Bush plays ethical limbo with Rove

On September 29, 2003, when asked whether administration officials were involved in the outing of Valerie Plame, White House press secretary Scott McClellan had this definitive answer:

“The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He’s made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.”

Well apparently, when it comes to a conscienceless bastard like Karl Rove, those “high standards” just got lowered a couple notches by presidential fiat. When asked today if he would fire anyone who helped unmask a CIA officer, Bush clearly lowered the bar:

“If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.”

Hmm. I suppose that means tried and convicted of a crime. So I’m guessing if Rove receives a presidential pardon before trial, his job is secure.

Comments

  1. 5

    dj spews:

    This is a very interesting predicament for Shrub.

    The best political decision right now is probably to fire Rove. That action would be more likely to keep the lid on LeakerGate without cracking open the bigger issues of the Administration’s determination to invade Iraq, manipulation of intelligence data for justification, and even their manipulation of the press.

    Will Rove recommend his own firing? Will Bush take the advice even if Rove gives it? There is no real evidence that Bush has ever been able to make good political or policy decisions (or financial decisions, for that matter) by himself–Karl Rove has always been there for Shrub’s political career.

    If Bush protects Rove, the whole thing will get bigger and uglier.

  2. 6

    windie spews:

    @5 and it looks like thats what he’s doing… The Monday speech says clearly to me “I’m going to go to the mat to protect Rove.”

  3. 7

    JDB spews:

    The one good thing about all of the corruption in the Bush Whitehouse is that the American people are finally noticing that this administration lies at the drop of a hat. No matter what happens to Rove, I suspect that the President’s honesty numbers will be in the 30s before the end of it.

    The Wall Street Journal and the rest of the wingnuts insist that Rove was just a whistle blower, trying to help the press. If that is so, why did he, Bush and the rest lie about that up and until last week when it became impossible to deny that Rove had leaked the information. Not even Rove can spin himself out of that.

  4. 8

    Donnageddon spews:

    JDB @ 7 “The Wall Street Journal and the rest of the wingnuts insist that Rove was just a whistle blower”

    But that is true! Guckert/Gannon’s nickname is whistle.

  5. 9

    JDB spews:

    Donna @ 8:

    If only we had film of that. That or film of Rove attending a black mass (or, reading Harry Potter, which to the far right is apparently the same). Then Bush might have to act.

    But let’s face it, as has been observed, expecting Bush to fire Rove is like expecting Charlie McCarthy to fire Edgar Bergman.

  6. 10

    NoWonder spews:

    Is the information considered “leak” if Rove received it from journalists? Where did Judith Miller get her information? Why on earth is she still in jail if Rove is the “source”. The lies are another thing – unless the prosecutor instructed Rove to lie. Otherwise we have the Clinton stench creeping back into the WH.

  7. 11

    windie spews:

    The theory with Judith miller is that there are 2 sources, Rove and somebody else… She’s still protecting hers.

    also, didja hear/read Novak’s testimony? Puts the ouch to Rove, really.

  8. 12

    Sick of both sides... spews:

    You guys are pitiful. You just can’t admit that the attempt to “get” Bush was wishful thinking and you just don’t want to let the facts get in the way of what you desire. Pathetic…

  9. 14

    windie spews:

    oh look, its “Mr. I can’t even keep my handle honest!”

    lyingname@12

    seeking justice isn’t an attempt to ‘get’ Bush. We have a responsibility, even to seek an answer for this kind of behavior.

  10. 15

    NoWonder spews:

    Nobody as simple as Bush could do the flip-flop attributed to him by the MSM as they move the goalpost on his Rove statements. He never even said he would fire anyone if they leaked info, just that he wanted to know who it was. Also, he said that if that someone did something illegal they will be “taken care of”. What part of “standing by your man” do you not understand? For reference the excerpt below is from the AP transcript that MSM says Bush has wavered from – read it and weep. That makes Rumsfield, Rice, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Cheney, Diebolt sp?, and now Rove impervious to the attacks from the left. Face it, the administration would always be empty if the MoveOns had any credibility.

