http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c2d48ad0-f18b-11d9-9c3e-00000e2511c8.html

Karl Rove could go to prison for a very long time, and the Bush Administration may just deflate like a flan in a cupboard... I'm smiling.

What the hell is a flan?

It's a Mexican dessert.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing Rove rot away in a cell somewhere. Dishonest scum.

That's every politicain and their advisors.

Oh come on. Nice generalization.

It is, but it's not like Rove is the only scumbag out there, jsut the one in the public eye.

"Thank you, Satan"

-Steve Smith from American Dad to Rove.

You know what would be the most awesome thing for Rove to do? Let the democrats all go running around getting excited, firing up the media, etc ... then present a decisive proof that it wasn't him - total annihilation for the dems. And this doesn't sound far-fetched to me at all: this is what Karl Rove is. Macchiavellism incarnated. I think he even toured the US in his early years teaching people how to manipulate and frame in politics.

Mr. Ocean, what we're trying to find out is: was there a reason you chose to commit this crime, or was there a reason why you simply got caught this time?

Letter from John Conyers to the president
July 7, 2005

The President
The White House
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We write in order to urge that you require your Deputy White House Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, to either come forward immediately to explain his role in the Valerie Plame matter or to resign from your Administration.

Notwithstanding whether Mr. Rove intentionally violated the law in leaking information concerning former CIA operative Valerie Plame, we believe it is not tenable to maintain Mr. Rove as one of your most important advisors unless he is willing to explain his central role in using the power and authority of your Administration to disseminate information regarding Ms. Plame and to undermine her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

We now know that e-mails recently turned over by Time, Inc. between writer Matthew Cooper and Time editors reveal that one of Mr. Cooper’s principal sources in the Plame matter was Mr. Rove. This has been confirmed by Newsweek and two lawyers representing witnesses involved in the investigation. Mr. Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, also has confirmed that Mr. Rove was interviewed by Mr. Cooper in connection with a possible article about Ms. Plame three or four days before Robert Novak wrote a column outing Ms. Plame as a CIA operative.

We also know that Mr. Rove told Chris Matthews that Ambassador Wilson’s wife and her undercover status were “fair game.” A White House source also appears to have previously acknowledged that Mr. Rove contacted Mr. Matthews and other journalists, indicating that “it was reasonable to discuss who sent Wilson to Niger.”

The above facts appear to be directly inconsistent with previous statements by you and representatives of your Administration concerning leaking in general and the Plame case in particular. For example, on September 30, 2003, you stated “there’s just too many leaks [in Washington]. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.” You also stated “I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.” On October 10, 2003, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asked if Mr. Rove or two other aides in your Administration had ever discussed the Plame matter with any reporter, and he stated he had spoken to Mr. Rove and the others and “they assured me that they were not involved in this.”

Regardless of whether these actions violate the law – including specific laws against the disclosure of classified information as well as broader laws against obstruction of justice, the negligent distribution of defense information, and obligating reporting of press leaks to proper authorities – they seem to reveal a course of conduct designed to threaten and intimidate those who provide information critical of your Administration, such as Ambassador Wilson.

We hope you agree with us that such behavior should never be tolerated by any Administration. While it is acceptable for a private citizen to use every legal tool at his or her disposal to protect himself against legal liability, high-ranking members of your Administration who are involved in any effort to smear a private citizen or to disseminate information regarding a CIA operative should be expected to meet a far higher standard of ethical behavior and forthrightness. This is why we believe it is so important that Mr. Rove publicly and fully explain his role in this matter.

Not that anyone will ever respond to this letter (ironically, as probably advised by Rove himself). It isn't the first time one of these was sent.

Note that people claims something like 'liberal media' exists, but noone in the US will ever give a ****. Also, be sure to look for Rove pulling the 'prosecuted patriot' card and getting away with it.

It's a traditional Mexican custard dessert.

If Rove went to prison, that would be a great gift.

I don't see it happening, though.

This thread is worthless without pictures.

If OJ got off... you think all those millionaire/billionaire republicans are gonna let their great mastermind just go to jail?

Yeah Rove seems like a loser to me, he should probally serve some time.

