Add Reply
Add Comment As A Guest
Close Topic OptionsKarl Rove - One Of The Untouchables
Karl Rove Untouchables - Politics, Business, Civil, History - Posted: 23rd Sep, 2006 - 9:16pm
Posts: 17 - Views: 2760
This Thread also contains Discussion about Valerie Plame and other CIA operativesKarl Rove - One Of The Untouchables
Karl Rove - One Of The Untouchables
I'm not exactly sure if there has been any discussion on this, I did a search but found no reference.
Anyway I was interested in learning Karl Rove's current situation. We now know he was the one who illegally revealed Wilson's wife as a CIA operative to endanger her life and discredit his work.
Has Rove been stood down yet? Is there an investigation into this? Scott McClelland, unsurprisingly, had nothing to say to reporters when this was revealed. That is the last I heard about this matter. I am hoping some of my US friends on this discussion board can fill me in on the latest developments.
What do people think about his behaviour, and what would be a fair punishment?
International Level: Negotiator / Political Participation: 453 
45.3%
Sponsored Links:
Untouchables The One Rove Karl
First of all, Karl Rove did NOT "illegally" reveal Valerie Plame. She was NOT covered by the law in question for many different reasons, and, he never revealed her name, anyway. The conversation that is referenced was a casual conversation, where he was asked a question about Wilson, and Rove explained that he understood that Wilson's wife had been involved in the decision to send Wilson to Africa. That is the whole extent of the charges against Rove.
Plame had NOT been involved in any covert work in at least 6 years. She is/was an analyst at the CIA, working a normal desk job.
Plame and Wilson have implicated themselves (in Wilson's book) with regards to the law under which the whole investigation is concerned.
The Special Prosecutor has already announced that Rove is NOT under any investigation concerning this matter, as there is absolutely NO evidence that Rove did anything wrong. All the fuss about Rove is an attempt to assassinate his character, since the liberal Democrats hate him even more than they do GWB.
As far as anyone at the White House having anything to say about it, it is inappropriate for the White House to comment about an ongoing investigation of one of its members. Then, to top it off, THERE ISN'T ONE! By ignoring the agendas of the reporters, the reporters just go get more rope to hang themselves.
This whole thing is a publicity thing designed to try to throw more dirt on President Bush and his administration. It started with the lies that Wilson told, how he misrepresented himself, and everything else involved.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 85.4%
Karl Rove - One Of The Untouchables History & Civil Business Politics
I'm a little bit confused here.
If Palme was not covered by the legislation that protects the identity of CIA operatives why was a journalist sent to gaol for revealing her identity in a report?
Why is Plame not covered by this law? The US media have extensively reported that she was. Are the US media completely wrong?
If Palme was a CIA operative and her identity was illegally revealed what difference would it make if he mentioned her name, he revealed her identity right?
If this wasn't illegal why is it even a scandal, and why didn't Scott McClelland just mention this to pour water on this issue? He must be extremely incompetent if this is the case.
Is there a separate set of rules for what information Rove can disclose from the media?
| QUOTE |
| As far as anyone at the White House having anything to say about it, it is inappropriate for the White House to comment about an ongoing investigation of one of its members. Then, to top it off, THERE ISN'T ONE |
Does this mean there is, or isn't an investigation against Rove? If there was any questions of impropriety over his actions wouldn't it be prudent to hold an investigation anyway? If he had nothing to hide then what is the problem. Who appoints the "Special Prosecutor", are they a bi-partisan appointment?
| QUOTE |
| It started with the lies that Wilson told |
Which lies are these? You can't mean his report on Niger NOT importing Uranium to Iraq. That is a fact. It has been extensively proven the documents which formed the basis of this shoddy intelligence were forgeries and there has never been a link between the two regimes.
I'm sorry to ask so many questions, this actually received a lot of press in Australia and I would like to know a few more answers on the whole situation. If what the press is alleging is true than it is quite a serious scandal.
Maybe the Democrats are having a field day with this, but if it is the truth then the public has every right to know wouldn't you agree?
International Level: Negotiator / Political Participation: 453 45.3%
Untouchables The One Rove Karl
I had a nice, well written answer to this all ready this morning, and my browser crashed. However, I didn't have any sources at the time.
So, in a nutshell, here are a few sources for information about Karl Rove and the Valerie Plame kerfuffle.
