Did Karl Rove leak the CIA status of Valerie Plame?

What do I have to retract on those?

Regarding Iraq, my argument always has been simply that we had the authority based upon the UNSCRs to enforce the terms of the cease-fire and subsequent relevant resolutions, and that it is a known fact that Saddam was in violation of those terms (at a minimum the shooting at our planes and the opposition to inspections qualify for that). My argument was always relating to whether the war was legally justified or not, and based only upon the UNSCRs.

I did not base the argument on WMDs, except to note that Saddam had not provided a full accounting* (perhaps you are thinking of my brother), I haven't really ever talked about Chilabi (I don't know all that much about him as he was never central to my arguments, but Mr44 and Ender_Sai have talked about him a bit), and the most I have said on Iraq terror links is that Iraq did have some connections with al Quaeda (which is verified, see 9/11 report), but I never claimed that they were involved in 9/11 or similar actions (perhaps again you are thinking of my brother).

So, from the arguments that I actually made, what do I have to retract? What in any of those positions is false or inaccurate? The closest you could come to that would be to claim that my arguments for the justification of the Iraq war differ from your interpretation of the UNSCRs.

Of course, feel free to post any statements of mine that contradict what I just said, and I will gladly retract those that are demonstratably false. Links, dates and time would be appreciated in that case.

As for not correcting others like my brother, on some things, I mostly remain silent for a variety of reasons. First, there are already more than enough people willing to jump in, and I have never been one to dog pile in a debate. Second, from past experience in doing that (in other settings), I've had quite a few people use that sort of behavior to accuse me of "flip flopping" or similar things before. However, you can ask my brother, and he'll confirm that I have corrected him, both publicly and in private, in areas where he was stretching beyond the evidence he was basing his position on.

Finally, that last bit is my threshold for correcting someone. I really don't care what you argue, as long as you can back it up with the appropriate sources. I know my brother and his arguments well enough that I know when he's making a claim based on evidence (the interpretation of which you might disagree with), and when he's talking out of his rear. I only step in when he's doing the latter, and even then I don't do it all the time (fora variety of reasons).

Kimball Kinnison

* Remember, the burden of proof was on Saddam to document that they had been destroyed, and he had not fully done that, even for WMDs that had actually been destroyed.

 

I tend to think part of the learning process is learning from mistaken assumptions or experiments to make one a better individual. That doesn't mean that a person has to compromise on core principles, though.

Furthermore, I've tried to separate myself from thinking 'inside the ideological box' exclusively. There are core issues with I am unapologetic on, while others I can see where I may have been mistaken to take a given position. I freely admit that I was definitely wrong about my notions of the current incarnation of the GOP and their abilities at governance.

Also, to be perfectly clear, I make no assumption of a Republican victory this November... I also think it may be more beneficial to have split government (Democratic Congress, GOP President or vice versa). I was remarking on the survivability of Rove and his ability to muster the GOP base to get out and vote. He's a political master, and the Democrats revile the man for his abilities. Politics has turned from pistols at ten paces into a modern type of enemy disposal: the legal assassination of your opponent to get them out of the way.

If the Dems were in office, I'm sure the GOP would try to find someone to indict. It's par for the course nowadays, and the press really eats it up. It just seemed to me that there was a collective sigh when Rove didn't get indicted, as the press lost a good story from a man working for an Administration that they don't really like.

I really don't think either party is in tune with Americans these days as it's all about power struggles... Hence the near orgasm of Democrats when they thought Rove might be indicted or the possibility that Cheney get into hot legal water.

There is also a great deal of politicking going on at the CIA which is distracting them from their mission, it seems to me.

 

As I said, those who predicted that Rove would be prosecuted were proven wrong.

There's still the issue of whether Rove leaked Plame's employment status to the press, and in particular to Novak. I believe that Rove testified openly to the FBI about the fact that he DID leak the information, and that lacking the clear winner of a perjury case, plus whatever negotiations that Fitzgerald undertook in terms of testimony Rove might give in the Libby trial, plus the difficulty of nailing the elements of a crime over the leak itself, led to this result.

