Bad news for rove

[Guest bengalrick]

your right, he didn't say that cheney sent him... he did say that cheney's office asked for information about the a specific report... i assume he meant the forged document... the thing about this whole story, is its true, based on 2 british intel guys...

about the plame thing though:

[url="http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/may/may200507150827.asp"]nationalreview.com[/url]

[quote]July 15, 2005, 8:27 a.m.
[b]Who Exposed Secret Agent Plame?
How about the least likely suspect?[/b]

This just in: Bob Novak did not reveal that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent for the CIA.

Read — or reread — his column from July 14, 2003. [b]All Novak reports is that the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson is “an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.”[/b]

[b]Novak has said repeatedly that he was not told, and that he did not know, that Plame was — or had ever been — a NOC, an agent with Non-Official Cover. He has emphatically said that had he understood that she was any sort of secret agent, he would never have named her.[/b]

As for Novak’s use of the word “operative,” he might as easily have called her an “official,” an “analyst, or an “employee.” But, as a longtime newsman, he instinctively chose the sexiest term (one he routinely applies to political figures, too, i.e. “a party operative”).

Reread Novak’s article, and you’ll also see that Novak in no way denigrates Wilson. On the contrary, he talks of Wilson’s “heroism” in Iraq in 1991. And nowhere in his column does he say — or even imply — that Wilson was unqualified to conduct the Niger investigation or that Plame was responsible for getting him the assignment — merely that she “suggested sending him.”

Even so, it is unclear whether Novak’s sources may have committed a crime by talking to Novak about Plame. [b]That would depend on a number of variables involving what they knew about Plame and how they came to know it. A prosecutor would have the power to compel Novak to testify regarding what was said to him and by whom.[/b]

Is this splitting hairs? Not at all. In Washington, plenty of people are acquainted with CIA operatives who are not working undercover. For example, when a CIA analyst wrote a book under the pseudonym “Anonymous,” it was widely known that Anonymous was the Agency’s Michael Scheuer. Before long, someone revealed that in print. No crime was committed or alleged — no classified information had been disclosed, no NOC had been exposed.

So if Novak did not reveal that Valerie Plame was a secret agent, who did? [b]The evidence strongly suggests it was none other than Joe Wilson himself. Let me walk you through the steps that lead to this conclusion.[/b]

[b]The first reference to Plame being a secret agent appears in The Nation, in an article by David Corn published July 16, 2003, just two days after Novak’s column appeared. It carried this lead: “Did Bush officials blow the cover of a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security — and break the law — in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?”[/b]

[b]Since Novak did not report that Plame was “working covertly” how did Corn know that’s what she had been doing?[/b]

[b]Corn does not tell his readers and he has responded to a query from me only by pointing out that he was asking a question, not making a “statement of fact.” But in the article, he asserts that Novak “outed” Plame “as an undercover CIA officer.” Again, Novak did not do that. Rather, it is Corn who is, apparently for the first time, “outing” Plame’s “undercover” status.[/b]

Corn follows that assertion with a quote from Wilson saying, “I will not answer questions about my wife.” Any reporter worth his salt would immediately wonder: Did Wilson indeed answer Corn’s questions about his wife — after Corn agreed not to quote his answers but to use them only on background? Read the rest of Corn’s piece and it’s difficult to believe anything else. Corn names no other sources for the information he provides — and he provides much more information than Novak revealed.

Corn also claims that Wilson “will not confirm nor deny that his wife …works for the CIA.” Corn adds: “But let’s assume she does. That would seem to mean that the Bush administration has screwed one of its own top-secret operatives in order to punish Wilson …”

On what basis could Corn “assume” that Plame was not only working covertly but was actually a “top-secret” operative? And where did Corn get the idea that Plame had been “outed” in order to punish Wilson? That is not suggested by anything in the Novak column which, as I noted, is sympathetic to Wilson and Plame.

The likely answer: The allegation that someone in the administration leaked to Novak as a way to punish Wilson was made by Wilson — to Corn. But Corn, rather than quote Wilson, puts the idea forward as his own.

[b]Keep in mind that from early on there were two possible but contradictory scenarios:

1) Members of the Bush administration intentionally exposed a covert CIA agent as a way to take revenge against her husband who had written a critical op-ed.

2) Members of the Bush administration were attempting to set the record straight by telling reporters that it was not Vice President Cheney who sent Wilson on the Africa assignment as Wilson claimed; rather Wilson’s wife, a CIA employee, helped get him the assignment. (And that is indeed the conclusion of the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee.)[/b]

Corn’s article then goes on to provide specific details about Plame’s undercover work, her “dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material.” But how does Corn know about that? From what source could he have learned it?

