I don't know ..
-----
Well, Get crackin', Byron.. ;-)
I don't care.
Well, I sure as heck don't know. But I would bet real American dollars that Rove will let us know when he is good and ready. Probably right after he is fired.
Funny how the libs and reporters who are constantly whining about Bush not admitting mistakes never admit to these three simple words (unless in the context of saying the White House is "secretive" and "holding back" facts.)
That bunch of popcorn brains knows nothing, and never, ever admit mistakes. Yet they pump out a nonstop sludge of half-truths, lies, spin and Dem talking points daily and call it news.
My take on this latest Democrat/MSM story.
I dont know what Valerie Plames status with the CIA was in July 2003 when Robert Novak wrote his column mentioning that she was an agency operative and had recommended her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for a fact-finding trip to Niger. Was Plame a covert agent then? If not, how recently had she been a covert agent?
NO.
I also dont know whats going on with The New York Times Judith Miller.
Since top presidential adviser Karl Rove and top vice-presidential adviser Lewis Libby signed strongly worded waivers releasing all reporters from any pledges of confidentiality, why hasnt Miller testified? Does that mean her source was someone else who has not signed a confidentiality waiver?
Yes.
I also dont know why Miller is involved in all this at all, since she never wrote a story about it. Was she some sort of carrier, as is now being theorized, and actually helped spread word of Plames identity?
Yes.
For that matter, I dont know what Time magazines Matthew Cooper was doing either. Roves lawyer says Rove signed the waiver about a year and a half ago and has never changed it. Why was that waiver not acceptable to Cooper for 18 months and then, on the brink of going to jail, Cooper agreed to testify?
I dont know.
I dont know anything about the role the other journalists caught up in the case Tim Russert, Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler played. Apparently on the basis of waivers signed by sources, they all gave information to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. What did they say?
I dont know.
And of course I also dont know what is happening with Novak. Given Fitzgeralds aggressiveness in dealing with all figures in this case, Novak must have made some sort of accommodation. Did he testify? Refuse to testify?
I dont know.
I also dont know why many in the press, most notably The New York Times, were once so enthusiastic about the Fitzgerald investigation. On Dec. 30, 2003, the Times published an editorial headlined The Right Thing, At Last, which said, After an egregiously long delay, Attorney General John Ashcroft finally did the right thing yesterday when he recused himself from the investigation into who gave the name of a CIA operative to columnist Robert Novak. Why did the Times do that?
They still thought they could spin it in their favor.
And then, why did the Times change its position and condemn Fitzgerald who, the paper said, cant even say whether a crime has been committed. Why would the Times say that, when it had once been so sure that a crime had been committed?
They found out they couldn't spin it in their favor.
I also dont know about the actions of Joseph Wilson. For example, in his book, The Politics of Truth, he wrote, The assertion that Valerie had played any substantive role in the decision to ask me to go to Niger was false on the face of it. ...Valerie could not and would not if she could have had anything to do with the CIA decision to ask me to travel to [Niger]. But later, the Senate Intelligence Committee, in its bipartisan report, said that interviews and documents provided to the committee indicate that [Wilsons] wife, a CPD employee [a reference to the CIAs Counterproliferation Division], suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told committee staff that the former ambassadors wife offered up his name and a memorandum to the deputy chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from [Wilsons] wife says, my husband has good relations with both [Nigers prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity. So why did Wilson say his wife played no substantive role in it?
He lied.
I also dont know why Wilsons defenders accuse the White House of smearing him. What was the smear? Was it a smear to say that Wilson got the Niger assignment, at least in part, because his wife recommended him? If so, then the Senate committee smeared him, too. If not, what is the smear?
Any attempt to correct Democrats lies are branded as VRWC lies.
And finally, I dont know about Karl Roves public statements on the case. Last year on CNN, he said of Plame, I didnt know her name and didnt leak her name. Even if he hadnt passed on Plames name just mentioned her as Wilsons wife why not just say nothing, especially since the whole thing is under criminal investigation?
I dont know.
The bottom line is, some of the most critical facts in the whole Wilson/Plame/CIA matter are just not known, at least not known by anyone outside of the Fitzgerald investigation.
But dont worry. At least we can be sure that we will someday know them, right?
I dont know.
