not an issue of national security. But Democrats were perhaps more sympathetic to the idea that he had simply made a mistake.

On the other side, Democrats have not routinely demanded that Robert Novak be fired. There has been no common outcry that his story was extremely irresponsible. Since he vetted his sources personally, and decided to go forward with his facts, in the face of a request for him not to, he is directly responsible for his reporting, and it is difficult to apologize for his behaviour as “simply making a mistake.” His story was a matter of national security, and it dealt directly with the rationale of why we went to war. A far more important story, exponentially in my mind, than whether or not Bush showed up for the National Guard.

Yet these two cases are equal? Ha.

Dan Rather is no longer working at the evening news. Robert Novak still writes his column.

Now, who is Rove? Rove is the same as that guy in Texas that gave Dan Rather’s producer the memos. Rove is the informant with the agenda. One person is some guy who hates Bush, the other person is a political networker of considerable power, who has the ear of the president. Crazy Texas Guy = Karl Rove.

Equiavalent example??

And when I say that there has been no common outcry against Novak’s story, I mean that the Democrats have focused on the informant, not on the journalist. There’s been no vendetta campaign against NOVAK compared to the vendetta campaign against RATHER. Everyone is fine with Novak being a crazy, extremist, mouthy, irresponsible partisan. But Rather is held up to a much higher standard. In my view, their should be the same standard. Rather WAS held responsible for his story, Novak should be held responsible for his too. And since his behaviour IS more egregious, he should be fired.

Stephen, have you ever thought of the possibility that the Lewinsky affair distracted Clinton, and the country, from the real issue that he should have been focusing on, terrorism. Now I voted for Clinton twice and felt that the Lewinsky thing was completely blown out of proportion, however he did do it and he lied to a Grand Jury about it. We did nothing following the first WTC bombing, we did nothing following the bombing of the USS Cole; both of which were ominous preludes to 911 and we, the country, were asleep at the switch and now we’re all up in arms and yelling at each other about. So how grave does a lie have to be to hurt the country. The extreme irony of this war is that if the world community was 100% united in defeating the brutal Islamic Jihadists murderers from killing innocent people daily all over the world, we could end this war within 3-6 months. Then, as a world body we could rebuild the middle east and give it back to the many, many great peaceful people that are there, who are greatly overlooked in this whole conflict. I do respect your posts Stephen, I don’t agree many times, but they are well thought out and you do have conviction.

Julia, here’s my take, one is a partisan commentator that does not hide that fact at all and will take a swipe at the Dems at every opportunity and everyone knows it, Novak. The other is an assumed unbiased, professional, trusted, experienced network anchor, Rather. One on hand you have a Presidential advisor mentioning in a conversation that a diplomat who was sent to gather information on possible illegalities by Saddam had a wife who worked at the CIA, not knowing her nor her function. By the way, nice article in Vanity Fair, I am sure everyone could pick her out of line up now. Now on the other hand you have a “crazy Texas guy” who happens to slip by the professional vetters at CBS and land his forged documents on the desk of Dan Rather which then are broadcasted to millions of Americans stating that the POTUS has blantantly lied and covered it up. Even more, when confronted Rather admitted that they were forgeries but insisted the story was true. So, I guess we agree to disagree.

Jay-
I do think it distracted. Heck, Richard Clarke think it distracted, and was furious about the Lewinsky affair.

We rounded up and convicted everybody who worked on the WTC bombing. As for the U.S.S. Cole, it was Bush who was in office when the verdict came in that it was al-Qaeda, and he chose to do nothing. As a matter of fact, the lead investigator was very close to pinning the tail on one of al-Qaeda’s 9/11 terrorists as detailed in this Frontline report

On the Rather affair, I think Rather messed up by not asking enough questions, and Novak messed up by asking the question then disregarding the answers he didn’t like. Rather’s mistake hurt him more than it hurt the president. Novak’s error hurt everybody. Rather resisted but then admitted the error. Novak weaselled around and lied, and still hasn’t admitted his mistake.

Wow - I’m reading so many posts suggestion we all just take a chill-pill and wait until we know the absolute facts before we just to any conclusions or act hastily.

