You are herecontent / Come Clean

Come Clean


Baltimore Sun Editorial

SO, WHAT Washington suspected all along turns out to be true. Karl Rove, political mastermind of the Bush administration, tried to squelch a report that undermined President Bush's rationale for going to war in Iraq by secretly discrediting the critic who wrote it.
A nasty tactic in any circumstances. But one that could have been dangerous, even deadly, in this case because it resulted in the outing of a CIA undercover agent.

Whether Mr. Rove can be charged with a crime has not yet been determined by the special prosecutor investigating the leak. But it's clear that while Mr. Rove may have stayed within the letter of the law, he certainly violated its spirit, as well as the supposedly high standards of conduct the White House has said the president sets for his staff.

Mr. Rove, now deputy chief of staff, should resign or be fired. Dismissal was the fate Mr. Bush and spokesman Scott McClellan said a year or more ago would await anyone in the administration who unmasked an undercover operative. Mr. McClellan also had dismissed Mr. Rove's involvement as a "ridiculous suggestion." This week, though, the White House is suddenly silent on the subject, with Mr. McClellan sounding, with his stonewalling at press briefings, for all the world like his Nixon-era predecessor, Ron Ziegler.

Two years have passed since the intrigue unfolded following the disclosure by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV that he had investigated and found no basis for the claim that Iraq had sought to obtain nuclear materials in Africa - one of the administration's reasons for going to war.

Mr. Rove tried to steer at least one reporter away from the story, according to Newsweek magazine, by disclosing that Mr. Wilson had been sent to Africa at the urging of his wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA operative who dealt with issues relating to weapons of mass destruction.

Ms. Plame was not identified by name; in fact, Mr. Rove has said he never knew her name. But revealing that Mr. Wilson was married to a CIA agent outed her just as effectively, and may well have endangered her. How revolting it is to hear the tortured parsing of words that passes for Mr. Rove's defense in the matter: that he never "named" Ms. Plame.

Mr. Rove never came forward through all the White House denials and protestations of his innocence because he figured he could discredit Mr. Wilson to reporters and get away with it. Instead, the president's credibility suffers each day that Karl Rove remains on the White House staff.

LINK TO ORIGINAL

Tags

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Karl Rove was telling reporters that Wilson was lying when Wilson stated that the Vice President sent him to Niger. Rove was not 'outing' a CIA agent, he was blowing the whistle on Wilson's lies.

Wilson has been thoroughly exposed as a politically motivated hack who did not tell the truth about what he saw in Niger. There is no scandal here, never was one.

The problem is not who was right or wrong, or what the intensity of the treason was. Let's look at this like the Clinton situation. Clinton was guilty of receiving a blowjob..which is not a crime. The crime was lieing about it…just as Rove lied about having no involvement in said leak. If it was the democrats in office, this would have been thoroughly exploited long ago.

work.

Seriously, you are apologizing for people who burned a vital and irreplaceable national security asset. A 20 year network and all it's contacts and sources, burned. And they did this to try and smear a guy THAT HISTORY HAS PROVEN WAS TELLING THE TRUTH about the administrations lies that led us to war. They are guilty of nothing less than treason. They care not for the United States. They care only about themselves and the GOP. And so do you.

Wilson was not telling the truth and that is why Rove told Cooper about who really sent Wilson to Africa.

There is no scandal and no treason.

You people have been taken to the woodshed by Rove in the past, so are hysterically latching onto anything you can in order to discredit him.

You're missing the big picture. It's not all about "discrediting" Karl Rove. Yes, he did do somehting wrong, whether it was illegal or just unethical is really a side point in where this all leads. This all leads to the Bush White House justifications for going to war in Iraq, and it is clear that Rove was trying to do whatever he could to discredit any view or information that would put the Bush drive to war on ice. This all leads to the Downing Street Memos, and the exposure of the lies the Bush administration needs to held accountable for. If you want to get in a wad about anything, forget about Rove, and start worrying about where this will all eventually lead.

not the point ... get it? (Me neither)

Schmat, if you're going to make a statement like that it would help if you would provide a little thing called PROOF! Can you explain where/when/how Wilson lied about who really sent him to Niger and can you back that up with actual documentation, statements or any actual "evidence" of his lies? If you can do that, you have our attention. If you're merely reiterating the RNC talking points without providing specific evidence, then don't waste our time here. Simply go back to your make-believe world and let the adults take care of business....