Actually there is absolutely no evidence that has been presented to the American public so far that Rove did anything wrong. I of course reserve the right to ammend my comments should any evidence be brought forward that he did break any laws but as of right now this just appears to be a head hunt.

That's just typical. The dude changed his defense from 'have nothing to do with it' to 'I didn't WILLINGLY give out her identity'. (aka the I didn't inhale - defense). In fact, it's probably the Dem's fault ('just appears to be a head hunt'). After all, don't they hate America?

Karl Rove is the same guy who tried to influence the American public's vote by inserting subliminal messages in TV ads in the 2000 election (I don't know what's more pathetic - the use of it or the ignorance of the fact that it doesn't work). The same dude who ordered a hate campaign against Kerry a few months before election day in 2004. He's responsible for PR, but not as we know it. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Like someone else said: the WH can continue to flip America the finger - they'll just smile and think it's a one-finger salute.

Well, yes but that is a seperate debate. Seriously, though, as I understand it, the email between Rove and Cooper supposedly had to deal with an interview on an unrelated topic. Cooper asked something dealing with CIA/intelligence and Rove basically said you don't want to go there because Cooper's angle was incorrect. Rove supposedly didn't disclose this woman's name in the email. I did a quick search but I'm on dial up right now so I don't have the time/patience to keep looking but I don't know if the text of this email is available or not.

Aparantly Cooper said yesterday that Rove was his source but he wasn't going to scoop his own story so we'll have to wait for that. Thing is, though, that I believe he could be an unwilling source. That is that maybe he did say something that gave this reporter the clue he needed to expose this so-called field operative. I guess we'll just have to wait until the story to hear what Cooper has to say on the issue but really the real meat will be when the independant investigation is complete which Rove and the Bush administration have been fully complying with to my understanding.



Oh come on. The 'Rats' thing? You have to be kidding! And what 'hate campaign' against Kerry? Let me guess, 'Swift Vets'? So if you're anti-Kerry it's a Rove devised hate campaign but if you're anti-Bush you're just an enlightened progressive?

Rove didn't do anything wrong. Valerie wasn't undercover and he did not name her specifically. Not only that, Rove was telling Cooper that Wilson was lying and that this was a nonstory, not giving out information with the intent to uncover Valerie. He was saying that Cheney knew nothing of it and that "Wilson's wife works on WMD info for the CIA and she got him the job" without mentioning her name.

This is a non-story, the dems and media are just going apesh** over it because the media is liberal and the liberals are screwed in politics right now and jump onto every chance they get, screaming all the way.

BTW, Rove signed a waiver for anonymity over a year ago. Cooper just wanted to have some drama, thus the "last minute save". Rove has done nothing recently to release him from protecting the source, Cooper's lawyer just found the waiver back or something.

oS, your talking points are a bit off. It's cool, though, I got you covered.

1. Rove apperently referred to Valerie Plame as "Wilson's wife" instead of using her name. This is still specifically naming her, since, you know, everybody knew who Wilson's wife was.

2. She was undercover. As a CIA official put it: "If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral." Also, there is no way Fitzgerald could have convinced the judge to put two reporters in jail to compel testimony, among other things, without having the CIA testified that she was undercover and her cover was blown.

3. Whether or not Wilson's report was 100% accurate, he wasn't lying, and it's irrelevent anyway. A crime has likely been commited, probably by the deputy chief of staff in the White House. It's Serious Business.

4. Plame could not have given her husband the job. She could have suggested it to higher ups. Regardless, he was eminently qualified, and it's irrelevent anyway.

5. The waivers everybody in the White House had to sign reeked of coercion. The reporters in question laid out the conditions of an acceptable release, one of which was they had to be "individual".

You're hilarious(ly desperate). This case is being prosecuted by a Republican appointee before a federal grand jury. The media has nothing to do with the indictments that'll be handed down.

He said wilson's wife worked for the CIA. This is not "specifically pointing out and naming an undercover agent." The law which makes it a criminal act requires a couple things. One of those things is that the person was under cover within the last 5 years. In 2003 when this happened, the lady had been out for a solid 6 years or so. That could be Rove's out right there.

The people who wrote the law agree that it really doesn't apply. But as you well know, we often waste time investigating things solely due to "the seriousness of the charge" these days.