Can you image in we had done this a couple of years ago, looking into the whole WMD thing - we probably wouldn’t have attacked Iraq. I guess at least we can say we’ve learned from our past mistakes.

OK… damn, that post made compete sense when I wrote it, but it’s really hard to get through - sorry for the typos… I think I need to go watch TV or something…

good night

Stephen, Bush was in office less than nine months before 9/11, for a first-term President that’s not enough time to do much of anyhthing. Secondly, we did arrest many of those guilty of the first WTC bombing, but not all of them, and we should have also been realizing then that this was now becoming much more than a law enforcement issue. And Novak’s error did not hurt anyone. Don’t think for a second that the Niger fact finding mission would have delayed or stopped this conflict. Again, if we unite as a world, we can beat this quickly, or would you rather continue to blame us for the plundering of the civilized world by the Islamic Jihadists.

Jay-
I believe the information on the Cole came in about January or February of 2001. As for realizing that it was becoming more than a law-enforcement issue, this was 1993, and the WTC attack was the first foreign terrorist attack on our soil. There was no precedent, so hindsight is definitely better than foresight on this issue. The question was why the Republicans weren’t taking this seriously after a whole decade’s worth of this stuff They had the warning that we had a terrorist group with a taste for killing Americans.

Novak’s error compromised a career agent and a forty year old CIA front company with extensive assets in the Middle East. Plame’s area of expertise was WMDs, by the way. Not exactly non-essential, in this dayand age.

As for the Niger Factfinding mission, these are the sort of things that should have been paid attention to. We don’t need to be pursuing false threats. We are committed for the better part of this decade to this war, and we cannot use those resources to make advancements in this war. Additionally, we’ve provided them with a free training ground, so now they can come back to the rest of the world and use battle-hardened techniques to kill us. Wow, that’s nice.

Truth is, we’ve set ourselves back, giving them propaganda victories, and allowing them a new battleground to gain experience in. If this administration had fairly examined the evidence, we’d be much farther along the way to defeating this threat.

Jay, the crazy Texas guy was vetted by Rather’s PRODUCER, who was FIRED. She is the one who assembled the story. And then, as Stephen said, Rather apologized when it became obvious that his producer had been duped.

Novak ADMITTED that the CIA asked him not to reveal Plame’s name. That’s it. That’s the end of the story. They asked him not to report her name. He did it anyway. He should be fired. Fired. Fired. And stephen is right, he still has not apologized. Instead, he has continued to denigerate Plame and Wilson. Why? Because he’s the type of guy who will work on Crossfire. And those people are the people that are destroying us. Misinformation, partisan pandering, and attacking people and undermining their ability to form consensus. AND covering up lies in the name of partisanship.

Rather is terrible because he reported a lie that his producer didn’t fact-check properly on national TV? How about Bush who reported that Saddam was pursuing yellowcake in Niger? How about the CIA who told the administration that the information on the yellowcake was incorrect? How about Cheney who pushed the information anyway?

Rather’s producer is fired for not fact-checking her story on Bush’s national guard attendance record. And Bush is forgiven for not fact-checking his explanation to the American people FOR GOING TO WAR.

Clinton is brought up on impeachment charges for having sex and covering it up.

Where is the equivalent come-uppance? Where is paying for your mistakes?

You are right, if we came together internationally, we could make real inroads in the fight against terror. What we need to concentrate on is bridge-building between our intelligence groups and foreign intelligence groups. That’s what the 9/11 report asked for. Who is preventing that from happening?

When people call French Fries “Freedom Fries”, how easy do you think its going to be to coordinate with the French intelligence services?

The reason health care didn’t change under Clinton, is (as Dean has admitted), they didn’t do enough to reach out to people like Chaffee and Dole when they had a chance (who had created a bi-partisan answer). Because they didn’t reach out fast enough, the solution was destroyed by conservative Republicans (INCLUDING BOB NOVAK).

Why don’t things get done? Because the Center for American Values thinks it’s more important to get moderates fired than to work on solutions. There is a war in America. It’s a war on the center. It’s a war on “RINOs” and “DINOs”. It’s a war on people who want to speak respectfully to foreigners. It’s a war between those who would say “I understand your disagreements. They are valid. Let’s work towards a solution we can be happy with.” and people who say thing like “Old Europe” and “Fuck you” on the senate floor.

