Why is the Rove/Plame issue important?

  • News
  • Thread starter pattylou
  • Start date
  • #1
pattylou
303
0
There have been several reports "connecting the dots" between foreign policy and Rove's alleged leak of Valerie Plame.

These few reports, (Daniel Schorr had one, one other in the NYT in the last few days) demonstrate how this may be "the issue" to cause the whole foreign policy (re: Iraq etc) to crash around the Republican party.

In my cynical moments, I think that a large segment of the population is unable to connect these dots for themselves, and that they aren't reading these particular columns. So I thought I'd raise the issue here. What is the single most distressing thing about the leak of Plame's CIA role? Alternatively, how does this leak fit into the larger picture?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
SOS2008
Gold Member
38
1
Though there have been other threads already on the topic...

It is distressing that the interest of our country has been compromised for personal power, then covered up, and now there are attempts to cover up the cover up. The investigation into the leak began two years ago. Supposedly Bush gave the directive for full cooperation. And now, Bush is shifting his position in an effort to protect Rove, etc., no doubt because as you say, there has been one cover up after another and it may well unravel. Let's hope so, because I'm not sure whether there is a hell where these *&$#%@! can burn for all eternity.
 
  • #3
pattylou
303
0
I think a thread that brings in a lot of extra baggage, as true as that baggage may be, will be ignored by the people who have trouble recognizing the distilled truth about what that leak represents.

What is the fundamental reason that the leak was so damning?
 
  • #4
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
So that people don't go off topic, factcheck.org has put out an article keeping certain facts straight and showing what's only opinion along with a long timeline of events

http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
edward
119
166
pattylou said:
What is the fundamental reason that the leak was so damning?

Ex-agents: CIA leak a serious betrayal
Friday, October 24, 2003 Posted: 12:19 PM EDT (1619 GMT
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/24/cnna.leak/ + several hundred more links like this.

This was a deed that is unmatched in history. it is 1000 times more dastardly than Nixon's lies. If a normal citizen had committed this act, they would now be in prison.

It was done solely in retribution, it was done to illegally punish someone for telling the truth, and it was done by a politician with the highest level of security clearance. There is no precedent for this kind of deed.
Yet the President continues to cover for this person.
 
  • #6
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
20,866
4,838
pattylou said:
There have been several reports "connecting the dots" between foreign policy and Rove's alleged leak of Valerie Plame.

These few reports, (Daniel Schorr had one, one other in the NYT in the last few days) demonstrate how this may be "the issue" to cause the whole foreign policy (re: Iraq etc) to crash around the Republican party.

In my cynical moments, I think that a large segment of the population is unable to connect these dots for themselves, and that they aren't reading these particular columns. So I thought I'd raise the issue here. What is the single most distressing thing about the leak of Plame's CIA role? Alternatively, how does this leak fit into the larger picture?
Could the Bush administration simply be removing those who are fair and impartial in their assessment of foreign intelligence? Could the Bush administration remove anyone who would oppose an agenda of developing false and misleading information? Hmmmm.

Kind of like Rove's idea - let's have a one party state. Oh, wait - that's not democracy is it? :biggrin:

This was a deed that is unmatched in history. it is 1000 times more dastardly than Nixon's lies. If a normal citizen had committed this act, they would now be in prison.
A normal citizen did commit an act of revealing Plame's identity - Robert Novak. Now the Whitehouse claims that Rove learned of Plame's identity from Novak.

Now, wait - where did Novak get his information and why hasn't he been arraigned? As far as I know, he is the one and only person to publicly identify Plame as working for the CIA. And that is supposed to be a crime. Or am I missing something here?

I wonder how many pardons GW will have to issue as his term expires?

I wonder if GW is considering a third term as president. All he has to do is declare martial law and suspend the Consitution. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Smurf
396
3
edward said:
Ex-agents: CIA leak a serious betrayal.
Why?The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen it to at least 10 characters.
 
  • #8
pattylou
303
0
I'm not trying to be annoying, but I think we can simplify it even further than has been done on this thread so far -

Everything that has been said on this thread (including Pengwuino) is right.

Notwithstanding, and all Bush's politicking aside, how was the average American seriously and irrevocably *wronged* by the events surrounding Rove's decision to say "Wilson's wife?"

(And I post in terms of questions because I used to teach. I think it tends to inspire more participation. :smile: Or at least a little more active thinking. )
 
  • #9
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
20,866
4,838
Smurf said:
Why?
Betrayal gets people killed or at least puts someone at risk, and it would undermine the confidence of the intellgience community if they thought that people in their own government would sell them out.
 