Corn concludes that Plame’s career “has been destroyed by the Bush administration.” And here he does, finally, quote Wilson directly. Wilson says: [b]“Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames.”[/b]

[b]Corn has assured us several times that Wilson refused to answer questions about his wife, refused to confirm or deny that she worked for the CIA, refused to “acknowledge whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee.” But he is willing to say on the record that “naming her this way” was an act of treachery? That’s not talking about his wife? That’s not providing confirmation? There is only one way to interpret this: Wilson did indeed talk about his wife, her work as a secret agent, and other matters to Corn (and perhaps others?) on a confidential basis.[/b]

[b]If Wilson did tell Corn that his wife was an undercover agent, did he commit a crime?[/b] I don’t claim to know. But the charge that someone committed a crime by naming Plame as a covert agent was also made by Corn, apparently for the first time, in this same article. No doubt, the independent prosecutor and the grand jury will sort it out.

Criminality aside, if Wilson revealed to Corn that Plame worked as a CIA “deep-cover” operative “tracking parties trying to buy or sell” WMDs, surely that’s news.

And it is consequential: On the basis of Novak’s story alone, it is highly unlikely that anyone would have had a clue that Plame — presumably under a different name and while living in a foreign country — had been a NOC. At most, her friends in Washington would have been surprised to learn that she didn’t work where she said she worked.

[b]But once Corn published the fact that Plame had been a “top-secret operative,” and once he quoted Wilson saying what exposing his wife would mean — and once Plame posed for Vanity Fair photographers — anyone who had ever known her in a different context and with a different identity would have been tipped off.[/b]

[b]But they would not have been tipped by Novak — nor, based on what we know so far, by Karl Rove. Rather, it appears they would have been tipped off by Joe Wilson who, the publicly available evidence strongly suggests, leaked like a sieve to The Nation’s David Corn.[/b] - [i]i'd add this: if the evidence changes and rove knew, i say hang him[/i]

— Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.[/quote]

for real, novak didn't say she was an operative, so we have to assume he didn't know... a couple days later, Wilson is quoted in this article, saying: [i]“Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames.”[/i]

isn't saying she was like aldrich ames saying she was an operative??? of coarse it is, but probably not breaking the law.. the law if very specific, so its pretty hard to actual break that law... like it or hate, neither rove or wilson broke the law... but Wilson appears to be the one that leaked the info of her being an operative, indirectly though...

<edit> is [url="http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2122431/"]slate[/url] a right leaning or left leaning site... i don't usually check it out, but here is another quality article... i am going to have to start checking them out more often... very good article about this, putting it into context...

i'm not trying to stick up for Rove as a guy, but get him for the things that he did wrong... this isn't one of them imo... the evidence is appearing to point to say he didn't do nothing here...

[|Lucid|]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Jul 16 2005, 04:49 PM']your right, he didn't say that cheney sent him... he did say that cheney's office asked for information about the a specific report... i assume he meant the forged document... the thing about this whole story, is its true, based on 2 british intel guys...

about the plame thing though:

[url="http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/may/may200507150827.asp"]nationalreview.com[/url]
for real, novak didn't say she was an operative, so we have to assume he didn't know... a couple days later, Wilson is quoted in this article, saying: [i]“Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames.”[/i]

isn't saying she was like aldrich ames saying she was an operative??? of coarse it is, but probably not breaking the law.. the law if very specific, so its pretty hard to actual break that law... like it or hate, neither rove or wilson broke the law... but Wilson appears to be the one that leaked the info of her being an operative, indirectly though...

<edit> is [url="http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2122431/"]slate[/url] a right leaning or left leaning site... i don't usually check it out, but here is another quality article... i am going to have to start checking them out more often... very good article about this, putting it into context...

i'm not trying to stick up for Rove as a guy, but get him for the things that he did wrong... this isn't one of them imo... the evidence is appearing to point to say he didn't do nothing here...
[right][post="115315"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


Dude, Cliff May is one of the biggest right wing hacks there is.. He is the staple Republican "Spin Man" on pretty much every news network you can name.. Just because Cliff May says something doesn't mean you can believe it.

Why is it when "Party Liners" have a debate they have to copy and paste stuff from spin sites to use as arguments"?

Ok.. That aside. Let me get to your actual statement.

