If progressives are suddenly going to get up in high dudgeon about these matters, perhaps they should press for a special prosecutor to investigate the case against Senators Kerry and Lugar, who in March at an open Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, outed Fulton Armstrong--an undercover CIA analyst attached to the National Intelligence Council for Latin America. Haven't heard a peep about that.
a favor, my friend. your relative morality is not only revolting, but also undermines your (hotairredhearingnotyetmainstreamedtalkingpoint.org) argument(s) significantly.
In addition to your usual incoherence and ad hominum attack on my character (a sign of polemical confidence, no doubt), you have failed to defend your original point. You contend this is all worse than watergate. I know it must be difficult when people don't automatically agree with you, but you should show a little spine and ingenuity. Please explainm, mighty fatback, how this alleged crime is more horrible than Nixon spying on the Democratic party and subsequent cover up. Are you certain a grand jury will even find Karl Rove guilty of violating the Secret Identities Protection Act? Have you familiarized yourself with the statute and relevant case law? I have not, and am looking forward to your most informed opinion on the matter. And since you are so concerned about keeping secret the identities of our nation's spies and analysts, would you favor proceedings against Kerry and Lugar as well? Your answer suggests as much, but I wanted to check.
If progressives are suddenly going to get up in high dudgeon about these matters, perhaps they should press for a special prosecutor to investigate the case against Senators Kerry and Lugar, who in March at an open Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, outed Fulton Armstrong--an undercover CIA analyst attached to the National Intelligence Council for Latin America. Haven't heard a peep about that.
a favor, my friend. your relative morality is not only revolting, but also undermines your (hotairredhearingnotyetmainstreamedtalkingpoint.org) argument(s) significantly.
Outing an operative is wrong: Kerry or Rove.
Blowing up buildings is wrong: Irgun or Hamas
PS--tell us about the Samson Option
What's with the hard on that people have for Israel? Can American politicians be dishonest & crooked on their own or does Israel's right to self determination have to do with everything that's fucked up about your country?
You serious Fatback? I'm sure you're real proud of yourself that you read an article on Znet and now know what the mukfuggin' Irgun was. But guess what? Total non sequitor. Keep that isht to yourself.
These guys are so much better at politics than anyone else. What ever game CR is playing by claiming to be The Source, CR will win that game. GW will win that game.
Remember GW was in deep trouble because he did not sign up for the National Guard in Boston as was required. This was big news. At the same time Carl Rove was given leaked letters that showed that GW got special treatment. Carl Rove said go ahead with the story. The letters were published (aired on tv). The next day BOOM the letters are fake, proving GW is a an American hero and the Left Wing press is out to get him. The true story of GW not reporting for duty was forgotten.
Newsweek gets a leak, abusive interigation techiniques including a Koran being flushed down a toilet at Gitmo. They run them pass the Pentagon. Pentagon says go a head with the story. BOOM, the report is false, proving no abuse ever occured at Gitmo and Left Wing press is working for the enemy.
Wait for the BOOM my friends. Carl Rove is much smarter than you and I will ever be.
How is this worse than Watergate? Let me count the ways.
1) We are at war. A war on terror. 2) Wilson was being discreted for trying to keep us focused on the war. 3) We are at war. 4) Bush was trying to abondon the war on terror so he could grab Iraqs oil fields. To do this he need to manufacture evidence of A LARGE SCALE ON GOING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAM. 5) Bush openly and knowingly lied to the American public claiming that Iraq had a major on going atomic weapons program. 6) Bush (through Carl Rove and others and that pond scum Novak the sooner he enters hell the better) set out to systematically destroy the life of a distingushed American public servant for pointing out Bush's lies. 7) We are at war. 8) Bush, through Rove and Novak (cursed be his name) and others, set out to destroy the career and threaten the life of Valerie Plame. 9) The purpose for doing 6 & 8 was to abondon the war on terror in favor of grabbing Iraq's oil fields. 10) We are at war 11) It is illegal to reveal the indenty of a CIA operative. Operatives who die in the field continue to have indenty protect. Certainly an operative who is still working for the CIA, trying to win the war on terror is just as worthy of having her identy protected. 12) We are at war. 13) As part of the cover up of the lies about WMD and the abandoning of the war on terror many others carreers were destroyed. Including the careers of milatary leaders. No one know all the intellegence officers, milatary personell and goverment bueracrats who's lives have been destroyed by Bush for not going along with his lies about Iraq. 14) We are at war.
This is not about leaking someones name and journalistic integrity. This is about lying to the American people to lead us into an unjust war. Don't even mention that tired ass "We know he has weapons we have the reciepts" crap. As we all know Bush knowingly lied about an ON GOING MAJOR INDUSTRIAL PROGRAM OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. The purpose of the lie was not to win an election, not to protect his presidence, and not to protect his personal life. The purpose of the lie was to take us into an illegal, immoral war.
Karl Rove commited a felony. Bush prolly knew about it. Worse than Watergate by a country mile.