There's still the ethics issue: Rove let the White House insist that he was not involved in the leak. I think it's clear from events that this was a lie. Rove violated the ethical stipulations of his job at the very least. And the motives behind the whole issue to begin with - exacting revenge for the first major humiliation for the Bush administration over the intelligence behind the leadup to war - remain clear for all to see.

So, I may have expressed hope that Rove would be prosecuted and belief that Rove committed a crime, but I've never expressed confidence that the Bush administration would ever in any way be held accountable for its egregious ethical breach of conduct and its cynical disregard for the national security of the United States.

 

DM

He's a political master, and the Democrats revile the man for his abilities.

We don't revile him for his abilities, rather for his tactics.

IMO your statements regarding al-Zarqawi are greatly exaggerated. Almost all Americans are glad that Al-Zarqawi is dead, the notion that it would be otherwise is just ascribing sinister notions to those that oppose the war in Iraq, which of course is hyped by practically the entire right-wing media. Many don't want us to 'lose' the war, rather for it to end.

And of course people wanted to see Rove indicted, because there was a belief he did something wrong, and he has a history of such unethical behaviour. I'll defer to Jabba and Gonk on this one.

 

Would I be incorrect in assuming that his effectiveness is more disturbing to you than anything else, DS77?

The Dems have their fair share of shrewd and successful (albeit vicious) tacticians... Carville, anyone? Republicans say the very same things about them.

Rove is simply a thorn in the worst side of a Democrat because Rove knows how to get out the GOP vote. He's like the enemy general on the battlefield of politics who the blue team would love to remove from play.

..oh, and don't kid yourself, there are plenty of left-wing nuts that don't see anything good in Zarqawi's demise. Anything that makes Bush look good they disapprove of, as they hope for losses on the battlefield for their own poltiical gain. It's the plain truth, even if it isn't always spoken with a bullhorn.

 

What do I have to retract on those?

Regarding Iraq, my argument always has been simply that we had the authority based upon the UNSCRs to enforce the terms of the cease-fire and subsequent relevant resolutions, and that it is a known fact that Saddam was in violation of those terms (at a minimum the shooting at our planes and the opposition to inspections qualify for that). My argument was always relating to whether the war was legally justified or not, and based only upon the UNSCRs.

So does that mean you've never made the claim that the war was necessary based on the degree to which Saddam had complied (which was not 100%, but a high number)? That it was 100% or nothing?

I did not base the argument on WMDs, except to note that Saddam had not provided a full accounting* (perhaps you are thinking of my brother), I haven't really ever talked about Chilabi (I don't know all that much about him as he was never central to my arguments, but Mr44 and Ender_Sai have talked about him a bit), and the most I have said on Iraq terror links is that Iraq did have some connections with al Quaeda (which is verified, see 9/11 report), but I never claimed that they were involved in 9/11 or similar actions (perhaps again you are thinking of my brother).

I may be getting you mixed up with JS, this is possible. But even in terms of full accounting, are you now saying that a failure of a full account necessitated war? I'll freely acknowledge that perhaps you haven't said that, but the question remains (though perhaps for another thread).

I am tempted to provide some things I've recently read from historian AJP Taylor on similar matters, but cannot in good conscience do so on a thread about KArl Rove.

So, from the arguments that I actually made, what do I have to retract? What in any of those positions is false or inaccurate? The closest you could come to that would be to claim that my arguments for the justification of the Iraq war differ from your interpretation of the UNSCRs.

On what you explicitly said, you are right. As to what those things implied... well that would depend, wouldn't it? It would seem unlikely you hold those opinions and yet, if asked whether war was necessary answer "no", or if it was a good idea as opposed to sanctions, answer "yes".

True, there is a difference between what's written and what's implied, but at the same time similar things apply to people with the Rove case. If someone said "I think Rove's guilty" what precisely do they have to retract? They can still think Rove is guilty. It still might be true. They can no longer say "I think Rove is guilty and it's obvious and it's the truth" -- but then your position today is no stronger demanding a retration than it was a week ago since such a statement was just as obviously false then as it is now.

