fse
Member
Interesting if this is true
link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/2005/07/msnbc-analyst-says-time-m.html
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Source in CIA leaked named?
- Thread starter fse
- Start date
- Status
Interesting if this is true
link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/2005/07/msnbc-analyst-says-time-m.html
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
ouch if true!
now that would give an opportunity to show the hypocrisy of repubs when they defend rove yet condemned Clinton for the same offense. Ofcourse, to a lesser extent, it would also go the other way, but I guess one could argue that the definition of the crime isn't as important as the substance involved.Incognito said:
If the story is true, there will be a lot of embarassment in Bush's camp, and Rove will certainly be gone (and pardoned).
Yossarian said:
That's what the founders stated in situations regarding perjury and the executive. While perjury is an impeachable offense, it's up to those in control to determine if the crime in which he/she perjured himself harmfully effected the state in any way. Clearly, in Clinton's case, it didn't.
In Rove's case(allegedely), though, he leaked the name of an undercover CIA operative for retribution agaisnt Joe Wilson's claims of Iraq having no WMD's and the adminstiration cooking up a stroy.
Yossarian said:
If it is him and he knowingly lied under oath, then I don't see many people defending the lie. More likely people will make tangiental arguments about his motvations/etc to counterbalance the kind of stuff Incognito says above.
If true I'll be miffed; not because I have any love for Rove, but because I was gleefully looking forward to Joe Wilson being duckwalked back into obscurity...
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Yossarian said:
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if instead Bush nominates Rove to the Supreme Court position. And then gives him a Medal Of Courage or something.
Seriously though, what kind of ramifications does Time caving in have for journalism in general? I haven't been following this too closely but it seems to set a dangerous precedent (I read this is the 1st time someone has given sources under subpeona?).
videogamer
Banned
But allowing for or being behind things such as push polling rumours against McCain in South Carolina or the Swift Boats is well beyond what many campaigns do.APF said:
Lemurnator
Banned
Can someone please explain to me what this guy did? What's the backstory?
Man says things about the Iraq War Bush doesn't like . . . man's wife is subsequently outed as an undercover CIA agent . . . of course Bush says it wasn't retaliation.
Novak writes the initial report that outs the man's wife . . . other reports write follow-up reports. Other reports are subpoenad to name their source . . . (people think it odd Novak is not questioned, though it's thought he's probably just cooperated and folded like the whiney slime he is) . . . other reporters refuse to name source, so other reporters are held in contempt of court (congress? can't remember) . . . trial goes to Supreme Court who refuses to hear appeal . . . Time releases documents other reporters used when writing report . . . and here we are now . . .
. . . more or less anyway - I'm sure that's how it's explained to Bush.
Novak writes the initial report that outs the man's wife . . . other reports write follow-up reports. Other reports are subpoenad to name their source . . . (people think it odd Novak is not questioned, though it's thought he's probably just cooperated and folded like the whiney slime he is) . . . other reporters refuse to name source, so other reporters are held in contempt of court (congress? can't remember) . . . trial goes to Supreme Court who refuses to hear appeal . . . Time releases documents other reporters used when writing report . . . and here we are now . . .
. . . more or less anyway - I'm sure that's how it's explained to Bush.
Lemurnator
Banned
teiresias said:
Wow, that's severely fucked up.
videogamer
Banned
HokieJoe said:
What other examples are there, by whom are they done, and how often are they done?
Lemurnator
Banned
MIMIC said:
I'd probably agree with what everyone else here has said.
Pardon in '08
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Or to walk up to Plame's mother, say "How's your undercover CIA agent?" and go into a bar.MIMIC said:
If I'm understanding the reasoning behind these '08 guessings, I'd say '09. Day before or of losing the office is the best time to unload those pardons!Lemurnator said:
videogamer
Banned
Via crooksandliars.com, this is how the White House says it will deal with the person who leaked the information:
If it's Rove, then hopefully he will be locked up for quite a while so he can't help get more conservatives elected.
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/wilson.cia/
If it's Rove, then hopefully he will be locked up for quite a while so he can't help get more conservatives elected.
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/wilson.cia/
If you follow some of the news you might remember a while ago there was this controversy over an infamous set of "16 words" in one of the President's State of the Union addresses: "British intelligence has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."Lemurnator said:
A few months (I think) after that SotU address, this guy Joe Wilson writes an op-ed for the NY Times which challenged the idea that Iraq had gotten uranium from Niger (Wilson was dispatched on a diplomatic investigation/fact-finding mission into the question there). This led to a series of backpedals and apologies from the Whitehouse, saying the information was based on unreviewed foreign intelligence that didn't rise to the standards of being included in a SotU address (ironically, a Senate Intelligence Committee report later suggested that Wilson's investigation actually ended-up lending credibility to the CIA's beliefs of an Iraq-Niger-Yellowcake/uranium connection...).
Anyway, IIRC during this period columnist Robert Novak ran a piece where he questioned why Wilson was sent on the investigation in the first place; the answer, as leaked (apparently) from someone in the Whitehouse, was that Wilson's wife was CIA and recommended him for the job. Which can either be interpreted (in terms of motive) as vicious payback for Wilson conflicting with the Administration, or a throwaway comment trying to diminish Wilson's stature/importance, depending on whose flag you carry.
