Okay someone help me debunk, if this is wrong.

[holiday]

this is what a republican wrote in regards to Rove\thing..



"I'll step up to the plate...not to necessarily support Rove, but to say...can we let an independent investigation complete before we convict him? Is that at least possible? We're so much more willing to give the terrorists the benefit of the doubt.

But...let me just see if I have facts straight.

Britian reported that Iraq SOUGHTto buy uranium from Africa (NOT bought...but was looking at buying)
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

Valerie Plame Wilson, a CIA employee, recommended her husband Joseph Wilson to investigate if Iraq had bought "yellow cake" uranium from Niger due to both of their contacts within Niger and their French connections.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

Joseph Wilson made the trip and returned to the US with a report that the US "LIED" about Iraq SEEKING to buy uranium and posted a NYT op-ed piece about his mission and findings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5007&en=6c6aeb1ce960dec0&ex=1372824000&partner=USERLAND

In the piece he states that Dick Cheney's office sent him to Niger, which is inaccurate. When Rove spoke to reporters, he did nothing more than offer up that the data on Cheney's involvement was incorrect and that he believed "Wilson's wife" had recommended him for the position due to his connections. There was no mention that she was an CIA operative, covert or no.

So it boils down to this (from the luskin report archive):

PLAME COVERT? A SIMPLE LEGAL QUESTION
Here's a novel concept for the Valerie Plame blame game -- knowing what the hell you're talking about. So Dave Nadig actually researched the law that the B*ush administration supposedly broke in "outing" Plame. Here's Nadig:

"Yes, it?s all a key issue whether she was overt/covert. Yes, the media seems to be screwing it up in both directions on almost an hourly basis. It might be worth actually quoting the definition in the statute everyone?s all worked up about:

"'The term ?covert agent? means ?
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;'

"So it seems to me there are really only three questions that are even relevant:

'1: Did she serve outside the US in the last 5 years? Note there is another reference about what 'serve' means, and simply traveling to a foreign country to gather intelligence seems to qualify.

"Or...

"2: Was her identity as an employee of the CIA in any way officially 'classified' -- regardless of what kind of a job she actually did.

"And...

"3: Was the source of disclosure a Federal employee (those to whom the statute applies).

"That?s really the only issue. The whole discussion about 'did people in DC already know' or 'was she actually put at risk' is completely irrelevant to the legal issues. I would add one other comment -- since the above definition is a simple matter of fact which her employer definitively knows the answer to, why would the Justice department be interviewing people to determine #3 on my list, without knowing the answers to #1 and #2 -- since presumably they could get that with a phone call (while we can't), and without an affirmative, there is no crime to be investigated?

"As usual, the media on both sides of this issue is spinning a lot of analysis and confusion around what is actually an extremely simple matter of legal fact checking. Whether we think it's legal or illegal is completely beside the point. The above 3 questions are all that really matter.

"A link to the actual law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/421.html"

So, I repeat...how about if we let Patrick Fitzgerald do his job as the independent investigator. Given his bio, I trust he'll do his job.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55560-2005Feb1?language=printer

And if he comes up with nothing...then what? I'm betting that those who believe Karl Rove guilty (ironically...Republicans are NEVER innocent til proven guilty but the other way around) will still believe he is guilty.


This is a good link to some interesting information about how this whole situation has been reported and distorted.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200507140001
Here is the link to the senate report which refutes a great deal of Joe Wilson's editorial...it shows alot of information, esp given him saying that he had access to reports that hadn't been released yet.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf

Make up your own mind, but at least look at both sides of the story. Yes, this does have the look of payback. But in the grand scheme of things, this has NOTHING on Sandy Berger walking out of Security headquarters with classified documents stored in his pants and socks.

I don't like some of the things I've seen B*ush do. But I given my choices, I'd pick him over Dean or Kerry ANY day of the week."


So what do you think? Also another thing... Has anyone really tried to work the angle that maybe Rove wasn't working alone.. that people in the administration knew about his leak and was part of the plan? Try to bring down more officials?




k

[Milo_Bloom]

1. One important point

The GOPer stated, "In the piece he states that Dick Cheney's office sent him to Niger, which is inaccurate. When Rove spoke to reporters, he did nothing more than offer up that the data on Cheney's involvement was incorrect and that he believed "Wilson's wife" had recommended him for the position due to his connections. There was no mention that she was an CIA operative, covert or no."

That is absolutely untrue. Wilson NEVER said that Dick's office sent him to Niger.

He stated, "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. "

He then stated, "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. "

People keep incorrecting assuming that means that Dick Cheney sent him to Africa. No THE AGENCY OFFICIALS sent him to Africa to confirm to deny the questions Dick Cheney's office had about the claim. It was the CIA that sent him to Africa, not Dick.

It is a very important distinction that keeps getting missed, because Rove wasn't trying to clear up a misconception, since there was no possible misconception.

[jobycom]

2. The issue so far isn't whether a crime has been committed

but whether Rove leaked the information. Bush said he would fire anyone who leaked this information. And Rove has a security clearance. He has no proven he can't keep security issues secret. Should he still have a security clearance? What traitor would say yes to that?

I think it would be hilarious if the leak turns out not to have been (technically) a crime. Rove lied about this for two years. Cheney lied about it. McClellan probably lied about it (he may have not known, to be fair). The rumors from the investigation leaks are that someone may be indicted, and it may be Rove or Cheney. It would be a hoot if they were indicted for perjury over something that wasn't even a crime.

The fact at this point is simple. Rove exposed a CIA operative through a leak to the press. Bush said he would fire anyone who did that. The only reason Rove still has a job is because Bush is a liar. I believe that when the Fitzgerald report comes out it will accuse Rove of illegally violating his security oath, it will accuse several Bush folk, maybe Bush himself, of perjury and/or obstruction, and that Bush and the honorless Republican Congress and courts will ignore the situation altogether.

But we can't prove that until the report comes out. All we know now is that Bush is so far breaking his vow. He's good at that; ask Laura.

And for the record, I'm not admitting that any of these RNC talking points are valid--they've all been debunked in ways that prove they are deliberate lies, and I'm sure someone will post that info. I'm just pointing out what the focus of criticism should be at the moment. Bush is a liar, Rove is a liar and a leaker. Simple facts.

[demobabe]

3. And even more specifically

If he leaked information, that's a violation of the Espionage Act, which carries a 25 year prison term, as opposed to the 3 year term for outing a CIA agent, which he may have done as well.

Freeps can argue covert/non-covert til they're blue in the face, but leaking classified information is one of the worst crimes you could commit against your country.

[jobycom]

7. I suspected that. Just like Florida in 2000

The Republicans focus on a law and say "See, he's violating this one, or not violating this one," while ignoring a whole range of other laws. I figured there would be a law against leaking classified information, even if the Repubs could pull up another law that Rove didn't break. He didn't break any laws against owning wild animals, either, but that's no defense against the ones he did break.

[Tamarin]

4. No one forced Rove to say *Wilson's wife*

If he were simply correcting a reporter's inaccuracy he could have said, *The CIA sent Wilson, not Dick Cheney*.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

5. Treasongate (Part VI): Response to GOP talking points

A link from DU to this site:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004870.php

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Guess he didn't read his own reference links...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-20...

"Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 ..."