It's foolish to respond to Schmat, and the like. It wastes space and they're just looking for attention, anyway.

Good grief, Schmat, you are like a cartoon satire of Goebbel's and Rove himself.

Schmat; I see that you belong w/ Seixon in the coward group, attacking a person's wife because you don't like what he says. What's next , will you go after his children, maybe you can dig up something on his mother.The statement" Rove is the good guy" shows you to be morally bankrupt ask John McCain or Max Cleland if Rove is a good guy.Oh yes, my son (a liberal) is at Ft. Hood waiting to go for tour #2 in Iraq would you like to ask him if Rove is a good guy, I didn't think so he wouldn't be as nice to you as I was.

Schmat, you (and your nonsense) are a puzzle. I can't decide if you are a person with absolutely zero discernment -- or if you are working for Rove.

OK MR SCHMAT. YOU MADE A BOLD STATEMENT ABOVE. YOU SAY MR WILSON LIED AS TO WHAT HE FOUND, WHAT HE SAW, IN NIGER? WHAT EVIDENCE CAN YOU SUBMIT TO SUPPORT SUCH A BOLD CLAIM? YOUR HERO ROVE, IS IN BIG TROUBLE. THERE IS SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT "THAT" STATEMENT. SO, IF YOUR GOING TO MAKE BOLD CLAIMS IN HERE, BRING YOUR EVIDENCE, OR, GO SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!THANK-YOU**HUMPHREY**

If Wilson was lying about what he found in Niger then he committed an act of potentially deadly treason, and should be tried for it. An opportunity that the bush WH would surely not pass up in an effort to clear bush. Your logic and reasoning are massively distorted and perverted by too many years listening to GOP propagandists. The Italy document alleging Iraq's quest for Yellow Cake Uranium was proven to be a forgery, thus lending further credibility to Wilson's findings. Wilsons's credibility was proven long ago by many years of faithful service to his country under both Republican and Democrat adminsitrations.
You are a hypocrit and no supporter of our country and its troops who are dieing for bush's lies. You will sacrifice them and your country just to support the arrogant fraud in the WH. Have a nice day and rest assured bush will ultimately get away with murder--of thousands.

Unlike you, Schmat, I'll offer up a little proof as opposed to opinion...

Look at the actual transcript of the show Mehlman is referring to with the parts Mehlman chose to leave out in bold (we come into the interview with Wolf Blitzer talking to Wilson and about to play a tape of another interview with Condi Rice) ...

BLITZER: I know you were sent to go on this mission long before the State of the Union Address. [Who sent you]?

WILSON: Well, look, it's absolutely true that neither the vice president nor Dr. Rice nor even George Tenet knew that I was traveling to Niger.

Nowhere does Wilson say that the Cheney sent him, nor does he say Condi and/or Tenet sent him. He explicitly said that none of them knew about the trip. Even Novak explains in both his articles (7/03 and 10/03) that Wilson was sent by CIA officials overseeing Nuclear Non-proliferation. Novak explicitly says that Plame had nothing to do with the decision to send Wilson, but that she acted as a messenger between her husband and CIA NNP officials who gave Wilson the green light.

The ball is now in your court, Schmat. We already know what your opinion is, now provide us with a little proof of your allegation that Wilson lied, and we'll listen to you.

Read Wilson's 2003 NY Times Op-Ed (I don't have a link as NYT makes you sign up & I won't sign up with socialists).

Again, for real information and proof that Wilson is a discredited lier, see this link:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011019.php

or here's another source with good information:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/07/how_about_a_few.html

They say it better than I can and have links.

I read the article Schmat, here's what Wilson said in the article that YOU asked me to read:

"In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

Do you have anything else to say, Schmat?????

IF you are interested in finding out what is really going on in the Plame situation, the following post has good information with links to other good posts:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011019.php

don't follow Schmat's link, get the spin from the source instead:

RNC talking points defending Rove, distributed 12 July-

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Exclusive_GOP_talking_points_on_Rove_seek_...

Thanks for the link, the post contained some good information about this "scandal".

It's foolish to respond to Schmat, and the like. It wastes space and they're just looking for attention, anyway.

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself: Proverbs 24:4.

Leave that fool to himself; in other words, let him talk to the hand!

Correction: should be Proverbs 26:4. Apologies!