It’s not Republicans vs Democrats. It’s extremist bullies vs people who believe in personal responsiblity, transperancy in government, and compromise.

Flag burning? Why don’t we also outlaw the burning of miniature statue of liberties while we’re at it.

Who is it that’s really wasting time on Capitol Hill? I think you’d be surprised by the answer.

Julia, oddly enough I do agree with some of your points the main one being the attack on the middle by the extreme fringes, although that also includes the left. I am no fan of Novak’s and I agree he should be gone. Now where we disagree, Joe Wilson’s report on the Niger incident was only one of many reports completed and many of thos reports refute Joe Wilson’s conclusions, besides, the Niger incident in no way was a determining factor in the decision to go to war. And at the risk of being completely redundant, the reasons to go to war were valid and were; Saddam failing to become transparent, Res. #1441, 17 UN cease-fire resolution violations stemming from the Gulf War, the policy of regime change implemented by the Clinton Admin., and the prospect of WMD. Secondly, Bush, has begun, and is currently implementing 99% of the 9/11 commission recomendations. And finally, Hillary’s health care was not undone by right-wingers, it was undone by the sheer weight of the costs and beauracracy that it would have required. (you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it is free). We probably agree more than we don’t, my point to all is that we need to focus in on what is really important, which are the serial killers running free around the world, and let’s argue about the semantics later.

I would say that we mostly agree, as I also have a problem with left-wing extremists. However, I believe the right wing extremists are more organized, better financed, and therefore have a greater effect on public opinion which results in powerful effects on legislation. I agree that Hillary’s health care plan was undone in part for the reasons you stated, but if you look at the nuts and bolts of the staff (bi-partisan) which was working on a middle ground solution (sponsored by Chafee and Dole), and the reason THAT solution never made the light of day, I’d think you’d find it had mainly to do with the extremist right (Bob Novak, among others).

There are bi-partisan solutions being put forward on social security by Democrats right now. They’re not getting any traction, but perhaps with time, they will. No one on the left has tried to undermine those solutions. For now, the partisan platform on the right is saying “It’s my way, or no way.” To be fair, the Clinton’s seemed dogmatic about their health care plan, although I don’t think to the degree of “It’s this way, or no way.” By the time they opened up to the Chafee-Dole idea, it was too late.

The Bush administration says it will be bi-partisan, just as the Clinton administration did. Instead, we are stuck with the same extreme partisanship we had under Clinton. And at the end of the day, the leaders on the right, no matter how much they talk about being bi-partisan, end up seeming like bullies. The Clinton administration never seemed like a bully to me. Cheney is a bully, Rumsfeld is a bully, Frist has been acting like a bully since he became party leader. (Although I used to like him) Zell Miller, when he turned, did so in a bully manner. Specter, Chafee, and Snowe are marginalized. McCain may never make it through the nomination process because he’s not extremist enough (and he is routinely attacked by extremists on the right).

With Clinton, it at least seemed like it was possible to work on bi-partisan solutions. With Bush, I don’t get that feeling.
My concern is that the right seems straight-jacketed by their extremists. I simply don’t feel that the left is straight-jacketed by theirs. I’ve been quiet about this feeling for some time, because I thought maybe it was just bias on my part. But the more I look at it, the more it seems true.

What is happening is that the left sees Robert Novak as the president, not someone like Senator Chafee. And it’s simply not possible to work under an administration that operates on a Robert Novak level. I know that the right is portraying the left as being led by a Michael Moore mentality, and with the spouting off of Ted Kennedy and Dean, I understand that. HOWEVER, these guys are not roadblocking the efforts of their moderates. Frist felt his 7 senators that worked around the filibuster issue betrayed him. Reid did not.

How can you hand the olive branch to a bully. “You’re right, I will give you my lunch money every day from now on.” Bush is making it extremely difficult for someone to work with him without looking like a sell-out. (Domestically, or Foreign). A french leader is taking an extreme risk reaching out to Bush. And then, he’s doing it with no guarantee that Bush won’t be a jerk about it anyway. It’s the same here.

