Jump to content

Karl Rove


Guest ReturnOfS
 Share

This topic is 6033 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Guest ReturnOfS

Today I just heard that it was Karl Rove who was the leak. I am actually surprised and shocked. I shouldn't be given my left leaning views, but I am. I mean, I was impressed that the journalist were willing to go to jail rather than reveal their informant, but Karl Rove?! Is there anything good about this man? I admit that this weekend I went to Washington, DC's Spy Museum, so I now have a much higher appreciation for the importance of not breaking an agent's cover. This was just not the right time for me to find out something like this.

 

I would write more but I just came in, its late, and I need to get up early tomorrow morning. I just needed to get this out of my system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jeffOH

Check out video Scott McClellan getting grilled about Rove at today's White House Press Briefing @ http://www.crooksandliars.com

 

TRANSCRIPT: WHITE HOUSE GRILLED ON ROVE...

RAW STORY

 

 

The following is a excerpts of a rush transcript of the White House press briefing Monday... You can see the video here.

 

QUESTION: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?

 

MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a 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.

 

QUESTION: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot 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"?

 

QUESTION: 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.

 

QUESTION: Scott, 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've decided not to talk.

 

You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?

 

MCCLELLAN: 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...

 

QUESTION: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

 

MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.

 

QUESTION: 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 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: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

 

QUESTION: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

 

MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

 

QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott...

 

(LAUGHTER)

 

... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began.

 

Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation.

 

MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that.

 

We know each other very well. And it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation.

 

And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.

 

I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

 

QUESTION: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't.

 

MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to them. QUESTION: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?

 

MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.

 

QUESTION: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

 

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

 

QUESTION: Well, we are going to keep asking them.

 

When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife in the decision to send him to Africa?

 

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.

 

QUESTION: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been...

 

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to your questions.

 

QUESTION: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the president's word that anybody who was involved will be let go?

 

MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

 

QUESTION: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here?

 

MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.

 

QUESTION: Scott, there's a difference between commenting on an investigation and taking an action...

 

MCCLELLAN: (inaudible)

 

QUESTION: Can I finish, please?

 

MCCLELLAN: I'll come back to you in a minute.

 

QUESTION: Scott, (inaudible) president spoke about war on terrorism and, also, according to India Globe report there is bombings in London and also bombings in India. And at both places, Al Qaida was involved.

 

According to the India Globe and press reports, Pakistani television said that Osama bin Laden is now alive and they had spoken with him. And his group is (inaudible) terrorism around the globe is concerned.

 

Well, now, the major bombings after 9/11 took place in London and (inaudible) fighting against terrorism is concerned.

 

Where do we stand now? Really, where do we go from London as far as terrorism is concerned? How far can we go after Osama bin Laden now to catch him, because he's still in Pakistan?

 

MCCLELLAN: What occurred in London is a grim reminder that we are at war on terrorism. We are waging a comprehensive war on terrorism.

 

You heard the president talk earlier today to the FBI personnel and others who were at Quantico. And the president talked about our global war on terrorism. He talked about our strategy for taking the fight to the enemy, staying on the offensive, and working to spread freedom and democracy to defeat the ideology of hatred that terrorists espouse.

 

And the president pointed back to the 20th century. He pointed out that in World War II, freedom prevailed over fascism and Nazism. And in the Cold War, freedom prevailed over communism.

 

MCCLELLAN: Freedom is a powerful force for defeating an ideology such as the one that the terrorists espouse. And that's why it's so important to continue working to advance freedom and democracy in the broader Middle East. And that's what we will continue to do.

 

And the president also talked about the great progress we've made at home to protect the home front.

 

The families and friends of those who lost their lives in London continue to be in our thoughts and prayers. We know what it's like to be attacked on our own soil.

 

And that's why the president made a decision that we were going to take the fight to the enemy to try to disrupt plots and prevent attacks from happening in the first place. And that's exactly what we are doing.

 

But we're also going to work with the free world to support the advance of freedom and democracy in a dangerous region of the world. For too long we ignored what was going on in the Middle East. We accepted and tolerated dictatorships in exchange for peace and stability, and we got neither.

 

As the president said, free nations are peaceful societies. And that's why it's so important that we continue to support the advance of freedom, because that's how you ultimately defeat the ideology of hatred and oppression that terrorists espouse.

 

QUESTION: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?

 

MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this.

 

QUESTION: So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff?

 

MCCLELLAN: You're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I'm simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation.

 

QUESTION: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way?

 

MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>...but Karl Rove?! Is there anything good about this man?

 

Well, he attended high school in Utah and that's a good thing. :+

 

At this point I'm not sure if he is guilty or just the designated scape goat. I honestly haven't done enough research on the issue to make a personal decision.

 

But I am impressed with the reporters honoring their code of confidentiality. However, IMHO, this has far reaching consequences for businesses. I believe that the ruling of the courts to turn over computer files is reinforcement that there is no expected privacy once info has been entered onto a company computer.

 

I read where most major newspapers are now issuing orders that reporters are NOT to enter any info concerning confidential sources on computers. I suspect newspaper management will take a more "hands off" approach in confirming the validity of confidential sources. This could lead to less accurate reporting and put a much greater responsibility on individual reporters.

 

Quite frankly, there are some reporters who I feel are so biased I don't trust a thing they say. I hate to think of them being the sole verification element for a confidential informant. x(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Miller honoring confidentiality or is she just part of the cover-up? After all, there are good reasons to suspect she is a front for the Bushies...she led the charge in writing misleading stuff about WMD in Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jeffOH

>Is Miller honoring confidentiality or is she just part of the

>cover-up?

