# Valerie Plame, Time, and the NYT



## ctenidae (Jul 6, 2005)

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid={9F727F3D-5F7C-41B4-A802-70E2AB294DBE}&siteid=google

So, what do you think? Should the journalists be compelled to divulge sources?

On the one hand, I think journalist's ability to keep anonymous sources anonymous is extremely important, since it gives people the freedom to speak up when they need to. On the other, I'd love to see whoever leaked, planned to leak, or authorized the leaking of Valerie Plame's name get strung up from the tallest tree in town.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 6, 2005)

If it involves a criminal act, yes! In a court of law, the accused has the right to face his/her accuser. 

To me, folks who bask in the darkness of anonimity forfeit any right of credibility.

While I agree I'd like to see whoever leaked this info strung up, I also believe strongly that they have the right to face their accuser. To convict someone based on the testimony of "John Doe" is wrong.


----------



## dmc (Jul 6, 2005)

YOu guys know who people are saying her source is right??


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 6, 2005)

unfortunately, given the current state of our government, think of how much crap would never been exposed if not for undivulged sources from the media?  if we withold the ability to use an annonymous source, so much dirt would go completely uncovered.  sadly, i see it as a nessicary evil and people won't talk if they might get exposed.

what would really help the situation is laws stating that employees can not be punished for leaking information to the media.  however, many companies have strict policies about talking to the media and it is grounds for dismisal, especially regarding secret information.

in the case of an illegal act and a grand jury putting a case up for trial, i think the right to withold a source should indeed be revoked.  by that time, there is so much media coverage, the source can easily go public and not worry about punishment as the positive media given to a whistle blower would likely lead to other opportunities.  who wants to work for a job that keeps secrets so bad they need to be leaked to a newspaper?  jeez.


----------



## Stephen (Jul 6, 2005)

OK... how many of you thought Deep Throat was a hero for NOT coming forward with his name.

Sounds like people support anonynimty when it takes down a Republican, and support destroying anonymity when it takes down a Republican. I'm guessing the "Only in certain cases" above is a vote for "As long as it hurts the GOP".

I do NOT support hiding sources who commit criminal acts. If it IS Karl Rove, he should be dropped like a bad habit. I also think Mark Felt should be in the cell next to him.

-Stephen


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 6, 2005)

was a reporter put to trial for not divulging deep throat's real name?  (honest question, i am not familiar with the history).  if woodward was put to trial for not giving up deep throat, then i say that's crap.  personally, i think deep throat is after the money based on his actions and should have only released the truth after his death.  but i support his original silence so long as a criminal trial was asking for deep throat to testify.  i see it as a needed evil, republican OR democrat regardless.


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 7, 2005)

The difference on Deep Throat is the case was persued and prosecuted with evidence that turned up as a result of Deep Throat's talking, not on his evidence alone. I would hesitate to call him a "hero", since he didn't really do anything very brave, but he deserves some credit for exposing the scandal. I don't ahve any problem with him wanting to make a few bucks now, either. He waited long enough, and Woodward and Bernstein have certainly done okay using his information.
In the Valerie Plame case, things are a bit different- one would have expected a firestorm after her outing that would have turned up the evildoers. There's such a tight clamp on access, though, that the fire was contained pretty well, so the only recourse now is to go to the sources. I would not be surprised at all to find that Rove is behind it, being the vindictive SOB that he is. The question then becomes, is this a chink in the armor put up around the whole justification for Iraq issue? I think it may be, and is something that needs to be explored more fully. I don't care if it brings down a Republican, a Democrat, or the Dali Lama himself. If the US was systematically and intentionaly moved to invade Iraq using intentionaly doctored information to reach a pre-determined conclusion, then heads should roll. 
When immunity is stripped from reporters, I hope it turns out the source is one of the participants (unlike in the Watergate case)- that wills erve only to keep people from speaking up when they are teh ones who did the deed. If the source was not involved, adn was only an "innocent bystander", then I hope the grand jury keeps their identity quiet, and goes after the real source.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> OK... how many of you thought Deep Throat was a hero for NOT coming forward with his name.
> 
> Sounds like people support anonynimty when it takes down a Republican, and support destroying anonymity when it takes down a Republican. I'm guessing the "Only in certain cases" above is a vote for "As long as it hurts the GOP".
> 
> I do NOT support hiding sources who commit criminal acts. If it IS Karl Rove, he should be dropped like a bad habit. I also think Mark Felt should be in the cell next to him. -Stephen



Mr. Felt was no hero.

