CIA name leak from White House - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-02-2003, 02:22 PM   #16
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 07:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader



All we are waiting for is a title to the scandal (i.e., _____gate).
I hereby recommend "Spygate" It's just got a ring to it.

How long do you think until we hear, "What did the President know, and when did he know it?"

Here we go again,
SD
__________________

__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 10-02-2003, 07:27 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:42 PM
A friend of mine is calling it "Leakgate".
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-03-2003, 06:44 AM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
::waiting to see how the Bushies defend this one::
And that is the difference.....

Most of the so called "Bushies" (nice label) would not defend the administration on this. This is not about politics in this Bushies mind. This is about right and wrong as was Clinton lying under oath. That said this charge against this White House is indeed more serious a charge. As someone who is considered a "Bushie" by many in here maybe the silence is because we do not waste time defending something that is clearly wrong. Maybe because unlike the "Billaries" on this board, we are not turning a blind eye to the truth.

As of now, I agree with NB...what is there to defend just yet.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-03-2003, 11:55 AM   #19
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 06:42 PM
Yes there is. A White House employee has stated to the media that the leak came from the White House Admin. We need a special counsel now.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16886

The Ties That Blind

By Jeremy Scahill and Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!
October 2, 2003

There's an old saying that you should never let a fox guard the henhouse. The same could be said of the investigation into the latest White House scandal. Attorney General John Ashcroft is refusing to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate who in the administration leaked the name of a CIA operative to journalists. This despite the fact that Ashcroft has long-standing ties to one of the main suspects: President Bush's top political advisor Karl Rove.


"I think it's very difficult on its surface for John Ashcroft to be taken seriously as an investigator," said James Moore, author of 'Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential', in an interview with Democracy Now! "In this case, there is a close relationship between someone who is a high profile suspect and the individual who is leading the investigation of him. And it immediately goes to the question of credibility and validity of that particular investigation."


Rove has been accused of leaking the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, in retaliation for her husband, veteran diplomat Joseph Wilson, blowing the whistle on the Bush administration's charge that Saddam Hussein attempted to import uranium for nuclear weapons from Niger.


Rove is best known as the driving force behind Bush's taking of the presidency, but he also worked for Ashcroft over the course of two decades. "It goes all the way back to the mid 1980's when John Ashcroft first ran for governor and then when he ran for the United States Senate against Mel Carnahan," says Moore. "Karl was so intimately involved."


Not only did Rove work for Ashcroft in the 80s, but he was one of the main forces behind Ashcroft's controversial appointment to the job he currently holds, attorney general. Rove lobbied intensely for his former employer's nomination after Ashcroft lost his senate seat to a dead man, the late Mel Carnahan.


While Ashcroft was not Bush's first choice for attorney general, Rove reportedly told Bush that spilling some blood over the nomination of the fiercely right-wing Ashcroft was "a no-lose proposition."


Just as George W. Bush profited handsomely from the building of a stadium for his Texas Rangers baseball team, Karl Rove cashed in from the successful campaign in St. Louis to get a stadium built. The governor who signed the legislation?


John Ashcroft.


Now attorney general, Ashcroft is refusing to hand over the reigns of the criminal investigation of his political ally, former employee and longtime advisor, Karl Rove.


For the past several days, the White House has been besieged with questions on the "burning" of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Press secretary Scott McClellan and other officials have offered only carefully worded and non-specific responses to reporters' questions as to who leaked the identity of Wilson's wife.


"It is impossible for any of us to believe that this happened without Karl knowing about it," says author James Moore. "When you cross this man in the political arena, he gets even; and he gets even in a way that he doesn't just defeat you, he is compelled to destroy you. He doesn't know how to do a measured response when he is angry, and so he leaks information about people that destroys them."


According to the latest Washington Post-ABC poll, 69% of Americans believe there should be a special counsel independent of the administration investigating the White House leak. Yet, in his only news conference to date on the issue, Ashcroft stood firm that his office will oversee the investigation. "The prosecutors and agents who are and will be handling this investigation are career professionals with extensive experience in handling matters involving sensitive national security information and with experience relating to investigations of unauthorized disclosures of such information."


At the Justice Department news conference, a reporter attempted to question Ashcroft further, "Can you at least say what assurances you can give people that the matter will be handled independently without... "


Ashcroft interrupted, "Are there other questions today?"


Yes there are. But an independent counsel should be asking them. "

Now there's Foreign journalists saying the President joked about the matter to them at a fund raiser.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 10-03-2003, 12:01 PM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:42 PM
Please. There is no evidence that Karl Rove leaked the name. His name was only offered as political ammunition. This is poor journalism.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-03-2003, 12:12 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,191
Local Time: 11:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


And that is the difference.....