    …And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

    I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.

    …Listen, I know of nobody — I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing….

  11. 16

    Dr. E spews:

    It’s highly improbable that someone as highly placed as Rove would have to get classified information from a journalist. Could the man really be that disconnected and incompetent? Really…

    The right-wing spin machine seems really to have become creative in their doing damage control. Clifford May suggested just a few days ago that David Corn was the leaker.

  12. 17

    NoWonder spews:

    Dr. E @ 16

    Clifford May pinned David Corn as having Joe Wilson as the source – one of the most likely scenarios. Rove may not need to get classified information from journalists, yet that does appear to be where he got the Plame story based on the GJ leaks. Actually, if Rove was the original source of classified material, or if he just passed on what he knew to be classified he should be fired. If he broke the law he should be convicted. How is that for spin?

  13. 18

    Dr. E spews:

    15
    Sorry, they’re not impervious.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07.....-rove.html

    On Sept. 30, 2003, Mr. Bush said he was eager to find out if there had been “a leak” from his administration about Mrs. Wilson. “I want to know who it is,” he said. “And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.” …

    Mr. Bush himself appeared to embrace a broader position on June 10, 2004, when he was asked whether he would fire anyone who had anything to do with leaking Mrs. Wilson’s name.

    “Yes,” Mr. Bush replied, and his spokesmen have reiterated that stance repeatedly in the months since then.

    A similar article in the WaPo today gives the same information:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....00689.html

  14. 20

    NoWonder spews:

    Dr. E @ 18 & 19

    June 2004: Bush is asked, “[D]o you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent’s name? . . . [A]nd do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?” Bush answered, “Yes.”

    This was a trick question – Bush never pledged the firing part – he just assumed that whatever he had said before is still true. Don’t you just hate the simplistic consistancy?

    Why does David Corn get the benefit of “context” when there is none for Rove. Where is the actual leak? The only known stonewaller here is Judith Miller, and Rove has testified three times! I actually agree that Corn is probably not the leak conduit as he has not been called to terstify.

    I will say it again, if Rove leaked what he knew was classified he should be fired, and if he broke the law he should be convicted.

    If Rove had his hand in the cookie jar I will join the left in demanding his head. I just wish we could also get those SS private accounts going, and Scalia clone nominated to the SCOTUS.

  15. 21

    pbj spews:

    Well the Democrats haven’t even made that pledge. They won’t hold Harry Reid responsible fro outing Otto Riech on the Senate Floor.

  16. 22

    NoWonder spews:

    pbj @ 21

    Or John Kerry for outing Fulton Armstrong during the Bolton confirmation hearings.

    Questioning Bolton, Kerry asked: “Did Otto Reich share his belief that Fulton Armstrong should be removed for his position?” – according to a transcript excerpted by the New York Times.
    “The answer is yes,” the top Democrat continued.

    In his response to Kerry, Mr. Bolton did his best to maintain the agent’s confidentiality, reverting to Armstrong’s pseudonym.

    “As I said,” he told Kerry, “I had lost confidence in Mr. Smith, and I conveyed that.”

    Two years earlier, Armstrong had been identified in news reports on his dispute with other officials over intelligence involving Cuba. But he was operating in a different capacity and his identity wasn’t secret at the time.

    “When the Bolton nomination resurrected the old accounts, however, the C.I.A. asked news organizations to withhold his name,” the Times said.

    Apparently the CIA directive wasn’t good enough for Sen. Kerry – who outed Armstrong anyway and later defended the move by saying his Republican colleague, Senator Richard Lugar, had also mentioned the name.

    And besides, said Kerry, the secret agent’s name “had already been in the press.”

  17. 23

    Dr. E spews:

    20

    “This was a trick question – Bush never pledged the firing part – he just assumed that whatever he had said before is still true.”