Doesn't matter to me if it is a Republican or a Democrat...criminal is criminal.

Not only do I not support hiding sources who commit criminal acts, I don't support hiding sources who give information about those who commit criminal acts. Good lord, one of the basic rights of the accused in our judicial system is the right to FACE THEIR ACCUSER. Don't know about anyone else, but I don't want to even think about a system where that right is denied. I don't like the war in Iraq, but I don't want to live like I'm in Iraq either.

No, I don't support anonymous sources in these cases. Neither does the federal government...there is no federal law protecting anonimity of sources be they from the media or otherwise. Those laws are all on the state level and since the Valerie Plame case is federal, there is no such protection.


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 7, 2005)

I went back and forth on the third poll option, whether it should be certain of federal. Probably should have stuck to federal.


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 7, 2005)

Interesting:
Separately, the White House correspondent for Time magazine, Matthew Cooper, said he would testify, breaking two years of silence, after his source consented in a "very sudden development" Wednesday morning.

One wonders what that "very sudden development" was. Immunity for the source? I wonder if Cooper's source is different from Novack's, and why Novack isn't being jailed.


http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...F7C-41B4-A802-70E2AB294DBE}&siteid=mktw&dist=


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> Sounds like people support anonynimty when it takes down a Republican, and support destroying anonymity when it takes down a Republican.



Who would those people be?


----------



## pizza (Jul 7, 2005)

I do understand the implications here, but I've gotta believe that when the government resorts to coercion to get any information out of anybody, it's not that much different than a principal suspending a kid who didn't cheat for not naming a person he observed cheating.

And we're not even talking about children! We're talking adults.


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 7, 2005)

pizza said:
			
		

> And we're not even talking about children! We're talking adults.



Are you sure?


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 7, 2005)

i think coercion may be justified when we're talking about finding the truth in a criminal case.  i think if it's limited to criminal trials, a bad precident is not being set, but rather a good precedent of making a case for not breaking laws and dragging the law breakers through the streets (i.e. bad media and then onto a jail sentance).


----------



## pizza (Jul 7, 2005)

How many times have we seen a law and order character say "will you testify?"

People are not coerced into testifying in normal criminal cases, but when the government is the victim it's ok?


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 7, 2005)

by coercion (to make sure we are on the same page with that word), i am stating if a reporter is witholding a name from a grand jury in a criminal trial (in which the victim is the gov, a person, company, corporation, or anyone), i say coerce the release of a name by threat of contempt and prison time.  again, only in a criminal trial and specifically i am referring to a reporter witholding a source that is key to identification of the truth, innocence, or guilt or an accused.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 8, 2005)

pizza said:
			
		

> How many times have we seen a law and order character say "will you testify?"
> 
> People are not coerced into testifying in normal criminal cases, but when the government is the victim it's ok?



This is such a conundrum for me because I have such a basic view of justice: those who break the law must be punished. And I mean MUST. 

So, for me, even if they are scared of retribution, I think anyone who has information about a crime should be encouraged/forced to testify in person, face to face. 

To clarify (because this is my little fantasy), the governing body responsible for the trial is also responsible for protecting the witness (and has the authority to do so by whatever means) and would also
construct laws that were reasonable.

Quite a fantasy, huh?


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> This is such a conundrum for me because I have such a basic view of justice: those who break the law must be punished. And I mean MUST.



Well - I guess you won't be invited to ride the chair with Karl and I next season...


----------



## JimG. (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> JimG. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Remember the "reasonable laws" qualifier  .


