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]

Yes knife, how many were killed? A simple question even you might have difficulty spinning into propaganda.

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by albed

Yes knife, how many were killed? A simple question even you might have difficulty spinning into propaganda.

right. so if somebody plants a building or subway bomb and it doesn't go off it shouldn't be prosecutable, but only i suppose if these american guy fawkes wannabies are staunch bush loyalists? christ albed that's a beaut.

- js.

[albed]

That analogy would really work well if it were possible to plant a bomb that had already been exploded years ago.


Maybe you could try something more appropriate; like letting a dead tiger's cage open so it could kill innocent, helpless people. OH THE HORROR!!!


Pure luck that nobody got killed, eh?

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by albed

Pure luck that nobody got killed, eh?

luck?

to begin with if you took the trouble to actually read the law you'd know that even if nobody died as a result the punishment for violating 18 USC Sec. 794 is anything from 1 year to life imprisonment. it's execution if the leak results in the death of the agent in question or an asset of the agent, or other dangerous things spelled out in the statute.

"...shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) of an individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently in the death of that individual, or directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy."

so leaving aside any deaths for the moment karl rove is in serious potential trouble of about the worst imaginable kind and could be facing spending the rest of his life in prison as a result of his dirty trick. really his only defense becomes one of intent and belief, as in he didn’t intend for the information that he gave to a reporter be used by an enemy and that he had no "reason to believe" that publishing the information in millions of newspapers, web pages and on tv could - again - be used by an enemy. for a sophisticated white house guy regularly privy to all kinds of secret defense stuff that argument's pretty slim. doesn't mean he wouldn't try it but it probably won’t wash.

then there is the matter of executive privledge. george bush may fall back on that hoary republican favorite to shield rove but for a "new kind of politician," "committed to openness" and already on record as wanting to get to the bottom of this despicable act and punish the guilty "no matter who they are" that might not look so good either.

off with his head then.

if they really want it badly enough the government would have the problem of identifying assets who themselves were secret, or identifying where and how some nuke, satellite, crypto system, war plan etc got compromised, no palatable task in an open court. so they might settle for some punishment short of the death penalty - unless it becomes widely known that a security compromise occurred or that people have died as a result of rove's leak.

as for that, and to answer your first question posed above, "Yes knife, how many were killed? A simple question even you might have difficulty spinning into propaganda." it has been reported that more people were murdered from this leak than were so far identified as killed in london's subway blast. if that is indeed true and it does become more widely reported (which if true it will), or if the public outcry is large enough, the prosecutors may not feel the need to withhold identification of assets (agents) who have already been identified and are in any event already dead. but you never know, they may feel that rove's defense lawyers could do further harm on fishing expeditions so they could let it go - unless it's tried without a jury which the law allows, or in one of bush's new secret terrorism courts. if it were to go that far rove could indeed get sentenced to death and would then have to beg his tough-on-terror boss for a presidential pardon, which would be an ugly irony, or spend years on appeal, which may get tougher if the conservatives in congress get their way and speed up the death penalty process, high irony indeed as it was rove who agreed they do so.

- js.

[albed]

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

luck?

to begin with if you took the trouble to actually read the law you'd know that even if nobody died as result - js.

"must.....read.........more................zzzzzzzzzzzzz "

Originally Posted by tambourine-man

How many were killed as a result of his treachery?

Bet all that lawyer talk really gets you the babes, huh? Once they're bored to death you have your way with them before they get cold.

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

karl rove is in serious potential trouble of about the worst imaginable kind

That line must be the coup de grace. Have your condom ready.



|/_

[theknife]

^the house troll flails away - almost makes you miss span, doesn't it?

meanwhile, back in the White House, yet another day where it sucks to be Press Secretary Scott McClellan:

WASHINGTON (AP) - For the better part of two years, the word coming out of the Bush White House was that presidential adviser Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak of a female CIA officer's identity and that whoever did would be fired.