Most of the so called "Bushies" (nice label) would not defend the administration on this. This is not about politics in this Bushies mind. This is about right and wrong as was Clinton lying under oath. That said this charge against this White House is indeed more serious a charge. As someone who is considered a "Bushie" by many in here maybe the silence is because we do not waste time defending something that is clearly wrong. Maybe because unlike the "Billaries" on this board, we are not turning a blind eye to the truth.

As of now, I agree with NB...what is there to defend just yet.

Peace
This is funny. I don't know one Democrat that would say what Clinton did was not wrong. Hell yes it was wrong and stupid. But it was about his personal sex life. To me it just wasn't that big of a deal. Just like I don't think the Arnold Schwarzenegger stuff is a big deal, even though I don't like Arnold that much. Interesting part is, Republicans made such a huge deal out of Clinton being a womanizer and having a sordid past with women, and now they are trying to put someone into office with an even worse track record and saying it's no big deal.

Anyway, that aside, what I am seeing on this CIA issue from lots of the media and from interviews with Republican senators is that they say if something was done wrong they should be punished, but this isn't a big deal, it didn't include anyone of any significance, etc...

THey are hoping it will go away before it leads to the higher reaches of the White House. So far the speculation and leads go one step below Cheney. Sounds pretty serious to me.
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 10-03-2003, 04:23 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by womanfish


This is funny. I don't know one Democrat that would say what Clinton did was not wrong. Hell yes it was wrong and stupid. But it was about his personal sex life. To me it just wasn't that big of a deal. Just like I don't think the Arnold Schwarzenegger stuff is a big deal, even though I don't like Arnold that much. Interesting part is, Republicans made such a huge deal out of Clinton being a womanizer and having a sordid past with women, and now they are trying to put someone into office with an even worse track record and saying it's no big deal.
I am not interested in wrecking this thread with a debate on sex lives. I do not view the Schwarzenegger or the Clinton situations as irrelevant. If they sexually assaulted and harrassed women, and the woman chooses to go forth with a suit, they both have an obligation to tell the truth when in court. It is not about sex life to me, it is about the oath to uphold the law that the President takes. When you lie under oath in court, you break the law, and there are consequences for that.

As there are in is situation. I do not believe the White House can investigate itself. I am 100% for an independant council, and I want those responsible for breaking the law, punished. That is of course, if there was anyone breaking the law. This horrifies me as much as if not more than the Clinton situation because this is an attack on a person who has dedicated their life to the service of their country that has been harmed by someone's actions.

Said my Peace.

Bushie Out
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-03-2003, 05:43 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,191
Local Time: 11:42 PM
nice response dread. True enough, it's a serious issue just like Clinton was. I just sometimes feel more strongly about this whole thing because it deals with national security, and the lives of so many. But both are important.
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 10-03-2003, 06:46 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:42 PM
i apologize for all of my typos....they are messing with my migrane meds again and I seem to be having a hard time here.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-04-2003, 05:34 PM   #25
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 06:42 PM
I think this tidbit adds to the need for independant counsel.

Justice Department granted White House delay on order to preserve records in CIA exposure scandal
Nina Totenberg Oct 2nd report aired on 6 am on Morning Edition; NPR dropped segmant from transcript of her report

On October, 2, 2003, Nina Totenberg gave the following report (thanks to Robert E. Reynolds for the following transcription, which I verified by listening to the audio of the Totenberg report.) Buzzflash.com carried the transcript of the original account, and Reynolds suggested that people go to the NPR site and download the transcript. By doing so, I discovered that NPR had stricken the following paragraph that dealt with the Justice Department granting a White House request for a delay in a directive to preserve records of communications.

The missing segment of Totenberg's report:

Bob Edwards: Attorney General Ashcroft is resisting the idea of some sort of independent counsel. Do you think he'll be able to maintain that position?