    Two things:
    1. I think this hardly rises to the level of a trick question. At most, we have a double question — with interruption — to which Bush answered “yes”. Unless, of course, your point is that Bush didn’t understand “to have done so” as referring to “leaked”, which would probably be addressed by my next point, below.

    2. It’s an intentional fallacy to infer such an assumption from Bush, that is, unless you’ve got Bush on the record stating as much, i.e. clarifying those comments specifically.

    Re: Corn — he gets the benefit of context because Clifford May provided it, i.e. his article, which is the context for Corn’s remarks. Rove does not get the same benefit, because there is no such full context as divulged by Rove.

    I doubt anyone here is going to argue with you on your opinion as to what should happen to Rove if he’s culpable.

  18. 25

    GeoCrackr spews:

    2 simple questions for the Rove apologists:

    Why are you not accepting Scott McClellan, in his job as White House Spokesman, as a spokesman for the White House?

    If everything Rove (and as we find out this weekend, Scooter Libby) did was aboveboard and beyond reproach, why has the administration consistently lied about it for two years?

  19. 26

    fire_one spews:

    Let’s face it… nearly any question you ask Bush is a “trick question”. (It would certainly be a trick if he could answer one)

  20. 27

    NoWonder spews:

    Dr. E @ 24

    The earlier publication of Armstrong’s name has already been noted – and the CIA still asked the Senate to not do it during the current proceedings. Honestly – Lugar did it first, yet both senators disregarded the CIA request. Just looking for the same outrage for similar example.

    ‘Two years earlier, Armstrong had been identified in news reports on his dispute with other officials over intelligence involving Cuba. But he was operating in a different capacity and his identity wasn’t secret at the time.

    “When the Bolton nomination resurrected the old accounts, however, the C.I.A. asked news organizations to withhold his name,” the Times said.’

  21. 28

    Puddybud spews:

    So if you are a senator you can out a CIA person at anytime. If you are Bush’s “brain” and you refer to a lie being propogated as a falsehood, dammit you must fire him!

  22. 29

    spews:

    Let’s face it… nearly any question you ask Bush is a “trick question”. (It would certainly be a trick if he could answer one)

    Speaking of tricks you donks havent been able to trick the voters in 2004. It must tear you donks up seeing him smiling in the white house after winning with over 50% of the vote for the first time since 1988.

  23. 30

    Donnageddon spews:

    NoWonder PuddyBuddy, the CIA did not initiate an investigation against Lugar and Kerry because they did nto “out” a CIA undercover operative.

    They did initiate an investigation over the Plame outing because she was an undercover operative. Working on WMD. Against the terrorists.

    You imitation umbrage is amusing at best.

  24. 31

    Donnageddon spews:

    Rove and Libby are going down. They will be hanging on for dear life to Bush’s coat.

    Bush will let them drown.

  25. 33

    Donnageddon spews:

    Nope, the fact that this “president” has an ethical stance that will only remove a powerful advisor from power after a conviction for compromising our intelligenc on WMD tells me all I need to know.

    The Bush Administration is the most traitorous and unethical administration of the past 80 years.

    They all need to be removed from office now.

  26. 34

    Terry J spews:

    So 36 news organizations file a brief asserting that no crime can have been committed because the Government provided her name to both the Soviets and the Cubans 10 years before Novak’s column. They also assert other reasons that no crime has been committed. Joe Wilsom says that she was not covered by the Act when Novak’s column was published

    The employees and members of the 36 news organizations continue to assert that a crime, or at least a heinous act, has occurred.

    Can both positions be true? If so, make the case and provide probative evidence.

    If not, are there grounds in Civil Procedure to prosecute either the employers or the employees for intellectual dishonesty? If the employer has stated it to be true in a court filing, doesn’t the employer have an obligation to discipline any employee who publicly asserts a contradictory claim? And doesn’t the employee have an ethical duty to resign over principle? A Brief filed in court should have one or more Affiants willing to (or who have) swaorn to the truthfulness of the factual assertions. The Attorneys filing the brief must hold a reasonable belief that the facts and arguments advanced are reasonable and defensible under current law and interpretations. To assert a different view, the employee must have a conflicting and different set of facts, and has been unable to convince the employer that the employer’s facts are wrong and the employee’s facts are true. The two conflicting descriptions for this behavior usually involve the terms whistleblower and incompetent.

