Intel Officers: Bush Needs to Punish Rove for Plame Outing

AP ^ | 22 July 05 | Unkown

[LSUfan]

Former U.S. intelligence officers criticized President Bush on Friday for not disciplining Karl Rove in connection with the leak of the name of a CIA officer, saying Bush's lack of action has jeopardized national security.

In a hearing held by Senate and House Democrats examining the implications of exposing Valerie Plame's identity, the former intelligence officers said Bush's silence has hampered efforts to recruit informants to help the United States fight the War on Terror. Federal law forbids government officials from revealing the identity of an undercover intelligence officer.

"I wouldn't be here this morning if President Bush had done the one thing required of him as commander in chief — protect and defend the Constitution," said Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst. "The minute that Valerie Plame's identity was outed, he should have delivered a strict and strong message to his employees."

[dr_who_2]

Proof enough that the CIA needs to be purged of Democrats.

[eleni121]

Sounds about right. If I were a former CIA agent I would hide in shame for the catastophic errors in the past 15 or so years.

[Howlin]

In a hearing held by Senate and House Democrats

This was NOT a hearing. It was a bunch of people getting together to trash Bush. And they have BEEN WARNED previously.

I'd bet anything John Conyers is involved, even though none of these articles mention him or anybody else who was there, nor where they held this "meeting."

From The Hill:

Judiciary GOP pulls the plug on Conyers 'forums'
By Albert Eisele and Jeff Dufour

If the Financial Services Committee is the best in the House when it comes to bipartisan comity, then the Judiciary Committee may well be the worst.

In December, ranking Democrat John Conyers (Mich.) began holding “forums” — gatherings with all the trappings of official hearings — after Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) refused to hold hearings on topics Conyers requested. The forums have been held in smaller committee rooms, often with C-SPAN coverage and formal witness lists.

In a sign of how far relationships on the committee have soured, majority staff recently announced a new policy to deny any request from a committee Democrat for the use of a committee hearing room.

Majority spokesman Jeff Lungren said the Republicans have given Democrats three opportunities to make clear that the forums are not official committee business. Nevertheless, Lungren said, in at least one case, members were addressing Conyers as “Mr. Chairman.”

“They were unwilling or unable to make those changes,” Lungren said. “At this point, if they want to hold these forums, they’ll have to find some other place to do it.”

Sean McLaughlin, deputy chief of staff for Sensenbrenner, recently wrote to a minority staffer in more pointed language.

“I’m sitting here watching your ‘forum’ on C-SPAN,” McLaughlin wrote. “Just to let you know, it was your last. Don’t bother asking [for a room] again.”

A committee source said committee Democrats are still planning to hold the forums when they find other available space.

[msnimje]

I just heard the talking head on CNN (2:45 am Saturday) say, "Intel officers criticized President Bush for not punishing Rove for his ALLEGED involvement in the Plame case."

Do they not know how totally stupid that sounds?

[Republican Wildcat]

This is not news - this "testimony" was a partisan event held by the Democrats.

There was a guy defending Joe Wilson's honesty, even though Joe Wilson himself was forced to admit he's a liar (or what did he call it..."Literary Flare.")

[Republican Wildcat]

Look closely at the article. This was not a committee hearing - but a partisan event put on the by Democrats that these men agreed to give their "testimony" to.

[BurbankKarl]

These are the intel officers that didnt see 9/11 coming? The ones that were never fired for the deaths of 3000 Americans? Please....

[Republican Wildcat]

Henry Waxman and Dick Durbin were there....I didn't bother watching long enough to see who else was.

[Republican Wildcat]

Yes, that is exactly what it was.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

This is not news - this "testimony" was a partisan event held by the Democrats.

Then the facilities and services should be billed to the DNC as well as the television time at commercial rates.

[Archon of the East]

Yea, I know but somehow it still wreaks. I have no problem with CIA agents having opinions, strong or otherwise. I do have a problem with with them even though they may be "retired" playing such politcal games.

[Randy Papadoo]

There are two potential criminal charges that the prosecutor is trying to learn if anyone, including Rove, violated. One is the leaking of an undercover agent's identity, and the other is perjury before the fed grand jury.

Proving the first crime is impossible, because it didn't happen. The instant Plame began working under her own name, her undercover status disappeared. That was over 5 years ago. Therefore, it is legally impossible to have "outed" Valerie Plame.

IMHO, perhaps the prosecutor has two motives for keeping the case going: First, he may have conflicting testimony on some facts, indicting that "someone" is lying, which would equate to the perjury investigation; Second, at the moment he closes the investigation (ie, no crime, etc), Judith Miller gets released, and I'm sure he wants to keep her in jail for the max, since she stiffed his investigation by refusing to testify.

BUT....If Plame couldn't be outed, why is Miller in jail?
If her source couldn't have outed Plame because she was already out, what's to protect? Seems to me that it could save someone some embarassment, but is that worth four months in jail? This is the only mystery in the whole thing!

Along with there being no crime of outing, perjury also will not apply in any case. Perjury, to be a crime, must always be MATERIAL. IOW, the lying has to bear some weight on the case. Clinton lied to cover his misdeeds in the sexual harassment trial....those were material lies because they had an impact on the case in chief. An example of non-material perjury would be if the witness lied about the weather at the time of the crime, but that had no impact on the material facts of the case.

But even if Rove lied about where he got Plame's name, it's not material, because there is no case in chief.

The press continues to maliciously use the word "undercover" to report on this. They know that's incorrect, but it makes Rove and Bush look bad. MSM and the loonies are going to eat it again. What a bunch of punch-drunk losers. I think they're starting to enjoy getting beat up.

[Steve_Seattle]

" . . . the former intelligence officers said Bush's silence has hampered efforts to recruit informants to help the United States fight the War on Terror."

My BS detector just went off the charts. I simply do not believe this; this is politically motivated spin. It is crap.

[Mad Mammoth]

ping to Sam Hill!

[lugsoul]

"she never served as an undercover agent!"

Where in the world are you getting your information? I think you need to broaden your sources a bit - not even the most rabid Wilson-hater believes that she was never covert.

[Mad Mammoth]

She (Plame) did work NOC (non-official cover) up until 1997.

That much was established.

[lugsoul]

Not here. I had a running two-day battle with Howlin' for saying the same thing you just said.