Uh, how about NO!
This is a case of a personal vendetta against someone the White House identified as an enemy. It's the kind of personal attack that has become all too common amongst politicians these days, and the Bush Administration has stood out as always attacking anyone they perceive as a threat to their message.
Watergate on the other hand was a case of the President (Nixon) trying to undermine the democratic process itself by spying on the Democrats to return to the presidency for a 2nd term. Not only did Nixon spy on the Democratic HQ at the Watergate hotel, but also used a slew of dirty tricks against the Democrats such as sending out fake letters typed on up on fake Democratic letterhead making embarrasing remarks or attacking journalists to get bad press against the Dems, even going as far as trying to plant drugs in Hubert Humphrey's drinks during a speech so that he would appear like an idiot and again embarrass the Democratic ticket.
But given the agency's hostility towards the liberation of Iraq, I certainly think it's relevant that one of the Iraq war's first alleged whistleblowers had an axe to grind and a wife with one too.
What was Plame's view of the Iraq war one way or another? I've never seen anything printed about it. What was her axe to grind?
As for Ambassador Wilson, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee's Iraq inelligence report, Wilson went to Niger, didn't find any evidence to support the claims of Iraq buying uranium from them, told the CIA about it and then got mad when he saw the Adminisration continue to make the claim publicly. According to the Senate report he made unfounded claims about the administration based upon assumptions that proved untrue (such as he assumed that Cheney was briefed on his findings, which turned out to not be true), but the Intelligence Committee never reports anything about Wilson having an anti-Bush bias.
Furthermore, while Plame had been undercover, she was not undercover at the time. Her life was not in danger. And just a question. Why in the world would the CIA send someone undercover into the field with their real name? Isn't that why there are aliases?
Most CIA operatives who work overseas are in fact analysts and desk workers. They work under their real names, but are simply listed as embassy staff rather than intelligence officers. Therefore ALL CIA operatives are "undercover" when working overseas. The use of aliases would be for special cases where agents are actually working "in the field", i.e. regulary outside of the embassy.
Watergate = Breaking the law to fix the presidential election
Plame case = Breaking the law to get back at a man who talked bad about the Administration.
NOT COMPARABLE
That's just one way to frame those events. Likewise, one could say:
Watergate = Breaking into a DNC office to plant bugs and then trying to cover it up.
Plame case = Outing a CIA agent to bully administration critics into silence so as not to interrupt or sabotage a massive conspiracy against the American people.
Watergate = Breaking the law to fix the presidential election
Plame case = Breaking the law to get back at a man who talked bad about the Administration.
NOT COMPARABLE
That's just one way to frame those events. Likewise, one could say:
Watergate = Breaking into a DNC office to plant bugs and then trying to cover it up.
Plame case = Outing a CIA agent to bully administration critics into silence so as not to interrupt or sabotage a massive conspiracy against the American people.
Uh, again, the actual break-in to the Watergate hotel was only ONE part of a much larger plan by Nixon and his cronies to undermine, discredit and spy on the Democratic party in order to WIN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
Outing Plame was nothing more than a personal attack on Wilson. Something the administration has done to all kinds of people before and probably into the future who have criticized Bush, as in the best defense is an offense.
I mean Nixon wanted to drug the Democrat's nominee for the V.P. Hubert Humphrey before he gave a speech!! How is this even similar to outing Plame????
Outing Plame was nothing more than a personal attack on Wilson. Something the administration has done to all kinds of people before and probably into the future who have criticized Bush, as in the best defense is an offense.
What I'm trying to point out is that you are explaining the reasons behind the Watergate break in, but ignoring the reasons behind outing Plame. It wasn't just revenge for some isolated criticism, it was also a warning to those who speak out against the administration. The particular events involved in this case are also troubling. As Dan pointed out above, the outing was in response to criticism against the blatant fabrication of a pretense for war. That seems quite a bit more serious to me than a simple, isolated personal attack.
Outing Plame was nothing more than a personal attack on Wilson. Something the administration has done to all kinds of people before and probably into the future who have criticized Bush, as in the best defense is an offense.
What I'm trying to point out is that you are explaining the reasons behind the Watergate break in, but ignoring the reasons behind outing Plame. It wasn't just revenge for some isolated criticism, it was also a warning to those who speak out against the administration. The particular events involved in this case are also troubling. As Dan pointed out above, the outing was in response to criticism against the blatant fabrication of a pretense for war. That seems quite a bit more serious to me than a simple, isolated personal attack.
OK, let's do some historical proportioning here.
Rove outs Plame because the administraiton is mad that Wilson attacked the claim that Iraq was buying uranium for its nuke program. Novak writes ONE editorial about it. The following pieces by Judith Miller of the NYT and that other guy (name escape me) are about how this story came from the White House and its an attack on critics of the Iraq war. From the beginning the White House is exposed as being vindictive and that actually becomes the story. Wilson goes on to write a book, goes on the interview tour, becomes really famous. Is NOT silenced. There were plenty of other critics of the administration's policies that were also attacked over the Iraq war such as Hans Blix and Al Baradei (sp?) head of the international nuke inspections, that were much worse than what Rove did to Plame and none of them were silenced. There was TONS of criticism of the Iraq war as all of us know from within the establishment of Washington.