Knowingly revealing a CIA operative's identity like that is a big deal--it's bad--so there has been an ongoing investigation into who leaked the information, etc, with various reporters who were also leaked to being unwilling to reveal the identity of their source (that kinda stuff is sacred to reporters, I guess like the identity of presumably covert CIA agents should be). Now those reporters are in big trouble, and here we are.
Mike Works
Member
:lol3rdman said:
<Bush> Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa! OMGWMD!
<Joe Wilson> Nah, I went to Niger to look this rumor up. There's nothing to it.
<Novak/Miller/Cooper> Wilson got the job because he's married to CIA operative Valerie Plame.
<People> WTF, you're not meant to blow the cover of our secret agents! Who leaked this!?
<Rove> Ruh oh, Raggy!
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
The media outlets all argued that this would cause a chilling effect. But this is obviously an extreme situation not likely to be repeated. And, in any event, there should be a chilling effect on the revelation of clandestine intelligence agents in the media.
Early speculation was on Cheney's chief of staff. I have to believe that if it were really Rove, some lower level staffer would have stepped up and taken the blame by now. Would the White House say all this stuff about firing the perp if it were actually Rove? Whoever it is should be outed and fired immediately. I'm not worried about a chilling effect based on this singular, extraordinary situation.
Early speculation was on Cheney's chief of staff. I have to believe that if it were really Rove, some lower level staffer would have stepped up and taken the blame by now. Would the White House say all this stuff about firing the perp if it were actually Rove? Whoever it is should be outed and fired immediately. I'm not worried about a chilling effect based on this singular, extraordinary situation.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
I understand the media's position here, and the protection of confidential sources is very important. However, that interest is outweighed, in this case, by the need to discourage the revelation of confidential information. I admire the journalists for being principled, but in the end, after all litigation is exhausted, they should respect the court's ruling and turn over the information.
Guileless said:
Aren't those two implicitly contradictory directives?
I think you'll have a hard time convincing journalists they shouldn't report on leaked information, especially as increased media coverage has been leading to decreasing transparency/more careful media management from official government channels as time goes on...
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Leaked information and leaked "secret for a good reason" information are different things, though.APF said:
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
The government made the determination by explicitly making it a felony to reveal the name of an undercover agent. I think that's a reasonable determination, and it is more important than protecting confidential sources. Investigative reporting using unnamed sources is not going to die because someone who broke the law and placed a life in danger is punished in this one instance.
Leaking the identity of a CIA agent isn't just perjury. Perjury is if Rove swore under oath denying this. But what is the penalty for dropping a dime on a spy? Isn't that treason? That's endangering the security fo the country, isn't it?
Tereisias mentioned something that has puzzled me the whole time too. Why wasn't Novak asked for the source? He was Douchebag Zero AFAIK. I mean, you can't really excuse that guy since he wrote the original piece. Turning state's evidence shouldn't be the case either since he would just have revealed the source then. I can't see them giving him a break b/c he gave up other reporters. Certainly he would need to reveal his WH source too, right?
Anyway, if Rove is really the rat, I don't just want him to go down. I want him and all the rest of the vermin that infest his office to be sent crashing back down to earth. And I want lots of jail time with no possibility of parole. And put them in prison with real criminals. Of course, none of this will ever come to pass. It's just wishful thinking. PEACE.
Tereisias mentioned something that has puzzled me the whole time too. Why wasn't Novak asked for the source? He was Douchebag Zero AFAIK. I mean, you can't really excuse that guy since he wrote the original piece. Turning state's evidence shouldn't be the case either since he would just have revealed the source then. I can't see them giving him a break b/c he gave up other reporters. Certainly he would need to reveal his WH source too, right?
Anyway, if Rove is really the rat, I don't just want him to go down. I want him and all the rest of the vermin that infest his office to be sent crashing back down to earth. And I want lots of jail time with no possibility of parole. And put them in prison with real criminals. Of course, none of this will ever come to pass. It's just wishful thinking. PEACE.
f_elz said:
Yes. He's particularly notorious with regards to Texas politics and he's been responisble for a number of scandals here dating back about 20 years, let alone responsible for getting our current governor, nutcase Rick Perry elected. The same governor who just recently signed anti-abortion legislation on a religious private school's grounds in Dallas and told gays that if they don't like the state of affairs here, they could leave. Of course, he also got Bush elected governor and president, as well as any number of senators and representatives, and reinforced the Republican strangehold on Texas. The more you read, the more you want to vomit. Let's not simply dismiss Rove as another crooked politician, as he's far more than that, and has been far more influential. Time didn't choose him most influential person of, I believe, last year for no reason.
Regarding this case, I'd be terribly surprised if Rove is indeed responsible, whether any accountability or responsibility will be taken. The public doesn't know or care much about this story thus far, and that's not likely to change. Rove is too vital to the administration to let go, and at best, Rove may offer a resignation that Bush will refuse or some other such useless measure. It'd be largely up to Congress to have anything done. PEACE.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked