...

[Jeffin90620]

Now that Scooter has named Mr President as the source of the classified info leak, Bush has changed his story. He originally said (paraphrased) We will get to the bottom of this leak of classified information, and the person responsible will be fired at least, prosecuted if necessary. Now he is saying that yes, he revealed the CIA operative's identity, but that he had previously declassified it. Who's lying?

So... the truth has finally come out.

Bush wasn't lying.

Cheney wasn't lying.

Rove wasn't responsible for the leak (and also did not lie about it).

Libby wasn't (really) lying (his memory didn't totally agree with his own notes, so the Special Prosecutor indicted him for perjury)

Richard Armitage at the State Department was responsible for the leak (primarily because he is an inveterate gossip). The thing is, he up and admitted it to his superior (Secretary of State Colin Powell), who did not tell his boss (and supposed friend), George Bush. The State Department told the White House that it had passed some information to the Special Prosecutor, but did not reveal the details because it feared that the information would be used against them because the State Department opposed the Bush Administration's Iraq policy.

Pres. Bush's credibility took several prolonged hits because his enemies focused on this 'scandal' and the whole thing could have been wrapped up if people outside the White House had spoken up instead of hushing up.

I'm curious... the mainstream media actually apologized for believing the Bush Administration's WMD claims (even though over 500 chemical weapon warheads have been found in the past few years); see http://www.rathergate.com/?p=1158 and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4486750.stm . Are they now going to apologize over getting Plamegate wrong?

 

[DC_DEEP]

Libby wasn't (really) lying (his memory didn't totally agree with his own notes, so the Special Prosecutor indicted him for perjury)

Right, we will wait and see how far that goes.

Richard Armitage at the State Department was responsible for the leak (primarily because he is an inveterate gossip). The thing is, he up and admitted it to his superior (Secretary of State Colin Powell), who did not tell his boss (and supposed friend), George Bush. The State Department told the White House that it had passed some information to the Special Prosecutor, but did not reveal the details because it feared that the information would be used against them because the State Department opposed the Bush Administration's Iraq policy.

That still does not explain how the bush administration handled it. When it first made headlines, bush basically said "we will find out who leaked this information, and the responsible party will at least be fired, at worst be prosecuted." A little later, bush's story changed to "well, she was no longer classified information, so no 'leak' has occurred." There's just still something that's not quite riight about the whole affair, and the way it was handled.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

There's just still something that's not quite riight about the whole affair, and the way it was handled.

Of couse.

Bush apologists want to spin the story that it was no more than an "accidental" revelation by Armitage that was quickly and properly reported up the chain of command (such as it is). End of story. Its you who are reading too much into it, DC. Move along now folks, nothing to see here.

Still, it was Bush and his sycophants first claimed to the nation that the perp will be found, fired and/or prosecuted because the outing constituted a serious violation of both law and national security. That's quite a strong response to what is now being spun as a non-crime that never was no matter who was involved and when.

Pres. Bush's credibility took several prolonged hits because his enemies focused on this 'scandal' ...

What? Fitzgerald, a lifelong Republican appointed as Special Prosecutor by a Republican Justice Department and Republican Congress conducting an investigation into an affair a Republican President said he wanted to get to the bottom of, is being manipulated by Democrats into handing out indictments for perjury related to a crime that never happened?

 

[SteveHd]

Missing option: Don't give a shit.

 

[Jeffin90620]

Still, it was Bush and his sycophants first claimed to the nation that the perp will be found, fired and/or prosecuted because the outing constituted a serious violation of both law andnational security. That's quite a strong response to what is now being spun as a non-crime that never was no matter who was involved and when.

The law about revealing agents clearly stated that it applied to undercover agents. Valerie Plame parked her car in the same lot as all the other non-undercover CIA employees and walked through the same door as all the other non-undercover CIA employees and had not been deployed anywhere in the world outside the USA for over 5 years, so the argument that she was an undercover agent cannot be honestly made.

Pres. Bush's credibility took several prolonged hits because his enemies focused on this 'scandal' ...

What? Fitzgerald, a lifelong Republican appointed as Special Prosecutor by a Republican Justice Department and Republican Congress conducting an investigation into an affair a Republican President said he wanted to get to the bottom of, is being manipulated by Democrats into handing out indictments for perjury related to a crime that never happened?

Not what I said and certainly not what I meant. Members of the Bush Administration have been criticized for years, with leftist pundits openly hoping for the indictment of Karl Rove (who has effectively ran several campaigns that resulted in losses for Democrats) or even VP Cheney.