  • #10
pattylou
303
0
Here is my opinion on why the matter of Rove's alleged illegal behavior, is so disturbing. The single piece of context you need, is that Plame's husband said that there was no good intelligence that "yellow cake" plutonium had been in Iraq's possession.

The issue isn't about Bush hiring crooks.

It isn't about CIA agents being in more danger.

Those are important, but do not really directly insult the average American - You and me.

It's about this: Someone so close to the president as to be his primary political advisor, took measures to punish someone that suggested we should not invade Iraq. In other words, we were lied to, deliberately and knowingly, by the president. The policy was clear: Only acknowledge intelligence that supports invasion of Iraq.

We were screwed the minute Bush got into Office. 25,000 lives later, a world of global resentment later, escalating terrorism later, ... Rove's leak tells us that there was no hope of us *ever* avoiding this war.

Rumsfeld says we'll be there for 12 more years. That's my kids' childhood. It may be your life, or your son's life. 12 more years.

It was all a lie. Rove leaked Plame's name, to make sure that *no one* opposed the President's mission to invade Iraq. Period.

Townsend and Pengwuino and others make good arguments, on occasion, for why it may ultimately result in greater stability, that we invaded the middle east. But, that wasn't the case that was made by the administration. We were lied to. Every single American. By our "leader."

He refuses to acknowledge it.

We saw it before, we knew it before, and it keeps coming out.
 
  • #11
Smurf
396
3
I don't get it. This isn't a big story. The Bushies don't care and the Anti-Bushies already know. Why is this still a big deal? It's barely a story at all.
 
  • #12
The Smoking Man
47
0
Smurf said:
I don't get it. This isn't a big story. The Bushies don't care and the Anti-Bushies already know. Why is this still a big deal? It's barely a story at all.
A lame attempt at getting sombody to blow the dust of Ken Starr and actually prosecute someone? (Even Astronuc is getting cynical and I consider him to be quite fair and balanced from what I have read.)
 
  • #13
SOS2008
Gold Member
38
1
SOS2008 said:
It is distressing that the interest of our country has been compromised...
Meaning not only operations connected to Plame, not only for future operatives, but most importantly:
pattylou said:
It's about this: Someone so close to the president as to be his primary political advisor, took measures to punish someone that suggested we should not invade Iraq. In other words, we were lied to, deliberately and knowingly, by the president.
Well said.
Smurf said:
I don't get it. This isn't a big story. The Bushies don't care and the Anti-Bushies already know. Why is this still a big deal? It's barely a story at all.
Consider this--It may not have been just retribution, but more a matter of suppression of information, and it may have been with Bush's full knowledge, maybe even per his directive/mutual agreement between the two (which I personally believe). Thus:
edward said:
There is no precedent for this kind of deed.
And as stated above would be far more serious than Watergate. We're talking clear grounds for impeachment (though Bush supporters would no doubt try to justify it all in some way).
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Smurf
396
3
SOS2008 said:
Consider this--It may not have been just retribution, but more a matter of suppression of information, and it may have been with Bush's full knowledge, maybe even per his directive/mutual agreement between the two (which I personally believe). Thus:

And as stated above would be far more serious than Watergate. We're talking clear grounds for impeachment (though Bush supporters would no doubt try to justify it all in some way).
I kind of thought lying to invade a country was worse than watergate... and worthy of impeachment.

Again; The Anti-Bushies already know it, the Bushies will still deny it, the courts are still not going to do anything about it.
The Smoking Man said:
A lame attempt at getting sombody to blow the dust of Ken Starr and actually prosecute someone? (Even Astronuc is getting cynical and I consider him to be quite fair and balanced from what I have read.)
What's unfair about cynicism?
 
  • #15
The Smoking Man
47
0
Smurf said:
What's unfair about cynicism?
Touche mon ami.
 
  • #16
pattylou
303
0
Smurf said:
Again; The Anti-Bushies already know it, the Bushies will still deny it, the courts are still not going to do anything about it.

The 10 - 30% in the middle are an important group. The Bushies will concede under enough pressure. The global community is waiting for the US to do something *right* for a change. That's two reasons why.

A significant number of Americans don't even know who Rove *is.*

Even your quote acknowledges the truth of the situation.
 