Compare this to Watergate.
Nixon pulls all kinds of dirty tricks against the Democrats including breaking into their national headquarters in order to win the presidential election. Nixon ends up winning the election, fires a couple Attorney Generals, orders the CIA to squash an FBI investigation into the matter, ends up having to resign because he's going to be impeached.
People were pissed that voters weren't being counted property in Florida during the Bush-Gore election, while Nixon pulled all kinds of bullshit that were FAR FAR worse than that and ended up winning as well.
There's no way saying that you cheated to win the president of the United States is the same as attacking your critics even during a war. The level of law breaking and downright dirty tricks perpetrated by Nixon makes Bush look like a freakin saint. And if you don't remember Nixon was at the end of the Vietnam war and also illegally invaded and bombed Cambodia while he was at it, while also overthrowing Allende in Chile to boot, so don't come back with Bush lied about Iraq, cuz Nixon lied about almost everything he did!
Outing Plame was nothing more than a personal attack on Wilson. Something the administration has done to all kinds of people before and probably into the future who have criticized Bush, as in the best defense is an offense.
What I'm trying to point out is that you are explaining the reasons behind the Watergate break in, but ignoring the reasons behind outing Plame. It wasn't just revenge for some isolated criticism, it was also a warning to those who speak out against the administration. The particular events involved in this case are also troubling. As Dan pointed out above, the outing was in response to criticism against the blatant fabrication of a pretense for war. That seems quite a bit more serious to me than a simple, isolated personal attack.
OK, let's do some historical proportioning here.
Rove outs Plame because the administraiton is mad that Wilson attacked the claim that Iraq was buying uranium for its nuke program. Novak writes ONE editorial about it. The following pieces by Judith Miller of the NYT and that other guy (name escape me) are about how this story came from the White House and its an attack on critics of the Iraq war. From the beginning the White House is exposed as being vindictive and that actually becomes the story. Wilson goes on to write a book, goes on the interview tour, becomes really famous. Is NOT silenced. There were plenty of other critics of the administration's policies that were also attacked over the Iraq war such as Hans Blix and Al Baradei (sp?) head of the international nuke inspections, that were much worse than what Rove did to Plame and none of them were silenced. There was TONS of criticism of the Iraq war as all of us know from within the establishment of Washington.
Compare this to Watergate.
Nixon pulls all kinds of dirty tricks against the Democrats including breaking into their national headquarters in order to win the presidential election. Nixon ends up winning the election, fires a couple Attorney Generals, orders the CIA to squash an FBI investigation into the matter, ends up having to resign because he's going to be impeached.
People were pissed that voters weren't being counted property in Florida during the Bush-Gore election, while Nixon pulled all kinds of bullshit that were FAR FAR worse than that and ended up winning as well.
There's no way saying that you cheated to win the president of the United States is the same as attacking your critics even during a war. The level of law breaking and downright dirty tricks perpetrated by Nixon makes Bush look like a freakin saint. And if you don't remember Nixon was at the end of the Vietnam war and also illegally invaded and bombed Cambodia while he was at it, while also overthrowing Allende in Chile to boot, so don't come back with Bush lied about Iraq, cuz Nixon lied about almost everything he did!
I wan't the one comparing the two, and I agree that they are fundementally different. I just thought you were downplaying the importance of the Plame case. I don't care if it is or isn't like Watergate (no more than I care if Iraq is or isn't like Vietnam), but I do think it's another scary example of the White House playing the bully that deserves to be analyzed and judged.
Yes, but the law in question was written to protect individuals with non-official cover. Plame not only used her real name, but was an analyst. I'm not so sure and don't think anyone knows whether she was on some Jen Garner Alias ish.
BTW, I am in no way defending the outing of CIA agents. The point of my post was that for years it was conservatives who pressed for a felony law to apply to people who did and liberals who questioned whether such a specific statute may have prevented whistleblowers like Agee from informing the America people about what the secret agency of their government was doing.
I am also no so sure that Rove leaked her name as retribution against Wilson. Newsweek's story suggests that he told Cooper the information to steer him away from the story. Something like well you and I know the CIA wants to embarrass the president and Wilson's wife is in the agency. I'm not telling you anything you don't when I say that in 2004, the Bush White House believed the CIA was politically a fifth column.
Finally, we are for the most part agreed here. I don't think this compares to Watergate even if the worst interpretation of events is true, which we don't know yet. I think it's absurd that a reporter who did not even write a story about this is in jail because the prosecutor has so far brought indictments against journalists as opposed to anyone who violated the law.
Watergate = Breaking the law to fix the presidential election
Plame case = Breaking the law to get back at a man who talked bad about the Administration.