If someone said "I think Rove's guilty and it's just a matter of time before he's charged", well THOSE people can as of a few days ago, now begin offering retractions. But you might find that few of the posts you read say exactly that. My own comments -- or at least the latest ones before this activity -- were something to the effect of "somone in the administration's guilty of a lot of something".


As for not correcting others like my brother, on some things, I mostly remain silent for a variety of reasons. First, there are already more than enough people willing to jump in, and I have never been one to dog pile in a debate. Second, from past experience in doing that (in other settings), I've had quite a few people use that sort of behavior to accuse me of "flip flopping" or similar things before. However, you can ask my brother, and he'll confirm that I have corrected him, both publicly and in private, in areas where he was stretching beyond the evidence he was basing his position on.

This was not intended to judge you in every thread you've read or posted in. Rather, it was a statement of the mean. Yes, there are other people that can and will do it -- but that doesn't mean thier response will get it right

 

DM

Would I be incorrect in assuming that his effectiveness is more disturbing to you than anything else, DS77?

No. As I said, its his tactics that are more disturbing.

Ronald Reagan was effective, but wasn't a nasty sob. That is a main reason many Democrats, even ones that didn't vote for him, bear him no ill will even though they disagreed with his politics.

Rove, Bush et al are more in the Nixon column.

The Dems have their fair share of shrewd and successful (albeit vicious) tacticians... Carville, anyone?

Carville is certainly shrewd and successful, but I don?t think he is as viciouis or unethical.

Rove is simply a thorn in the worst side of a Democrat because Rove knows how to get out the GOP vote.

More simply put, because he is a thorn who appeals to some pretty lousy aspects of the human psyche. Ronald Reagan, who was a winner mostly on his optimistic attributes, he is not.

..oh, and don't kid yourself, there are plenty of left-wing nuts that don't see anything good in Zarqawi's demise.

There certainly are a few, but not nearly as many as you and many members of the right-wing media seem to suggest.

Anything that makes Bush look good they disapprove of, as they hope for losses on the battlefield for their own poltiical gain.

And anything good that happens the right-wing attributes to Bush for their own political gain. Fortunately, most good Republicans, Democrats and others have a better sense of reality.

 

Kimball, private citizens are free to judge whatever they want however they want. You are free to presume O.J. killed his ex-wife and the law does not judge you.

It is the court that presumes you innocent. It is up to the prosecutor to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Last I checked, this was no court of law, but an opinion forum. People are free to draw whatever conclusions they wish. Perhaps you should do a little more legal research and a little less moralizing.

 

Carville is an attack dog. He's from my home State, after all. We know how he is. He's not much different than Rove, albeit Carville has a really big mouth.

Rove's tactics are disturbing because he rallies the GOP around base issues that generally the left-wing of American politics despises anyway. He's highly effective, and he's not media friendly. So, he's not going to please you guys no matter what he does.

It would be like a Republican complaining about a Democrat President using a left-wing political operative to rally their base, as would be the case if there were a Democrat President. They're going to appeal to their core constituency and use the generally despicable rhetoric that is common form for politics today.

The Dems need a demon after all in this highly polarized political age, and Rove is their man. Bush - as much as I question the man's ability - isn't Nixon, but it's a common reference for the left to label him such. I always get a good laugh at the reference. You could say Clinton (who was almost impeached - over stupidity, but even so) is more closely related to Nixon... he would have ended up like him, too, if the economy hadn't been roaring at the time.

Reagan had the benefit of a great charisma. When his approval ratings were in the tank, he totally retooled his staff.

Bush's legacy hangs on Iraq.

 

He's not much different than Rove, albeit Carville has a really big mouth.

Rove's tactics are disturbing because he rallies the GOP around base issues that generally the left-wing of American politics despises anyway. He's highly effective, and he's not media friendly. So, he's not going to please you guys no matter what he does.