Schmat,Schmat,Schmat. Your world is crumbling and I know this is a tough time for you right now. The truth is hard for you to digest because for years now you have been fed a steady diet of lies. My suggestion for you is to turn off Faux(Fox)News, find the channel for CNN in your TV Guide, sit down with a copy of the New York Times to read during the commercials, and let reality wash over you.
Remember, what does not kill you only makes you stronger.

Herr Schmat, You're GOP talking points memo keeps mentioning how Wilson lied about who sent him to Africa. But you cannot disput what he found which was nothing. No connection at all with Iraq. I don't care who sent him there, if it was Micky Mouse or the man in the moon. There's no disputing the fact that the Bushes LIED to the world about any connection with Africa and WMD to start an illegal war that has cost millions of dollars and the loss of thousands of lives just to pass a political agenda. As for whether or not Bush would fire Rove don't hold your breath. It would be like Pinochio firing Geppetto.

I'm an American, so that's Mr. Schmat to you!

Wilson lied about who sent him to Africa and he has lied about what he found. Saddam was trying to buy uranium from African nations. Saddam did have WMD programs and would have fired up his factories after the sanctions were lifted. Saddam did support and harbor terrorists, including Al Qaeda.

The world, including the US, is better off with Saddam out of power.

Yes, the Bush Administration made mistakes in liberating Iraq, most egregeously in discounting that there would be an insurgency. But, they did the right thing.

Mr. Schmat, you make some statements that suggest you are actually from one of those theoretical alternate timelines that quantum physics has long suspected. In this continuum, things turned out a little differently from the one that you apparently inhabit.

For instance, the experts in our continuum have concluded that Saddam did not support or harbor Al Qaeda. There was no operational relationship. Even our Republicans have said so.

That's the tricky thing about alternate realities -- all of them are just the slightest bit different, and it's easy for even the most experienced dimensional traveler to get confused. But rest assured, you are now on a vibrational frequency where there was never an Iraq/terror connection.

Of course, some of the less intelligent life forms in our world have argued that, just because some terrorists lived in Iraq at one time, this makes Iraq a terrorist state. We call this a "logical fallacy." Remember, just because your fellow members of the KKK live in the U.S. doesn't make the United States a Klan state.

Is Schatt past tense for the verb form of the word shit? STFU moron....

YOU CERTAINLY SEEM CONVINCED THAT THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ IS BASED ON MORAL JUSTIFICATION'S THAT YOU HAVE POINTED OUT SO WELL. SO LET ME ASK YOU THIS. ARE YOU OF AGE TO BE SERVING IN THE MILLITARY? IF SO WHY ARE YOU NOT IN UNIFORM AND SERVING IN IRAQ? PUTTING YOU SUPPORT WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS? IT'S EASY TO SIT IN AN OVERSTUFFED CHAIR AND PROCLAIM THAT THE TROOPS BEING KILLED ARE FOR A WORTHY, MORALLY JUST CAUSE AND CLAIM FURTHER YOUR FULL SUPPORT. BUT ONLY A PUSSY WOULD SAY ALL THAT YET NOT MAKE ANY AFFIRMITIVE STEPS TO PUT ON A SET OF DESERT CAMO BDU'S AND GO JOIN THE FIGHT. IN CASE YOUR CONTEMPLATING FIRING THE SAME QUESTION BACK AT ME, I SERVED IN THE U.S. ARMY FROM 26 JUN 69 TO 9 MAY 72. SO IF YOUR OF USABLE AGE TO SERVE, THEN SHUT YOU SEWER AND GET DOWN TO THE RECRUITER'S OFFICE AND PUT SUBSTANCE TO YOUR LIP SERVICE. YOU TALK THE TALK! DO YOU HAVE THE COURAGE TO WALK THE WALK? IF NOT, AND IF YOUR TOO OLD, DO YOU HAVE SONS OR DAUGHTERS THAT YOU SHOULD BE SENDING IN ORDER TO PUT SUBSTANCE TO YOUR SUPPORT TO THIS DIRTY LITTLE BUSH WAR? TALK IS RELITIVELY CHEAP MY FRIEND BUT THE OVER TAXED TROOPS DON'T NEED NO TALK, THEY NEED FRESH BODIES! SO GET GOING!