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## pizza (Jul 8, 2005)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> by coercion (to make sure we are on the same page with that word), i am stating if a reporter is witholding a name from a grand jury in a criminal trial (in which the victim is the gov, a person, company, corporation, or anyone), i say coerce the release of a name by threat of contempt and prison time.  again, only in a criminal trial and specifically i am referring to a reporter witholding a source that is key to identification of the truth, innocence, or guilt or an accused.



So you would propose creating laws requiring people to disclose information when a judge says its needed.. that's a pretty scary opinion. 

I understand & appreciate the spirit of what you're saying, but I don't think you've considered the implications, not to mention yet another strike against our freedom.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 8, 2005)

> So you would propose creating laws requiring people to disclose information when a judge says its needed.. that's a pretty scary opinion.


is that not already the law?  if you without information from a jury the judge finds you in comtempt, correct?  unless you have reason to plead the 5th?  i am just advocating for the current judicial rules to be put in place for all peoples, that the presses right to withold the name of a source is not above the judicial branches duty to provide a fair and accurate trial for both the prosecution and defense.


----------



## pizza (Jul 8, 2005)

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not familiar with the details.  One can be told to go into court with a subpeona, but I'm not sure when and how that works, or if you're required to testify when you arrive.

What I do know is that you cannot be forced to testify against a defendant in a criminal case. Or else Michael Jackson would have been in jail years ago (instead of making a deal with the people that were to testify against him - remember that?)


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 10, 2005)

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/

Looks like it was Rove. That vindictive piece of carp needs to fry if it was him. Bush will probably give him a pardon, though. Question is, how many bugs come out from under that rock when it gets turned over?


----------



## dmc (Jul 11, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/
> 
> Looks like it was Rove. That vindictive piece of carp needs to fry if it was him. Bush will probably give him a pardon, though. Question is, how many bugs come out from under that rock when it gets turned over?



http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB112104330395581808,00.html?mod=todays_free_feature

   



> the disclosure that Mr. Bush's top political strategist discussed the CIA employment of Mr. Wilson's wife amounts to a political embarrassment for Mr. Rove and the White House. A presidential spokesman had previously given what appeared to be an unequivocal public assurance that Mr. Rove hadn't been involved in the disclosure of Ms. Plame as a CIA operative. Discovery that earlier denials may have been carefully parsed would represent another blow to the administration's credibility, compounding damage from the underlying issue that initially brought Mr. Wilson into the spotlight


----------



## dmc (Jul 11, 2005)

My big question about Karl Rove knowing about this is...
Why is a political advisor privy to this kind on info?
I thought it was “the need to know” basis stuff...?


This could get interesting if the Bush admin doesn't spin it and quell the presses....


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 11, 2005)

I'm doing the full-on "Liberal" wetting-my-pants-in-excitement dance.

It's amazing the hairsplitting (that Clinton was bashed for) that's going on- current best defense seems to be that Rove didn't actually say her name, so he didn't, in fact, name her. Which is, of course, what they say they've been saying all along. 
There is absolutely no good reason for Rove to either know who Valerie Plame is, or to tell a reporter that Wilson's trip to Nigeria was authorized by her. There are lots of reasons, sure, but none of them are good.
I won't even mind if Bush comes out clean, as long as Rove gets canned.


----------



## dmc (Jul 11, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> I'm doing the full-on "Liberal" wetting-my-pants-in-excitement dance.



Over the last few years I've been dissapopinted while doing that dance..

But there is a lot to this whole issue encompassing all the stuff I can't stand about the current admin...


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 11, 2005)

Me too, on the dissapointments. Fitzgerald seems like a pretty good prosecutor, though- hes playing it very close, and I like that- I think he's waiting until he has all his ducks in a row, and then BLAMO!, out he'll come.


----------



## Charlie Schuessler (Jul 11, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> ...There is absolutely no good reason for Rove to either know who Valerie Plame is, or to tell a reporter that Wilson's trip to Nigeria was authorized by her. There are lots of reasons, sure, but none of them are good....I won't even mind if Bush comes out clean, as long as Rove gets canned.



After reading this bit of news in today's Boston Globe (Reuters Report), I am bewildered why a personal consultant to the President of the United States would commit such an unlawful act of treachery...