NOT COMPARABLE
That's just one way to frame those events. Likewise, one could say:
Watergate = Breaking into a DNC office to plant bugs and then trying to cover it up.
Plame case = Outing a CIA agent to bully administration critics into silence so as not to interrupt or sabotage a massive conspiracy against the American people.
Uh, again, the actual break-in to the Watergate hotel was only ONE part of a much larger plan by Nixon and his cronies to undermine, discredit and spy on the Democratic party in order to WIN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
Outing Plame was nothing more than a personal attack on Wilson. Something the administration has done to all kinds of people before and probably into the future who have criticized Bush, as in the best defense is an offense.
I mean Nixon wanted to drug the Democrat's nominee for the V.P. Hubert Humphrey before he gave a speech!! How is this even similar to outing Plame????
Jo*l I hope you're not suggesting that the Plame incident occurred in a vacuum? It seems to me that it's only one incident that's part of a pattern of behavior/bad acts on the part of this administration and it's proxies in Congress, the press and non-profit sector (i.e. right wing "foundations", "Swiftboat Vets" etc). Bush and his people have run roughshod over the law countless times, and have shown bad faith in matters as serious as a war that has so far cost more than 1500 US lives, thousands more maimed and God only knows how many dead Iraqis. Nixon made the mistake of running a centralized operation for which he eventually had to take the fall. The Republicans learned from that and have morphed into a crime syndicate, so diffuse as to allow them to shift blame everywhere except where it belongs. The entire time they have been aided and abetted by a complacent (often complicit) press, more interested in diddling about Michael Jackson, missing college girls in Aruba etc than doing their job (not to mention actually planting info directly via folks like Armstrong Williams and Jeff Guckert). The Plame affair, taken on it's own may pale next to Watergate, but the actions of this Administration make Watergate look like a parking ticket. L
Watergate = Breaking the law to fix the presidential election
Plame case = Breaking the law to get back at a man who talked bad about the Administration.
NOT COMPARABLE
That's just one way to frame those events. Likewise, one could say:
Watergate = Breaking into a DNC office to plant bugs and then trying to cover it up.
Plame case = Outing a CIA agent to bully administration critics into silence so as not to interrupt or sabotage a massive conspiracy against the American people.
Uh, again, the actual break-in to the Watergate hotel was only ONE part of a much larger plan by Nixon and his cronies to undermine, discredit and spy on the Democratic party in order to WIN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
Outing Plame was nothing more than a personal attack on Wilson. Something the administration has done to all kinds of people before and probably into the future who have criticized Bush, as in the best defense is an offense.
I mean Nixon wanted to drug the Democrat's nominee for the V.P. Hubert Humphrey before he gave a speech!! How is this even similar to outing Plame????
Jo*l I hope you're not suggesting that the Plame incident occurred in a vacuum? It seems to me that it's only one incident that's part of a pattern of behavior/bad acts on the part of this administration and it's proxies in Congress, the press and non-profit sector (i.e. right wing "foundations", "Swiftboat Vets" etc). Bush and his people have run roughshod over the law countless times, and have shown bad faith in matters as serious as a war that has so far cost more than 1500 US lives, thousands more maimed and God only knows how many dead Iraqis. Nixon made the mistake of running a centralized operation for which he eventually had to take the fall. The Republicans learned from that and have morphed into a crime syndicate, so diffuse as to allow them to shift blame everywhere except where it belongs. The entire time they have been aided and abetted by a complacent (often complicit) press, more interested in diddling about Michael Jackson, missing college girls in Aruba etc than doing their job (not to mention actually planting info directly via folks like Armstrong Williams and Jeff Guckert). The Plame affair, taken on it's own may pale next to Watergate, but the actions of this Administration make Watergate look like a parking ticket. L
Bush has also spawned fourteen fourteen goat/lizard children that occupy the sewers of the world's most populous cities. In the evenings they secure the blood of a fresh virgin so the president may drink it in the company of frozen nazi corpses in the Rose Garden.
Watergate = Breaking the law to fix the presidential election
Plame case = Breaking the law to get back at a man who talked bad about the Administration.
NOT COMPARABLE
That's just one way to frame those events. Likewise, one could say:
Watergate = Breaking into a DNC office to plant bugs and then trying to cover it up.
Plame case = Outing a CIA agent to bully administration critics into silence so as not to interrupt or sabotage a massive conspiracy against the American people.
Uh, again, the actual break-in to the Watergate hotel was only ONE part of a much larger plan by Nixon and his cronies to undermine, discredit and spy on the Democratic party in order to WIN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
Outing Plame was nothing more than a personal attack on Wilson. Something the administration has done to all kinds of people before and probably into the future who have criticized Bush, as in the best defense is an offense.
I mean Nixon wanted to drug the Democrat's nominee for the V.P. Hubert Humphrey before he gave a speech!! How is this even similar to outing Plame????
