Posted on 07/12/2005 9:31:17 PM PDT by oc311
Do you have any more info on this meeting? That is about the same time that Wilson started talking to reporters on background. This could explain alot.
Wilson reported that he had first met with Chris Lehane in May, when he first became an adviser to the Kerry campaign, in response to the question about how long he had been a member of the Kerry campaign. That's all that it is known.
What do you think 'fair game' means, anyway?
Diplomat's `outrage' finds political outlet (Wilson)
Boston Herald | 10/25/03 | Boston Herald editorial
Posted on 10/25/2003 12:35:25 AM PDT by kattracks
Now here's a real political shocker for you. Joseph Wilson, the former diplomat who threw a hissy-fit when his CIA-employed wife was outed in a Robert Novak column, has officially endorsed Sen. John Kerry for president.
Oh, stop the presses!
Wilson was beamed into New Hampshire via a conference call Thursday to make the endorsement official. He'll put in a personal appearance there next month. It had already been revealed that Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame, had contributed to the Kerry campaign.
Wilson also acknowledged that he has been advising Kerry on foreign policy for about five months. Yes, that would put it before Wilson started criticizing President Bush for the line in his State of the Union message about Iraq seeking uranium from Niger for use in Saddam Hussein's nuclear program. (Wilson was the one sent to Niger by the CIA to investigate the charge, but insists he found no evidence of same.)
And, of course, it was before he so very bravely came to the defense of his wife and rashly accused Bush adviser Karl Rove of being the source of the leak. Wilson later retracted the charge, but now that he's an official member of the Kerry team he's not so sure. So he used the occasion of his endorsement of Kerry to impugn the integrity of both Rove and Attorney General John Ashcroft, whose Justice Department is probing the leak of Plame's name.
``The reports that somehow the attorney general, who is very, very close to Mr. Rove, both personally and professionally, is getting daily updates on the status of the investigation strikes me as the potential for at a minimum the appearance of a conflict of interest,'' he said.
Whoever leaked Plame's name should be ousted on the grounds of sheer stupidity alone.
But clearly Wilson has his agenda, has had it for quite some time and all of his righteous indignation ought to be considered accordingly.
Thanks
The discussion was about the Cooper call, though. So your point is meaningless in context.
You said it disproves the theory that Rove was gunning for Plame. Given your response, I guess what you really meant was that it disproves the theory that Rove was gunning for Plame in his conversation with Cooper, but may very well have been gunning for Plame in any number of other situations. Fine.
If you have evidence of other instances in which Rove was gunning for Plame, let's see it, I promise to be open minded about it. But the stories and discussions so far have been about one actual conversation. Making assumptions about what Rove MIGHT have done in unknown situations is something I'm not prepared to do.
Um, the fact that Wilson's op-ed piece was followed by a series of stories by different columnists asserting the 'his wife sent him to Niger' angle would indicate to most that the guy who said Wilson's wife was "fair game" was putting that message out.
Um, one scrap of evidence that Rove was the one who told those columnists this information.
BTW, if you can provide that, you may be up for a Pulitzer, because no one else can seem to come up with that info.
You seem to have it in for Rove, but your feelings about him don't constitute evidence. I'm waiting, so let's have it.
Thanks again
Lotta smoke there. And I'm sure we'll see more.
That being said, I'm not really concerned with the niceties of the law. They didn't like what Wilson said, so the response was to blame his wife for sending him to Niger, blowing her NOC in the process, along with the front company she supposedly worked for. Even if not illegal, that's low-class and dishonorable.
As far as my feelings for Rove, read up on his role in Alabama judicial elections, then come tell me if you think he has a shred of honor. Is he skilled politically? Sure. But he leaves a bit of his taint whereever he goes. Like having a bulletin board full of self-identified conservatives howling loudly about how exposing a NOC agent and her front company is somehow a good thing - or at least harmless.
The rest of your post is interesting but let's be honest, you just don't like Rove. You have no evidence. If you go back to my first post which you criticized, I am relying on facts.
I never said whether I liked or disliked Rove. I merely said that this conversation is the source of these stories--this one conversation. Based on that conversation, there is zero evidence of anything you're asserting. And that's the point.
But, to echo Mr. Rove, I'd be careful how far out on a limb you go on this one.
An example - the allegation that Plame 'authorized' the Wilson trip came out of a memo.
A classified memo.
SO why do you keep repeating the DNC ones?
You want me, a mere poster, to present you with evidence that is the subject of a grand jury investigation into matters which are largely classified?
No--what I want is for you to back up the assertions you're making as if they are based on fact. They're not--they're just emotional reactions, whereas I am making my comments based on facts.
Don't invent things I supposedly said and then invent phoney arguments. You don't have the facts to back up your feelings; just because they're classified doesn't give you a free ticket to just fill in the blanks to conveniently back your emotions.
Sure. Like you, most information I have on this is second-, third-, or fourth- hand, and much of it is supposition.
Point out what I have posted as my evidence that is supposition--Cooper putting out an e-mail, which Rove's lawyer has not claimed is a fake? Please explain how that's mere supposition.
Supposition is your assumption that because Rove said "Plame is fair game" that he is therefore guilty of whatever you want him to be guilty of.
But, to echo Mr. Rove, I'd be careful how far out on a limb you go on this one.
You can toss in all the non sequitors you like, but that is a meaningless sentence. How is relying on the e-mail which both sides have allowed is the truth going out on a limb?
An example - the allegation that Plame 'authorized' the Wilson trip came out of a memo. A classified memo.
Duh-Duh DUHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please. That is more supposition and an attempt to link Rove with something you have zero evidence to prove--as opposed to everything I've stated, which is based on an e-mail both parties involved have said is true.
BTW--why would Rove allow all reporters--ALL--who spoke to him about this situation to feel free to reveal their conversations if he's so guilty? Never mind, I know the answer.
So - How did Rove get that info? And why is he giving that info to reporters?
That's your response to my last e-mail which demolished your weird vendetta against Rove--more supposition?
Later.
Demolished? And now you claim that the Senate Intel Report is 'supposition'? Off your rocker, with an overinflated opinion of your destructive capacity.
I'm glad that you found it, I was trying to send you a link when I lost my computer connection. It has been down all day.
Swimming in my brain is a vague memory of Lehane doing something illegal (or close to it) in another campaign. Does anyone remember?
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.