did Karl Rove commit treason?

[theknife]

a breaking story....

at least two sources have identified Karl Rove as the source who blew the cover of CIA agent Valerie Plame for the purpose of discrediting her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, the man who debunked the administration's "yellow cake" uranium story. a synopsis, courtesy of PEJ:

Prior to the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Bushists sent out Joseph Wilson III, former ambassador to Iraq, to Africa to investigate allegations Iraq was seeking yellow-cake uranium, the raw ore needed to refine nuclear weapon grade material. Wilson, a dedicated professional, took his job seriously and his investigation debunked the charge completely. But, that wasn't what the Bush camp wanted to hear.

Wilson duly reported his findings, but the Bush administration decided to ignore them, preferring instead to reiterate the bogus yellow-cake claims to bolster their campaign to attack Iraq. In Bush's State of the Union address, a constitutionally mandated responsibilty, the claims were again mentioned, prompting Wilson to write an op-ed piece, published in the New York Times, challenging the veracity of the "President." That would not do. White House minions quickly leaked information concerning a "deep-cover" CIA agent, a distinct violation of national security laws, effectively outing one Valerie Plame. Plame happens to be the wife of Joseph Wilson III.

In what was widely perceived as neat punishment, and a shot over the bow of potential future whistle-blowers, Plame's career was effectively ended. But less noted, Valerie Plame's contacts over a twenty-plus year period were too exposed. Reportedly, more than 90 of them were assassinated as a result of the leak. This more worrisome considering Plame's area of interest was the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the very area of pressing concern regarding Iraq in 2002/3.

if Karl Rove is the man who outed Valerie Plame, this would mean the chief architect of the Bush administration, the man who called liberals "traitors", the man referred to as "Bush's brain", committed a very deliberate breach of national security and an act of treason. stay tuned.

[malvachat]

I thinks I watched a video about this this old boy and others

"uncovered the truth about iraq"

(Just the tiitle I get called nasty names for giving links)

It had lots of long serving CIA people saying things.
Then again what do they know about F--k all?
Them CIA are all traitors"
Don't you just love them terms traitors and treason?

Opps I'm getting a little confused I can't work out whose side I'm on.
Then again the waters are so mucky I could end up on either side.
The right side or the left side,depends on which way the tide is going.
Don't you just love the ebb and flow..
"God bless America"
And all who saill in her.

[multi]

i an drunk,stoned...and this thread is the best....

Don't you just love the ebb and flow..
"God bless America"
And all who saill in her.

whe5res? the link for the porn movie...

[Nicobie]

I say...

[theknife]

Bush aide Rove was Time reporter's source-Newsweek

Reuters
Sunday, July 10, 2005; 6:35 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top White House advisor Karl Rove was one of the secret sources that spoke to reporters about a covert CIA operative whose identity was leaked to the media, Newsweek magazine reported in its latest edition.

The magazine said Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove talked to Time magazine about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame.

so it was Rove...the chief advisor to our tough-on-terror, wartime president, who has no problem whatsoever breaching national security when it is in the president's political interests to do so.

Although Rove has made statements about the Plame leak, he has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about the CIA agent.

Rove has carefully chosen his words when questioned about the leak. "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," he told CNN last year when asked if he had had anything to do with it.

this will be the fine legal line that Rove will tiptoe across...that he didn't name her.

The Newsweek article said an e-mail Cooper sent his bureau chief after briefly talking with Rove stated that "it was, KR said, Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd (weapons of mass destruction) issues who authorized the trip."

Buzzflash cuts through the mainstream media crap: if you tell a reporter Joe Wilson's wife is a CIA operative specialing in weapons of mass destruction, you are outing her in violation of the national security interests of the United States. a 4 year old could figure that out - get us a 4 year old.

Back in September 2003, when the White House was still resisting the appointment of a special prosecutor, the President reportedly told his aides, including Mr. Rove, "I want to get to the bottom of this." His press secretary told the country that the President considered the leak to be "a very serious matter" and said that anyone responsible would be fired. "If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration," said Scott McClellan, speaking for Mr. Bush.

by the president's own reported standards (which, of course, are subject to change daily), Rove should be fired, if not prosecuted.

[tambourine-man]

How many were killed as a result of his treachery?

When you've got that figure, multiply it by 20 years, add 30 for the treason, and you've got your magic number.

[albed]

HISTORICAL MILESTONE

Originally Posted by multi

i an drunk,stoned...and this thread is the best....



whe5res? the link for the porn movie...

The bong sucking monkey molester makes the most intelligent, insightful post of his life.


(almost missed it)

[tambourine-man]

^
ANSWER THE QUESTION McCLELLAN...!!!

[theknife]

White House then:

"No one wants to get to the bottom of this matter more than the President of the United States. If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates."