Here is the actual quote form the Novak [url="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml"]article[/url]

[b]"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."[/b]

It CLEARLY says here that she was an operative of the CIA... Hearing May explain away the use of the word "operative" means nothing to me.. Novak said operative.. And besides, it is irrelevent anyway. No one is arguing that Novak knew she was an [b]undercover[/b] agent... It's whoever told him that is of interest.. If she was under cover, and it came out she worked for the CIA.. [b]HER COVER IS THEN BLOWN[/b] You don't have to SAY she was an undercover operative.

If a cop is undercover with a drug gang, having a story about him being a cop in the paper would be plenty to "out" him. It would be unnecessary to say he is an UNDERCOVER cop.

Obviously once this information was out in the open, her cover was blown. And she was now unable to perform any future undercover work. At this point it didn't matter what Wilson said about it.. HER COVER WAS GONE!

Period

Even if it wasn't illegal.. It screwed up someones career, and was a shitty thing to do. If some dickweed ruined my wifes carreer because I disagreed with them publicly, I would be pretty pissed.

Wouldn't you?

[Guest BlackJesus]

[i][b]Not to mention all the other operatives worldwide who now have their lives in danger for her being exposed and thus them being at risk because of their association with her [/b][/i]

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Jul 16 2005, 02:05 PM']how is this the bush administration's fault?? seriously, hear me out... this report is extremely damaging to the CIA and IC in general, but how is it "bush lied" if we are relying on the CIA for the information...
[right][post="115290"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

I hear you. Let's be methodical.

Step one: As I and others have said on a few occasions, this admin contains a powerful faction that came into office looking to go to war with Iraq. Neocons, Leo Strauss-ians, the PNAC crowd, whatever you want to call them. These folks think about the world in a certain way. Run down the leads and examine the nature of that worldview. Decide for yourself whether or not you agree or disagree with that outlook.

Step two: In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, this crowd started calling for a war on Iraq. I believe Rumsfeld suggested it one or two days after the towers came down. Others chimed in very shortly thereafter. Review the Richard Clarke claims; review the claims of Treasury Secretary O'Neill (who confirms the admin's desire to take out Iraq even before 9-11.) Decide whether or not there claims have merit.

Step three: With the policy impulses oriented around this strategic goal, and given the pretext of 9-11, this admin proceeded to do a number of things. Examine the rhetoric used to justify the war. Decide whether or not evidence supported the rhetoric. Examine the promulgation of the Bush Doctrine and note the strategic shift, and contemplate its ramifications with respect to our Constitution as well as our attitude towards international law.

Now, to this point, opponents of the war could simply be in disagreement with the aforementioned: the politics of the neocon crowd, the inclination to achieve a part of the foreign policy goals in the wake of 9-11, and the attempts to strategically and tactically position our country for a conflict with another nation. Such a disagreement, if on the up and up, would be, in a sense, morally neutral--just folks who disagree on how to proceed in the post 9-11 period.

But there is more. Before we get to the "more" part, let's take a step back and review a few ideas.

1) Politics is compromise, especially in our system of government. All you have to do is review the debates at the time of our Constitutional Convention to see the various positions taken by folks and the genius of how they managed to accomodate some contradictions in the process of writing the Constitution. Furthermore, these folks were smart enough to do something that had never been done before, in all of human history: incorporate mechanisms into the operation of our government that were designed to lawfully work out differing ideas about how to proceed in policy matters. This the the essence of the checks and balances business. On top of that, they managed to subordinate these mechanisms under a set of principles that were more important than the differences people held at that time. Pure genius. Of course there were inconsistencies, particularly with respect to slavery, also on economics and fundamental rights, too. And, it is a bit inelegant, especially when one looks "under the hood" at various contentious issues that have cropped up in the past two centuries.

This notion of compromise, embedded in our day to day political practice, is combined with a sort of "idealism" that overrides it all. It's the sort of idea that says: "We may not be getting this exactly right, now, but our system contains the principled mechanisms to eventually get it right." A terrific example of this idea can be found in Lincoln's Gettyburg address, especially the "of the people, by the people, for the people" citation. Consider this hypothesis: Lincoln's reference to "of the people" represents the timeless principle; his "by the people" refers to the mechanisms--the compromises--worked out by folks in the specific time that an issue is being dealt with; his "for the people" refers to not only the present, but also to the obligations that contemporary folks have to past citizens and to future citizens--all of whom equally partake of the ideals even though the specifics of their time may raise different issues.

