 |
 |
 |
|||
|
 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
This article in the Times is hilarious. They start with the supposition that the article proves that Karl Rove is guilty, yet throughout the article they essentially prove that Karl not only did nothing illegal, but not even anything unethical.
Posted on 07/14/2005 8:27:58 PM PDT by freedrudge
Rove Reportedly Held Phone Talk on C.I.A. Officer
WASHINGTON, July 14 - Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified a C.I.A. officer who was undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said Thursday. Skip to next paragraph Multimedia Graphic The White House on the Leak Related White House Quotes on the C.I.A. Leak Case (July 11, 2005) At Leak Inquiry's Center, a Circumspect Columnist (Dec. 31, 2004)
Wilson: What I Didn't Find in Africa (July 6, 2003)
Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.
After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."
The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Mr. Novak, the person who has been briefed on the matter said.
Six days later, Mr. Novak's syndicated column reported that two senior administration officials had told him that Mr. Wilson's "wife had suggested sending him" to Africa. That column was the first instance in which Ms. Wilson was publicly identified as a C.I.A. operative. The column provoked angry demands for an investigation into who disclosed Ms. Wilson's name to Mr. Novak.
The Justice Department appointed Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a top federal prosecutor in Chicago, to lead the inquiry. Mr. Rove said in an interview last year that he did not know the C.I.A. officer's name and did no
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
|
|
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
I don't know, but I think it was with Those We Do Not Speak Of.
-PJ
CIA in Who's Who?
In case you didn't know, Grand Juries are secret.
What is the date of that picture? His tie doesn't match the pic from today, is it an older one? Because it sure fits with this article.
And once anyone points out to them that Novak is, and has been, a lifelong Democrat they'll slander him like they do Zell Miller and anyone else that doesn't tow the DNC far left line.
Which is what is so phoney about them. At the same time they purge their party of anyone with a brain, they stand behind the Clintons and their "third way" and "middle road", etc. as they dwindle to oblivion.
I love the Clintons. I say we are strong enough to fight a war on terror, build the economy, stop illegal immigration (Hillary beats her chest on this sometimes) and live through four or eight years of Hillary. Given their track record, by the time her scandal-ridden reign is over Democrats will be trinkets you can buy next to the nail clippers while checking out at K-Mart.
;-)
Well done!
Targets are not called.
It is almost as if two different hands were typing the article (for argument's sake, let's call them "the good hand" and "the bad hand") - the good hand is sticking to assertions of fact that can be proven or disproven, but the facts on the table seem to be in agreement with the essence of Mr. Rove's known explanation as well as with Mr. Novak's explanation. Yet, right out of a Jekyll/Hyde tale, the bad hand intrudes with its non-sequitur anti-Rove, anti-Bush commentary. So, is Mr. Johnston a schizo, or was he compelled by evil editor-drones to adhere to the Times' anti-Bush political bias litmus test despite the pesky facts getting in the way of the desired rhetorical direction?
"So when does the investigation start on who leaked grand jury testimony to the New York Times????"
You took the words right out of my mouth. It's incredible ain't it?
If Tenet was the leaker and Plame was not covert, this investigation has been a total waste of time and money unless Joe Wilson gets frog-marched out of his wife's CIA office in Langley.
Of course Miller talks to Plame, that's obviously why she never wrote the story herself. Plame was her key CIA source on all of her WMD stories. She would have to tell it all to the grand jury. That's ceratinly worth going to jail for. But I just don't think she would have told Bob Novak. I do think she would have told Matt Cooper. I also think Joe Wilson himself might have blabbed about his wife within earshot of some journos at a cocktail party, maybe without even realizing it. Wouldn't that be rich?
I doubt Tenet was even in the loop.
One thing I'm clear about in all this ridiculous beltway crap: no administration runs the goverment. The bureaucrats do.
I saw some idiot, probably Mort Kondrake, on TV saying, "well, Bush didn't want another fight with the CIA".
What? I don't know about you, but if I was the president I wouldn't need to fight with any executive branch agency. I'd tell them what to do and if they didn't I'd fire them. Screw everyone else. And I wouldn't waste my time with the appointed short-term folks. I'd fire the career a-holes and even the janitors if I had to.
Let them sue me. I'll take through Congress all the way to the Supreme Court.
Makes me wonder if the two reporters set Rove up. One slips information to him while the other extracts what might be illegal information from him. Interesting scam.
Just think, these people (NYT) get paid for this kind of writing.
BTW--Novak's having a great month, huh? Turns out this whole thing is probably perpetuated by him in order to keep himself in the headlines, and then on top of it he says Rhenquist will resign last Friday at 5PM.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.