    If the columnists and reporters are whistleblowers, then an indictment of the 36 organizations for perjury in a court filing can be expected. In the alternate, incompetence remains among the likely explanations.

    Is it a crime or a heinous act to confirm a person’s employment? Should a political advisor have a complete command of everyone’s spouse and both their employment histories?

    This discussion would be a lot more credible if there was any rage over, say, revealing an entire CIA airline operation, or perhaps leaking the entire personnel file of Linda Tripp, or blithely impugning a nominee by publicly referring to some FBI file background report not available to either Senators of the press.

    Based only on court filings and published stories, somebody here is lying. Is it the 36 news organizations, or the reporters and columnists?

  27. 35

    Dr. E spews:

    27

    “The earlier publication of Armstrong’s name has already been noted – and the CIA still asked the Senate to not do it during the current proceedings. Honestly – Lugar did it first, yet both senators disregarded the CIA request. Just looking for the same outrage for similar example.”

    As far as I can tell, the similarity exists in the fact that they were both CIA employees. Now, much is being said here about the CIA requesting not mentioning Armstrong by name, without any mention of why they requested such. Moreover, unlike the Plame case, Armstrong’s CV was public information on the NIC website at least as early as 2003, complete with his job description. Claiming that he was “outed” as “covert” seem implausible, unless either his job description changed, or some aspect of his work was not being disclosed.

    With that said, if the Senators were truly at fault for using Armstrong’s name, they should have been admonished by the CIA or some other relevant authority. That this hasn’t happened (to our knowledge) is not a sign of lack of outrage, but probably lack of cause to be outraged: it’s not a symmetrical argument, for many reasons. If it were, I think you would hear outrage — certainly (and vituperously) from the right.

  28. 36

    dj spews:

    Terry J @ 34

    “So 36 news organizations file a brief asserting that no crime can have been committed because the Government provided her name to both the Soviets and the Cubans 10 years before Novak’s column. They also assert other reasons that no crime has been committed. Joe Wilsom says that she was not covered by the Act when Novak’s column was published. The employees and members of the 36 news organizations continue to assert that a crime, or at least a heinous act, has occurred. Can both positions be true? If so, make the case and provide probative evidence.”

    Calm yourself. The questions you ask have been well covered here and elsewhere. Essentially, the CIA has determined that outing Plame was a breach of national security. Newspapers are not privy to the classified information the CIA used in making this determination. Even Wilson is not privy to the information. The CIA has strongly hinted that Plame’s status as a CIA employee is confidential. I discuss the CIA’s position a little more
    here.

    Finally, Rove may have problems beyond violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. Leaking classified information may be a violation of the Espionage Act (18 USC 793, 794), as well. Finally, as Roger Rabbit has pointed out, Rove may have violated the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement” he signed as a WH staff member. The agreement prohibits divulging, repeating, or confirming classified information to unauthorized individuals. The agreement holds even if that information has already been leaked, so the “Yeah. . . I heard that, too” defense will not work here. On the other hand, violations fo the CINA is not a violation of the law, but is strong grounds for dismissal.

  29. 39

    rujax206 spews:

    Boy…the new busful of wingnutz musta just got in from wingnuttia. Don’t get too comfy, fellas. We don’t cotton to yer kind in these here parts.
    Best y’all jes move along now. Hear?

  30. 40

    dj spews:

    Terry J @ 34,

    Here is some more information. Since Pudster pulls out a right-wing (and rather extreme) source, I will pull some quotes from an equally extreme left-wing source. (I don’t vouch for all this information, but the crap Pudster cites is, frankly, fantisy). From A NOC at Bush’s Door By William Rivers Pitt truthout, Perspective, 24 February 2004.

