And now the Justice Dept is launching a full criminal investigation into the leaks. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21389-2003Sep30.html Murf
Liberal WitchHunt! Politically motivated. Liberal McCarthyism! All that happened was someone's named was mentioned. Liberals are trying to steal the election! Clinton got a BJ in the White House all the Bush admin did was say someone's name!
The one they should be going after is Novak. That piece of *#*#*#*# is saying: "There is no great crime here.", and that no one from the WH called him. If that's the case isn't he the one who needs to be hanging from the gallows. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/novak.cia/index.html He makes it sound like an honest mistake. But if he really is that stupid I say hang him anyway.
This is really not much more than more fodder that this administration has no ethical, moral or decent boundaries to retain thier stranglehold. There is no cost too high, no life too valuable to fight the enemy and keep the money flowing to the defense contract industry. The administration is constantly being "exposed" but many have a difficult time accepting that things can be as bad as they are. It's only a matter of time though. Personally I'll take a president who prefers consentual sex over one trying his hand at "nation building" around the world.
> I think your point is wrong The subject of the leak may be different, but there are leaks all the time. And the CIA didn't feel that her loss of cover was so great - they ok'd releasing her name to the public.
Pardon my skepticism but John Ashcroft ain't gonna investigate sh$it! Even if he came up with a audiotape of Bush saying - "Go get em" this story is going to be buried deeper than Jimmy Hoffa. Why on earth would Ashcroft conduct a series investigation that would lead to his boss's downfall which would mean he would get fired?
Umm no they didn't. Novak states that when he called the CIA, they asked him not to reveal her name, but didn't insist or say that people would be endangered. (Note to Bob: May they just assumed they didn't need to explicitly mentioned that blowing a CIA operative's cover was a despicable dangerous act. Mistake on their part.) The CIA has asked for an investigation and the Justice department is investigating. The CIA is required to fill out a Memo showing WHAT HARM WAS DONE BY THE LEAK before an investigation is begun. From Today's Washington Post "Three weeks ago, intelligence officials said, the CIA returned to the Justice Department a standard 11-question form detailing the potential damage done by the release of the information." This step has already been taken, and the justice department has acted which means the CIA does believe that at least some of its' operations where compromised by the leak and this has been confirmed by the Justice Department. Which means that Robert Novak is wrong and the leaker is in deep *#*#*#*#.
Oh jeez - I see his defense now. "I did exactly as the CIA stated, I didn't name her, I just said Wilson's 'wife' was CIA. I didn't give her name.... Novak - you're scum. Whoever called you or told you was scum. The other 6 journalists who kept their mouth shut are also scum. If they throw the book at Novak, how long would he go before turning states evidence to save his own worthless butt?
If anyone thinks that Ashcroft is going to become the Eliott Richardson (circa Saturday Night Massacre in Oct. 1973) of 2003, think again. And anyone who thinks that this is going to morph into Watergate or Iran-Contra ought to get a grip. This will blow over. Most thinking people already know that Bush got us into war without full disclosure and possibly active, knowing lies. They are already convinced of more serious (ahem) prevarications, and will vote Dem in 2004. A second group will not be led easily to the conclusion that the President - not Rove, not Wolfowitz, not Rumsfeld, but the guy they have to vote for or against - is a liar. This is Ronald Reagan all over again, except that the Dems don't even have control of Congress. The only question is which group is larger come Nov. 2004.
Rove's been fired for leaking to Novak before: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/page1/2128132 In 1992, Rove was fired as a consultant for the Bush-Quayle Texas campaign, after officials suspected that he was the source for a column by Novak and Roland Evans that portrayed the Texas presidential operation as in disarray. Rove was accused of making up the story because of a feud with the campaign's chairman, Rob Mosbacher Jr., whom the column reported, erroneously, was to be dumped. At the time Rove denied he was the source, and he said the column was false.