2) Human beings are supposed to be truthful, or at least they are supposed to be oriented towards the pursuit of truth. It's one important way in which we are distinguished from animals. It's also the motive which underlies science and religion. Value systems of all kinds are built upon that idea. Now it is possible to be oriented in this manner and be mistaken. It is possible to be oriented in this direction and to disagree with another person, likewise oriented, because of different methods and/or assessments of evidence. In such cases, underlying the disagreement is an agreement on the pursuit of truth. Thus, there is a basis for discussion and for working out differences. A person who is interested in examining culture can learn a lot about a period (either contemporary or historical) by carefully looking for the presence or absence of such an orientation.

So, it is worthwhile, imo, to ask: "How does our culture meet this standard?" To me, this period is very much like the period in which Socrates and Plato lived. Both these fellows militated against a culture of sophistry, a culture which valued winning an argument by any means more than it valued the pursuit of truth. If you think of culture as a swimming pool, it's natural to ask: "How's the water?"

Back to the main argument.

Step Four: As we are finding out, in dribs and drabs, the evidence is mounting that the currents wielders of power in this country do not have any problem with manipulation, as a tactic, in order to gain their desired ends. Further, they know it is manipulation. All you have to do is dig into the who, what, when, where and why of how we entered this war. Astute folks have picked up on this right from the beginning. The Downing Street memos didn't have any new revelations, their importance lies in what they confirm: a desire to fix the intelligence to meet policy goals which had already been decided upon.

Did Bush lie? Yes, in the sense that he deliberately misrepresented ideas he otherwise knew to be true. So have a lot of his appointees. Do we have absolute proof of this, in the same fashion of the Downing Street memos? No, not yet. But look at the tactics. Look at the footprints. Look at how this admin responds when it is challenged. IMO, it fails the standard of both concepts I mentioned above: the desire to engage in honest compromise along a principled basis, and in the honest orientation to the pursuit of truth.

Now, to why this Rove business is critically important.

1) Wilson disagreed with this admin and said so publically. For whatever reasons, this admin took Wilson so seriously that they "conspired" and tore the man down. Classic tactics of sophists who care more about winning than the pursuit of truth. Classic Rove tactics, who is the preeminent sophist/operative in DC now.

2) The menas by which they choose to attack Wilson were not merely morally reprehensible, they were possibly illegal.

3) Once Plame was exposed, the admin promised to get to the bottom of it. The initial, call it informal, internal investigation brough McClellan to the podium, where, as mouthpiece for the admin, he reassured us that neither Rove nor Libby was the leaker who exposed Plame to discredit Wilson.

4) People were skeptical of that claim, so they pressured the Justice department to appoint a special counsel. Ashcroft, to his credit, not only did that, but he recused himself.

5) Two years later, the informal position that the White House took is exposed as being a deception. How does the White House react? By smearing Wilson, once again. By being deceptive in their spin; in other words, by being sophists with no regard for the truth--all they want to do it win. Irony of irony, just who do you think is co-ordinating these tactics in Rove's defense? Wanna bet that we'll eventually find out that it was Rove or one of his fellow travellers?

It's useful to look at the wrold through the lenses of an historian, as well as through the lenses of an intelligence gatherer. Just remember that the historian has a tendency to want to wait for all the evidence to come in before passing judgement, and that the intelligence officeer does not have that luxury: the evidence must be assessed, then acted upon, then reassessed. Tenet fell on his sword, sure. But do not forget that many intelligence folks disagreed with the assessments accepted by the admin, and that their voices were deliberately not heard because it was not convenient for the goals of the admin. Look at how people who disagree with this admin are treated: O'Neill-->attacked; Clarke-->attacked; Wilson-->attacked; France and Germany-->attacked, and on and on. Those are the footprints that reveal the pattern.

This is the last I will be posting about this topic, so let me close with this: Those of us who are old enough to remember Vietnam and Watergate may be feeling a touch of deju vu; I know I am, and it saddens me somewhat. I don't care if the admin is Dem. or Rep., I just want whoever is in power to be faithful to the ideas of principled compromise and to the pursuit of truth. I don't want an admin that unilaterally decides to:

--change our strategic attitude towards war-fighting;
--radically alter the status of prisoners;
--fudge about what is, and is not, torture;
--deliberately suppress the votes of its own citizenry;
--find it acceptable to wantonly attack and ruin its opponents in heinous ways;
--and to manipulate and to deceive the people who hired them to work for the general welfare, that is, for regular folk like you and me.

[|Lucid|]

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img]


EXCELLENT post.