If the prosecutor finds substantial reason to file charges against Rove, under no circumstances should the President pardon him, he is not a government employee...he's a private political consultant…never mind that he get canned, if he is prosecuted and found guilty, he should be ....

The report indicates that there may be more informants....for the good of the Nation, I hope that the President & Vice President had/has nothing to do with this fiasco…


----------



## Stephen (Jul 11, 2005)

IF Karl Rove did this... he is no more or less guilty than Clinton committing perjury under oath.

I hope he gets the same sentence... doesn't lose his job, his pension, multi-million dollar touring circuit, just has to surrender his lawyer's permit for a little while.

-Stephen


----------



## pizza (Jul 11, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> IF Karl Rove did this... he is no more or less guilty than Clinton committing perjury under oath.
> 
> I hope he gets the same sentence... doesn't lose his job, his pension, multi-million dollar touring circuit, just has to surrender his lawyer's permit for a little while.
> 
> -Stephen



Bull. I agree that Clinton should have had more of a punishment for lying nunder oath, but the fact that he didn't does not exonerate Rove. Rove should be punished regardless of what Clinton got away with, and you know it. You'd be a hippocrite to believe otherwise.


----------



## Stephen (Jul 11, 2005)

pizza said:
			
		

> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think you are 100% right. If Rove did this, he's a slime and should be put away. 

But if the "Rule of Law" is what important (thank you, Janet) then I'd like to see some Clinton rump-swabs finally admit that what he did would have gotten you or I thrown in jail.

-Stephen


----------



## dmc (Jul 11, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> But if the "Rule of Law" is what important (thank you, Janet) then I'd like to see some Clinton rump-swabs finally admit that what he did would have gotten you or I thrown in jail.



Rump swabs???

Dude - you have serious issues...  Your filled with hatred...

You gotta chill and stop with this kind of BS to get your point accross...


----------



## Stephen (Jul 11, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ROFL HAHHAHAHHA HA HA  heh he tee hee...

Good one dmc. You had me for a moment there.  :wink: 

-Stephen


----------



## dmc (Jul 11, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was serious...  You got hate issues...

You calling names makes your point seem secondary to your anger angainst people like me who dissagree with you..


----------



## dmc (Jul 11, 2005)

I say Rove - you say Clinton - I say Nixon - you say...  etc etc...  and we can end with George Washington...

The fact IS Carl Rove - Our Presidents closest advisor is in deep doo doo...


----------



## Stephen (Jul 11, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> The fact IS Carl Rove - Our Presidents closest advisor is in deep doo doo...



No argument there.

This is the second time we've agreed on something... between that and the Sox, hell HASA frozen over!

-Stephen


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 12, 2005)

Gotta love the "Clinton did it" defense. Useful for covering a multitude of sins. As often as Liberals trot out Kool-Aid, brainwashing, and military service to qualify for military use, Conservatives use the Clinton Defense. At least the Liberals have some variety, and doesn't it concern anyone that the Clinton Defense gets used so often?

On topic, I find it interesting that the White House is staunchly no comment, citing an ongoing criminal investigation, when they were very quick to defend Rove early on, and commented regularly, despite the ongoing criminal investigation two years ago. I would love to read a transcript of Fitzgerald's questioning of Bush back then. Waiting for all this to unfold is more exciting than waiting for the next Harry Potter book to come out!


----------



## dmc (Jul 12, 2005)

Pretty sure W went on record saying that whoever leaked this would get fired...

Let's see if he can follow through..  Or just do whatever the F he wants like usual...

I don't think he can exist without Rove though...


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 12, 2005)

Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, defended Rove against what he dismissed as "blatant partisan political attacks."

 :blink:


----------



## Stephen (Jul 12, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, defended Rove against what he dismissed as "blatant partisan political attacks."
> 
> :blink:



And this surprises you?


----------



## JimG. (Jul 12, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> ctenidae said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Really! This is politics after all. 

Same poo-poo, different color toilet paper.


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 12, 2005)

From another thread on another board (about monkeys with human brains, no less)

Monkeys throw poo.
Humans have politicians.
What's the difference, anyway?