    Her name was Valerie Plame, and she was a NOC.

    NOC is a designation within the Central Intelligence Agency which means “non-official cover.” It denotes an agent working under such deep cover that said agent cannot be officially associated with the American intelligence community in any way, shape or form. In order to keep covered, a NOC will work for the CIA out of a front company, which provides the illusion that the agent is just an ordinary accountant, lawyer or business person.

    Between the CIA and the agent, a process is created to construct an identity which obscures completely the reality of the agent’s true employment. The training of these NOC agents, along with the creation of the cover stories which are known as “legends” within the agency, requires millions of dollars and delicate work. It is, quite literally, a life and death issue. Little or no protection is given to an exposed NOC agent by the American government, an arrangement that is understood by all parties involved. A blown NOC can wind up dead very easily. Because of this, the cadre of NOC agents is small and elite.

    Valerie Plame was a NOC working out of a front company named Brewster-Jennings & Associates. To any and all uninformed observers, she was an energy analyst who spent a good deal of time working overseas. In fact, she ran a covert international network dedicated to tracking any person, group or nation that would put weapons of mass destruction into the hands of terrorists.
    ….
    Valerie Plame’s career with the CIA is over. Her network, the one that was working to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists, is destroyed. The members of that network are now in mortal peril. The front company Plame worked through, Brewster-Jennings, was exposed as well, destroying the networks of any and all agents besides Plame working from that cover. The American intelligence community is disgusted and furious.

    Larry Johnson, former CIA and State Department official who was a classmate of Plame’s in the CIA’s training program at the Farm, said when the CIA’s internal damage assessment is finished, “at the end of the day, (the harm) will be huge and some people potentially may have lost their lives.”

    “This is not just another leak,” said former CIA officer Jim Marcinkowski, who also did CIA training with Plame. “This is an unprecedented exposing of an agent’s identity. There’s only one entity in the world that can identify you. That’s the U.S. government. When the U.S. government does it, that’s it.”

  31. 41

    Puddybud spews:

    Terry J: Didn’t I warn you that you would read the lefties discredit NR & NRO? You will quickly learn if it ain’t in the NY Slimes or a lefty web site or blog, no lefty will accept it other than fantisy (fantasy). I have not seen anything produced by National Review be wrong, but remember the NY Slimes had their Jayson Blair. These are the same HA Donks who said off with Tom DeLay’s head, until the chief crybaby, Nancy Pelosi, has some skeletons in her closet and notice how that story died!

    What Charmin@40 didn’t tell you in the post above was Valerie Plame was transitioning to the State Department when Novak spoke about her. It’s out there in the print media. I think PacMan found it last week. Charmin knows this but did he make reference to it? Hell no. He claims he is independent, but everything he writes or says has a lefty liberal bent. So Terry J, all I have asked of all the HA liberal lefty Moby Trolls is to allow SP Fitzpatrick to do job and if Rove is guilty, hang his ass! I’ll be there too watching the cuffs be applied. If laws are broken, don’t pass go and don’t collect $200. If he is innocent, will Charmin and his buddies here on HA write retractions? They didn’t on Tom DeLay. I always thought in America, you are innocent until proven guilty.

  32. 42

    David spews:

    If Rove doesn’t get charged or convicted of any crime (or perhaps if he’s pardoned in advance), PuddyDuddy figures Rove is “innocent” @ 41, and wants retractions from anyone who’s criticized his role in blowing a CIA asset’s cover: “I always thought in America, you are innocent until proven guilty.

    For criminal defendants in court, sure, that’s the saying. But most of us have higher ethical standards—we don’t call a person “innocent” if they’re pretty plainly culpable but not criminally convicted. You think it’s fine and dandy to do anything at all, no matter how shady, immoral, corrupt or just despicable, as long as you stay out of jail? I suppose that explains a lot about you.