  • #17
SOS2008
Gold Member
38
1
The Smoking Man said:
A lame attempt at getting sombody to blow the dust of Ken Starr and actually prosecute someone?
Oh heavens no! The investigation into the Plame leak has already gone on for two years. We don't need it to become any more lengthy and tax wasting like Whitewater. In this case there is definitely guilt, and it's time to take action.
 
  • #18
The plot thickens

According to an associated press article in the morning paper:

On September 9 2003 at 8:00 PM then White House council Alberto Gonzales was notified by the Department of justice that the "Plame leak" was going to be investigated.

Gonzales only notified WhiteHouse Chief of staff Andy Card. No other White House Staff members were notified (by Gonzales) until the next day.

That must have been a night of fervent paper shredding and file deleting.
 
  • #19
edward
119
166
The old twenty minutes of missing tape ploy replays once again.

We might add to the above posts:
The total defrauding of the American people at the highest level of government. Or is that now legal??
 
Last edited:
  • #20
The Smoking Man
47
0
SOS2008 said:
Oh heavens no! The investigation into the Plame leak has already gone on for two years. We don't need it to become any more lengthy and tax wasting like Whitewater. In this case there is definitely guilt, and it's time to take action.
Give him a duffle coat and a tube pass and ship him to London then.
 
  • #21
SOS2008
Gold Member
38
1
"Prosecutor in CIA leak case casting wide net"

By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei
Updated: 1:09 a.m. ET July 27, 2005

The special prosecutor in the CIA leak probe has interviewed a wider range of administration officials than was previously known, part of an effort to determine whether anyone broke laws during a White House effort two years ago to discredit allegations that President Bush used faulty intelligence to justify the Iraq war, according to several officials familiar with the case.

...In doing so, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has asked not only about how CIA operative Valerie Plame's name was leaked but also how the administration went about shifting responsibility from the White House to the CIA for having included 16 words in the 2003 State of the Union address about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium from Africa, an assertion that was later disputed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8719617/

So not only is this invetigation leading to lies about Iraq, the update on various news reports this evening (MSNBC/CNN) is that officials (Cheney, etc.) have retained attorneys (echoes of Watergate), and now there is a call for a congressional investigation as well.
 
  • #22
Mattius_
1
0
Wow, as elevated as some of you make this "CIA leak" it is no wonder that this non-story has come so far. Plame hasnt been "covert" for over 6 years, she is not big news, at all. Wilson had her name on his personal blog before any of this ever happend. He wrote a book titled "plan of attack," in which he lied on several occasions about the details of his trip to niger. This is a man who funded the kerry campaign. The only crook in this entire equation is wilson himself. Wow I just had to laugh and cry and then vomit when I saw that LIVE media ordeal of wilson asking rove to step down.

This whole thing has taught me a big lesson, this is the first time I have seen complete disregard for the truth by the media. THIS IS NOT A STORY, IT IS NOT AN ISSUE, and yet, it is. The worse thing about it all is that even though Rove is innocent, the media has wound this thing up so much that it seems like he is guilty.
 
  • #23
Anttech
228
0
Astronuc said:
I wonder how many pardons GW will have to issue as his term expires?

Who is GW ? Hmmm
 
  • #24
pattylou
303
0
pattylou said:
The 10 - 30% in the middle are an important group.

A Gallup poll out today, shows considerably increasing belief (from ~30% two years ago to ~50% today) among the population that Bush lied deliberately in the run up to war.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000894970 [Broken]

THis is relevant to the idea of whether "bushies" and "antibushies" ever change their minds. Also, it is reassuring to see.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
Mattius_ said:
Wow, as elevated as some of you make this "CIA leak" it is no wonder that this non-story has come so far. Plame hasnt been "covert" for over 6 years, she is not big news, at all. Wilson had her name on his personal blog before any of this ever happend. He wrote a book titled "plan of attack," in which he lied on several occasions about the details of his trip to niger. This is a man who funded the kerry campaign. The only crook in this entire equation is wilson himself. Wow I just had to laugh and cry and then vomit when I saw that LIVE media ordeal of wilson asking rove to step down.

This whole thing has taught me a big lesson, this is the first time I have seen complete disregard for the truth by the media. THIS IS NOT A STORY, IT IS NOT AN ISSUE, and yet, it is. The worse thing about it all is that even though Rove is innocent, the media has wound this thing up so much that it seems like he is guilty.
If you want to laugh and cry and vomit even more, try reading the thread on Bush and honesty. In the meantime, thanks for just a laugh - "Rove is innocent" :rofl: :rofl:
 
  • #26
Rev Prez
29
0
Astronuc said:
Betrayal gets people killed or at least puts someone at risk, and it would undermine the confidence of the intellgience community if they thought that people in their own government would sell them out.