But Bush spokesman Scott McClellan wouldn't repeat those claims Monday in the face of Rove's own lawyer, Robert Luskin, acknowledging the political operative spoke to Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, one of the reporters who disclosed Valerie Plame's name.

amazingly, the White House press corps begin to act like journalists:

The e-mail did not say Rove had disclosed the name. but it made clear that Rove had discussed the issue.

That ran counter to what McClellan has been saying. For example, in September and October 2003, McClellan's comments about Rove included the following: "The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved,""It was a ridiculous suggestion," and, "It's not true."

Reporters seized on the subject Monday, pressing McClellan to either repeat the denials or explain why he can't now.

so, Scotty, were you lying then? or was Rove lying to you? or was Rove lying to Bush? or was Bush lying to you? this is the version two years ago:

Q All right. Let me just follow up. You said this morning, "The President knows" that Karl Rove wasn't involved. How does he know that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. I saw some comments this morning from the person who made that suggestion, backing away from that. And I said it is simply not true. So, I mean, it's public knowledge. I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove --. . . I'm not going to get into conversations that the President has with advisors or staff or anything of that nature; that's not my practice.

Q . . . I'm not asking what you said, I'm asking if the President has a factual basis for saying -- for your statement that he knows Karl Rove --

MR. McCLELLAN: He's aware of what I've said, that there is simply no truth to that suggestion. And I have spoken with Karl about it.

so who's lying to who here?

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said it is "disturbing that this high ranking Bush adviser is not only still working in the White House, but now has a significant role in setting our national security policy."

"disturbing" is a rare understatement for Dean. be clear on what has transpired here: at a time when the US was being taken to war on the pretext of removing weapons of mass detruction from iraq, we have the most senior White House advisor deliberately sabatoging the career of a cia agent - who was working covertly in the trafficking of wmd's - for political purposes. will the Dems finally grow a spine over this grotesque nonsense or is Dean on his own again?

look again at Scott McClellan's previous comments on the topic:

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.

actually, that is exactly how this White House operates - these guys can't just can't keep their stories straight.

[albed]

I suppose you're a much more organized liar yourself knife, feeling some disdain for the amateurs.



How do you sabotage the career of someone who's retired and doesn't have a career?



And I guess by simply saying "was working covertly" you're really not trying to deceive people into thinking it was still going on at the time of the "outing".

[theknife]

from today's White House press conference - finally, the press has had enough of this nonsense:

Q Scott, can I ask you this; did Karl Rove commit a crime?

McCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to an ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than we're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

Q Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this" -- do you stand by that statement?
McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time, as well.

Q Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?

McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation ...

Q Why are you choosing when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?
McCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish ...

Q No, you're not finishing -- you're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke out about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation? Was he involved, or was he not? Because, contrary to what you told the American people, he did, indeed, talk about his wife, didn't he?
McCLELLAN: David, there will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

[albed]

How many were killed as a result of his treachery?

How do you sabotage the career of someone who's retired and doesn't have a career?

"quick, start shoveling bullshit and ignore these annoying questions....more bullshit...MORE...!"

[malvachat]

Originally Posted by albed

"quick, start shoveling bullshit and ignore these annoying questions....more bullshit...MORE...!"

"Bullshit"
Interesting statement
This guy may have broke the law.
It doesn't matter if no one was killed.
It doesn't matter if no career was sabotaged.
Are you saying people can break the law,if no one is hurt?
It seems to me,that some people have talked them self into a corner.
Is it possible for you to respond without name calling?
It seems that you need to back up every statement you make with insults?Why is that?Your point of view is as valid as anybody else's.
So why back it up with insults all the time?
It just weakens your point of view,or is that the fun bit?



.

[albed]

Some people simply lie, lacking the intelligence to obfuscate an issue.


Others use contorted language to talk all around an issue without actually addressing it.


And still others just ignore key parts of an issue and continue repeating their propanganda over and over.


But some just whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine...

[multi]

you fit that last catagory pretty well albed...

[tambourine-man]

So which one of those four did Karl Rove do?

[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)