Start with this commentary by David Limbaugh:
https://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidli...l20050715.shtml
| QUOTE |
| One such snippet was Joe Wilson's supposed revelation that President Bush lied when stating these notorious 16 words in his 2003 SOTU address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Now, let's be clear here. President Bush's statement was true when he made it, and it remains true today. The Brits made such a claim and reiterated it emphatically (with the Butler inquiry expressly validating President Bush's SOTU claim) even after the Bush-scavenging American Left falsely accused him of inventing the story. That Joe Wilson claims he couldn't substantiate Britain's findings on his own trip to Niger in no way alters the irrefutable fact that the Brits made and stood by their claim. But as we now also know, analysts contradict Wilson's present version of the story, saying that his findings did more to support the Brits' conclusion than discredit it. In their zeal to dispatch Rove, the Left willfully ignores that Wilson not only lied about his findings but also about who sent him, denying his wife recommended him for the job, and sometimes alleging that Vice President Cheney, who didn't know him from Adam, sent him. They ignore that a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee discredited Wilson in two essential particulars. First, it confirmed that Plame recommended her husband for the African junket. Second, it found that certain forged documents Wilson bragged about debunking were not even discovered until eight months after his trip. The Left also chooses to overlook Wilson's political motivation to damage President Bush -- his admitted longtime support of John Kerry and his monetary contributions to Kerry's presidential campaign. |
| QUOTE |
| As far as Karl Rove's conduct in the Plame/Wilson affair, there is no scandal. He didn't come close to committing a crime, nor even an ethical infraction. He didn't set out to expose a CIA operative, much less an undercover one. He was the recipient of a phone call in which he cautioned Time's Matt Cooper not to be taken in by the politically driven Joe Wilson, whose operative wife, Valerie Plame, had played a great role in securing Wilson's "fact-finding" trip to Niger. Rove, who didn't even mention Plame's name, couldn't have known she was an undercover CIA agent -- because she wasn't. He manifestly wasn't motivated to expose her for the purpose of punishing Wilson -- because "exposing" her non-covert status couldn't possibly have damaged her. But Rove did have a motive to share his information with Cooper: to warn him of the nepotistic connection between Plame and Wilson and to thus take Wilson's claims with a grain of salt. Rove did nothing wrong. Indeed, he had an obligation to alert Cooper to Wilson's chicanery because, among other reasons, questions of our national security were involved. As the president's right-hand man, shouldn't we expect Rove to do his part to correct the record about a matter so serious: whether Saddam was trying to or did acquire uranium from Niger? |
Here are a few facts about the case.
The law in question states that a person whose identity is protected by the law must be involved in covert operations, or have been within the last 5 years. Valerie Plame has not been involved for at least 6 years, probably 7. It would also require that the person "exposing" such an agent KNOW that the person was a covert operative. Plame is an upper-mid-level analyst with the CIA. She was essentially an unknown, as far as Rove was concerned. So, how could Rove have broken any law concerning her, even if the law applied to her?
Now, the left claims that she was an undercover agent. However, just because she worked at the CIA does NOT make her an undercover agent. So far, all the arguments I have read have assumed that she is, only because Wilson claimed that she is. However, not even the CIA makes that claim.
| QUOTE |
| Does this mean there is, or isn't an investigation against Rove? If there was any questions of impropriety over his actions wouldn't it be prudent to hold an investigation anyway? If he had nothing to hide then what is the problem. Who appoints the "Special Prosecutor", are they a bi-partisan appointment? |
Yes, this means that there is no investigation against Rove. The Special Prosecutor has said that Karl Rove did nothing to justify an investigation.
The Special Prosecutor is assigned by the Justice Department, and is under Congressional oversight. I don't know how bipartisan the appointment is, but the person is meant to be completely independent.
So, who is going to hold the investigation? All the facts now show that there was no crime, so what is the purpose of the investigation?
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 85.4%
Post Date: 6th Aug, 2005 - 3:31pm / Post ID: #
NOTE: News [?]
Untouchables The One Rove Karl
THE TRUTH ABOUT LEAKS
Richard Reeves - WASHINGTON -- Far be it from me to defend Karl Rove, but give the guy a break. He was only doing his job, which is character assassination. He's not the first, and he won't be the last.
Ref. https://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...truthaboutleaks
Karl Rove One The Untouchables Politics Business Civil & History
Well, it seems that there are a whole lot of things coming to light about Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson, Karl Rove, 'Scooter' Libby, and Richard Armitage.