I FORGOT SOMETHING I WANTED TO SAY MR SCHMAT.**BITE ME** HUMPHREY

As opposed to the rhetoric of people like Schmat or Ken Mehlman or any other right-wing idealogue, I offer up what Joe Wilson ACTUALLY SAID regarding who sent him to Niger:

"In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

Did Joe Wilson ever, ever, ever say that the VP, Cheney, sent him to Niger. No, of course not. What did he actually say? He said, he was informed by officials at the CIA that the VP's office had questions about the Niger/yellowcake report. Did he say that the VP or even the VP's office sent him, as the right-wing nut job's fabrication machine is stating....NO! He said he was sent by CIA officials. End of story.

Oh, and btw, was Wilson right about the phony Niger/yellowcake report? Of course he was, but that somehow seems to be irrelevant...

Here is another good article that debunks what you are saying:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006955

Here's what you don't seem to understand. I'm not saying anything, I'm quoting Joe Wilson and he's saying that he wasn't sent by Cheney or Cheney's office (contrary to the RNC talking points). He never said such a thing.

Joe Wilson is a liar.

He did state that he was sent by VP Cheney in his July '03 NY Times Op-Ed.

Rove got involved to refute that lie. He stated that the VP did not send Wilson.

Evidence, evidence, evidence to back up your comments....that's all I'm asking for. Is that so hard for you to do???? Your opinions are as worthless as this administration's policies.

I find it comical that the article you're pointing me to is a link to an op/ed column from of all places, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. Everyone knows how non-partisan and unbiased they can be (wink, wink, nod, nod). No matter that they don't provide any actual proof or evidence of Wilson's claims that we was sent specifically by anyone else other than CIA officials. And I don't see where there is proof that Valerie Plame had the authority and gave the directive to Wilson to investigate the Niger claim. The article makes the claim, but I don't see any proof or quotes from the Senate Intelligence Committee that clearly state this and/or back it up with facts.

So Schmat, unlike you, the RNC, Melhman and many of your ilk, I'll offer up some information for you to ponder from someone who is deeply involved in this whole messy situation.

If you don't believe Joe Wilson's words, here's what Bob Novak (who is by no means a raging liberal, but quite the contrary) wrote in October of 2003 as a follow-up to the original July '03 article:

"At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission."

Give me some proof, evidence, facts, and I'll listen. Otherwise, go away.

It would take way too much time and space to list all the offical documentation to show just how delusional you are. You say Saddam had WMD? The administration including Bush himself have admitted that was not the case, so maybe your argument is with him.

I said that Saddam had the machinary and people in place to begin manufacturing WMD when the sanctions were lifted. That is not the same as saying he had WMD.

It is true that Bush said that Saddam HAD WMD as one of the justifications for the invasion. And it is true that none have been found. But, Saddam had the capability to produce such weapons and the past history of using them.

Bush did not lie about Saddam's Iraq, he told the truth as he and the rest of the world saw it at the time. The DSMs show that to be true. They show that the British intell organizations believed Saddam had WMD.

The DSM shows Saddam had WMD? Kindly deliver the link and/or the excerpt from the memos and mention where specifically it can be found that Saddam had WMD.

What I said was: "The DSMs show that to be true. They show that the British intell organizations believed Saddam had WMD."

If you read the D. Street Minutes link on the top of the left column of this page, you will see that they discuss Iraq's WMD capabilities.

It contains a statement that other nations have larger WMD programs. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

It worries about Saddam using his weapons: "For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."

But nowhere does the memo state that Iraq does not have WMD. Therefore, British Intelligence believed that Saddam had WMD.

Does it at all bother you that you don't read anywhere in the DSM that the UK actually had PROOF that Saddam had WMD? They only state what they BELIEVED, but offer not proof or definitive evidence. They never have offered up evidence/proof and of course they never could because there was none.

Sort of like you, Schmat.....

The proof they were talking about was a recept from the 80's that Saddam got when he bought WMD from Regan, and Rumsfeld was the dilevery boy.

Great point! I love seeing that old footage of Rumsfeld shaking Saddams hand after coming to another deal for chemical and biological weapons. Why don't the right wingnuts ever mention where Iraq got all those weapons that Saddam used on the Kurds in the 80's?

Let me explain it simply. When the memos say WMD capability, they're talking about some chemical artillery shells - which in the event of a ground attack could be extremely worrying. This is very clear when you read that Saddam had no nuclear capability and that his Chemical and Biological programs were "seriously degraded".