As an Independent, I have been growing increasingly concerned by the willingness of other wise good intentioned americans, supporting blatantly UN-AMERICAN tactics and policies, merely because the party line dictates it.

I personally feel that partisanship is ruining this country. Everyone needs to take a good look around and really evaluate the side they are on.. Rather than holding to their guns and regurgitating what they are told to think.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Lucid' date='Jul 17 2005, 12:36 PM'] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img]
EXCELLENT post.

As an Independent, I have been growing increasingly concerned by the willingness of other wise good intentioned americans, supporting blatantly UN-AMERICAN tactics and policies, merely because the party line dictates it.

I personally feel that partisanship is ruining this country.  Everyone needs to take a good look around and really evaluate the side they are on.. Rather than holding to their guns and regurgitating what they are told to think.
[right][post="115502"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
Yours and Homer's posts pretty much sum up how I feel, more or less about the goings-on in our political system in recent memory. I guess Watergate didn't teach us anything after all.
Well-written and thoughtful post, Homer....

[Guest bengalrick]

great post homer... i have alot of thoughts about this and other posts, and its really hard to get them out correctly... i am far from a "good writer", but here goes anyway...

i am getting (informally) called out for being in the "partisan" group, but probably for good reason... but, i don't know what else to do... i don't see a better way to handle the problem (terrorism wise)... we have sat around and taken it for too long... i don't want to rant about that anymore though... i am going to try to open up more, and try to find truth... its easy to pick a side, and stick on that side... it will take some soul searching on my part, but i will attempt it, b/c i do see a change w/ my thinking lately, and i believe that moderation is the key to a great democracy... i will probably need to get away from the general section for a while, considering everytime i do try to cut back, i see another thread that riles me up... if i am not exposed to it, maybe i will be better off for a while... that was probably ben's plan at the end of the election... God, do i miss football

i didn't live through watergate or vietnam, but i do know a little bit historical background on them... this is how is see them: vietnam was fought for a good cause, but fought w/ the sense that we were undestructable and went in trying to kill an ant w/ a machine gun... our tactics were terrible, and our leadership just kept their foots to the floor, reguardless of the needless lives to die... was it needless b/c the war was unjust imo, no... it was needless, b/c if we had a true plan, we could have one (could have, is the key phrase, but our tactics had no chance of winning)... watergate is a scandal that was overblown by the media... theres no question that Nixon wasn't a good president, and no question that he did wrong... i feel like things like this were done, and its a very good thing that Nixon got caught, b/c reguardless if previous presidents may have done wrong, it needed to be exposed... it gave power to the media, b/c they were able to break the story... both hurt america real bad, but made us stronger in the long run...

i just don't know where to go w/ all this though... i believe we're doing the right thing... imo, we lost the war b/c of the homefront was lost... it seems that a powerful democracy (like we have) can only be beat by w/in... don't get me wrong, this is a good thing, b/c it keeps power in check, which will always lead to abuse of power... the power of debate, has a huge effect... but a huge problem w/ this fact is that bad news sells, good news doesn't... we wake up, and we hear about car bombs in iraq almost everyday... the deaths for US soldiers are somewhat down, but thats b/c they're targeting iraqi civilians... w/ the media coverage of this war, and even the nightly reports in the vietnam era, naturally cause some fear, sadness, and rage at the same time... its hard to win a longstanding war if this is the case... i believe that war is an very unfortinate necessisity... it has got to be the last case scenario, b/c things always go wrong in a war, reguardless if you win or lose...

the questions to me come to this: did bush probably plan on taking care of saddam before 9/11? i think that it crossed his mind, along w/ clinton's mind for 8 years... it was something that needed to be done, but wasn't a seller to the US people... i think that bush would have honestly avoided iraq in general, considering the backlash his father go from it in the first place... i don't buy into the "finishing daddy's business" philosophy b/c if i were him, i would avoid it like the plauge... i don't remember much at all being said about iraq from bush, before 9/11... i could be wrong about this, but this is how i see it...

next question: after 9/11, was saddam on the radar screen? absolutely... its like this... saddam was a bully to everyone, including us... not literally b/c he was much too small, but he pushed around the UN, which he figured had our balls in there fists, and stalled the inspections... we knew he had them, and the same guy has in charge... we FIGURED he was a huge threat, mainly b/c what we didn't know... we were surprised in 1991, to find how advanced their weapons were... this scared the CIA into thinking that most anything is possible...