Jo*l I hope you're not suggesting that the Plame incident occurred in a vacuum? It seems to me that it's only one incident that's part of a pattern of behavior/bad acts on the part of this administration and it's proxies in Congress, the press and non-profit sector (i.e. right wing "foundations", "Swiftboat Vets" etc). Bush and his people have run roughshod over the law countless times, and have shown bad faith in matters as serious as a war that has so far cost more than 1500 US lives, thousands more maimed and God only knows how many dead Iraqis. Nixon made the mistake of running a centralized operation for which he eventually had to take the fall. The Republicans learned from that and have morphed into a crime syndicate, so diffuse as to allow them to shift blame everywhere except where it belongs. The entire time they have been aided and abetted by a complacent (often complicit) press, more interested in diddling about Michael Jackson, missing college girls in Aruba etc than doing their job (not to mention actually planting info directly via folks like Armstrong Williams and Jeff Guckert). The Plame affair, taken on it's own may pale next to Watergate, but the actions of this Administration make Watergate look like a parking ticket. L
Bush has also spawned fourteen fourteen goat/lizard children that occupy the sewers of the world's most populous cities. In the evenings they secure the blood of a fresh virgin so the president may drink it in the company of frozen nazi corpses in the Rose Garden.
Stow it you crank. You are so "part of the problem" in this situation it's not even funny. The fact that you actually seem to believe any of the Bush-ist agit prop you spew hardly absolves you. I believe the term is "lackey"....
The Plame affair, taken on it's own may pale next to Watergate, but the actions of this Administration make Watergate look like a parking ticket. L
This is real speak; what do you find contentious about this point, Vitamin?
peace
h
Everything. The swift boat veterans may have been funded by Republicans, but they served in Vietnam with Kerry and are entitled under the first ammendment to purchase political advertisements that question the recollections of a candidate for the highest office in the land. I don't make anything of the Bush Lied, Who Died? thesis of most strutters because most of the world's intelligence services believed Saddam had WMD and furthermore Saddam himself did nothing to comply with the final UN resolution. Indeed, I have always thought that the deception argument was an intricate evasion for liberals to come to terms with America's responsibility for bolstering Saddam to begin with. I think the left's hatred of Bush is apace with the far Right's hatred of Clinton. Vince Foster really did kill himself he was not murdered on Hillary's orders. Karl Rove is certainly crafty, but I don't think he was deliberately trying burn a CIA operative as retribution, I think he was trying to stear a reporter off of a politically damaging story. A story that as it was told in the New York Times was not entirely accurate. Keep in mind that the blistering Butler report that chastises many of the errors of the MI6 concluded that it was reasonable to assert Saddam was trying to procure uranium in Africa. They huff and they puff. . . .
The Plame affair, taken on it's own may pale next to Watergate, but the actions of this Administration make Watergate look like a parking ticket. L
This is real speak; what do you find contentious about this point, Vitamin?
peace
h
Everything. The swift boat veterans may have been funded by Republicans, but they served in Vietnam with Kerry and are entitled under the first ammendment to purchase political advertisements that question the recollections of a candidate for the highest office in the land SO THE ESSENTIAL DISHONESTY OF THEIR ADS DOESN'T MATTER[/b]. I don't make anything of the Bush Lied, Who Died? thesis of most strutters because most of the world's intelligence services believed Saddam had WMD and furthermore Saddam himself did nothing to comply with the final UN resolution (BUSH IS ALLOWED TO LIE[/b]. Indeed, I have always thought that the deception argument was an intricate evasion for liberals to come to terms with America's responsibility for bolstering Saddam to begin with (INCORRECTO[/b]). I think the left's hatred of Bush is apace with the far Right's hatred of Clinton (ALSO INCORRECTO[/b]). Vince Foster really did kill himself he was not murdered on Hillary's orders (NICE TRY E*I, BUT INFERRING THE FACTS ABOUT BUSH ARE SOMEHOW EQUIVALENT TO CONSPIRACY THEORIES IS DISHONEST[/b]). Karl Rove is certainly crafty, but I don't think he was deliberately trying burn a CIA operative as retribution, I think he was trying to stear a reporter off of a politically damaging story (SPIN - SPIN - SPIN - SPIN [/b]). A story that as it was told in the New York Times was not entirely accurate (DAMN THOSE EAST COAST LIBERALS[/b]). Keep in mind that the blistering Butler report that chastises many of the errors of the MI6 concluded that it was reasonable to assert Saddam was trying to procure uranium in Africa. They huff and they puff. . . .
Excuse me...the word is not lackey, but rather apologist[/b]...
The Plame affair, taken on it's own may pale next to Watergate, but the actions of this Administration make Watergate look like a parking ticket. L
This is real speak; what do you find contentious about this point, Vitamin?
peace
h
Everything. The swift boat veterans may have been funded by Republicans, but they served in Vietnam with Kerry and are entitled under the first ammendment to purchase political advertisements that question the recollections of a candidate for the highest office in the land. I don't make anything of the Bush Lied, Who Died? thesis of most strutters because most of the world's intelligence services believed Saddam had WMD and furthermore Saddam himself did nothing to comply with the final UN resolution. Indeed, I have always thought that the deception argument was an intricate evasion for liberals to come to terms with America's responsibility for bolstering Saddam to begin with. I think the left's hatred of Bush is apace with the far Right's hatred of Clinton. Vince Foster really did kill himself he was not murdered on Hillary's orders. Karl Rove is certainly crafty, but I don't think he was deliberately trying burn a CIA operative as retribution, I think he was trying to stear a reporter off of a politically damaging story. A story that as it was told in the New York Times was not entirely accurate. Keep in mind that the blistering Butler report that chastises many of the errors of the MI6 concluded that it was reasonable to assert Saddam was trying to procure uranium in Africa. They huff and they puff. . . .
Vitamin,
Whether you support the Iraq war ot not, can't you concede that this president has a terrible cloud hanging over him? I mean, just the election scandal he was embroiled in is something enough to call his authority & honesty into dispute...
You serious Fatback? I'm sure you're real proud of yourself that you read an article on Znet and now know what the mukfuggin' Irgun was. But guess what? Total non sequitor. Keep that isht to yourself.
i know the Irgun. why don't you tell the people on board about the Samson option?
Comments
a favor, my friend. your relative morality is not only revolting, but also undermines your (hotairredhearingnotyetmainstreamedtalkingpoint.org) argument(s) significantly.
Outing an operative is wrong: Kerry or Rove.
Blowing up buildings is wrong: Irgun or Hamas
PS--tell us about the Samson Option
In addition to your usual incoherence and ad hominum attack on my character (a sign of polemical confidence, no doubt), you have failed to defend your original point. You contend this is all worse than watergate. I know it must be difficult when people don't automatically agree with you, but you should show a little spine and ingenuity. Please explainm, mighty fatback, how this alleged crime is more horrible than Nixon spying on the Democratic party and subsequent cover up. Are you certain a grand jury will even find Karl Rove guilty of violating the Secret Identities Protection Act? Have you familiarized yourself with the statute and relevant case law? I have not, and am looking forward to your most informed opinion on the matter. And since you are so concerned about keeping secret the identities of our nation's spies and analysts, would you favor proceedings against Kerry and Lugar as well? Your answer suggests as much, but I wanted to check.
What's with the hard on that people have for Israel? Can American politicians be dishonest & crooked on their own or does Israel's right to self determination have to do with everything that's fucked up about your country?
You serious Fatback? I'm sure you're real proud of yourself that you read an article on Znet and now know what the mukfuggin' Irgun was. But guess what? Total non sequitor. Keep that isht to yourself.
Whoa, there big guy. Like you can even talk about that after the insults you've hurled around here.
These guys are so much better at politics than anyone else. What ever game CR is playing by claiming to be The Source, CR will win that game. GW will win that game.
Remember GW was in deep trouble because he did not sign up for the National Guard in Boston as was required. This was big news. At the same time Carl Rove was given leaked letters that showed that GW got special treatment. Carl Rove said go ahead with the story. The letters were published (aired on tv). The next day BOOM the letters are fake, proving GW is a an American hero and the Left Wing press is out to get him. The true story of GW not reporting for duty was forgotten.
Newsweek gets a leak, abusive interigation techiniques including a Koran being flushed down a toilet at Gitmo. They run them pass the Pentagon. Pentagon says go a head with the story. BOOM, the report is false, proving no abuse ever occured at Gitmo and Left Wing press is working for the enemy.
Wait for the BOOM my friends. Carl Rove is much smarter than you and I will ever be.
Dan
1) We are at war. A war on terror.
2) Wilson was being discreted for trying to keep us focused on the war.
3) We are at war.
4) Bush was trying to abondon the war on terror so he could grab Iraqs oil fields. To do this he need to manufacture evidence of A LARGE SCALE ON GOING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAM.
5) Bush openly and knowingly lied to the American public claiming that Iraq had a major on going atomic weapons program.
6) Bush (through Carl Rove and others and that pond scum Novak the sooner he enters hell the better) set out to systematically destroy the life of a distingushed American public servant for pointing out Bush's lies.
7) We are at war.
8) Bush, through Rove and Novak (cursed be his name) and others, set out to destroy the career and threaten the life of Valerie Plame.
9) The purpose for doing 6 & 8 was to abondon the war on terror in favor of grabbing Iraq's oil fields.
10) We are at war
11) It is illegal to reveal the indenty of a CIA operative. Operatives who die in the field continue to have indenty protect. Certainly an operative who is still working for the CIA, trying to win the war on terror is just as worthy of having her identy protected.
12) We are at war.
13) As part of the cover up of the lies about WMD and the abandoning of the war on terror many others carreers were destroyed. Including the careers of milatary leaders. No one know all the intellegence officers, milatary personell and goverment bueracrats who's lives have been destroyed by Bush for not going along with his lies about Iraq.