Now color me skeptical but I don't remember James Carville orchestrating a smear campaign in Southern states to discredit John McCain during a primary campaign by suggesting that he fathered an illegitimate child of another race, when in actuality McCain and his wife adopted an orphaned third-world child. Carville can be abrasive, I'll grant you that, but Rove has done some genuinely evil things. I think this is the reason many of us found it plausible that he did something untoward in the Plame affair.

 

Rove's tactics are disturbing because he rallies the GOP around base issues that generally the left-wing of American politics despises anyway.

No. Again, his tactics are disturbing because they are slimy. One only has to look at his profile from his early days up until the present.

The Dems need a demon after all in this highly polarized political age, and Rove is their man.

We don't need a 'demon', rather Rove has earned his reputation based on his actions, he was not created out of thin air.

Bush - as much as I question the man's ability - isn't Nixon, but it's a common reference for the left to label him such.

You are confusing the reference. He is not Nixon in terms of his policies, rather in how he engages in politics, where he is far more like Nixon than Reagan.

Reagan had the benefit of a great charisma. When his approval ratings were in the tank, he totally retooled his staff.

Again, he was also legitimately optimistic and was fairly honest and sincere. Generally speaking, he didn't engage in gutter politics.

he would have ended up like him, too, if the economy hadn't been roaring at the time

I doubt it, the Republicans overreached. But perhaps you can get KK to demand an apology considering Clinton was found not guilty.

 

What a wonderful justification for a lynch mob, OWM. You basically just admitted that whether a person is actually guilty or not is irrelevant. You are justified in vilifying him, attacking him, and trying to destroy his life just be cause you want to.

How compassionate of you. How concerned for the feelings others you are. How interested you are in the truth.

And yes, that is sarcasm.

Kimball Kinnison

 

While I can't speak for OWM, this isn't a lynch mob. Let's repeat that this time with feeling; THIS ISN'T A LYNCH MOB! If it were he would be dead. This is having an opinion. Again, with feeling, THIS IS HAVING AN OPINION! One involves possible death and the other involves thinking a guy is a PoS without proof and that he's guilty with no proof.

 

Was Rove behind the claims that McCain also tried to shaft veterans on numerous occasions?

E_S

 

You could be describing James Carville back in 1991.

Except it wasn't veterans benefits, it was health care.

Which really didn't work out after 1992...

 

Quix is referring to an allegation:

During the bitterly-contested 2000 Republican primary, allegations were made that Rove was responsible for a "push poll" conducted in South Carolina, that used racist innuendo intended to undermine the support of Bush rival John McCain... Although McCain campaign manager Richard Davis said he "had no idea who had made those calls, who paid for them, or how many were made," the authors of the 2003 book and subsequent film Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential allege that Rove was involved. In the movie, John Weaver, political director for McCain's 2000 campaign bid, says "I believe I know where that decision was made; it was at the top of the [Bush] campaign." Rove has denied any such involvement.

Rove denies that he was involved.

---

Mr44 has it right, it's just that the Dems here don't see it that way.

 

Kimball, I was trying to learn you about the law. 'Parrently, you didn't learn nuthun.

 

Kimball, I was trying to learn you about the law. 'Parrently, you didn't learn nuthun.

But that's what I don't understand OWM.. What's the purpose of that sentiment?

Let's set aside who this is about, and remove the politics.

We're both familiar with Pat Fitzgerald. As US district attorney, he has a stellar reputation, one that crosses party lines. Most of all, he is known for being "complete." Again, we both know the role of the district attorney and what that means.

If Fitzgerald did file charges, I can say with confidence that KK would be among the first to investigate what they entail. If someone was found guilty, then again, KK would promote the idea that the system worked.

So I'm not sure what idea you are promoting here. I don't think you actually believe what you are posting, especially as it relates to the law.

 

The attitudes and mob mentality are no different. In fact, lynching can be used to describe many different actions against someone when taken without regard for the law.