did bush lie about the intellegence, to go to war w/ iraq? the way that the system works, bush isn't putting the intellegence together... he only recieves it... for me to think he lyed, i would have to believe that he was presented evidence from the CIA, and told them to disreguard it, forge it, and/or lie about it... i think that the CIA had a biased to get saddam, considering their success in the last 15 years w/ him... they assumed (like i posted to homer above) that things got worse, and that doesn't seem to be true in hind sight... i think that bush, and most everyone else had their mind made up, that it was a slam dunk that he had weapons, and any evidence that was to the contrary, was meaningless, b/c of the views they had about saddam... b/c of this fact, there has to be some blame... but we also must consider the circumstances... this is why, if 9/11 didn't happen, we wouldn't be in war imo... the war was a tough sell, but it seemed to be necessary.... the effects of why, are being seen accrossed the middle east... at least the beginnings of change are...

i believe that what was exposed in this case, was the CIA, and the lack of credability they now have... and that is horrible, b/c it will take a long time for most people to have faith in what they do... i'm not going to place blame on why the CIA is lacking, but we need to get it going good, including spies throughout the world... but if i am wrong about bush, and he did purposely mislead us all, he must pay the consiquences... we also must fight on, and win this war...

about Rove, i give up defending him... if he exposed any spies or operations in where in the world, he should be fired... if he broke the law, he should be put in prison... i'm tired of towing the partisan line, so i give up... i felt the need to stand up for him at first, b/c of the backlash, but i can understand the backlash.. is it right to convict him before the facts are presented, but its also not right for me to assume he is innocent... we will all see, and bush better do the right thing, if he wants any credibility from those that oppose him... like homer, thats all i want to say about rove, for a long, long time...

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Bunghole' date='Jul 17 2005, 03:14 PM']Yours and Homer's posts pretty much sum up how I feel, more or less about the goings-on in our political system in recent memory.  I guess Watergate didn't teach us anything after all.
Well-written and thoughtful post, Homer....
[right][post="115508"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

bung... i don't know how to say this w/out being corny, but i kind of look up to your posts and ideas on here, more than most... you do seem to be an independant minded person... how do you justify this war to yourself? i mean, on one hand, i'm pretty sure you agree w/ what we're doing, but on the other, we are hearing how we went in the wrong way, and how we are fighting this the wrong way... do you feel we are justified in the purpose as well as the premise? if you don't believe in the premise, then how do you personally justify the war?

i don't mean to call you out, but i feel that your voice is more powerful on this board, and i seem to agree w/ alot of what you say... i just want to hear your thoughts, on how you balance out all this shit... you seem to agree w/ homer that there is a scandal of some sorts going on, but if this is the case, why do you agree w/ the war then? if i didn't have trust in bush, i probably wouldn't support the war either, b/c of the devestation of what losing would do... have you hit a point, that it had to be done (terror), reguardless who is leading us, or am i reading too much into your agreement w/ homer and his watergate comparison?? b/c you also seem to agree w/ the war, on most posts...

[Jamie_B]

[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8605680/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8605680/[/url]

This kind of thing can never happen reguardless of who is in power.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Jul 17 2005, 03:35 PM']bung... i don't know how to say this w/out being corny, but i kind of look up to your posts and ideas on here, more than most... you do seem to be an independant minded person... how do you justify this war to yourself? i mean, on one hand, i'm pretty sure you agree w/ what we're doing, but on the other, we are hearing how we went in the wrong way, and how we are fighting this the wrong way... do you feel we are justified in the purpose as well as the premise? if you don't believe in the premise, then how do you personally justify the war?

i don't mean to call you out, but i feel that your voice is more powerful on this board, and i seem to agree w/ alot of what you say... i just want to hear your thoughts, on how you balance out all this shit... you seem to agree w/ homer that there is a scandal of some sorts going on, but if this is the case, why do you agree w/ the war then? if i didn't have trust in bush, i probably wouldn't support the war either, b/c of the devestation of what losing would do... have you hit a point, that it had to be done (terror), reguardless who is leading us, or am i reading too much into your agreement w/ homer and his watergate comparison?? b/c you also seem to agree w/ the war, on most posts...
[right][post="115519"][/post][/right][/quote]
Rick...
I appreciate what you say about me.
I am at work right now and am in the process of trying to get out of here...we're opening a new location out in Westchester tomorrow, so I have a lot to do and I will try to reply tonight...after getting properly lubricated, of course...

[BengalSIS]

Doesn't matter who told first, or the fact that she wasn't covert anymore. Rove knew what he was doing was wrong. Whether or not he's guilty of a "crime" as defined by the law, is up for the people to decide. Whether I think he's "innocent"....definitely not.

