Posted on 07/17/2005 4:22:38 AM PDT by johnny7
Some in GOP fear more revelations, and hope naming a court nominee will overshadow case.
WASHINGTON — If Karl Rove was source No. 2, who was source No. 1? Rove, President Bush's top political advisor, has survived a bruising week of controversy over his role in the unmasking of a CIA officer. But White House officials and their Republican allies acknowledge that they may face more revelations in the weeks and months to come.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Unfortnately, my understanding is that Fitzgerald is only looking at government officials in this. Wilson is under no legal risk, except that the report may once again reveal him to be a liar.
Bush, once again, by caving into Dems has given them a weapon to try and ruin his second term or derail his agenda.
This was clever on the Dems part. Use a CIA type to attack the administration and then when they defend themselves, the media and left can portray them as criminals revealing an agent. What a setup.
What else are you going to push when you don't have a positive program and your political philosophy led to the collapse of the governments and economices of 1/2 the world.
I would be interested in seeing what a crosscheck revealed between Plame/Miller..Very interested!
Yep, something is rotten here because if the facts reveal Plame was not covert and no one has really outed her then these prosecutors are investigating something that would put Miller in jail.
If I find out Miller is sitting in jail protecting herself or someone that has compromised our security she is the one who should be fired!
At some point they, like the Germans at the Bulge, are going to have to realize they're beaten and withdraw.
In the end, the LA Times will be very disappointed with Source #1. Novak has already said his first source was "no partisan gunslinger". So that leaves out most of the WH (or at least all the top guys and gals). However, the State Dept or CIA is another story (now there are partisan gunslingers there, but mostly for the other side). The LA Times was kind enough to leave out Novak's "no partisan gunslinger" quote.
However, the LA Times had no problem using this quote (even though they just released new ethics standards supposedly limiting the use of anonymous quotes):
"There are other shoes to drop here," warned an advisor to the GOP leadership in Congress, who insisted on anonymity in order to speak freely. "There are people who haven't come out yet. There could be indictments. And that would cast an entirely different shadow on the matter."
An ADVISOR to GOP leadership? What? Pelosi? What a joke!!!!
"Liberals never admit they screw up. They haven't conceded their Great Society policies are a failure after 40 years of trying them out on the country."
That's because libs measure a program's success by how long it's been around, not by what it's accomplished. A couple of examples:
1. social security
2. public television
3. affirmative action
4. yada yada yada........
"If Karl Rove was source No. 2, who was source No. 1"......these folks are slime...IMHO they're trying to implicate POTUS /VPOTUS..........
That strategery was so successful for them in Rathergate, wasn't it?
Good background on FItzgerald here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1444560/posts
It appears he has plenty of experience working with corruption and terrorist. Mr and Mrs. Wilson should be VERY afraid.
Not necessarily. They may stand and die right where they are with no hope of rescue like Paulus's Sixth Army at Stalingrad. That's what Rather did.
Members of the lamestream media and the 'Rats keep playing no-limit Texas hold 'em and keep losing. I say let's keep those morons pushing chips into the pot while GWB holds the nuts.
If Rove was given false information is that a crime?
Where agian did Bush get the info on the Niger deal? All Novack had to do was find out WHO sent ole Joe to Niger...Obviously it revealed Plame!! That's why her name surfaced. There's something going on here that's happening, because this OUTING of a covert agent suggests to me a diversion.
History could be repeating itself.
Does anyone else remember the day Bill Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsberg to the Supreme Court? I went a-googling for the details, because I remembered Bill Clinton having a temper tantrum and storming off because he didn't like ABC's Britt Hume's question. (I started the quest because I thought the question was about an ongoing Clinton scandal, and would compare with what Bush is going through now.)
June 14, 1993:
Bill Clinton in the Rose Garden to announce he was nominating Ruth Bader Ginsberg to the Supreme Court. All but one of the White House reporters asked the expected questions about the nomination, but one raised the ire of Bill Clinton. Clinton verbally chastised the reporter, then abruptly walked away.
Here's what I found:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_n6_v26/ai_16348412/pg_6
"On June 14, 1993, after three months of changing his mind about a Supreme Court nominee, Clinton finally succumbed to the forces advocating Ruth Bader Ginsburg and presented her to guests and press in a televised ceremony in the Rose Garden. Clinton spoke. Judge Ginsburg spoke. Clinton then turned to the press.
Brit Hume of ABC rose to his feet and asked a question: What had caused the protracted "zigzag quality" in the nomination process? Hume knew, the press knew, Clinton knew, and an untold number of citizens knew, that Hume was actually asking Clinton a personal question: Why are you so indecisive? Clinton displayed a cold, controlled anger, chastised the press for being more interested in "political process" than in "substance," and abruptly terminated the press conference, leaving Hume standing there, six feet tall and bright red.
The next day, the country was informed that the president had more to say. Wolf Blitzer, CNN's White House reporter, told his worldwide audience that the president was going to hold a press conference at which he would discuss his achievements to show that he'd been "decisive and in control." The press conference began. Clinton appeared. He listed some legislation and announced to the nation--in the hearing of the world--that his had been "the most decisive presidency you've had in a very long time, on all the big issues that matter."
The reporters of course knew that this was a lie, whether they said so or not. It was not clear that they had understood the important truth that Clinton was telling them by lying--that he could not endure any mention of his indecisiveness.""
She wasn't a covert agent. She was a desk jockey at headquarters.
These are libs. Just because something doesn't work even though it's tried over and over again doesn't mean they give up on it.
She remained on the payroll as such so it couldn't be divulged that both she and good ole Mr. Wilson were collecting a paycheck and expenses overseas.
If she remained in that status, my best guess is that she is/was scamming the government for a "better paycheck" up until the time she was "revealed".
According to an early Mr. Wilson speech, her life was endangered, she can never work as an operative again, effectively suggesting a BIG lawsuit.
FOLLOW THE MONEY!!
Also, I keep seeing that Joe was an "INTERIM" ambassador to Iraq when the Gulf War started (Jan 91) as April Glaspie was away. He was the deputy to the ambassador.
Was he EVER more than the temporary ambassador to Iraq??
Actual title in the United States is sufficient to confer jurisdiction, regardless of whether title coincides with physical possession. Determining when the United States holds title to some property in the possession of a third party frequently turns on the facts of the individual case. The following situations have presented the most difficulty in the past.
Information originating from reporters would not belong to the US.
I'd guess that Rove questions everything so he would look around for confirmation...and that's part of every good leaders job.
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.