Also, keep your passive-aggressive personal attacks down or prepare to meet my ban hammer, which I swing often and liberally (which you should enjoy LOLOLOLOLOLOL "liberally" get it? rofls).

Ictus, you and your American-hating liberal friends are ruining this country! That "Republican appointee" is part of the liberal agenda.

oS, we'll find out what laws have been broken, and by whom, when the indictments come out. Also, WorldNetDaily is not a reputable source.

That's not passive agressive, rather it's straight agressive!

It's still to be investigated as to whether Rove broke the law... but surely the administration's defenders can't claim that what he did was right or that the administration has been frank and honest about the matter. Right? I mean.. the president himself said that the leak was bad:



...so why defend this guy? Why claim it's just the "liberal media?" Some people (I'm not necessarily accusing anyone particular on the forums... I'm mostly talking about the conservative talking heads) just seem ready to justify anything that this administration does. They bury their heads in the sand and rant about the liberal media. Legality aside, what Rove did was wrong.

I have to admit that other than the obvious political motivations I don't even understand why this is a story. She was not a covert operative when she was supposedly outed, Rove never named her as one, and it certainly isn't illegal to say that someone works for the CIA anyway.

Who can say she was even put in any danger when the last time she performed any possible spy role would have been in the '90s according to this quote from Time:



Plus you take into account the political motivations of her and her husband then it is hard to dismiss this whole thing as political. Let's not forget that administration officials, including Rove, all signed waivers and that a liberal NY Times reporter is sitting in jail protecting her source. I think it's fair to assume she's not protecting Rove!

We'll see when this is all said and done. Should be interesting.

Wookie: I like the part where you repeat the same talking points that oS did, despite their rebuttal. Also, when you quote one paragraph, deceptively ignoring the one just before it? That was killer. Here is, by the way.

Just for the hell of it, here's more things everyone should know by now: Consider this, combined with Wuss' post and Bush's on-the-record promise to fire anyone involved in the leak.

George W. Bush: "Leaks of classified information are bad things."

What, exactly, are Bush's political motivations in condemning the leak? Is he part of the liberal conspiracy to sink Rove, too? The President doesn't seem to think this is a non-story. Or at least, he didn't before it started getting messy for his administration.

That is not deceptively ignoring the previous paragraph. I can't help it if an author poorly presents information. The fact that she had not worked as a covert spy since the ninties, if at all, is not contradicted by the opinions of what a NOC is. Even if it does you can't blame me if a story contradicts itself from paragraph to paragraph. Hillariously the two we cite follow one another. One expousing that a NOC is a covert spy and then the next saying she hadn't been one for years. Nevermind the fact that the investigation hasn't said Rove did anything wrong. If you're claiming the same article you quote is full of "talking points" why do you cite it? And even if what I'm writing are talking points, which is news to me since I didn't get that memo, where are they wrong?

It's a 'Rope-a-Dope'. Nobody in the administration broke the law. Somebody else will go down for this and it will be a liberal/democrat. That's my prediction.

Okay.

Valerie Plame was a NOC, a undercover CIA agent working in WMD proliferation. How recently she worked overseas doesn't matter: her exposure threatens the lives of her contacts and the likelihood of future contacts trusting operatives trying to recruit them. Additionally, her company (Brewster Jennings and Assoc.) may have provided cover for other agents whose contacts and jobs may be similarly threatened. Regardless of legality, outing her was a really ****ty thing to do.

Also, Bush promised to fire anyone who outed Plame. Which Rove did. Suddenly he backs off, and the press conferences with McClellen get hilariously evasive.

As for the talking points thing: Of course you didn't get the metaphorical memo. (I linked to it a couple posts ago, though. This is its cache.) The memo goes to Republican talking heads, who repeat the talking points ad nauseum on talk shows and place them prominently in the Limbaugh Letter or whatever, which filters down to you, who repeats them here. Some guy with a job like Rove's had the brilliant insight that people respond best to short statements hammered away at incessantly. Now Republican shills stay simple and stay on message, while Democratic shills are not nearly so catchy.

This is disturbing and heralds the death of our democracy.

edit: excuse the spelling.