[|Lucid|]

As a side note..

Carl Rove was known as "The Evil Genius" by people on the Nixon campaign staff...



No disagreement here....

[Guest bengaljet]

I guess the part that I find amusing is Ken Melman(RNC chairman) says the Dems are "trying" to smear Rove and owe him an apology. Reference the Clinton yrs (and all the apologies)and yes there was a blue stained dress. I didn't read Melman's story, I already know the script.
So here's my apology to Rove: "I'm sorry you(Rove),Scott McClellan and possibly W(didn't know for 1.5-2 yrs?) LIED". Jeff Gannon(James Guckett) was a useless(why do it?) lie in the WH Pressroom for 1.5 -2 yrs---If they'd lie about this ,they'll lie about anything.
John Kerry said during the campaign that this was a lieing and corrupt group. As the years go by we shall see....
Outing an agent causes problems for past,present and future agents. Other countries will be trying to connect the dots.
Is Rove guilty-hell I don't know but it should be interesting to find out.

[|Bunghole|]

All politicians lie. It is what they lie about that is important, I guess.
I find my ability to defend some of the things the current administration is doing to be indefensible. The question to me is, are the lies a result of lack of knowledge of the truth or a direct manipulation of facts to instigate a war?
None of us here really knows the truth because we aren't swimming in the putrid waters that legislators are currently drowning in.
My take now is that yes, the war on terror is valid and needs to be fought, at any cost but the sacrificing of the values and ideas that make this country great.
Our Presidents, etc regardless of party affiliation have lied their fucking asses off about certain things over the course of our short history as a country.
I think that since the development of this "war on terror" ala the suicide bomber, etc is a relatively new concept for us to get our collective minds, military and government around, that mistakes are going to be made due to our relative lack of "practice" in fighting such a war, where ideologies and religions clash more surely than opposing forces align themselves against each other in the field of battle.
The "field of battle" now is not clearly drawn anymore. Terrorists are only identified by their "home country" if such a status is even known. Intel has proven that there is massive coordination amongst terrorist groups that are only affiliated by a single common cause--the elimination of America and Israel, and any that would support them. Other than that common cause, they are at odds in terms of everything else-religion, politics, etc.
Back to the Rove thing---I haven't followed it too closely, but if the guy deliberately lied or acted vindictevely towards a fellow govt employee because of political differences, then he needs to have his Limbaugh-looking ass fried. You don't compromise CIA identities--EVER! It puts way too many variables and people into jeapordy.
Our biggest intel failure, imho is the lack of recruitment of Arabic-looking/speaking operatives that could potentially infiltrate terrorist organizations and provide useful and actionable information. There is a reason that the Mossad is so effective--the Israelis look like and can speak the language of islamic militants!
But the complexities of the "reason why they hate us" run so deep that nobody can truly verbalize them.
My biggest concern is that we deviate too far off course from what made us a great country and that we resort to tactics that not only make us look bad, but end up costing Americans the intrinsic freedoms that we have fought so many other wars to currently enjoy.
It is a fine line, this "new era" of security vs terrorism, and it IS real, but it is a tough nut to crack.
"Those that sacrifice personal liberties in the name of security deserve neither."
Ben Franklin.
The truth is truly a moving target anymore, and "spin" can be applied to everything from "yellow cake" to the definition of the word "is".
As a closing note, I truly believe that neither dominant political party is so fraught with bad ideas and evil that either isn't salvageable.
Homer's post talked about the ultimate ideal behind American govt...compromise...and we have very little of that right now, and the polarization of politics via the media and the mudslinging accusations doesn't show any signs of slowing down anytime soon.
I can only hope that we as a nation aren't so subjugated and saturated with media and political bullshit that we fail to recognize that it may now be time to change our 2 party system and publicly endorse a compromise of the best ideals of both Dems and Repubs...by creating a viable independent party candidate/system that can shed the evils of what we currently have....
I got nothing else...

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Jul 17 2005, 04:24 PM']i am getting (informally) called out for being in the "partisan" group, but probably for good reason... but, i don't know what else to do... i don't see a better way to handle the problem (terrorism wise)... we have sat around and taken it for too long... i don't want to rant about that anymore though... i am going to try to open up more, and try to find truth... its easy to pick a side, and stick on that side... it will take some soul searching on my part, but i will attempt it, b/c i do see a change w/ my thinking lately, and i believe that moderation is the key to a great democracy...[/quote]

It's okay to be partisan, in fact, it is good to be partisan. All I can suggest here is that a person is measured by the quality of their judgement, so it is worth the time to work on the analytical aspect of thinking about any bit of knowledge. Adopt the curious attitude of a good scientist, gather info, subject it to "measurement" of some kind, then draw conclusions. Build good "measuring tools."