Overall, I think I'm tired of the centrist attitude. Let's get some radical SOB's in office, so they can duke it out old-school style. Throw John McCaine in the ring with...uhm...there hasn't been a fire-breathing Democrat in so long, I can't think of a good one.

McCaine for President!


----------



## Stephen (Jul 12, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> Overall, I think I'm tired of the centrist attitude.





			
				ctenidae said:
			
		

> McCaine for President!



Huh?


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 12, 2005)

At least with McCaine, you have the chance of him going buck wild on someone. Can't say that of much of anyone else.

Maybe The Rev Al Sharpton. I bet he could kick some arse if he wanted.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 12, 2005)

this is going way off topic, but what the hey.  john mccain has more support among democrats than republicans and given the choices during 2000, i would have voted mcain if he won the repub primary, fwiw.  there are only a few key issues i disagree with mccain on and i don't think those issues are one's he is willing to rock the boat on the national scene.  not sure what you mean about him not being a centrist...  he is the closest politican to the center in washington i would contend...


----------



## noreaster (Jul 13, 2005)

FYI - I just voted NO.  

I thought Clinton was a good president.  I mean the economy was good, unemployment was down, stock market up, technology geeks were getting rich before the .com bubble burst, we saw some wild .COM adds during the super bowl and, and most important the world did not HATE Americans. 

The fact of the matter is Clinton lied and he should have fried for it.  Now the Republicans say, "hey if Clinton can lie we can too"  or " Clinton did .... so what's the problem".  Ok maybe the Republicans didn't say that but that is what they are thinking.  Anyway my point is Clinton did a lot of long term harm while in the white house. Clinton took accountability and respect out of the white house.  Unfortunately, Bush is doing an excellent job of continuing what Clinton started. 

If Rove, Bush, or anyone else in white house did something wrong, they should be *held accountable*.  Just because Clinton got away with something doesn't mean you do whatever you want in the white house. At least that is my humble opinion here.  

Personally I want to get away from the whole Clinton and Bush White House era and start OVER.   We need some fresh leadership to get this country going again.   We got to get past gay marriage, abortion, and the Iraq war issues.   There are more important issues. 

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill


----------



## dmc (Jul 13, 2005)

Saw a bumper sticker that said..

"When Clinton lied - nobody died"

Also saw another that look exactly like a Republican party bumper sticker but said Repulsive
instead...


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 13, 2005)

> Personally I want to get away from the whole Clinton and Bush White House era and start OVER.


WELL SAID!  nice churchhill quote.


----------



## BeanoNYC (Jul 13, 2005)

> Just because Clinton got away with something doesn't mean you do whatever you want in the white house. At least that is my humble opinion here.



There's a huge difference between lying about a BJ and outing a CIA operative as part of political retribution.


----------



## Stephen (Jul 13, 2005)

BeanoNYC said:
			
		

> outing a CIA operative



Just to clarify... she was NOT a CIA operative. She was an UNCLASSIFIED administrative employee.

And all this focus on Rove has distracted from WHY her name was mentioned. She ILLEGALLY arranged for a trip for her husband to Africa to investigate the Iraq-uranium link. This violated federal nepotism laws.

Where are all of you who were praising Deep Throat for outing corruption? You said his motives didn't matter, he was still revealing corruption!

The source in this case did the same, and deserves the same praise Felt recieved. Or the same scorn.

-Stephen


----------



## pizza (Jul 13, 2005)

Stephen,

Please tell me you're not comparing freakin' Watergate to minor nepotism.
Say it isn't so.

Please..


----------



## JimG. (Jul 13, 2005)

noreaster said:
			
		

> Personally I want to get away from the whole Clinton and Bush White House era and start OVER.   We need some fresh leadership to get this country going again.   We got to get past gay marriage, abortion, and the Iraq war issues.   There are more important issues.
> 
> "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill



I totally agree with you in this regard. 

I don't agree that Clinton started something new by lying...that's been going on for decades.


----------



## Stephen (Jul 13, 2005)

pizza said:
			
		

> Stephen,
> 
> Please tell me you're not comparing freakin' Watergate to minor nepotism.
> Say it isn't so.
> ...