Robin Cook's comments on this at the time, as well as the diary he published later, make clear that the actual WMD they thought he had were these artillery shells. NOT nuclear bombs. WMD is a corruption of language which collapses the differences between these very different kinds of weapons.

The U.S. has used WMD more often and on more innocent people than any country except Nazi-Germany, we are the only country to use atomic weapons on civilians , we use depleted uranium shells in our tanks and we are rapidly replacing Saddam as the premier killers of Iraquis, and we claim to be there so WMD aren't used and claim to be helping the Iraqui citizens. Excuse me if I call our reason for destroying Iraq BULLSHIT.

Ms. Plame (Mrs. Wilson) was in no position to send her husband on a mission for the Govt. She may have suggested to her boss that her husband had some expertise and connections pertaining to Niger but she had no authority so send Mr. Wilson anywhere.

Mr. Schmat, you make some statements that suggest you are actually from one of those theoretical alternate timelines that quantum physics has long suspected. In this continuum, things turned out a little differently from the one that you apparently inhabit.

For instance, the experts in our continuum have concluded that Saddam did not support or harbor Al Qaeda. There was no operational relationship. Even our Republicans have said so.

That's the tricky thing about alternate realities -- all of them are just the slightest bit different, and it's easy for even the most experienced dimensional traveler to get confused. But rest assured, you are now on a vibrational frequency where there was never an Iraq/terror connection.

Of course, some of the less intelligent life forms in our world have argued that, just because some terrorists lived in Iraq at one time, this makes Iraq a terrorist state. We call this a "logical fallacy." Remember, just because your fellow members of the KKK live in the U.S. doesn't make the United States a Klan state.

Here is more good info on what is really happening regarding Irag:

http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/xyz.php

Based on the information that is out there for public consumption, here's my take on what happened:

* Joe Wilson's article debunking the Niger claim really caught the administration off guard, because in reality, they never authorized the trip and weren't aware that he went. This was a CIA operation that not even Tenet was privvy to.

* Once it got out that Wilson was essentially bad-mouthing the administration for spreading falsehoods, the Rove machine went into full spin-control mode and found out that Wilson's trip was not exactly "authorized" by the powers-that-be. It was a CIA operation but not exactly with the blessing of the administration.

* After some investigation, it was discovered by someone on Rove's staff (obviously through communications with Tenet) that a member of the CIA group or team that sponsored/authorized that trip was none other than Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson's wife.

* As part of a little payback, Rove and/or his staffers leaked to members of the press, the fact that Joe Wilson's story had holes in it, namely, that he was a rogue "investigator" that WAS NOT sent to Niger by anyone in the administration (which was true) and in actuality, was sent by his wife who works on CIA WMD issues (which was not true but makes for a nice smear).

* The kicker is, and this what I believe, that Rove and company PROBABLY HAD NO IDEA that Plame was in fact a NOC CIA agent. Essentially, her status at the time was one of non-cover, meaning she wasn't necessarily under deep cover AT THE TIME, but had done undercover work in the past and was possibly slotted to do more IN THE FUTURE (which is obviously not a possibility anymore).

* This would explain Luskin's statements that Rove "never knowingly leaked classified information." This is probably true...he probably didn't know Plame was a NOC agent (how could he, unless he had access to that type of information, which he most assuredly did not), he just assumed she was a desk-jockey, now, in the past and forever. On this assumption, he wanted to make it look like Wilson and Wilson were out running games on thier own trying to overtly discredit the administration as opposed to getting to the bottom of the Niger document.

So my point is, though Rove probably didn't know she was undercover, the fact that he leaked her identity still exposed a CIA asset. Is this a criminal offense and/or an act of treason? I don't know the answer to that and pershaps that is what the investigation is truly about. However, even if Rove unknowingly exposed a CIA asset, the spreading of this type of information (particularly in a time of war) is a clear case of abuse of power and a serious breach of ethics that absolutely call for his immediate dismissal and revocation of his security clearance.

but these evil Men are just big boys with really big toys...that's what the root problem is. So many thousands of innocent dead people because of all these chicken hawks with immature machismo that have nothing better to do with their time... I just want to scream:GROW UP

Exactly. Bush is a spoiled rich kid who has never had to answer for anything. He honestly doesn't understand why anyone's mad at him.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.