 

I think she's "honoring confidentiality" as a "part of the cover-up". I also believe Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is now trying to determine if Rove committed perjury in his testimony to the grand jury regarding his involvement in outing Valerie Plame as CIA operative. Even conservatives such as Bay Buchanan are describing the parsing of words by Rove's attorney as "Clinton-esque".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ReturnOfS

>Even conservatives such as Bay Buchanan are describing the parsing

>of words by Rove's attorney as "Clinton-esque".

 

"Clinton-esque", huh? lol In comparison to Karl Rove, Clinton is a rank amature. Clinton lied about having sex with Monica Lewinski. Rove breaks the cover of a CIA agent.

 

It is at least good to know that even conservatives are beginning to turn on Rove. For lying about having sex, the Congress tried to impeach Clinton. LEts see what happens to Rove for breaking a CIA agent's cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>It is at least good to know that even conservatives are

>beginning to turn on Rove. For lying about having sex, the

>Congress tried to impeach Clinton. LEts see what happens to

>Rove for breaking a CIA agent's cover.

 

Don't be too sure that anything will happen to Rove. The Fox "News" spin is already working overtime to protect their little turd blossom.

 

Downplaying Rove scandal on Special Report, part 2

 

Brit Hume introduced the main stories at the top of the hour yesterday 7/12/05, including "The feeding frenzy over Karl Rove (there's that shark/just your annual "summer storm" metaphor again) enters its second day with another round of unanswered questions at the White House briefing and more Democratic calls for Rove's scalp." as the captions under the photos read "Still Rabid @ Rove" (Hey, is that a jab at US??) and "Scalp Hunters" under video of John Kerry. In case you're keeping track those are talking points C1, C3, and R1.

 

The "report" on the Rove scandal was introduced with pity for beleagured Scott McClellan, who "endured" questions from reporters who knew they'd get no answer but felt "they had to ask them anyway", about what role Rove "may have played" in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame. Jim Angle reports, says Hume, that Democrats were calling the political equivalent of "off with his head". (Comment: very apt analogy as Rove is widely regarded as Bush's brain.)

 

Video showed John Kerry saying that Karl Rove ought to be fired. Angle's voice over asked What did Rove do? He warned Matt Cooper he was about to publish false information.

 

Cut to Ken Mehlman, the RNC Chairman, saying "What Karl was saying was, to Matt Cooper, you shouldn't go with this Wilson story because in fact it's based on a bogus premise, and it's a bogus story." (Talking point R2)

 

Cooper and Time, says Angle, fleshing out the talking point, were about to report that VP Dick Cheney had sent Joe Wilson to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq was trying to obtain materials for nuclear weapons. "But that was not true." Victoria Toensing, who was also a guest on Gibson's Big Story earlier, said that Rove was just trying to prevent Cooper from reporting incorrect facts. Cooper sent his editor an email that said Rove explained it was the CIA who sent Wilson, and Wilson's wife "who apparently works at the agency" (shown in quotes on screen, over a full screen shot of Wilson and Plame in a restaurant; slowly zooms in.) was involved in the decision. In fact, says Angle, the Senate Intelligence Committee interviewed a CIA official who said she "offered up his name" and approached him about the trip. But, critics insist that if she was indeed under cover at the time, even referring to her as part of the CIA would have been a violation of the law.

 

Video is shown of Rep. Menendez (D-NJ) stating "The White House should not aid and abet those within it in exposing CIA agents who work for this country and defend it to (sic) danger and therefore it's time for Karl Rove to walk the plank."

 

Angle says Democrats and Wilson himself say Rove knowingly outed her in order to punish him for accusing the administration of exaggerating evidence on Iraqi WMDs, though, Angle says, Wilson's own investigation had found that Iraqis had explored the idea of getting uranium from Niger. "But Democrats find that unpersuasive."

 

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) is shown saying that "evidence is mounting that Karl Rove and others in the White House may have been involved in using classified information as part of a conspiracy for political purposes jeopardizing our national security."

 

Angle says that for it to be a crime, one must know the person is undercover, and intentionally out them. Rove has argued he never knew her name or her status. (Rove: "I didn't know her name and I didn't leak her name.")

 

Putting the partisan politics spin on it (TP C4, R1), Angle says that while Wilson and Democrats are saying it was intentional, "others say" he was just answering the key question in Washington at the time - who chose Wilson, and why was "a known critic of the administration" get sent on a sensitive mission?

 

Victoria Toensing says Wilson did not have credentials, (Comment: Two words: John Bolton) he didn't know anything about WMDs, only his wife did, so "people" were saying why?

 

And, Jim Angle says, the official answer is we didn't send him, the CIA did, in part because his wife works there on these very issues, something Wilson has always denied.

 

One other issue: Cooper said in his e-mail that Rove spoke on double super secret background. Rove's attorney Robert Luskin says Rove spoke on the express promise that it not be used, so, he argues, Rove thought he was killing an incorrect story, not launching an attack on an undercover agent.

 

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/07/13/downplaying_rove_scandal_on_special_report_part_2.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

~~President Bush frequently invokes "national security" as if it were a Buddhist mantra. Now it is revealed White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove may have deliberately outed undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame.

 

Could White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan or some other Bush official can plausibly explain how outing Plame advanced our country's national security?

 

 

 

 

~~ A quote from President Bush on Oct. 10, 2004: "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. . . . If the person has violated the law, that person will be taken care of."

 

Define "taken care of."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

Posts that do not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

×
×
  • Create New...