Oh, I learned something. I learned that you love to lecture others on how they should be compassionate, but you don't want to be compassionate yourself. What's the word for that? Hypospray? Hypoglycemic? Hypoallergenic? Something like that.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Do you have a source on that? I tried a Google search but everything on "Carville" and "Health Care" came up in the 2000's. If one is going to make a comparison between the two, I'd like to look at some primary sources.

Re: Rove and bad tactics, DM, are you contesting that Rove has a recurring habit of character assassination through more subtle ways (e.g., push-polling)? The point being that this isn't a "left-wing" thing - the man's political life (from infiltrating Democratic organizations during the Nixon campaign to the present day) involves very, very dirty politics, which lends credence to those inclined to believe that he was actively involved in the Plame affair.

 

OWM et al are correct. Spare us the sanctimonious crap. This is a Star Wars message board, not a court of law. I don't recall any demands for retractions in the Michael Jackson thread after he was found not guilty. Or anyone screaming about how Ted Kennedy was never found guilty regarding Chappaquidick (sp?). Or again, how Clinton was found not guilty. Nothing about O.J. either. Neither Saddam or Bin Laden or many others have been found guilty, but I don't recall a massive outcry for a presumption of innocence.

People should just be able to express their opinion, back it up the best they can, and let the free market of ideas and discussion sort everything else out. Self professed claims of objectivity and ignoring politics are often BS, and perhaps more importantly, completely unneccessary.

 

Quix: My point is that the left isn't short on supply on the same types of individuals who do the same types of things. You guys will have another Carville or someone else to fill that void if there is a Democratic Administration next time...

Sure, I think Rove gets down and dirty, especially with the Dems. But, I think it's not something the Dems are used to, and it pisses you guys off to have that type of playbook used against you (never mind that the Dems used to be much more effective at such tactics - like race baiting, elderly spooking, and so on - for many years). Back in the good old days of solid Democratic Party control, the GOP was timid (pre-1994) and used to take it up the rear end without making too much of a fuss.

The GOP has learned quite well from Democratic tactics, including JFK and Chicago (albeit Florida is a bit different than Chicago in 1960), much to you guys' chagrin.

I find it more patently amusing than anything else.

Republicans used to complain all the time about the same type of thing from Democrats.

 

Mr. 44, I believe Deathstarr illustrated my point. And I do have compassion for Libby, I think it's got to suck to have your career derailed and your life thrown upside down. But whether or not people think he or Rove is guilty is up to them it is their belief, and their right to believe whatever the hell they want.

And if Pat Fitzgerald brought charges against Rove, KK would be the first one to poke holes in the complaint. Which is his right, no one is bismirching his right to to vigorously question the charges brought against anyone, but as DS said, this is a Star Wars message board, people are free to post whatever opinions they have, they are not bound by the legal presumption of innocence that a court must adhere to, they can believe whatever they want. Last I checked, this is still America.

 

The attitudes and mob mentality are no different. In fact, lynching can be used to describe many different actions against someone when taken without regard for the law.

You've gotta be kidding me, right? There is no possible way for someone to confuse what's said on a message board to a lynching. Or at least I thought there wasn't, but apparently there is! Hey, Rove's not dead, his career hasn't been ruined, and calling this a lynching is not factually accurate or intellectually honest. There's a big ****ing difference between having an opinion that someone is guilty and a lynching. It's not a mob mentality either because there's more apologists like you out there than there are people like me or anyone else. We're not going to grab torches and pitchforks and hang Rove for being a douchie. Although it'd probably be fun it's really not the mentality these days. Instead the people that hate Rove are going to pin him up as an object of humiliation for the GOP. He's the dirtiest player in D.C.; and it's going to come back on him and the rest of the GOP for allowing his **** to become so widespread. He even makes Tom DeLay look like a choir boy. No, KK, that is a fate much worse than death. And much more deserving.

 

I thought this tidbit of information would make for interesting discussion.

Novak: Rove confirmed Plame's identity

So, it seems Novak says that Rove confirmed her identity. From the article:

So it seems that Rove was involved, despite Fitzgerald's unwillingness to prosecute him.