  33. 43

    Terry J spews:

    A court Brief is a court Brief. When the news organizations assert in a court Brief that certain facts are facts, then publish news and caommentary asserting some other and conflicting set of facts it is quite amusing. One need be niether a wingnut nor a moonbat to observe this.

    Carry on.

  34. 44

    PacMan - The Best Game Ever spews:

    Terry J: PacMan here. Indeed (as Spock would say), I did provide a link to discuss Valerie Plame moving on to the State Department. Indeed, we on the right provided a link discussing her status for the last six years before the “outing” where her status was compromised by Aldrich Ames, double agent in 1994. What sources were used? NY (David Goldstein’s most used literary reference), LA Times, & WA Post. You mention the civil case, Puddy provides the link where the MSM says no crime was committed but their subjects are pressing it to sell newspapers. As people find this out, the MSM will lose more readership. I named DJ Charmin because he nicknamed the people he disagrees with asswipes, and Charmin performs that task admirably.

    Indeed, we on the right provided a link from her former boss discussing what she was doing during the her desk job at the CIA. But the left hates Karl Rove. David Goldstein has tried to villify anyone in Congress or the Executive Branch who politically disagrees with him. We on the right take great delight on using their beloved MSM to prove them wrong.

    They hate that their beloved John Kerry, a man with no backbone, lost to a person they despise who polled over 50% of the vote. Then when us on the right remind the lefties about that high vote %age, something not seen since the 80s, they bring up 2000. Everytime they bring up 2000, I’ll remind them that Tennessee rejected Al Gore Jr in 2000, his home state, so he lost the presidency that way!!!

    Terry J – The truth will set you free. Most HA lefties hate the truth. Innuendo is their gambit, hyperbole is the operating method, and slander is their chief technique. Nice to read your take on this matter.

  35. 45

    dj spews:

    Terry J @ 43,

    “When the news organizations assert in a court Brief that certain facts are facts, then publish news and caommentary asserting some other and conflicting set of facts it is quite amusing.”

    The brief does provide a few “facts”, but is largely citing evidence and making an argument. The argument is that the press should be protected from revealing sources. There are three elements to their argument:

    1. The press holds a special place in our democracy.

    2. There is ample evidence to cast doubt that a crime occurred.

    3. The court should determine that a crime has been committed prior to enforcing subpoenas on journalists.

    An argument is just an argument, and it is hardly surprising that the press does not present a monolithic face to each element of this argument.

    The full brief is worth reading. It is here.

    The problem is that the “friends of the court” filing the brief are not privy to classified information about Plame, or her front company Brewster-Jennings & Associates (BJA). For example, it is conceivable that Plame’s ID is not the primary issue; rather, the other “employees”, “customers”, and associates of (BJA) may have had their covers blown. We have no idea what domino effect (if any) resulted from outing Plame. It hardly matters whether she was earlier outed by Aldrich Ames, as all evidence suggests that the CIA successfully re-deployed here under the guise of an energy analyst. The CIA does know these details—we don’t.

    The amici curiae brief makes the suggestion that the CIA is pursuing this case out of embarrassment. Consider this: the Grand Jury investigation has continued for two years, the U.S. Appeals Court didn’t buy the arguments, the SCOTUS wouldn’t hear the case, reporters and news agencies have had their arms twisted to divulge sources, emails, etc., and Miller is sitting in jail. Given all this, it seems unlikely that the public evidence available for writing the brief is the complete story.

    Finally, in your earlier post, you said:

    The employees and members of the 36 news organizations continue to assert that a crime, or at least a heinous act, has occurred….

    The reporters continue to report findings, speculating on sources for the leak, and speculating on whether a crime occurred. That is what the press does.

    are there grounds in Civil Procedure to prosecute either the employers or the employees for intellectual dishonesty? If the employer has stated it to be true in a court filing, doesn’t the employer have an obligation to discipline any employee who publicly asserts a contradictory claim?