White House today:

White House Still Silent on Rove Evidence
AP - 2 hours, 5 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The White House is suddenly facing damaging evidence that it misled the public by insisting for two years that presidential adviser Karl Rove wasn't involved in leaking the identity of a female CIA officer. President Bush, at an Oval Office photo opportunity Tuesday, was asked directly whether he would fire Rove -- in keeping with a pledge in June, 2004, to dismiss any leakers in the case. The president did not respond. For the second day, White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to answer questions about Rove.

[multi]

Originally Posted by albed

HISTORICAL MILESTONE



The bong sucking monkey molester makes the most intelligent, insightful post of his life.


(almost missed it)

touché...lol

(almost forgot i posted it)

[Nicobie]

Originally Posted by albed

HISTORICAL MILESTONE



The bong sucking monkey molester makes the most intelligent, insightful post of his life.


(almost missed it)

bullshit.

who is the baddest. . . .

Da BITCH hillary or the intellectual rove

If you're interested in watching a good video on Karl Rove check out Bush's Brain over at NetFlix. It details his rise and other things he had been accused of.

[Nicobie]

U'd think this thread was about that bitch hillery (pls notice lack of respect given toward spelling & caps).

I really, really hate that slimey ####.

I betca she's pushed the button on more than one life.

[theknife]

keep your eye on the ball, from the Minneapolis Star-Trib:

[i]t’s important to look beyond the immediate political spectacle in Washington—White House spokesman Scott McClellan finally confronted by reporters who feel abused and lied to—to the reason Rove was talking to a reporter about ex-diplomat Joseph Wilson at all.

The real issue, more serious and less glitzy than whether Bush will stand by his political adviser, is the extraordinary efforts the Bush administration made to protect a case for war in Iraq from all contradictory evidence—in effect, as the British spymaster Sir Richard Dearlove put it, to “fix” the facts and intelligence so they would support a decision already made.

Enter Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA operative specializing in weapons of mass destruction.

...

It is instructive to remember that the investigation into who revealed Plame’s identity was initiated by Tenet, not by administration critics. Remember also that Wilson was correct; ultimately the White House had to retract Bush’s State of the Union statement on the Niger connection.

In addition to discrediting critics of the Niger connection, the Bush administration, through the actions of John Bolton—now nominee to be U.N. ambassador—sought to intimidate intelligence analysts who objected to conclusions about Iraq’s WMD, and to get a U.N. chemical weapons official fired so he wouldn’t be able to send inspectors back to Iraq, where they might disprove more of the case for war.

In the scheme of things, whether Rove revealed Plame’s identity, deliberately or not, matters less than actions by Rove, Bolton, Cheney and others to phony up a case for war that has gone badly, has cost thousands of lives plus hundreds of billions of dollars, and has, a majority of Americans now believe, left the United States less safe from terrorism rather than more.

That’s the indictment which should matter most.

exactly the point - the Rove matter is a microcosm of the larger scandal.

[albed]

So, in this 'did Karl Rove commit treason?' thread, the "ball" is bouncing away like a rat leaving a sinking ship.


I guess the dogs have been barking up the wrong tree. Or at the wrong ball.


I hope the liberals have the decency to apologize for their reckless accusations.

[theknife]

Karl Rove's Nondisclosure Agreement

A fact sheet released today by Rep. Waxman explains that the nondisclosure agreement signed by Karl Rove prohibited Mr. Rove from confirming the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Wilson to reporters. Under the nondisclosure agreement and the applicable executive order, even "negligent" disclosures to reporters are grounds for revocation of a security clearance or dismissal.

Today, news reports revealed that Karl Rove, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff and the President's top political advisor, confirmed the identity of covert CIA official Valerie Plame Wilson with Robert Novak on July 8, 2003, six days before Mr. Novak published the information in a nationally syndicated column. These new disclosures have obvious relevance to the criminal investigation of Patrick Fitzgerald, the Special Counsel who is investigating whether Mr. Rove violated a criminal statute by revealing Ms. Wilson's identity as a covert CIA official.

Independent of the relevance these new disclosures have to Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation, they also have significant implications for: (1) whether Mr. Rove violated his obligations under his "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement" and (2) whether the White House violated its obligations under Executive Order 12958. Under the nondisclosure agreement and the executive order, Mr. Rove would be subject to the loss of his security clearance or dismissal even for "negligently" disclosing Ms. Wilson's identity.

