SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: KLP who wrote (171814)10/3/2005 11:21:04 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
"ROVE-GATE" (... OR "LIBBY-GATE" ... OR "CHENEY-GATE"). Was it White House political guru Karl Rove who leaked to the media that Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent ... or was it Vice Presidential Chief of Staff Scooter Libby ... or does the trail of potential criminality go all the way to the top? The Washington Post reported on Sunday that the White House is bracing for possible indictments in the case. However, ABC's George Stephanopoulos reported Sunday a "source close to this [reported] that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions" planning the leak of damaging info on the wife of Ambassador Joe Wilson, an Administration critic. The New York Times reported evidence now appears to indicate that Vice President Cheney may have directed Libby to leak the info about Plame's undercover role. Plame had no known association with the CIA prior to the 2003 leaks. Because of the complexities of proving the leaking charge, the federal prosecutor is believed to be focusing instead on criminal conspiracy charges."

politics1.com



To: KLP who wrote (171814)10/3/2005 11:30:51 AM
From: epicure  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
I'm not suggesting you would cheer a dictator, or anything equivalent, nor have I made any allusions to the "bile" of the "Bush lovers" so I'm not really worried about my bile level, and you are grasping at straws there.

Let's go over the Salman Pak things AGAIN. You are asserting something that calls for proof, and you have no proof. Your pictures and your "words" prove nothing, since there is no evidence to back up the pictures and the words. What I am asserting is proved (so far) by the lack of any concrete evidence. I hope you can understand that. I have not ignored anything- I am looking for proof, and right now there isn't any, so the logical thing to do is not believe the fairy tale, until real evidence is forthcoming to support it. See how that works? If your "opinion" is that fairies exist, and mine is that they do not, our positions are not "equal", at least not in my opinion. Since you, with your "fairy theory", would be asserting something unusual, you would need to supply some proof. It's true that both are opinions, but one of those opinions, by asserting something positive, requires proof. I can just sit back and say "Since you have no evidence for your fairies, I'm going to thank you for proving my negative (thus far) because you have turned up no evidence, even though you really really tried".



To: KLP who wrote (171814)10/3/2005 11:35:21 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Remember The Memo
________________________________________

As the noose tightens at the White House, the State Department memo may be the key piece of Plame evidence. The one thing they didn’t count on was an honest prosecutor who cared more about evidence and the law than about partisanship. That, for this White House, was an inconceivable circumstance.

By Michael Tomasky
Web Exclusive: 10.03.05
prospect.org

Think it’s fair to say that the combination Sunday of the Walter Pincus–Jim VandeHei piece in The Washington Post and George Stephanopoulos’ bombshell on television’s This Week felt like a tug on the noose around the White House’s neck?

The Post article noted that Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor looking into the Valerie Plame investigation, could bring conspiracy indictments against Karl Rove and Scooter Libby -- even if he fails to pin down evidence that they violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Stephanopoulos did them one better: He said to George Will on his show that a source told him that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney “were actually involved in some of the discussions” about how the White House should deal with Joe Wilson and Plame, his wife.

OK, before we go any further, let’s pinch ourselves: I still think it will be awfully difficult for Fitzgerald to bring indictments against high-level officials. Bureaucratic layering is such that high officials typically have five or six degrees of separation from controversial actions, so that they can say “my hands were clean” and some underling the media have never heard of can take the fall.

It’s kind of like in The Constant Gardner -- the pharmaceutical company doesn’t need to order an actual hit; it merely has to let out word that so-and-so is a problem, and by the time the word gets to the sixth sociopath down the line, the comment is understood to mean murder. But no executive ever said, or perhaps even ever intended, any such thing.

So for now we still need to assume that, whatever happened, neither Rove nor Libby nor anyone else in the Bush White House intended for Plame’s name to get out there. And remember, we’re not exactly dealing with Murray Kempton on the journalistic end of this transaction. (For those of you who don’t know, he’s the epitome of journalistic probity and rectitude.) Bob Novak may have burned a source or made a more innocent error. So Plame’s name might have appeared in print through some fault of his.

But the argument against all my buts is the memo.

You are probably familiar with the memo story, which The New York Times broke in mid-July. The Times published Joe Wilson’s op-ed on July 6, 2003. By the next day, as he was getting aboard Air Force One to travel with the president to Africa, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell had the key memo in his hand.

The memo, prepared the previous month, was chiefly about State’s skepticism that Saddam Hussein had obtained uranium from Niger. But one paragraph, marked “S” for secret, included Plame’s name, although it did not specifically identify her as a covert operative. (For the record, Rove’s attorney has maintained that Rove never saw the memo until Fitzgerald’s office showed it to him.)

To quote from a Washington Post piece by VandeHei and Mike Allen from July 16: “A key mystery in the leak case is how senior administration officials first learned of Plame's identity and her relationship to a key critic of President Bush's Iraq policy, before her name appeared in news reports.” One of Fitzgerald’s earliest moves was to subpoena phone records from that Air Force One trip.

Bush, of course, was on that plane. It hardly stretches credulity to think that Powell showed his boss the memo -- if not because of the Plame mention, then because the memo stated his department’s view that Wilson’s trip had been unnecessary to begin with because State’s internal probe had already shown that the Iraq-Niger connection was a fabrication.

And this, I suspect, is where Stephanopoulos’ source circles back in to the story. If Bush saw that memo seven days before Novak’s story appeared, might Bush himself have been involved in discussions about Wilson and Plame?

Again, there’s usually insulation built in between higher-ups, especially the president, and any decision or action that might remotely be considered controversial. And, again, I still think the likelihood of high-level prosecutions is less than 50 percent. But if those prosecutions come, the State Department memo will likely be a key document.

And the more important point is this: We’ll learn that the normal layers of insulation were ignored because the Bush administration, and perhaps the president himself, felt they could get away with ignoring them. Certainly, they had no reason at that point to think that the media, which helped them make their phony case for war, would get nosy. It’s equally obvious that they had no reason to fear the feeble Democrats. The one thing they didn’t count on was an honest prosecutor who cared more about evidence and the law than about partisanship. That, for this White House, was an inconceivable circumstance.
__________________________________

Michael Tomasky is the Prospect’s executive editor.