A crime is a crime, unless it's done by a Democrat?

By the way, why is Judith Miller still in jail? She has the same waivers that over half-a-dozen other reporters have recieved? Why is she still refusing to testify?

All the facts aren't out there yet. More to come...

-Stephen


----------



## pizza (Jul 13, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> A crime is a crime, unless it's done by a Democrat?



Dude.. you're comparing 65 in a 55 to armed robbery! Then you come up with that lame "unless done by a democrat" line?

WTF??

Time to bring in some third party credibility. DMC, care to chime in on my dislike for the democratic party?


----------



## dmc (Jul 13, 2005)

pizza said:
			
		

> Time to bring in some third party credibility. DMC, care to chime in on my dislike for the democratic party?



Yup - Pizza hates the BS...
Libertarian tired and true...  Memeber of the youth politcal group in CA...

I actually LOVE it when pizza gets involved in these things...  Brings an great perspective...

Believe it or not - I tend to lean libertarian on a ton of issues...  Not 100% like the pizzaman


----------



## pizza (Jul 13, 2005)

I used to be a party-line Republican. Used to walk precincts on election day - get out the vote. We'd have an election roster with us, and we'd stop at all the houses with registered Republicans in them, skip the houses with Democrats in them. "Be sure to go out and vote today!!" This was in 1994, when Clinton was wildly unpopular. God I was lame. 

Today I am a registered libertarian. I voted libertarian in the presidential elections of 1996, 2000, and 2004, plus most of the intermediate elections  in between. Hanging out with a few of the higher-ups & donors of the California Republican Party, I got a whiff (though no direct knowledge) of the kind of corruption that went on. The party's blind obsession with politicians who didn't hold republican values but were registered Republicans anyway (ie Governor Pete Wilson) really pee'd me off. Gradually, I became more libertarian, and when I showed up to a meeting of the Orange County Libertarian party and got involved in their activism, I was hooked. I remember at pre-dawn on tax day hanging signs saying "Dare to not pay" on overpasses. That is when I registered libertarian, and I haven't looked back since.

"The Law" by Frederick Bastiat got me started on the fundamentals and reasons behind libertarian philosophy, and I heartily recommend it to everyone, if just to understand the basis of my reasoning. http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 13, 2005)

1)- Plame worked for the CIA, in a capacity not publicly known. Particulalry if she was "unclassified", she was undercover. Countries don't like having unregistered spies running around. Trying to claim she wasn't outed illegaly is a diversionary tactic, kind of like Rove's lawyer parsing "name" to mean Rove didn't actually say her name, so not harm done.

2) Wilson was a good choice for the Nigeria mission- he knew the people, the area, and the facts. Plame suggested he go, it was approved, he went. She wasn't the case officer, she didn't get to rack up frequent flyer miles, she didn't recommend him just because he is her husband. THe nepotism charge is silly, and designed to distract from the facts.

3) Outing a CIA officer is much worse than either Watergate or Monicagate, or both combined. Naming Plame puts lives at risk- every one of her former contacts is now going to be under suspicion in their own country, all of her colleague's covers are effectively blown, and the methods and networks of the nation's intelligence has been exposed. That's a violation of about a thousand national security laws. 

3) Good question, Stephen- why _is_ Miller still in jail? For that matter, why _isn't_ Novak? There is more to this than meets the eye. For instance, Novak cited two officials. Rove, despite his girth, is only one person. Who was the other? Same person Miller (who didn't even write an article) is protecting?

I think the stink runs high on this whole deal.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 13, 2005)

> Believe it or not - I tend to lean libertarian on a ton of issues... Not 100% like the pizzaman


i find if you probe people deep enough on the issues and snow them where parties actually stand, most people who normally vote republican or democrat and most people who consider themselves independant actually lean liberatarian or green/progressive.


----------



## noreaster (Jul 13, 2005)

My political  views are in the *middle*. Isn't everybody’s?   

I took a look at FOXNews and compared it to NPR. Trying to find a middle ground.  Very interesting differences on reporting. You be the judge.  