KARL ROVE'S NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT

Executive Order 12958 governs how federal employees are awarded security clearances in order to obtain access to classified information. It was last updated by President George W. Bush on March 25, 2003, although it has existed in some form since the Truman era. The executive order applies to any entity within the executive branch that comes into possession of classified information, including the White House. It requires employees to undergo a criminal background check, obtain training on how to protect classified information, and sign a "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," also known as a SF-312, promising not to reveal classified information.1 The nondisclosure agreement signed by White House officials such as Mr. Rove states: "I will never divulge classified information to anyone" who is not authorized to receive it.2

THE PROHIBITION AGAINST "CONFIRMING" CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
Mr. Rove, through his attorney, has raised the implication that there is a distinction between releasing classified information to someone not authorized to receive it and confirming classified information from someone not authorized to have it. In fact, there is no such distinction under the nondisclosure agreement Mr. Rove signed.

One of the most basic rules of safeguarding classified information is that an official who has signed a nondisclosure agreement cannot confirm classified information obtained by a reporter. In fact, this obligation is highlighted in the "briefing booklet" that new security clearance recipients receive when they sign their nondisclosure agreements:
Before confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.3

THE INDEPENDENT DUTY TO VERIFY THE CLASSIFIED STATUS OF INFORMATION

Mr. Rove's attorney has implied that if Mr. Rove learned Ms. Wilson's identity and occupation from a reporter, this somehow makes a difference in what he can say about the information. This is inaccurate. The executive order states: "Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information."4

Mr. Rove was not at liberty to repeat classified information he may have learned from a reporter. Instead, he had an affirmative obligation to determine whether the information had been declassified before repeating it. The briefing booklet is explicit on this point: "before disseminating the information elsewhere ... the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified."5

"NEGLIGENT" DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Mr. Rove's attorney has also implied that Mr. Rove's conduct should be at issue only if he intentionally or knowingly disclosed Ms. Wilson's covert status. In fact, the nondisclosure agreement and the executive order require sanctions against security clearance holders who "knowingly, willfully, or negligently" disclose classified information.6 The sanctions for such a breach include "reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions."7

THE WHITE HOUSE OBLIGATIONS UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958

Under the executive order, the White House has an affirmative obligation to investigate and take remedial action separate and apart from any ongoing criminal investigation. The executive order specifically provides that when a breach occurs, each agency must "take appropriate and prompt corrective action."8 This includes a determination of whether individual employees improperly disseminated or obtained access to classified information.

The executive order further provides that sanctions for violations are not optional. The executive order expressly provides: "Officers and employees of the United States Government ... shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently ... disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified."9

There is no evidence that the White House complied with these requirements.

Rove's disclosure of information in violation of national security regulations is no longer in question. the obvious question becomes: what did the President know and when did he know it?

QUESTION: Has the President either asked Karl Rove to assure him that he had nothing to do with this; or did Karl Rove go to the President to assure him that he . . .
McCLELLAN: I don't think he needs that. I think I've spoken clearly to this publicly . . . I've just said there's no truth to it.

QUESTION: Yes, but I'm just wondering if there was a conversation between Karl Rove and the President, or if he just talked to you, and you're here at this . . .

McCLELLAN: He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved.

QUESTION: How does he know that?

McCLELLAN: The President knows. - Press Gaggle - 9/289/03

unless everybody is lying to McClellan, either the President of the United States knew about Rove's involvement with the Plame case, and lied to the country, or Karl Rove lied to the President about his involvement. the Prez is dealing with it in his usual forthright manner:

From a White House pool report this afternoon:

On the tarmac in North Carolina, your pool was able to walk briefly alongside the president and ask if he still had faith in Karl Rove.

The question was met with a stare straight ahead, silence and a quick brush-off motion of Bush’s left hand, as if the president were swatting away an insect. - Friday, 7/15/05

[malvachat]

Originally Posted by albed

So, in this 'did Karl Rove commit treason?' thread, the "ball" is bouncing away like a rat leaving a sinking ship.


I guess the dogs have been barking up the wrong tree. Or at the wrong ball.


I hope the liberals have the decency to apologize for their reckless accusations.

Come on Albeds do you you really think there is nothing going on here?
Smokes and mirrors?
Politics will always be played.
Treason is just a word here.
This is the real world.
Do you really have faith in our system?
I hope so.
Because,If you do,truth and decency(and lots of other things)
should sit side by side.
Tall order I know.
I've been told Faith moves mountains we'll see.


"The decency to apologize for their reckless accusations"

Please think about this statment a little and reflect.
God does not pay his debts in money.

[multi]

Originally Posted by Nicobie

U'd think this thread was about that bitch hillery (pls notice lack of respect given toward spelling & caps).

I really, really hate that slimey ####.

I betca she's pushed the button on more than one life.

http://www.michaelhodges.com/stuff/funny/2008cc1.swf

[malvachat]

Here's something interesting I've just read.
Quite a bit of interesting stuff here.
The Jon Stewart with Bernie Goldberg thing is funny.
Hey Nic whoever wrote this hates Hilary too.

http://www.bushflash.com/index.html


"Okay- alone amongst the progressive/liberal blogosphere, I'm going to have to break the sad news, to those sharks swimming around the recent "Rove-gate."

