The focus on Rove brought an odd twist to Bush's travels. When the president boarded Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base outside of Washington, he walked up the steps and waved Ñ and not a single camera followed. He looked momentarily perplexed. All lenses were trained on Rove at the bottom of the steps.
On Crossfire today, Novak is now claiming that when he used the term "operative" in the july article, it was a "mistake' and that he uses "operative" for any type of government official..
On Crossfire today, Novak is now claiming that when he used the term "operative" in the july article, it was a "mistake' and that he uses "operative" for any type of government official..
46 years of experince eh?
Bob's your Uncle! And your Uncle is a LIAR!
Does anyone have access to any form of database that would contain his articles? I'm curious to know if his use of the word 'operative' does in fact follow his explanation.
Bob seems to being saying is that "its just that word i use it all the time" as audiopolution mentions a look into his article database would verify that or not.
here is part of a description from the paula zahn interview with joe wilson last night
Quote:
ZAHN: You want to answer that question? Is this Bush-bashing on your part?
WILSON: Let me make a couple of points about that.
First of all, Novak also said that I was a Clinton appointee. In actual fact, my first political appointee was as ambassador. And I was appointed by George H.W. Bush, the first President Bush. So I really am apolitical in all of this.
Secondly, somebody with Novak's self-described 46 years experience will know the difference between operative and analyst. And his report clearly says -- his article says operative.
ZAHN: So what does that mean?
WILSON: That means that I think that he knew and he was told that she was a CIA operative, which means that they come under the branch of the CIA that deals with clandestine operations.
ZAHN: So you're basically saying there's no doubt in your mind that this was a leak, when in fact he said, in the course of interviewing a senior White House official, that is what he was told, and your wife's -- not her name at that point, but at least her official capacity was shared with him?
WILSON: Bob Novak called me before he went to print with the report. And he said, a CIA source had told him that my wife was an operative. He was trying to get a second source. He couldn't get a second source. Could I confirm that? I said no.
What strikes me is that Novak used the term operative there. He was discussing the CIA. He has 46 years expericence and he "just uses that word"? He was trying to "second source" the very word "Operative"
I don't buy it or him.
But novak is not the message here. He was just a mousey messenger. The real story is just how much of our national security was comprised and how many lives (including the lives of all americans) where put in danger because of an act of political revenge from the within the white house.
"Ashcroft was not an accidental choice for attorney general. Before Sept. 11, his conservative credentials on judicial nominees, enforcing federal pornography laws and protecting gun owner's rights were good. Karl Rove, Bush's trusted political adviser, had handled Ashcroft's political campaigns and Majority Leader of the Senate Trent Lott, R-Miss., favored his nomination."
In regards to your editied post........the most damning evidence is his speech about why we should go to war.
Now I suppose you're going to say " What if he was given false info? "
You realize that everything he said in the State of the Union was true don't you? Do you even know what it was that he said in the State of the Union that was so hotly debated?
He said that British Intelligence believes that Iraq was seeking to purchase "yellow cake" from Niger.
That was true. British Intelligence believed it. Whether Iraq was actually seeking to purchase it or not is irrelevant to the veracity of this statement.
If person A tells me that Person B ran a stop sign at 3:00 this afternoon, and I later say to Person C "person A says that Person B ran a stop sign," that's a truthful statement. Even if I KNOW that Person B didn't run the stop sign, who cares, all I'm doing is commenting that someone else has said he did, I'm not saying he did.
Was it irresponsible to use this statement, even though true, if there was significant evidence that underminded the British claim? Probably, but it was still truthful. The ONLY way he lied is if the British DID NOT BELIEVE IT. They have confirmed that they did.
But at any rate, this has nothing to do with the topic, so I'm sorry I so far digress.
You realize that everything he said in the State of the Union was true don't you? Do you even know what it was that he said in the State of the Union that was so hotly debated?
He said that British Intelligence believes that Iraq was seeking to purchase "yellow cake" from Niger.
He didn't say anything about yellow cake or Niger. This is the precise quote: "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.''
Joe Wilson was on Fox and Friends this morning. He backed off a little from the accusation against Rove. I'm looking to see if I can find a transcript.
He mentioned it on pauyla zahn last night. He basicallly said that he has "tempered" his stock speech so that he leaves out the "frog march" out of the white house phrase.
Someone in the WH endangered his wife's life. I give him much leeway
Quote:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILSON: It's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(LAUGHTER)
ZAHN: You're laughing. Are you backing off this? And if so, why?
WILSON: Well, first of all, just to put it in context, it was in response to a question about the investigation. And what's left out of that is my saying that I intended to cooperate with the investigation, because, after all, one would like to see results, Karl Rove being the name that one puts to the White House political operation.
In fact, the chain of command from the CIA goes right up to the White House and to the president of the United States. In fact, the outing of my wife was obviously a political or communications move. The head of the political operation is Karl Rove. If I've tempered anything, it has been that I've dropped the frog-marching him out of the White House in handcuffs from my stock speech in this matter.
ZAHN: So what does that mean? Is he off the hook? Are you still saying this goes all the way to the top levels of the White House?
WILSON: No, on the contrary, I don't have any specific information. I would hope that an investigation would yield the information as to who was responsible for the precise leak.