[quote]i didn't live through watergate or vietnam, but i do know a little bit historical background on them...[/quote]

All I wanted to suggest in my comment was the social climate. It was a very divisive period, and there was a slow demoralization of the citizenry. I'm not entirely sure we fully recovered from that, and, perhaps, here we go again.

[quote]watergate is a scandal that was overblown by the media... theres no question that Nixon wasn't a good president, and no question that he did wrong...[/quote]

Two aspects of Watergate are worth some work, imo: First, what did Nixon mean when he referred to exposing the "Cuba thing" (or words to that effect)? Develop some hypotheses along that line of investigation and you'll have some insight into much of our history since the end of WWII. Certainly the clandestine stuff. Second, who dumped Nixon? Many Republicans could have come to his defense and chose not to; why?

[quote]the questions to me come to this: did bush probably plan on taking care of saddam before 9/11? i think that it crossed his mind, along w/ clinton's mind for 8 years... it was something that needed to be done, but wasn't a seller to the US people... i think that bush would have honestly avoided iraq in general, considering the backlash his father go from it in the first place... i don't buy into the "finishing daddy's business" philosophy b/c if i were him, i would avoid it like the plauge... i don't remember much at all being said about iraq from bush, before 9/11... i could be wrong about this, but this is how i see it...[/quote]

Policy does not come from a vacuum. The key to this is not Bush or Clinton individually, it is the people offering advice to them. Identify the factions, discover what they advocated and why.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[url="http://votelouise.com/page/petition/rove"]http://votelouise.com/page/petition/rove[/url]

[img]http://votelouise.com/images/216.gif[/img]

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img]

Now you can send an official Pink Slip to Rove filled out by you.... I sent mine... it read

Reason For Termination:

[b]Eat Shit[/b]

[|Bunghole|]

Rick?

[Guest bengaljet]

BJ sent. I put stupidity,can't be trusted,lack of common sense and 1 of his chins got in the way of his thinking.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Bunghole' date='Jul 19 2005, 01:00 AM']Rick?

[right][post="115959"][/post][/right][/quote]

taking a break from the general post, for the most part... i need to get away from being stressed out about a message board ...

great post though... i definately read and absorbed yours and homers posts... i am just fighting myself to not reply

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Jul 19 2005, 08:17 AM']taking a break from the general post, for the most part... i need to get away from being stressed out about a message board ...

great post though... i definately read and absorbed yours and homers posts...[b] i am just fighting myself to not reply[/b]
[right][post="116075"][/post][/right][/quote]



Well it looks like you lost to yourself...because you DID
reply...

[Guest bengalrick]

only to that...












and to yours... asshole

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Jul 19 2005, 08:41 AM']only to that...
and to yours... asshole
[right][post="116085"][/post][/right][/quote]



Like I always heard...better than being the WHOLE ASS.


[img]http://img174.exs.cx/img174/3407/smoke14ql.gif[/img]

[Guest Bengal_Smoov]

Yes or No..Did not Karl Rove sign a nondisclosure agreement that awards him security clearance to sensitive information?


By signing that agreement Rove violated the terms of the agreement by making the statements that HIS LAWYER said he made. Rove's own lawyer said his client was party to unauthorized discussions with reporters regarding an certain CIA officer.

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='Bengal_Smoov' date='Jul 20 2005, 08:50 AM']Yes or No..Did not Karl Rove sign a nondisclosure agreement that awards him security clearance to sensitive information? 
By signing that agreement Rove violated the terms of the agreement by making the statements that HIS LAWYER said he made. Rove's own lawyer said his client was party to unauthorized discussions with reporters regarding an certain CIA officer.
[right][post="116389"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]



I hope Bush fires him. Then people have 1 less thing to bitch about. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/18.gif[/img]

[Guest Bengal_Smoov]

[quote name='oldschooler' date='Jul 20 2005, 09:55 AM']I hope Bush fires him. Then people have 1 less thing to bitch about.  [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/18.gif[/img]
[right][post="116392"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Do you want Bush to fire him because he's guilty and it would be the right thing to do or just so the negative press will go away?

I love reading how some people defend Bush and his administration regardless of what they do? Are these scumbags incapable of doing anything wrong or un-trustworthy?