    The reporting does not seem to contradict the facts or even the evidence presented in the brief. All of the evidence used to argue the brief has been covered in the MSM. But, as more information is revealed, it may well be that parts of the brief are found to contain errors.

    The brief argues that there is evidence to cast doubt that a crime occurred. This is not the same as asserting that something is true. It seems to me that it is completely irrelevant whether or not media reports contradict or undermine arguments in the brief, especially as new information arises daily, and the Grand Jury investigation continues. (The Court cases that the brief was filed in, on the other hand, are over.)

    Obviously, if someone lied or misled the Courts while preparing the brief, then the Courts could charge them with contempt. And, if a reporter lies or falsifies information, then that reporter should be fired. There is no evidence that either has occurred here.

  36. 46

    Charmin (formerly known as dj) spews:

    Pacman @ 44

    “I named DJ Charmin because he nicknamed the people he disagrees with asswipes, and Charmin performs that task admirably.”

    Ahhh. . . I was confused by pudster using that term above.

    Charmin, indeed! Someone has to clean up the shit posted by some of the assholes here :-)

    I trust that you and pudster will no longer complain about the potty humor. . . .

  37. 48

    Dr. E spews:

    47

    You’re right, “it appears”, that is if you take the spinmeisters at their word. This article is part of the dog-and-pony spin show offered by right-wing journalists. (See 38 above.) There’s an awful lot of moral relativism among these journalists, representing these various and sundry arguments as equivalent to Rove’s apparent outing of Plame.

    Of course, there’s the larger issue of just how much was compromised by the outing of Brewster Jennings & Assoc. as a shell company, but none of these pundits on the right (in this thread, anyway) are talking about that. Isn’t it possible that this is the issue the CIA might be concerned about?

  38. 49

    Charmin (formerly known as dj) spews:

    Bob in SeaTac @ 47

    “Enough of this flagellation. It appears that spies, the CIA, and good old flambouyant Joe Wilson himself outed his wife. Read this article.”

    The opinion piece does not show that Wilson outed Plame. Rather, it takes a couple of paragraphs from the trial brief I cited @ 45, and discusses them. The argument is that Plame was outed by Ames to the Russians and by CIA mishandling of documents to the Cubans. If you read the brief, the two previous “outings” are treated as rumors, not facts.

    – Charmin “Taking a (wooosh!) swipe out of slime.”

  39. 50

    Charmin (formerly known as dj) spews:

    Dr. E.

    …Larry Johnson’s interview with Warren Ulney regarding the outing of Plame. Worth a listen if you haven’t heard it; not spin but rather the informed opinion of someone with a vested interest (i.e. an intelligence professional, not a bloviating journalist).

    Yep. . . excellent summary by a former CIA agent who trained with Plame. Oh. . . Johnson is a registered Republican, too.

  40. 51

    BF spews:

    This is what Bush said Sept. 30, 2003.

    “If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is,” the president told reporters back then. “And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.”

    That is exactly what he saying now.

  41. 52

    Charmin (formerly known as dj) spews:

    BF @ 52,

    Aren’t you leaving out some additional statements that Bush made and that the White House spokespersion made in additional to that statement?

  42. 53

    Dr. E spews:

    52, 53
    Not only that, but the statements on the record of the White House Press Secretary, who speaks for the President — a fact that many are ignoring.

  43. 54

    BF spews:

    Dr E.

    Go back and read the actual statements of record, not the media’s interpretation of the statements.

    I think you will find that the press accounts vary, i.e., were mischaracterized from the actual record.

  44. 55

    Dr. E spews:

    I have read the statements of record; I’m wondering which specific one(s) you think might have been mischaracterized. I can only find one, which could potentially be mischaracterized since it is impossible to convey the sense of timing with which the answer was given to a set of questions. And I’m specifically talking about Bush himself here.

    If you then factor in McLellan, who IS the Press Secretary, after all, then the message (to paraphrase) “the leaker will be fired” becomes completely unambiguous.