I recognize that Bush MIGHT be easy to work with. In fact, I think his attitude has largely to do with his staff, and not him personally. In the end, however, he doesn’t portray Reagan’s feeling of kindness and respect. Reagan was a cowboy, sure, but he wasn’t a bully. You can work with cowboys, you can have disagreements with cowboys. But bullys… what do you do with them?

Jay-
These are the facts:
A Senate Intelligence report confirms that the Niger Document was a forgery, that there was no deal for 500 tons of Uranium Oxide, and that Wilson’s conclusions were not out of line with the CIA’s. In fact, their one problem is that he didn’t tell them anything they already knew. They rated him as “good” as a source, because he was pretty much correct on his assertions.

The facts on the Niger deal also reveal that there was no way for Saddam to keep any such deal secret. The mine was under tight international control, with the output of the mine already spoken for.

The facts on Plame are also very unambiguous. Whatever her status, the leak merited the CIA’s request of a criminal investigation into the matter. Criminal. If she was not NOC, and not undercover, if her identity as an agent was not secret, there would be no basis for a criminal investigation.

The very defense that the White House uses for Rove is consequently ambiguous. The harm isn’t great, they say, because she was a low level functionary. However, it’s good that Karl Rove was there to punish the husband and his recruiter wife for their political trickery, they say.

For purpose of the effect of the leak, she’s of no consequence. For purpose of the morality of the act, she was a powerful opponent to the president who needed to be cut down to size. The Democrat position was that she was a covert operative, influential enough to recommend her husband for an assignment, not high enough to make the assigment.

The “facts” the Republicans use are conveniently diluted, exaggerated, left incomplete, or are completely twisted around. The Democrats can provide a much more complete and consistent picture of what’s going on.

Rove violated national security by giving that information out. He identified an agent. Novak knowingly published information he had been told was sensitive(because he asked). Between them, Rove and him may have also exposed extensive ranks of spies that we had covering the proliferation of WMDs, worsening our already bad human intelligence problem.

Take this seriously. This isn’t just a partisan matter. This is our nation’s ability to keep sensitive information out of the hands of our enemies, AND the ability to gather it ourselves. If you doubt me, research the facts. And I don’t mean the Republican talking points.

Stephen, thanks, that offered some insight. My concern now is who forged the documents, if you want to get to the bottom of something that should be it. I still don’t believe this Rove thing will turn out to be that big of a deal, I mean I read that she had been stateside since 1998 officially delisting her as “undercover”, although I do think that Rove should resign.

Jay-
The issue with Rove is his profound influence on policy and politics in the Bush administration.

Stephen,

As always, you state it more clearly and succinctly than I do. Excellent research.

Jay,

My primary concern is also who forged the documents. We’re in agreement! As for the reason she was delisted, it was because they felt her cover might have been compromised to the Soviets by a double-agent (can’t remember his name, but it was that guy that was in all the papers back in 98).

1. As a “simple country boy”, my grandpa used to say where there is smoke there is fire. Karl Rove has shown himself to behave like an arsonist many times.

2.GW has said that he believes that God had “chosen him to be a great leader”. It seems that his own group of deciples are more than willing to assume that role, and do whatever it takes to forge their regligious beliefs into a false message. The Christian Bible says that in the end times the very chosen will be deceived (and believe the lies). As a liberal pro-life Christian Democrat, I would offer that there are many anti-christs among us. The current administration chief among them.

3. How can any thinking person believe this president? His mind was already made up to avenge his father and go to war 6 months before it was declared. Karl Roves disclosures are a part of this web of lies about the “war” in Iraq. Did I mention that I am a Vietnam Veteran, is Iraq de ja vu all over again?

4. And for those conservative Christians who tout their pro-life stance, let me say that the Rebublicans only get serious about Roe v. Wade just before elections. They have had ample time to change things. And, how can you be pro-life if you believe in the death penalty. I suggest to all of you that you align yourself with a teacher of the scriptures, not a teachers views of the scriptures. In short read and study your Bible!

Jay,

Here’s the wiki article on what’s transpired on the forgery thus far, it’s interesting reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_forgery