Well, Walter Pincus of the Washington Post claims she was a covert agent as late as 1999. Maybe someone should ask him how he came to 'know' that?
Bush and Rove must be privately laughing their asses off.
Judith "the Drama Queen" Miller and Matthew "Another Donuts please" Cooper deceived the public by telling everyone that there was a last minute release signed by Rove that allowed them to disclose their source. As we now know, Rove's lawyer has disclosed that Rove signed a release 18 months ago. Byron York was on the Sean Hannity program today and released even more detail about this signed release. In short, the two reporters (and the rest of the MSM) were hoping and praying that the trap on the Bush White House and Rove would close shut before the details and facts were disclosed in full.
This inconvenient fact is going to destroy the reporters credibility (like they had any to begin with) and their story. These reporters (especially Miller) have probably been practicing their acceptance speech for the Pulitzer in front of their bathroom mirrors for months, pretending that their hair brushes are microphones.
The Jump the Shark moment for the MSM has truly arrived.
______________________________________________________________________
Q Scott, you know what, to make a general observation here, in a previous administration, if a press secretary had given the sort of answers you've just given in referring to the fact that everybody who works here enjoys the confidence of the President, Republicans would have hammered them as having a kind of legalistic and sleazy defense. I mean, the reality is that you're parsing words, and you've been doing it for a few days now. So does the President think Karl Rove did something wrong, or doesn't he?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, David, I'm not at all. I told you and the President told you earlier today that we don't want to prejudge the outcome of an ongoing investigation. And I think we've been round and round on this for two days now.
Q Even if it wasn't a crime? You know, there are those who believe that even if Karl Rove was trying to debunk bogus information, as Ken Mehlman suggested yesterday -- perhaps speaking on behalf of the White House -- that when you're dealing with a covert operative, that a senior official of the government should be darn well sure that that person is not undercover, is not covert, before speaking about them in any way, shape, or form. Does the President agree with that or not?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, we've been round and round on this for a couple of days now. I don't have anything to add to what I've said the previous two days.
Q That's a different question, and it's not round and round --
MR. McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier.
Q It has nothing to do with the investigation, Scott, and you know it.
MR. McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier today, and the President said he's not --
Q That's a dodge to my question. It has nothing to do with the investigation. Is it appropriate for a senior official to speak about a covert
Ping.
Brit Hume just said that Karl Rove heard about Valerie Plame from "a reporter."
My bet is that Judith Miller was that reporter -- and now Miller is refusing to say WHO told her about Plame.
So we can deduce that whoever told HER hasn't signed a waiver and she's covering up for them.
It's a Democrat.
And they wonder why nobody in their right mind trusts anything they say.
We're counting on you, Mr. York, to get to the bottom of this set up.
This reminds me of a magician who gets his audience to watch his face or his hat so they won't concentrate too hard on his hands where the trick is done.
Whatever finally comes out about the Plame outing, it will pale in comparison to the great damage done by an unnamed speechwriter who put those 16 words in Bush's 2003 State of the Union address.
That's where the investigation should have been centered, IMHO.
Instead we are told it's all about politics.
Yeah, sure.
Courts leak, counsels talk and jurors chat. I think it safe to say, Fitzgerald isn't the only one who knows what's going on. What we hear are leaks, planted leaks and guesses.
I do know.
It's the same issue as the hanging chads, how do they get Bush.
It's really that simple, it doesn't need to be written about and/or puffed up.
They can't win an election here without stealing it, they try to encourage the terrorists in Iraq to hold on and keep killing our soldiers; all the Rats want is to get back in power.
They are beneath contempt.
I don't know, but under the Clinton administration, both Wilson and Plame would be looking over their shoulder at every turn, not being fawned over by the press.
Since we all know just a little about this...why is David Gregory and the rest of the MSM so focused on Rove? I mean Gregory is obviously a hack but it seems the actual investigation is not news...is this by design?
What if Rove is fired? What if we find out he did it and it's all done? What then? What possible benefit does this have for the Dems?
I can't see a huge transformation of the American public voting in droves for the Dems because of this. It seems so silly to invest so much energy. In fact this whole display just proves our point about the HATE they have. Now if this was a debate on policy maybe you could get a few around the water cooler to jump in but this is getting silly.