Perhaps you should've thought of that before FISA. It's kind of amusing that the IC has all these johnny-come-lately fans swing out from the left.

Rev Prez
 
  • #27
Rev Prez
29
0
pattylou said:
The 10 - 30% in the middle are an important group.

To who? President Bush isn't up for reelection. The Congress? In two straight elections the Administration has been hampered by domestic and foreign scandal. In two straight elections Republicans increased their majority in both House and Senate.

The Bushies will concede under enough pressure.

What pressure? What consequence is it to the President? He has this term left, a majority in both houses and his pick for the Supreme Court.

Rev Prez
 
  • #28
SOS2008
Gold Member
38
1
pattylou - Let's leave these folks in a state of denial about the growing disgust people feel toward incumbents, particularly the GOP. And just be grateful that Dubya was not able to suspend the 2004 election due to the war, invoking a police state, and then staying in power indefinitely. We will just keep our eye on the more subtle attempts to move our country into a one-party system, and try to prevent them from destroying democracy and freedom for all in this country.

Back to the OP and Rove -- Even if a criminal is innocent of the crime in question, he/she has committed other crimes, so who cares which one they go to jail for. Just get them off the street for the protection of society.
 
  • #29
pattylou
303
0
Rev Prez said:
To who? President Bush isn't up for reelection. The Congress? In two straight elections the Administration has been hampered by domestic and foreign scandal. In two straight elections Republicans increased their majority in both House and Senate.

And in both those cases the American population felt that the war was the right thing to do ... and that's no longer the case. Anyone Bush stumps for, anyone that ran on aggressive foreign policy will have an increasingly uphill battle when they try to run again for anyoffice. The christians are starting to see the truth (or rather, the lies) here, Reverend.

Didja see Frist supports stem cell research? Now, I have no doubt that the christian rightpastors will be able to tell their flocks who to vote for by the time 2006 comes around, but I got to say - at the moment your demographic is cracking apart. Sorry!

What pressure? What consequence is it to the President?

:rofl: I guess you haven't been following his beleaguered second term.
 
  • #30
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,802
5
SOS2008 said:
We will just keep our eye on the more subtle attempts to move our country into a one-party system, and try to prevent them from destroying democracy and freedom for all in this country.

Don't all political parties seek to turn things into a one-party system? Isn't that part of the point of political parties?

Back to the OP and Rove -- Even if a criminal is innocent of the crime in question, he/she has committed other crimes, so who cares which one they go to jail for. Just get them off the street for the protection of society.

Wow. That is exactly the justification that the Rampart Division in LA used for planting fake evidence on gang suspects, one of the most widely known examples of 'police-state' behavior. Now you support this kind of thing?
 
  • #31
Rove a repeat offender or?

Rove was fired from the reelection campaign of GHW Bush because he leaked information to none other than; Robert Novak.
"Well isn't that special"

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/07/07/rove_plame/index_np.html?x [Broken]

My new opinion on the leak comes from the last few paragraphs of this link.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3129941/site/newsweek/ [Broken]

Someone in Cheney's office is the true leaker.
Why let Rove take the heat? The leak sounds like something Rove would do.

What if the investigation can't link Rove to the incedent? That was the plan all long. If all eyes fall on Rove, no one is looking for the real perpetrator.

Who Hyped Rove's name in the media? Rove did, that is his specialty.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
SOS2008
Gold Member
38
1
solutions in a box said:
Rove was fired from the reelection campaign of GHW Bush because he leaked information to none other than; Robert Novak.
"Well isn't that special"

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/07/07/rove_plame/index_np.html?x [Broken]

My new opinion on the leak comes from the last few paragraphs of this link.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3129941/site/newsweek/ [Broken]

Someone in Cheney's office is the true leaker.
Why let Rove take the heat? The leak sounds like something Rove would do.

What if the investigation can't link Rove to the incedent? That was the plan all long. If all eyes fall on Rove, no one is looking for the real perpetrator.

