CIA goes after White House

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by GringoTex, Sep 27, 2003.

  1. GringoTex

    GringoTex Member

    Aug 22, 2001
    1301 miles de Texas
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Bolivia
    The White House and CIA have traditionally been at odds. Never, however, has it been made public like this.

    The incompetence of the White House is manifest...

    http://www.msnbc.com/news/937524.asp?0cv=CB10&cp1=1

    WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — The CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that the White House broke federal laws by revealing the identity of one of its undercover employees in retaliation against the woman’s husband, a former ambassador who publicly criticized President Bush’s since-discredited claim that Iraq had sought weapons-grade uranium from Africa, NBC News has learned.
     
  2. tcmahoney

    tcmahoney New Member

    Feb 14, 1999
    Metronatural
    Good. For. Them.

    Go, spooks, go!
     
  3. CrewDust

    CrewDust Member

    May 6, 1999
    Columbus, Ohio
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Old news.
     
  4. GringoTex

    GringoTex Member

    Aug 22, 2001
    1301 miles de Texas
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Bolivia
    The news is not that Rove broke a CIA agent's cover. The news is that the CIA has publicly announced their intention to nail Rove's ass to the wall over it.
     
  5. DoctorJones24

    DoctorJones24 Member

    Aug 26, 1999
    OH
    Wait a second, the chickenhawks are saved!

    "The decision on whether to task the FBI with investigating the White House is now in hands of John Ashcroft." -TPM


    By the way, I just realized who Joe Wilson is. He was on a special Frontline town hall panel meeting just before the war, I think. He was anti-war at the time, but in a "let's wait a few months for more inspections and more allies..." kind of way.
     
  6. Northcal19

    Northcal19 New Member

    Feb 18, 2000
    Celtic Tavern LODO (
    Karl Rove committed treason in this deal. He should be tried. He completely sold out the US as a political punishment. He is a traitor.
     
  7. DoctorJones24

    DoctorJones24 Member

    Aug 26, 1999
    OH
    On the Sunday a.m. shows today, this was brought up by both Russert (to Rice) and Stephanopolous (to Powell). Both understandably dodged it.

    In a related note, Russert put Rice through the ringer on the uranium claim again, even forcing her into the lame, "I don't remember....I can't recall," line that the Republicans made so famous in the Iran-Contra hearings. Her story is basically this: Tenet challenged the uranium claim in the October speech, so the admin had it removed. Then 3 months later, when they were writing the State of the Union, everybody in the admin simply forgot that Tenet had made them take it out last time. Seriously, that's what she's selling. Russert looked like he was going laugh in her face. She had no answer when Russert brought up the fact that we know of memos sent to her in the runup to the SOTU reminding her of the bogus uranium claim, to which she simply said, "I don't remember any memos."
     
  8. verybdog

    verybdog New Member

    Jun 29, 2001
    Houyhnhnms
    Will this potentially bring down the Bush administration?
     
  9. Footer Phooter

    Jul 23, 2000
    Falls Church, VA
    No, most Americans don't really care.
     
  10. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Not in the Nixon sense. But there are several potential problems for Bush.

    1. The Beltway Heathers could turn on him. My take on the Bushies is that they can't function without a compliant media because they're so out of practice.
    2. It could take Rove out of the picture. He's brilliant in politics. It'll be damn hard for Bush to win if he can't go to Rove for advice.
    3. According to this story, there are 2 officials who are guilty of a fairly serious felony. Given Ashcroft's recent dictate against plea bargains, they're going to jail. Further, if some prosecuting attorney wants to be a dick about it, it's against the law to know of a crime and not report it, which many others and probably Bush are guilty of.
    4. At some point, it's gonna occur to someone to ask McClellan if the White House investigated the leak. If they didn't, it means they didn't care, which is shi***, and the follow up question will be, why not? If they did, the follow up question will be, well, who did it, and why hasn't he been fired yet? At best for the Bushies, Ari would be one of the two, and he's already gone. But who is the other person?

    Remember, Bush's personality has always been more popular than his policies. This is just another hole in the wall separating people's opinion of him as a person, and him as president. And it's potentially a pretty big freakin' hole.

    Throw in some of the other extremely problematic recent revelations, and I think there's a pretty good chance that the Bushies are engulfed in damage control.