I SAID DANCE MOTHA*#*#*#*#A!!! (please notice how specific the talking head is about exactly what Rove said to him....) QUESTION: What, then, do you think the -- given that you say Rove condoning this is ridiculous, what do you think Ambassador Wilson's motivation is for leveling such a scurrilous charge? McCLELLAN: I can't speculate about why he would say such a thing. I mean, I saw some comments this morning, where he said he had no knowledge to that effect. But I can't speculate why he would say that. QUESTION: Did Rove say, "ridiculous"? McCLELLAN: I did, for him. QUESTION: Did you speak with him about it? McCLELLAN: Yes, I've spoken to him. QUESTION: But he told you, "ridiculous"? McCLELLAN: No, I said -- I told some of your colleagues that it was ridiculous. And, remember, I said this back -- what, July and September this issue came up, and said essentially what I've said now. QUESTION: Can you characterize your conversation with him about this? McCLELLAN: I talk to him all the time, so -- QUESTION: About this? McCLELLAN: No, about a lot of issues. QUESTION: But can you characterize your conversation about this subject with him? McCLELLAN: I don't think there's anything to characterize. I mean, I think that what I said speaks clearly, that the accusations just simply are not true. .... QUESTION: Has the President either asked Karl Rove to assure him that he had nothing to do with this; or did Karl Rove go to the President to assure him that he -- McCLELLAN: I don't think he needs that. I think I've -- and I've spoken clearly to this publicly that -- but it's -- yes, I've just said it's -- there's no truth to it. QUESTION: But I mean -- McCLELLAN: So I think it doesn't -- QUESTION: But is the President getting his information from you? Or did the President and Karl Rove talk, and were there assurances given that Rove was not involved? McCLELLAN: I've already provided those assurances to you publicly. QUESTION: Yes, but I'm just wondering if there was a conversation between Karl Rove and the President, or if he just talked to you, and you're here at this -- McCLELLAN: He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved. QUESTION: How does he know that? QUESTION: How does he know that? McCLELLAN: The President knows. QUESTION: What, is he clairvoyant? How does he know? QUESTION: You spoke specifically -- you spoke to Rove specifically about this matter, correct? McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? QUESTION: You spoke to Rove specifically about this matter? You asked him whether or not he was the leaker, or -- McCLELLAN: I don't know what the relevance of getting into every private conversation, John -- is, John. I've made it very clear that it's simply not true. QUESTION: Based on what? QUESTION: Based on what? QUESTION: What are you basing -- what are you -- McCLELLAN: Someone asked me if I had spoken with him, and I said, yes. QUESTION: And you spoke with him about this issue? QUESTION: Did you ask him, directly? McCLELLAN: I have spoken with him, yes. QUESTION: But the President hasn't spoken with him directly about this issue? You have and the President hasn't? McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Keith. QUESTION: Well, that was the question. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? QUESTION: You spoke directly with Rove about this? McCLELLAN: I have spoken -- I speak to him all the time, on a lot of things. QUESTION: He categorically denied to you -- McCLELLAN: I just told you, it's simply not true. QUESTION: Yes, but you refuse to say whether or not it was Rove who told you it's untrue. McCLELLAN: No, no, I spoke to Rove. I spoke to him about -- no, I spoke to him about these accusations, I've spoken to him. QUESTION: And Rove told you that they were not true -- McCLELLAN: That's why I would be telling -- QUESTION: -- or is it just you -- McCLELLAN: That's why I would be telling you what I did. QUESTION: -- or is it just you who is telling us? McCLELLAN: No, I have spoken to him and been assured. And that's why I reported to you and reported to the media that it is simply not true. I like to check my sources, just like you do.
You liberals are all going to look (once again) so foolish when this blows over. It was Wilson himself (a holdover from the Clinton era) who shopped this story to the BBC.
Ah yes. Those foolish liberal's said that the president was exaggerating the threat of Saddam's WMD"s The foolish liberal's who said the war would drag on and on and costs hundreds of billions of dollars. Those foolish liberal's who said the occupation of Iraq would resembe the occupation of the Westbank and gaza strip. Those foolish liberals who said large tax cuts for the wealthy would balloon the deficitt but not create jobs. Yes the egg is really on our face now, I can't believe we were so off the mark. What were we thinking? I can't wait to proved "wrong" again.
Wait. Ian is saying WE'RE gonna look bad?!?!? The Ian who promised months ago that Saddam was dead and the announcement of that was imminent???? Uh huh. Sure.
Wilson was Acting Ambassador to Iraq under Bush the elder. So I guess he's really a GHWB holdhover. How has he back tracked. Becuase he said Rove atleast encouraged the outing. He can't go on national TV and accuse someone of treason based on hearsay.
Wilson on ABC's "Good Morning America": "In one speech I gave out in Seattle not too long ago, I mentioned the name Karl Rove," Wilson told GMA. "I think I was probably carried away by the spirit of the moment." Wilson then confessed, "I don't have any knowledge that Karl Rove himself was either the leaker or the authorizer of the leak." Sounds like backtracking to me.
It seems like it's basically an open secret now that it was Rove. Wilson is backing away because he knows it, but can't prove it. The right keeps bashing Wilson (yes he gave money to Kerry, he also gave $2000 to Bush/Cheney in 2000.) But he has acted with a lot more restraint than I would if someone ended my wife's career, possibily endangered her life, and compromised national security as an act of revenge against me. The reason everyone assumes Rove is invovled is because the man is a notorious control freak. Nothing happens in the whitehouse happens w/o him knowing about it. And this leak did happen. There is no need to speak in hypotheticals. The leak occured, Wilson's wife's cover was blown, a crime was committed, and a FULL (not preliminary) investigation is underway to see WHO committed the crime. That is the only question left to be answered. Proving it may be difficult but it seems like too many people know the culprit for it to stay secret for very long. Someone will spill their guts. Its only a matter of time. Moral of the story: Don't F.C.U.K with the CIA
Actually, it's even more than that, apparently. It seems the other 5 or 6 journalists (one of whom I've seen named as Andrea Mitchell) are talking off the record, and blabbing to everyone that Rove in fact called them. Nonetheless, I'm not so sure this will end his career as it should. I can't see any of these journalists going on record as naming an anonymous source. I also would guess phone logs would have been purged by now, even if Rove was stupid enough to use White House phones. Basically, it might ultimately be impossible to prove unless one of the reporters talks. One person who should certainly go down for this is Robert Novak. Talk about embarrassing professional moves. He becomes Rove's patsy, and then he finds out that his colleagues in the right wing media wouldn't even use the tip, while he steamrolled right ahead. Anything to try and ruin the career of someone "attacking" GW!!! Idiot.