14) We are at war.
This is not about leaking someones name and journalistic integrity. This is about lying to the American people to lead us into an unjust war. Don't even mention that tired ass "We know he has weapons we have the reciepts" crap. As we all know Bush knowingly lied about an ON GOING MAJOR INDUSTRIAL PROGRAM OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. The purpose of the lie was not to win an election, not to protect his presidence, and not to protect his personal life. The purpose of the lie was to take us into an illegal, immoral war.
I remember 9/11.
I remember who attaked us.
Do you?
Dan
Uh, how about NO!
This is a case of a personal vendetta against someone the White House identified as an enemy. It's the kind of personal attack that has become all too common amongst politicians these days, and the Bush Administration has stood out as always attacking anyone they perceive as a threat to their message.
Watergate on the other hand was a case of the President (Nixon) trying to undermine the democratic process itself by spying on the Democrats to return to the presidency for a 2nd term. Not only did Nixon spy on the Democratic HQ at the Watergate hotel, but also used a slew of dirty tricks against the Democrats such as sending out fake letters typed on up on fake Democratic letterhead making embarrasing remarks or attacking journalists to get bad press against the Dems, even going as far as trying to plant drugs in Hubert Humphrey's drinks during a speech so that he would appear like an idiot and again embarrass the Democratic ticket.
This case is in NO WAY relatable to Watergate.
Agreed.
What was Plame's view of the Iraq war one way or another? I've never seen anything printed about it. What was her axe to grind?
As for Ambassador Wilson, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee's Iraq inelligence report, Wilson went to Niger, didn't find any evidence to support the claims of Iraq buying uranium from them, told the CIA about it and then got mad when he saw the Adminisration continue to make the claim publicly. According to the Senate report he made unfounded claims about the administration based upon assumptions that proved untrue (such as he assumed that Cheney was briefed on his findings, which turned out to not be true), but the Intelligence Committee never reports anything about Wilson having an anti-Bush bias.
Most CIA operatives who work overseas are in fact analysts and desk workers. They work under their real names, but are simply listed as embassy staff rather than intelligence officers. Therefore ALL CIA operatives are "undercover" when working overseas. The use of aliases would be for special cases where agents are actually working "in the field", i.e. regulary outside of the embassy.
Watergate = Breaking the law to fix the presidential election
Plame case = Breaking the law to get back at a man who talked bad about the Administration.
NOT COMPARABLE
That's just one way to frame those events. Likewise, one could say:
Watergate = Breaking into a DNC office to plant bugs and then trying to cover it up.
Plame case = Outing a CIA agent to bully administration critics into silence so as not to interrupt or sabotage a massive conspiracy against the American people.
Uh, again, the actual break-in to the Watergate hotel was only ONE part of a much larger plan by Nixon and his cronies to undermine, discredit and spy on the Democratic party in order to WIN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
Outing Plame was nothing more than a personal attack on Wilson. Something the administration has done to all kinds of people before and probably into the future who have criticized Bush, as in the best defense is an offense.
I mean Nixon wanted to drug the Democrat's nominee for the V.P. Hubert Humphrey before he gave a speech!! How is this even similar to outing Plame????
What I'm trying to point out is that you are explaining the reasons behind the Watergate break in, but ignoring the reasons behind outing Plame. It wasn't just revenge for some isolated criticism, it was also a warning to those who speak out against the administration. The particular events involved in this case are also troubling. As Dan pointed out above, the outing was in response to criticism against the blatant fabrication of a pretense for war. That seems quite a bit more serious to me than a simple, isolated personal attack.
OK, let's do some historical proportioning here.
Rove outs Plame because the administraiton is mad that Wilson attacked the claim that Iraq was buying uranium for its nuke program. Novak writes ONE editorial about it. The following pieces by Judith Miller of the NYT and that other guy (name escape me) are about how this story came from the White House and its an attack on critics of the Iraq war. From the beginning the White House is exposed as being vindictive and that actually becomes the story. Wilson goes on to write a book, goes on the interview tour, becomes really famous. Is NOT silenced. There were plenty of other critics of the administration's policies that were also attacked over the Iraq war such as Hans Blix and Al Baradei (sp?) head of the international nuke inspections, that were much worse than what Rove did to Plame and none of them were silenced. There was TONS of criticism of the Iraq war as all of us know from within the establishment of Washington.
Compare this to Watergate.
Nixon pulls all kinds of dirty tricks against the Democrats including breaking into their national headquarters in order to win the presidential election. Nixon ends up winning the election, fires a couple Attorney Generals, orders the CIA to squash an FBI investigation into the matter, ends up having to resign because he's going to be impeached.
People were pissed that voters weren't being counted property in Florida during the Bush-Gore election, while Nixon pulled all kinds of bullshit that were FAR FAR worse than that and ended up winning as well.