*FOXNews*

"This is typical of Democrats. They smell blood and they act like sharks," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay *told FOX News*. "Karl Rove is a good man. He was doing his job ... I don't see that he has done anything wrong." 

FOXNews Cooper Details Rove Conversations About Plame

*NPR*

All Things Considered, July 13, 2005 · NPR Senior News Analyst Daniel Schorr says that the real issue in the Karl Rove controversy is not a leak, but a war, and how America was misled into that war.

Maintaining Focus: Rove and Iraq War Data


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 13, 2005)

noreaster- you are comparing apples and oranges there.  the foxnews example utilized a source and quoted the source without analyzing the source.  this is how most media gets the job done and it's bad bad bad coverage.  quoting people is reporting what people are saying, not what is actually happening.  being fair and quoting both sides may be balanced and may even be fair, but it is not presenting news, it is presenting opinion and what someone said.  daniel schorr is an analyist on the other hand and trends his view points to what most people would consider a liberal's analysis of the situation and does so with well backed up and thought out points of view.  NPR also has conservative analysts do the same, i enjoy hearing both sides of the coin.  but there is a big difference between an analyist disecting an issue and quoting a politician and calling it news.

i don't mean to hyjack this already hyjacked thread into a media critique, but that was not a good comparison of the two media forms.  neither of those examples are "reporting".


----------



## noreaster (Jul 13, 2005)

My personal view is Politicians that say things like "This is typical of Democrats. They smell blood and they act like sharks," is not much different than a comedian that can't get the audience to laugh and goes right to human private parts to get a laugh.  This is very insulting to the intelligence of Americans and free people everywhere. Democrats do the same thing.    Americans deserve better answers than this.  Politicians need to stick to the issues and not go for the crotch.


----------



## noreaster (Jul 13, 2005)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> noreaster- i don't mean to hyjack this already hyjacked thread into a media critique, but that was not a good comparison of the two media forms.  neither of those examples are "reporting".


ITs the best comparison I could come up with on such short notice.  Your right.  I wouldn't call either one reporting on the facts.


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 13, 2005)

I was thinking about the whole Rove leak thing today, adn trying to be as analytical as I could be. Here are my thoughts:

1) Karl Rove has never done anything without a specific and well thought out purpose. The man is not stupid, and surely knew that leaking Plame could come back to bite him. Given that he isn't stupid, he probably had his defense laid out well in advance, and decided the risk of getting bitten was outweighed by the purpose of the leak.

The question, then, is what was the purpose? THe only reason I can come up with is to discredit Wilson and distract from his criticism of Bush's move towards Iraq. That brings up another question- Why did the Bush admin feel such a need to quell any criticism of Iraq? I ahve two theories there. One is that the Bush admin is so insecure they feel the need to control every aspect of everything concerning them. That is a possibility, and I kind of hope the right answer. The other theory is scarier- that BushCo did, in fact, orchestrate the whole war affair, and had to discredit all critics in order to cover things up. I hope that's not the case, because the last thing this, or any country needs, is a scandal of that magnitude.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 13, 2005)

> One is that the Bush admin is so insecure they feel the need to control every aspect of everything concerning them.


if there is one thing that the bush administration is not, it is insecure in any thing policy they put into place.  in fact, such total dedication to follow through on policy scares me.  sometimes it is okay to admit a mistake was made (and that is in general, not meaning that to point to any specific issue but as a generalization).


----------



## pizza (Jul 13, 2005)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> most people who consider themselves independant actually lean liberatarian or green/progressive.



The opposite of Libertarian is not green or progressive - it's authoritarian (Dictatorships, Absolute Monarchies, Facism..)

Green party members are all over the place. Jesse Ventura was actually a Libertarian. Ralph Nader was extreme left. Pat Buchanan was extreme right - but all called themselves green.

Progressive is just another word for liberal.


----------



## Charlie Schuessler (Jul 13, 2005)

pizza said:
			
		

> ...Progressive is just another word for liberal...