How many percentage points in Pres. Bush's popularity rating were lost because of the incessant carping on the scandal which, in retrospect, turns out to have been misdirected? The political capital that was expended dealing with these charges could have been used elsewhere.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

The law about revealing agents clearly stated that it applied to undercover agents. Valerie Plame parked her car in the same lot as all the other non-undercover CIA employees and walked through the same door as all the other non-undercover CIA employees and had not been deployed anywhere in the world outside the USA for over 5 years, so the argument that she was an undercover agent cannot be honestly made.

It doesn't follow. How does where she parked and who she associated with prove anything about her cover status?

And if it was clearly no crime to reveal her identity, why did Armitage report it to his boss, why did the White House act outraged at first, and what was Libby trying to conceal?

Members of the Bush Administration have been criticized for years, with leftist pundits openly hoping for the indictment of Karl Rove

Is that unreasonable? Of course many were hoping for Rove's indictment. Its hardball politics. Personally, I would hope anyone, left or right, who trashes national security and endangers lives for political payback goes to the slam.

How many percentage points in Pres. Bush's popularity rating were lost because of the incessant carping on the scandal which, in retrospect, turns out to have been misdirected?

Here's a similar question:

How much time and capital did Ken Starr's endless witchhunt personally cost the Clintons, not to mention the bill to the taxpayers? How many times did the focus of Starr's inquiry mutate from the original Whitewater probe which also was misdirected?

Karl Rove's reputation for underhandedness is what cost GWB popularity. Rove is a professional political insider and his nefarious methods and motives reek of underhandedness in every direction. Should anyone act surprised when the tables got turned and some of the slime came back to haunt him and his boss?

The political capital that was expended dealing with these charges could have been used elsewhere.

Agreed 100%. That's part of the motive for the carping. See above.

 

[Jeffin90620]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffin90620
The law about revealing agents clearly stated that it applied to undercover agents. Valerie Plame parked her car in the same lot as all the other non-undercover CIA employees and walked through the same door as all the other non-undercover CIA employees and had not been deployed anywhere in the world outside the USA for over 5 years, so the argument that she was an undercover agent cannot be honestly made.

It doesn't follow. How does where she parked and who she associated with prove anything about her cover status?

You are kidding, right? How could anyone who goes to work at the CIA every day be considered an undercover agent (unless she was working for a foreign power)?

And if it was clearlyno crime to reveal her identity, why did Armitage report it to his boss, why did the White House act outraged at first, and what was Libby trying to conceal?

After it was reported that Joe Wilson's wife was a CIA agent, there was a big brou-haha in the media. Armitage volunteered to his superior that he was responsible for it.

Bush was asked at a press conference what he would do. As I recall, he said "We will investigate and anyone who has committed a crime will be prosecuted."

Libby is being prosecuted for perjury because his sworn testimony about something in a conversation with a reporter (we don't know what, yet) did not agree with his written notes after the encounter. That's it. He has not been charged with anything having to do with Valerie Plame.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffin90620
Members of the Bush Administration have been criticized for years, with leftist pundits openly hoping for the indictment of Karl Rove

Is that unreasonable? Of course many were hoping for Rove's indictment. Its hardball politics. Personally, I would hope anyone, left or right, who trashes national security and endangers lives for political payback goes to the slam.

Even Harry Reid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffin90620
How many percentage points in Pres. Bush's popularity rating were lost because of the incessant carping on the scandal which, in retrospect, turns out to have been misdirected?

Here's a similar question:

How much time and capital did Ken Starr's endless witchhunt personally cost the Clintons, not to mention the bill to the taxpayers? How many times did the focus of Starr's inquiry mutate from the original Whitewater probe which also was misdirected?

About the same amount of time (and less money) than was expended on the Iran-Contra investigation.

What were the results? Iran-Contra resulted in one conviction (Oliver North) which was overturned on appeal. The Whitewater investigation resulted in over 27 felony convictions and, when it looked like a former friend and business partner was going to turn state's evidence, a suspicious death in prison.

Karl Rove's reputation for underhandedness is what cost GWB popularity. Rove is a professional political insider and his nefarious methods and motives reek of underhandedness in every direction. Should anyone act surprised when the tables got turned and some of the slime came back to haunt him and his boss?

Karl Rove is very unpopular with people who have gone up against him and lost (e.g., Democrats); not so much with everyone else.

Rove admits, and repudiates, the dirty tricks of his early career (sort of like Democratic Senator Robert Byrd repudiating his associaton, and leadership, of the KKK in years gone bye). If Democrats are so willing to forgive Byrd (who was a Majority Leader in the 80s), should you be surprised that Republicans forgave Rove his youthful indiscretions?