NPR legal correspondent, Nina Totenberg: Well no administration ever wants an independent overseer, and there are very good career people who are in charge of this investigation, but it could get hairy. Yesterday I talked to a former justice department official who wondered to me why the White House had asked the Justice Department if they could wait a day, earlier this week, before directing the White House staff to preserve all phone and email records, and why, similarly, the Justice Department had agreed to let the White House wait that day. In the last analysis career people can't make some of the decisions that will have to be made, like whether to call a reporter before a grand jury. The Attorney General under Justice (Department) regulations is required to make that decision. A career person can't make it. And if a leaker is identified and not prosecuted it could raise problems with the CIA. Will the agency believe that a decision not to prosecute was made fairly, or will it, as one former Justice Department official put it to me, open a chasm of distrust between the two agencies. As I said no administration likes to open itself up to outside investigators. And the temperature isn't that hot yet, despite that poll you cited at the beginning, but it could get that hot, and we just can't know right now whether the temperature will get that hot for a long time and make it impossible to continue the course that the administration now has chosen to take.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 10-06-2003, 12:50 AM   #26
War Child
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 754
Local Time: 06:42 PM
What we are seeing is only a ripple on the surface of much deeper events within the U.S. Government. This is as much about a growing rift between factions deep within the intelligence, military, and other communities as it is about the leak. The leak is only the ripple we see on the surface. Ever since the White House formed it's own intelligence office called the Office of Special Plans (OPS) after 9/11, there has been a growing rift within the intelligence and military communities. It is a rift that is growing into a war, especially after the administration bullied the CIA and nailed the yellowcake info on Tenet. And Tenet is under a LOT of pressure from within his community. The same rift exists within the Pentagon, and it is likely even the guys who *really* run the intelligence show in town, the ONI, are deeply involved. I personally think this is one of the most interesting and certainly most important stories to come around in a LONG time. My 2 cents.
__________________
elfyx is offline  
Old 10-06-2003, 02:57 PM   #27
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 06:42 PM
I totally agree with you. The admins. drums for war have made the Intelligence community look bad, the DOD has made the State Dept. look unnecessary and senior people have quit, and Rummy has been alienating the Pentagon with his arrogance and ovcerriding and deriding of military men.

I think it has neared an eruption point and Bush can no longer keep a lid on it.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 10-06-2003, 03:20 PM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:42 PM
Good grief. This *is* interesting. I'm not surprised that military people are pissed off at Rummy and other disputes are going on. What will the upshot be?
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-08-2003, 02:32 AM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:42 PM
Are these just liars with the lowest character?


Quote:
White House Says Three Senior Aides Innocent in Leak

Tue October 7, 2003 03:25 PM ET





By Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Tuesday said it had ruled out three senior aides as possible sources for a leak disclosing the name of a CIA operative and President Bush said the case may never be resolved.

"I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is," Bush told reporters after he met with his Cabinet. "I'd like to. I want to know the truth."

Bush spoke ahead of a 5 p.m. White House deadline on Tuesday for officials to turn over information wanted by Justice Department investigators probing the leak, which has become the latest controversy surrounding Bush's decision to go to war against Iraq.

Spokesman Scott McClellan said senior Bush political aide Karl Rove, vice presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby and National Security Council senior director Elliott Abrams had each denied leaking the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Plame's husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson, had publicly opposed Bush on a key element of his case for war and has accused the administration of disclosing Plame's name in retaliation.

McClellan said he talked to each of the three officials in response to news reports they may have been involved in the leak. "They were not involved in leaking classified information, nor did they condone it," McClellan said.

Abrams pleaded guilty in 1991 of lying to Congress in the Iran-Contra controversy, and was pardoned by former President George Bush.

Democratic U.S. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan urged Rove to resign. In a letter to the Bush aide, Conyers accused him of seeking to give the leak "wider currency" even if he may not have been the source.

Bush said he did not know whether the criminal probe, begun after a CIA request, would find who leaked Plame's name.

"I've instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators, full disclosure," he said. But he said Washington was "full of people who like to leak information," and the media was practiced at protecting sources.


POLITICAL DAMAGE FOR BUSH?

The issue has threatened further political damage for Bush, whose poll standing has been hurt by continued instability in Iraq following the U.S.-led invasion in March.

Wilson has accused the administration of leaking Plame's name after he criticized Bush claims that Iraq had tried to acquire nuclear-weapons material in Africa.

The claims, which had been investigated by Wilson in Niger in a mission for the CIA, were part of Bush's case for war but the White House later said the evidence was unsubstantiated.

Tuesday's deadline was self-imposed by the White House, in response to a Justice Department order.

White House Chief of Staff Andy Card on Tuesday urged "thorough, diligent and timely" compliance in a memo to staffers.

"The sooner we complete the search and delivery of documents, the sooner the Justice Department can complete its inquiry -- and the sooner we can all return our full attention to doing the work of the people," Card said.

White House counsel Alberto Gonzales last week directed staffers to hand over any records relating to Wilson and Plame or Wilson's trip to Niger.

Also sought were records of contacts with columnist Robert Novak, who disclosed Plame's CIA job in July, and Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Royce of Newsday, who cited intelligence officials as confirming Novak's story.

McClellan said responses would be collected by Gonzales's office before being turned over. The White House was unlikely to give the investigators any material on Tuesday, he said.

He said the Justice Department had set a variety of deadlines over the next two weeks.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-08-2003, 02:36 AM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Please. There is no evidence that Karl Rove leaked the name. His name was only offered as political ammunition. This is poor journalism.
Are you saying he would not do something like this?
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com