Now let me get this straight....if pro is the opposite of con...then is the opposite of progress is congress?  That must be true because progressive is just another word for liberal so congress must be conservative...and that is supported because it is run by republicans....:wink: 

You guys just can leave it alone....go outside and walk around in circles for a while and if you live in an urban area go find some second-hand pot smoke....it might do you some good… :idea:


----------



## pizza (Jul 13, 2005)

Charlie Schuessler said:
			
		

> if pro is the opposite of con...then is the opposite of progress is congress?



hehe..
I always figured the prefix "con" in congress refers to   this definition of con from m-w.com:

7. something (as a ruse) used deceptively to gain another's confidence


----------



## Stephen (Jul 14, 2005)

Where's Mr. Smith when we need him?

And no, I'm not referring to the fascist Bob Smith-R, former senator from NH.

-Stephen


----------



## JimG. (Jul 14, 2005)

noreaster said:
			
		

> My personal view is Politicians that say things like "This is typical of Democrats. They smell blood and they act like sharks," is not much different than a comedian that can't get the audience to laugh and goes right to human private parts to get a laugh.  This is very insulting to the intelligence of Americans and free people everywhere. Democrats do the same thing.    Americans deserve better answers than this.  Politicians need to stick to the issues and not go for the crotch.



Kudos! Well said.


----------



## noreaster (Jul 14, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> noreaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


JimG thanks! 
Obviously, there are two wrongs here.  Politicians that say this stuff and news media like FOX that report it.  Maybe 3 wrongs.  Americans that read this stuff and think its news.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 14, 2005)

noreaster said:
			
		

> JimG. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ever see "Mind of Mencia"? Sort of a Hispanic Daily Show. Very funny! He does a section about things that shouldn't be news. Last night it was about 3 emus that escaped from the zoo somewhere. It went on and on. 

As a counterpoint, he showed a tape of GWB rehearsing for a satellite TV message. GWB looks at the screen and flips the bird. That's news!


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 14, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> Where's Mr. Smith when we need him?
> 
> And no, I'm not referring to the fascist Bob Smith-R, former senator from NH.
> 
> -Stephen


mr. smith would be rolling in his grave about modern US styled capitolism.


----------



## Stephen (Jul 15, 2005)

Well, so it now appears that Rove did NOT have access to classified info.

He learned the name from REPORTERS! The free press would NEVER risk our national security like that, would they?

I guess we now know why Judtih Miller is still in jail. She's not protecting Rove... she's had the same waiver that the other reporters have. (In fact, Rove waived it over a year ago.)

Do you really think these reporters give a rat's ass about saving Rove's hide? Of course not, they'd give him up in a heartbeat if they could.

No, the reality is that the Plume source is someone else, and that is why the prosecutor is NOT going after Rove. That is why Judith Miller is not giving up her source. And that is why we now know that ovak is the one who gave Plume's name to Rove. (He testified to that in the grand jury, it's now been revealed.)

Sorry, but this Rove-hunt is over. You'll have to find another way to try and skewer him.

-Stephen


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 15, 2005)

Well, there goes all my fun. Something else will come along. Now, if it wasn't Rove, who was it?

This story has legs, baby!


----------



## JimG. (Jul 15, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> Well, so it now appears that Rove did NOT have access to classified info.
> 
> He learned the name from REPORTERS! The free press would NEVER risk our national security like that, would they?
> 
> ...



These developments are fascinating. I really do hope that it plays out that GWB & Co. did nothing wrong...the country just doesn't need the kind of zoo that always develops around these alleged scandals.

And if it plays out that Miller is in jail because she won't give info to help bring the crook who outed Plame into the open, well then she belongs in jail. 

And don't even get me started about all the taxpayer money that's already been wasted because she won't spill the beans.


----------



## noreaster (Jul 15, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> These developments are fascinating. I really do hope that it plays out that GWB & Co. did nothing wrong...the country just doesn't need the kind of zoo that always develops around these alleged scandals.


Wow this story is moving fast.  I can't keep up.  Took a break from the game.  Redsox are up 17 to 1 after Ortiz grand slam. GoSOX :beer:    Hey JimG  your right on that.  I don't like GWB but this country doesn't need another scandal in the white house.  :blink:


----------

