Red Rove-r, red rover is that the press coming over? (w/video)
This whole mess just pisses me off when I stop to think about it.
Read this for a little more background info... that makes the above article even more morbidly humorous.
It sickens me the amount of sheer bullshit that our government has been getting away with lately... it's insane.
Mind you, I was reading the other day about the 2 reporters that were involved... and how one, a woman, didn't reveal her source and is now being sent to the prison a high profile terrorist is being held at... and how the other reporter is going to testify, so he's fine. (New York Times reporter jailed, Miller's New Home in Virginia Known as a 'New Generation' Jail -- But Moussaoui is Fellow Inmate)
Now... normally I would stick up for protecting the right of the reporter not to reveal their source... but in this case, which seems to be a case of maliciously revealing the identity of a covert CIA operative, which not only ends their career, but also puts their life at risk... that seems like criminal behavior to me and in light of that, the whole "not reveal my source" thing kind of goes out the window.
Not knowing all the facts, I can't really weigh in more than that... and while I do give the woman credit for standing up for her position... I wonder both about whether or not she's doing the right thing, and whether or not it's justifiable to send her to prison with a terrorist... as though the two things are comparable.
I guess that all just leads me back to the top of this post.
Read it and weep.
UPDATE:
White House denials on Rove fall silent.
White House defense of Rove goes silent.
CIA Leak Denials on Rove's Behalf Crumble.
White House Won't Comment on Rove Leak.
White House clams up on CIA leak.
W. House Suddenly Silent On Rove.
It's nice to see some media outlets actually covering this... and a couple even linking to it near the top of the page! :D
(CNN isn't showing this on their US page, or the International page... but it does show up on http://us.cnn.com/, which Jen had to point out to me because my CNN defaults to the International edition.)
10 comments:
Tears of laughter...that's all I have to say.
It must be hard being someone like McClellan who has to explain to the press the idiocy of the White House. I honestly feel for the guy.
hehehe :D I found it funny how many times he kept repeating the same canned lines...
"No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States."
or how many times he says "ongoing" (15)...
Biggest nonstory of the year. Not only did everyone in Washington know that she was in the CIA (not covert by the way, get your facts straight), but her husband cavorted around with her all the time in front of the press. The Dems are circling the wagon on this to get the coverage off their idiotic statements of late.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame
then maybe you'd like to correct all that information?
if not, then shut your trap. :)
meanwhile, care to clarify exactly what all these "idiotic statements" are that are supposedly coming from the Democrats?
thanks.
Let me spell it out for you as easily as I can. Under the statute in question, and according to the CIA, to be considered a "covert operative" you must be classified and you must have been working in a foreign country sometime in the last 5 years. Plame was not classified, and furthermore according to Wilson's own book, they have been residing in Washington DC since 1997.
I only have a law degree, so you'll have to explain to me where my analysis is faulty.
Go to your local law library or pick up a copy of USA Today, and stop blindly listening to the media and the Internet.
adding that a source at the CIA told him Plame was 'an analyst -- not a covert operator and not in charge of undercover operators.'"
which seems to have not been the case, considering the considerable attention to this leak.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Covert_Agent_Identity_Protection_Act
now, I'm having trouble finding anywhere that states that she wasn't a covert agent. care to point me in the direction of your source?
your law degree doesn't materialize facts out of bullshit for you, so please keep your asinine attitude in check. thanks.
"This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent."
now, I'd certainly think that if she WASN'T a covert agent, that there wouldn't be any case here, which there OBVIOUSLY IS.
now why is that I wonder?
also, you didn't clarify your other statement. and I'm sorry, but I don't think picking up USA Today is not listening to the media.
I get the impression that if anyone here is being a blind idiot, it sounds like yourself. either prove to me that I'm wrong about this, or shut your trap.
from what I gather, she WAS a covert agent, in charge of other undercover agents and that her normal job was just a cover for what she really did. everything I've read backs that up.
I don't think that needs to be made more clearly, and the fact that there is such considerable heat on Karl Rove and Scott Mclellan etc just reaffirms that this WAS a serious breach of security etc for all the aforementioned reasons. if you were correct, there wouldn't be any issue here... but there is an obvious issue, and you are full of shit. :)
The fact that it is a big issue is what is hilarious. If you weren't so one sided on the issue, you would have heard the facts from the other side. People like Savage aren't talking facts, they are talking politics. Tune in to Hannity or Tony Snow and listen to the actual journalist facts for once.
You pick up the USA from today (July 14) because it DID have all the facts. In fact, it had the story straight from the people who wrote the 1982 statute that you refer to.
As for her not being covert, as I said the facts comes right out of her husband's own book. She has resided in Washington DC since 1997, and by the definition of the statute that means she is not covert.
There is considerable attention to this leak because the Democrats are trying to create a Watergate. The media is running with it and not telling the fact that it is LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a crime to have been committed.
If you are still that thick, believe what you want. I've already told you, the facts are at your local library or in today's edition of the USA Today. Keep linking to worthless Internet databases all you want.
Also, for your information. The mental state required for the law is that Karl Rove must have "intentionally identified" a covert agent. Even if she was a covert agent, which she wasn't, even you have admitted that Karl Rove did not realize that she was and thus the intent requirement cannot be met. I know these things are hard for you to comprehend, but trust me on this.
I am aware of the second part, I didn't admit that Karl Rove didn't know. I'm aware that that is his stance, but of course his stance before that was that he had nothing at all to do with it, which he actually did etc. the same with Bush, Scott Mclellan etc. "I know for a fact that Karl Rove had nothing to do with it." "anyone found to have anything to do with this will be let go from this administration." etc.
as for the "covert" part, I still get the distinct impression that she was "undercover", doing classified work (which was talked about, because her husband had the clearance to know about what she was actually doing when he met her etc) and working with other "covert" agents.
but sure, I'll go find a copy of USA Today and see what it says.
Post a Comment