Who Hyped Rove's name in the media? Rove did, that is his specialty.
As has been said, Rove is a legend in his own mind? We know the Bush regime is famous for slight of hand trickery, but it just may be they all are crooks, and they all need to go down for it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
The Smoking Man
47
0
As a related issue, this was just released by the Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/01/politics/01weapons.html?th&emc=th

August 1, 2005
Spy's Notes on Iraqi Aims Were Shelved, Suit Says
By JAMES RISEN

WASHINGTON, July 31 - The Central Intelligence Agency was told by an informant in the spring of 2001 that Iraq had abandoned a major element of its nuclear weapons program, but the agency did not share the information with other agencies or with senior policy makers, a former C.I.A. officer has charged.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court here in December, the former C.I.A. officer, whose name remains secret, said that the informant told him that Iraq's uranium enrichment program had ended years earlier and that centrifuge components from the scuttled program were available for examination and even purchase.

...

His information on the Iraqi nuclear program, described as coming from a significant source, would have arrived at a time when the C.I.A. was starting to reconsider whether Iraq had revived its efforts to develop nuclear weapons. The agency's conclusion that this was happening, eventually made public by the Bush administration in 2002 as part of its rationale for war, has since been found to be incorrect.

While the existence of the lawsuit has previously been reported, details of the case have not been made public because the documents in his suit have been heavily censored by the government and the substance of the claims are classified. The officer's name remains secret, in part because disclosing it might jeopardize the agency's sources or operations.

Several people with detailed knowledge of the case provided information to The New York Times about his allegations, but insisted on anonymity because the matter is classified.

The former officer's lawyer, Roy W. Krieger, said he could not discuss his client's claims. He likened his client's situation to that of Valerie Wilson, also known as Valerie Plame, the clandestine C.I.A. officer whose role was leaked to the press after her husband publicly challenged some administration conclusions about Iraq's nuclear ambitions. (The former officer and Ms. Wilson worked in the same unit of the agency.)

"In both cases, officials brought unwelcome information on W.M.D. in the period prior to the Iraq invasion, and retribution followed," said Mr. Krieger, referring to weapons of mass destruction.
 
  • #34
SOS2008
Gold Member
38
1
I meant to post excerpts from this article earlier...(It is difficult to know what thread to post this in):
"Why the Leak Probe Matters
For all the complexities of the Valerie Plame case, this story is about how easy it was to get into Iraq, and how hard it will be to get out."

By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek
July 25 issue - Like a lot of President Bush's critics, I supported the Iraq war at first. Because of the evidence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction laid out by Colin Powell, I agreed that we needed to disarm Saddam Hussein. I even think it's possible that 25 years from now, historians will conclude that the Iraq war helped accelerate the modernizing of the Middle East, even if it doesn't fully democratize it.

But if that happens, Bush might not get as much credit as he hopes, and not just because most historians, as Richard Nixon liked to say, are liberals. Bush may look bad because his leadership on Iraq has been a fiasco. He didn't plan for it: the early decisions that allowed the insurgency to get going were breathtakingly incompetent. He didn't pay for it: Bush is the first president in history to cut taxes during a war, this one now costing nearly $1 billion a week. And most important of all, he didn't tell the American people the truth about it: taking a nation to war is the most solemn duty of a president, and he'd better make certain there's no alternative and no doubt about the evidence.

Why do I mention this now? Because for all of the complexities of the Valerie Plame case, for all the questions raised about the future of investigative journalism and the fate of the most influential aide to an American president since Louis Howe served Franklin D. Roosevelt 70 years ago, this story is fundamentally about how easy it was to get into Iraq and how hard it will be to get out.

We got in because we "cooked" the intelligence, then hyped it. That's why the "Downing Street Memo" is not a smoking gun but a big "duh." For two years we've known that senior White House officials were determined to, in the words of the British intelligence memo, "fix" the intelligence to suit their policy decisions. When someone crossed them, they would "fix" him, too, as career ambassador Joseph Wilson found when he came back from Africa with a report that threw cold water on the story that Saddam Hussein sought yellowcake uranium from Niger.
For more... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8598301/site/newsweek/ [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
330
84
You have to read the entire article to get the main point - one I agree with. If it turns out Rove intentionally leaked Plame's name to the press, he should stew in prison for a couple decades. Deciding your own personal political battle is more important than national security is grossly out of place for someone working in the White House as the President's Chief of Staff.
 

Suggested for: Why is the Rove/Plame issue important?

Replies
20
Views
417
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
408
Replies
3
Views
224
Replies
10
Views
568
Replies
14
Views
388
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
199
Replies
11
Views
622
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
797
Replies
10
Views
457
Top