Let's look at a few questions here.
1. Did Karl Rove "out" Valerie Plame? Did he do it to get "back" at Joe Wilson, her husband?
2. Who is Richard Armitage, and what did he have to do with this "scandal" (that is only a scandal in the eyes of the far-left media, both in the US and in the international scene)?
3. What is the deal with 'Scooter' Libby?
Now for some investigation to get a few answers that apply to these questions.
1. No, Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with the "outing" of Valerie Plame. He didn't even do it to get back at Joe Wilson, who deliberately lied in order to embarrass the Bush Administration.
2. Richard Armitage was, and is, an opponent of the Bush Administration, especially concerning the war in Iraq. Richard Armitage "leaked" the name of Valerie Plame to the media. He admits that he did so in an attempt to embarrass President Bush and his administration.
Here is a link dealing with this claim.
https://www.salemnews.net/editorials/articl...?articleID=2880
Please note: This is NOT a conservative rag. In fact, as the article states:
| QUOTE |
| For months Washington's liberal chattering class filled the airwaves and spilled barrels of ink on the always implausible conspiracy theory holding that Bush White House Pooh-Bahs intentionally leaked the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame in retaliation for her husband's very public and largely untruthful campaign against the Bush administration's war policy. But a new book by two decidedly not Bush-friendly reporters - David Corn of the left-wing Nation and Michael Isikoff of the Washington Post - shows the whole controversy to be a sham. No White House people were involved at all. Instead, the leaker was Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, a known opponent of Bush policies. All this started when the CIA hired former Clinton-era Ambassador Joseph Wilson to investigate claims that Saddam tried to obtain weapons material in Niger. His report to the CIA, never shared with the White House, lent support to the charge that Saddam was shopping for the ingredients to weapons of mass destruction. Wilson publicly claimed otherwise. Wilson's flummery led several journalists, notably columnist Robert Novak and author/reporter Bob Woodward, to start asking questions as to why the CIA would choose a former ambassador of no notable accomplishment to take on such an assignment. Novak's column, citing an unnamed source (Armitage, as it turns out), led to an investigation of other journalists. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed to investigate White House officials in the matter. Fitzgerald found no underlying crime (there was none), but he nevertheless indicted Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, based on Libby's allegedly conflicting recollections of what he did or did not tell reporters. Now we know, from Corn and Isikoff's detailed book, "Hubris," that he mostly didn't tell anything at all. |
3. So, why did Libby get in trouble? Well, it seems that Mr. Fitzgerald had a history with Mr. Libby, and that it was pretty much a hate-hate relationship. Since it has now come out that Mr. Libby had nothing at all to do with any crime (which Fitzgerald agreed WASN'T EVER a crime), it appears that this is a "malicious prosecution." Perhaps now, Mr. Fitzgerald will get prosecuted for abuse of power?
So, what is the story here? Take a look at this article.
https://www.slate.com/id/2140058/
| QUOTE |
| Nobody appears to dispute what I wrote in last week's Slate to the effect that in February 1999, Saddam Hussein dispatched his former envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and former delegate to non-proliferation conferences at the United Nations, to Niger. Wissam al-Zahawie was, at the time of his visit, the accredited ambassador of Iraq to the Vatican: a more senior post than it may sound, given that the Vatican was almost the only full European embassy that Iraq then possessed. And nobody has proposed an answer to my question: Given the fact that Niger is synonymous with uranium (and was Iraq's source of "yellowcake" in 1981), and given that Zahawie had been Iraq's main man in nuclear diplomacy, what innocent explanation can be found for his trip? |
There is more, and more evidence now that Mr. Wilson deliberately lied. He wrote one thing in his "report" to the CIA, and publicly said the exact opposite. Why did he do this? He was an official under the Clinton administration, and used his opportunity to throw muck at President Bush. What is very interesting about this is that the liberals still think that President Bush lied on this issue! This, despite the fact that there is now PROOF that he was completely truthful in his assertions about WMDs in Iraq, to the best of his knowledge.
Do a search on the following: "hitchens slate wilson". Read the articles. Very informative.
Oh, yes. Christopher Hitchens is NOT conservative. Nor is Slate, the site for which he writes.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 85.4%
TOPIC: Karl Rove - One Of The Untouchables