Then why were they (Wilson/Plame) out there talking to everybody. Outing her might have been a horrible thing to do but it is now clear that Rove didn't do it.



Because there is an ongoing investigation. Rove didn't out her. A journalist did. I assume your knowledgable of todays revelations that are practically exactly what I predicted without knowledge of the so called talking points. Here are some links for you to digest but of course it really won't all be official until this whole stupid non-issue investigation is over:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/politics/15rove.html?oref=login
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/15/AR2005071500036_2.html



The worst thing you could do was link to that to support your case. Did you read the talking points? What the hell are wrong with these so-called talking points when they are nothing more than recitations of media reports and senatorial hearings?

As much as you want Rove thrown out of town, you guys are going to have to start looking for another reason because it is clear that he did nothing wrong in this case. Of course the mental poison has already affected the weak minded that don't care about the truth so your side did, in a way, still score a minor victory.

Ummm before calling other people stupid, you might want to look into the links you posted yourself. This new story (you know, whatever flavor-of-the-week story it is this time aka the story that was different from what both KR and the WH spokesperson said earlier) makes ZERO sense. Reporters who have access to highly classified intelligence, and then without motivation reporting it to the highest regions of the government, who were apparently unaware of this intelligence? I call BS.

This is just incredible. It's like one of those cases in which a murderer is put on trial, and all the evidence points to him doing it, but he can't be convicted because the arresting officers didn't read him his rights on arrest. ****ing legal bs semantics. Very Rovian (both the leak, which he did before, and the legal nonsense).

I'm with Tenshu, but if this info originated with Novak I think ultimately Rove's *** is safe.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hyperbole


Also, you keep citing things like WorldNewsDaily or that other one which you hid in a tinyurl. Why do you link to these? To suggest that I am some kind of mindless repetitious drone? I do not take kindly to such condescension, and I don't listen to Limbaugh. I don't read talking points. I don't think anyone does. But clearly anyone with a republican leaning view is a robot following orders from Limbaugh and Hannity. I suppose all liberals are somehow higher minded and exempt from such pathetic practices.

Also, please stop finding everything hilarious. You could call it untrue, or false, or very. But hilarious? You must just be a nonstop laughing box, eh? "Ho ho, Ha ha! Those conservatives are so screwed that it's HILARIOUS to me!! Boy, I sure wish I could use my political elitism to win elections!!" Is that about right?

If you read the McClellan quotes from my first post, you'll see that the Whitehouse claimed that Rove never had the information and never told any reporters about it, which he did. Legality aside, that's dishonest.

Yes, I am going to insult people's intelligence. Rove heard the information from a reporter. He never told it to one. Then when a reporter asked him about it he said (or along the lines), "I heard that too". He only ever, it seems, tried to stop a reporter from going forward with a bogus story. Catch Rove on something else. You can't get him on this one.

oS, I'm pretty sure everyone already knew it was hyperbole. Also, I used tinyurl (to link to a single document) because the unmodified url wouldn't parse correctly.

Again, I'm not accusing anybody of reading talking points, just regurgitating them. I linked to the RNC's release because it freaks me out when people adopt them as common knowledge from the ether, or, worse, assume they came up with them themselves. They're like infinitely more effective advertisements: hearing them repeated is like having a friend talk about enthusiastically about Nike's new patented shoe technology at the drop of a hat. It's like they're brain washed. The DNC is way behind on this, which is why they're less effective.

Honestly, 'hilarious' is the best response I've come up with to the insanely stupid and/or frustrating arguments. If there was a rational response, I'd try to make it. Also, conservatives are funny.

Wookie: Rove passed on classified information to journalists, even if he wasn't the ultimate source (I think he was, actually, and we'll find out eventually). I was aware of the new developments when I posted last night, but didn't feel like updating.

Also: Hmm, that's weird.


-----


Your response to that link is perfect. You read it and think, hey, this is pretty reasonable and well-sourced. Unfortunately, it's lying to you, and pretty blatently.

One example: And what was left out of that final quote:
One more time: This is why you and other conservatives are so goddamn amusing.

politics suck.


mmm... sausage.

Dude, that's really not constructive.

Er, ignore him. He trolls.