    On a semi related note, the Raleigh News and Observer had a big article on the problem of joblessness in NC. Alot of that is in the textile areas, and those are strong Republican country. One of the Reep reps, Sue Myrick, calls out Bush by name. To me, this means that if either Edwards or Clark is on the ticket, the Bushies will have to fight to win NC. And that's like a soccer team defending the edge of its box. If a Reep has to fight to win in NC, he's lost the race.

    On a more related note, the big story on Capitol Hill is that Reeps are distancing themselves from the White House on the Iraq issue. They went home for a month a little while ago, and what they heard in their districts wasn't good. They don't want to go down with the ship. I'm not saying they think the ship is DEFINITELY going down, but they've prepared an escape route for themselves.

    Josh Marshall had a great analogy the other day for the Bushies. They're like a highly leveraged company. Is this the balloon payment they can't make, bringing the whole enterprise crashing down?

    We'll see.
     
  11. DoctorJones24

    DoctorJones24 Member

    Aug 26, 1999
    OH
    ???
    The alleged crime hasn't even been investigated yet. Are you making a blanket statement that Americans don't care about laws? Politics?

    If so, I disagree. Americans love scandals, and if this turns out to be half-true, then it's pretty nasty and easily sensationalized. Sure, it's not exactly presidential semen stain territory, but it involves spies, which is not bad!
     
  12. DoctorJones24

    DoctorJones24 Member

    Aug 26, 1999
    OH
    By the way, here is the original leak by Novak that started all this. It seems he didn't realize what he was doing when he relayed the information:

    "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me."

    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml

    Russert today was saying that the two White House officials actually contacted 6 journalists to make sure the leak got out there. Not sure who the other five are.
     
  13. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Which I think is a pretty powerful statement about either Novak's ethics, or his willingness to do whatever the Bushies ask him to do, or both.
     
  14. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    We agree on something. This potentially could be a real problem for Bush.
     
  15. NGV

    NGV Member+

    Sep 14, 1999
    I pretty much agree with superdave (although I disagree that Rove is necessarily an asset to Bush, for various reasons).

    I doubt this'll "bring down the Bush administration" by way of impeachment, because it's unlikely that Bush was involved in any of this sort of dirty work (although failure to investigate or respond to the allegations when they first appeared raises some questions). But, it's potentially extremely serious, and could easily cost Bush the election, depending on how things go.

    I mean, just look at the nature of the allegations: high level White House people deliberately blew the cover of a CIA operative, which could at least potentially severely damage her career, threaten her contacts, and sabotage intelligence operations, aside from being a federal felony. They did this solely in order to smear her husband, whose only apparent crime was telling truths that suggested there may have been some deception involved in the administration's case for war. It's hard to believe that even the most dedicated Bush apologist could discount something like that.

    So, if it proves to be true, it's not the sort of thing that will be easily overlooked. The ethical stain would be massive, of course, but the damage would probably go beyond that. Bush's last remaining major political resource, aside from money, is the perception that he's done a good job "fighting terrorism." If it turns out that highly placed people in the administration were able and willing to mess with the CIA like this, it's hard to see how he can maintain that perception in the face of the grilling that comes along with a presidential campaign.

    And, as superdave points out, Bush's re-elect numbers are beginning to drop toward levels where many GOP legislators may start to see him as more of a liability than an asset. I think it hasn't approached that point in most places yet, but this scandal blowing up could easily push him under that line, and that would make things really difficult for the GOP.

    Without knowing how this investigative process works, I guess it's possible that Ashcroft could simply hold back from fully looking into the allegations, but I think it's pretty unlikely the Democrats or the media would let the him get away with that; with an election coming up, and Bush's polls dropping, neither has any reason to be deferential. If there's something substantial there, it probably won't just die away by itself.

    And, if there does turn out to be something substantial there, there's a very good chance the media will decide to start doing some serious poking into what other unethical things the administration might have been doing. Who knows where that could lead?

    It'll be interesting to see how this develops over the next few months. Could be a false alarm (although at the moment, I have trouble imagining how), or it could be huge.
     
  16. Parmigiano

    Parmigiano Member

    Jun 20, 2003
    "We need more human intelligence. That means we need more protection for the methods we use to gather intelligence and more protection for our sources, particularly our human sources, people that are risking their lives for their country. Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors."