You've fallen into another distraction, here. Rove is laughing at us, and at you.

This is the Bush/Rove tactics at their most transparent.

I'm not diminishing the outing of Plame, in any way, in saying this. What Rove did was unconscionable, treasonous, and criminal- but ya know what?

This is the way Rove does things- notice that, in recent months, scandal after scandal has been pouring out of the republicans and the Bush bowl? First it was Tom Delay- then it was the Downing Street Memo- now, it's Rove.

They know how the american media works, and are well aware of how short the american attention span is. Yes- all the chickens are coming home to roost, and while we on the left enjoy seeing this happen, Rove and the Bush crime family are sitting back, and letting at all unfold- they know they'll never be called to account...

Why? Because the way the media works. Let's go back in time, for just a bit....

Delay's corruption scandal was trumpeted by the left as a damning indictment of republican hubris- What did Rove and the republicans do? They spouted their soundbites, their talking points, and treaded water, until the media (and the sheeple) were distracted by Michael jackson, and the Downing Street memo.

Once the downing street memo arrived on the scene, the left trumpeted this as the "smoking gun", that would bring down the Bush administration. The republicans dug in, spun their wheels, spouted their talking points and soundbites, until the bombings in London swept everything away.

Rove, knowing that the DSM was enough of a powederkeg to survive this terrorist attack, decided to put his own wedding tackle on the chopping block, and provide the media with this newest scandal, knowing that the MSM (along with the progressive/liberal alternative media) would latch onto this story. Rove KNOWS damn well that he's a prime target, and doesn't mind one whit, putting himself on the line, as a temporary distraction, until the next story erupts, and we all go dutifully scrambling after the newest "scandal."

Why would Rove do such a thing? Well- ask yourself- how many times, in the last two weeks, has the Downing Street memo been mentioned, via the MSM (compared to daily mention, prior to this?) How much coverage has been given to Bush's refutation of greenhouse gas restrictions, just in the past 48 hours? How much coverage has been given to the continuing collapse of "No Child Left Behind", and the dozens of other failures that are dogging this administration?

None- not one, single word.

It's been "Rove, Rove, Rove", and while weightier issues have fallen by the wayside, issues that are far more important, and meaningful, Rove has been basking in the light of media attention, and laughing at us on the left, while we spend so much energy going after him, and giving far more important issues a pass, in our collective bloodlust.

Mark my words- in a few weeks, Rove will walk free of this, the next scandal will emerge, and the whole cycle will begin again.

Rove is laughing at us, people.

Just as I abstained from covering the fluff that was "Gannongate", I will not be covering Rove's latest subterfuge. In my mind, the Downing Street Memo is of far greater import, and far greater gravity, as an issue.

This is a severe and true test of the "new media" of the blogs and the internet- will we follow in the steps of the MSM, and follow the "scandal du jour", and thus, dance to the tune of Rove, and others who "manufacture consent", or will we focus on what's important?

I haven't much faith, by what I've seen, as of late...

No matter what Rove did- treason, crime, or whatever, it pales in comparison to the criminality exposed by the Downing Street Memo. Rove knows he'll ride this one out (just as Bush as ridden greater scandals out), and by the time the smoke clears, no one will remember the DSM....

We're being snowed, once again..."

[theknife]

the White House press briefings have become a daily game of dodgeball between McClellan and the press corps. the stonewalling on the part of the administration is so complete, the exchanges are hardly worth repeating...except for this:

Q I know that none of you are speaking about this because it's an ongoing investigation. Can you explain why Alberto Gonzales would go on TV yesterday and do that, and talk about it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, what he said was already said from this podium back in October of 2003, and I don't think he got into commenting in any substantive way on the discussion. But the President has said that we will be glad to talk about this once the investigation has come to a conclusion, but not until then. And there have certainly been preferences expressed to the White House that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing.

another excellent and obvious question: how come Attorney General Gonzalez, the highest-ranking law enforcement official in the country, can go on TV yesterday and discuss the case, but the White House can't?

HUME: You were in the White House as counsel at the time that investigation was initiated. Have you been asked to testify in this case?

GONZALES: I was asked to testify. This was over a year ago. I did testify before the grand jury, yes.

HUME: And, can you tell us if you at any time were aware of Valerie Plame, either by name or by identification with Joseph Wilson? Were you aware that she was in the CIA? And did you have — and if you were — did you have any idea what kind of work she was doing?

GONZALES: … I had no information regarding Ms. Plame and her role at the CIA.

McClellan has been stonewalling for weeks, citing "an ongoing investigation" meanwhile the AG is out there on multiple Sunday morning talk shows discussing the case - what's wrong with this picture? could it be because Gonzalez has no worries - his story is straight - while the White House is unwilling or unable to explain who was lying about what?