There's no way saying that you cheated to win the president of the United States is the same as attacking your critics even during a war. The level of law breaking and downright dirty tricks perpetrated by Nixon makes Bush look like a freakin saint. And if you don't remember Nixon was at the end of the Vietnam war and also illegally invaded and bombed Cambodia while he was at it, while also overthrowing Allende in Chile to boot, so don't come back with Bush lied about Iraq, cuz Nixon lied about almost everything he did!
How is cheating and WINNING the presidency of the United States
the SAME
as attacking a critic/s over a war and NOT silencing him/them????
Ok, and since Bush got away with the above, and no one called him on it, his opponents have got to try and get him for whatever they can...
Think Capone going down for tax fraud. That's pretty much the deal with this Rove situation.
Peace...
FNM
I wan't the one comparing the two, and I agree that they are fundementally different. I just thought you were downplaying the importance of the Plame case. I don't care if it is or isn't like Watergate (no more than I care if Iraq is or isn't like Vietnam), but I do think it's another scary example of the White House playing the bully that deserves to be analyzed and judged.
Yes, but the law in question was written to protect individuals with non-official cover. Plame not only used her real name, but was an analyst. I'm not so sure and don't think anyone knows whether she was on some Jen Garner Alias ish.
BTW, I am in no way defending the outing of CIA agents. The point of my post was that for years it was conservatives who pressed for a felony law to apply to people who did and liberals who questioned whether such a specific statute may have prevented whistleblowers like Agee from informing the America people about what the secret agency of their government was doing.
I am also no so sure that Rove leaked her name as retribution against Wilson. Newsweek's story suggests that he told Cooper the information to steer him away from the story. Something like well you and I know the CIA wants to embarrass the president and Wilson's wife is in the agency. I'm not telling you anything you don't when I say that in 2004, the Bush White House believed the CIA was politically a fifth column.
Finally, we are for the most part agreed here. I don't think this compares to Watergate even if the worst interpretation of events is true, which we don't know yet. I think it's absurd that a reporter who did not even write a story about this is in jail because the prosecutor has so far brought indictments against journalists as opposed to anyone who violated the law.
Jo*l
I hope you're not suggesting that the Plame incident occurred in a vacuum? It seems to me that it's only one incident that's part of a pattern of behavior/bad acts on the part of this administration and it's proxies in Congress, the press and non-profit sector (i.e. right wing "foundations", "Swiftboat Vets" etc).
Bush and his people have run roughshod over the law countless times, and have shown bad faith in matters as serious as a war that has so far cost more than 1500 US lives, thousands more maimed and God only knows how many dead Iraqis.
Nixon made the mistake of running a centralized operation for which he eventually had to take the fall. The Republicans learned from that and have morphed into a crime syndicate, so diffuse as to allow them to shift blame everywhere except where it belongs.
The entire time they have been aided and abetted by a complacent (often complicit) press, more interested in diddling about Michael Jackson, missing college girls in Aruba etc than doing their job (not to mention actually planting info directly via folks like Armstrong Williams and Jeff Guckert).
The Plame affair, taken on it's own may pale next to Watergate, but the actions of this Administration make Watergate look like a parking ticket.
L
Bush has also spawned fourteen fourteen goat/lizard children that occupy the sewers of the world's most populous cities. In the evenings they secure the blood of a fresh virgin so the president may drink it in the company of frozen nazi corpses in the Rose Garden.
This is real speak; what do you find contentious about this point, Vitamin?
peace
h
Stow it you crank. You are so "part of the problem" in this situation it's not even funny. The fact that you actually seem to believe any of the Bush-ist agit prop you spew hardly absolves you.
I believe the term is "lackey"....
Everything. The swift boat veterans may have been funded by Republicans, but they served in Vietnam with Kerry and are entitled under the first ammendment to purchase political advertisements that question the recollections of a candidate for the highest office in the land. I don't make anything of the Bush Lied, Who Died? thesis of most strutters because most of the world's intelligence services believed Saddam had WMD and furthermore Saddam himself did nothing to comply with the final UN resolution. Indeed, I have always thought that the deception argument was an intricate evasion for liberals to come to terms with America's responsibility for bolstering Saddam to begin with. I think the left's hatred of Bush is apace with the far Right's hatred of Clinton. Vince Foster really did kill himself he was not murdered on Hillary's orders. Karl Rove is certainly crafty, but I don't think he was deliberately trying burn a CIA operative as retribution, I think he was trying to stear a reporter off of a politically damaging story. A story that as it was told in the New York Times was not entirely accurate. Keep in mind that the blistering Butler report that chastises many of the errors of the MI6 concluded that it was reasonable to assert Saddam was trying to procure uranium in Africa. They huff and they puff. . . .
Excuse me...the word is not lackey, but rather apologist[/b]...
Vitamin,
Whether you support the Iraq war ot not, can't you concede that this president has a terrible cloud hanging over him? I mean, just the election scandal he was embroiled in is something enough to call his authority & honesty into dispute...
h
i know the Irgun. why don't you tell the people on board about the Samson option?
you don't know me. watch your step kid.