    George H.W. Bush
    April 16th, 1999
    Dedication Speech
    George Bush Center for Intelligence
     
  17. NGV

    NGV Member+

    Sep 14, 1999
    Here's the latest on this, front page of tomorrow's Washington Post.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14909-2003Sep28.html

    Interesting quote: "But the aides said Bush has no plans to ask his staff members whether they played a role in revealing the name of an undercover officer... "

    No plans to ask? Why not, exactly?

    The article also talks about the Democrats already being all over the story, as one would expect. No way in hell the administration is going to be able to depict these allegations as "just politics," though.
     
  18. Garcia

    Garcia Member

    Dec 14, 1999
    Castro Castro
    I think we need some context?

    What was/where was this man's wife working in her secret agent mode?

    I tell you what...find bin laden and we'll talk.

    Seriously, "no plans to ask" because he already knows. This is because he told him to do it or he will take care of the problem in his own way. Either way, it will remain low key. Look for a reshuffle or resignations, but not all at once, unless it can be of use politically.

    I wonder what Ken Star is doing these days? It will come to this. The Dems would be stupid NOT to drag it out.

    In fact, on a personal note, this deserves the attention. The words of deddy and him being the ex-head of the CIA makes the reason more obvious.
     
  19. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Karl Rove, this is your new cellmate, Bubba John

    http://www.ronsuskind.com/writing/esquire/esq_rove_0103.html

    This article was published back in January.

    A prosecuting attorney could get this admitted in court because it's evidence of a pattern.
     
  20. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    If you check out the morning press briefing, there's another strong piece of evidence that Rove is one of the two. Because, remember, the leakers called 6 different media people, so it's unlikely the leakers' identity is really secret. And who was repeatedly, specifically named in the questions?

    Rove.

    Frog march, indeed.
     
  21. DMunited

    DMunited New Member

    Jun 19, 2001
    Austin TX
    The other significant piece of info in the post story is that the allegations are confirmed by a "senior administration official".

    "Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.

    "Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.

    It is rare for one Bush administration official to turn on another. Asked about the motive for describing the leaks, the senior official said the leaks were "wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing to diminish Wilson's credibility."


    This means that the Bushies' united front is starting to unravel and people within the administration are starting to cover their own asses.

    I don't think this is going away. Spies, lies, treason, and revenge may not be as titilating as sex, but its a close second. It is deadly serious as well. MSNBC 's CIA analyist just stated that if the allegations are true whoever is responsible should be "hanged".
     
  22. Finnegan

    Finnegan Member

    Sep 5, 2001
    Portland Oregon
    You know Kenneth Star made me absolutely hate the concept of an Independent Counsel because he abused his position so badly....but damn do I wish we had one now for a serious charge such as this.

    The idea that John Ashcroft is going to seriously investigate his boss is absolutely laughable. Karl Rove saved Ashcroft from the political wilderness (remember he lost that Senate race in 2000) and the idea he would turn on Rove now is ridiculous.

    The sad thing is I think this story is going to die without outside investigation. With a Republican controlled Congress nothing is going to happen and people like Karl Keller can rest easy.
     
  23. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The word "treason" is, IMO, being thrown around very, very loosely. I hope that guy meant figuratively hanged. Yes, it's a serious crime, and from what I've read, it is specifically covered in a 1982. The sentence is a big fine and up to 10 years in jail. It ain't jaywalking. But it ain't treason either.
     
  24. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think you're wrong. I hope you're wrong, too, but not for the reason you think. I hope you're wrong because I'll have to rethink and vastly increase the amount of cynicism I bring to these issues.
     
  25. DMunited

    DMunited New Member

    Jun 19, 2001
    Austin TX
    He did mean it figuratively, but the fact that he used it at all illustrates the level of legitimate anger at this despicable act within the intelligence community.

    Whether it is technically treason or not I don't know. But the fact of the matter is whoever did blow Mrs. Wilson's cover, endangered her work (as an expert in weapon's of mass destruction proliferation ironically enough), possibly her safety and the safety of other agents in the field all for the purposes of personal revenge and political intimidation. If that's not treason it’s damn close.
     

Share This Page