What I do have are any number of journalist sources, none of whom I have any reason not to believe, who have said that the White House was pushing this story after the leak, after the Novak article, and including Karl Rove.
ZAHN: "The Washington Post" reported over the weekend that at least six Washington correspondents were fed this same information. Why?
here's what the media soundbite "frog" phrase left out.In another article he goes on to mention what was left out of the soundbite. i don't have the link but it ends something like "and i would like the end result to be justice served" or something like that.
Novak's White House sources aren't the only potentially prosecutable leakers. The identity of an undercover operative such as Plame would not automatically be something in circulation at the White House. Somebody at the CIA would have had to tell the White House that Plame was Wilson's wife and that she was undercover. Any aggressive Justice dragnet is as likely to collect CIA employees as it is White House officials.
He mentioned it on pauyla zahn last night. He basicallly said that he has "tempered" his stock speech so that he leaves out the "frog march" out of the white house phrase.
Someone in the WH endangered his wife's life...
You don't know that. All you know is someone probably broke the law.
Now that some reporters are saying Rove's name, what do people suppose should happen to him? That is, if he's found guilty of what these reporters claim he did.
Everyone except "Bob Novak" _including_ the counsel to White House is claiming that his wife was either "undercover" or an "operative". That means she worked the field setting up contacts and sources in the field. If this is what in indeed what she did then i have some other stuff "I don't know"
I don't know exactly how many CIA agents could have been killed because of this leak.
I don't know exactly how many contacts could have been killed because of this leak.
I don't know exactly how many americans could have been put in danger because of this leak.
Joe Wilson said it best in the paula zahn interview:
Quote:
We've always thought about this in the context of what is compromised in terms of national security. What operations? What agents? What networks that have been put into place during her career.That was the focus of our thinking. I will tell you that increasingly people are asking that question.
I'm afraid i disagree when you say "All you know is someone probably broke the law." We know her cover was blown. I think this whole thing goes a little futher then a "broken law".
Comments
lookee... it's Karlito!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...170/5ffws.html
The focus on Rove brought an odd twist to Bush's travels. When the president boarded Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base outside of Washington, he walked up the steps and waved Ñ and not a single camera followed. He looked momentarily perplexed. All lenses were trained on Rove at the bottom of the steps.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...pe/cia_leak_19
On Crossfire today, Novak is now claiming that when he used the term "operative" in the july article, it was a "mistake' and that he uses "operative" for any type of government official..
46 years of experince eh?
Bob's your Uncle! And your Uncle is a LIAR!
Links?
there's a link to hear Wilson on NPR...
his wife's status was not widely known...
he says the circle of people who knew was maybe a dozen... thier friend's and colleagues didn't even know.
And if you listen to how he answers the questions about his wife... it's clear he's not going to say she's an agent... that would be breaking the law.
I think Novak is finding that being a shill for the White House can suck.
I think Novak is finding that being a shill for the White House can suck.
But that's just it. Today on Crossfire he upped the level of being a Bush Apologist. Its obscene.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
BACKPEDAL TO THE FUTURE!!!
On Crossfire today, Novak is now claiming that when he used the term "operative" in the july article, it was a "mistake' and that he uses "operative" for any type of government official..
46 years of experince eh?
Bob's your Uncle! And your Uncle is a LIAR!
Does anyone have access to any form of database that would contain his articles? I'm curious to know if his use of the word 'operative' does in fact follow his explanation.
here is part of a description from the paula zahn interview with joe wilson last night
ZAHN: You want to answer that question? Is this Bush-bashing on your part?
WILSON: Let me make a couple of points about that.
First of all, Novak also said that I was a Clinton appointee. In actual fact, my first political appointee was as ambassador. And I was appointed by George H.W. Bush, the first President Bush. So I really am apolitical in all of this.
Secondly, somebody with Novak's self-described 46 years experience will know the difference between operative and analyst. And his report clearly says -- his article says operative.
ZAHN: So what does that mean?
WILSON: That means that I think that he knew and he was told that she was a CIA operative, which means that they come under the branch of the CIA that deals with clandestine operations.
ZAHN: So you're basically saying there's no doubt in your mind that this was a leak, when in fact he said, in the course of interviewing a senior White House official, that is what he was told, and your wife's -- not her name at that point, but at least her official capacity was shared with him?
WILSON: Bob Novak called me before he went to print with the report. And he said, a CIA source had told him that my wife was an operative. He was trying to get a second source. He couldn't get a second source. Could I confirm that? I said no.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/29/pzn.00.html
What strikes me is that Novak used the term operative there. He was discussing the CIA. He has 46 years expericence and he "just uses that word"? He was trying to "second source" the very word "Operative"
I don't buy it or him.
But novak is not the message here. He was just a mousey messenger. The real story is just how much of our national security was comprised and how many lives (including the lives of all americans) where put in danger because of an act of political revenge from the within the white house.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...35309?v=glance
That probably has the info you're looking for...
http://chblue.com/artman/publish/article_2855.shtml
"Ashcroft was not an accidental choice for attorney general. Before Sept. 11, his conservative credentials on judicial nominees, enforcing federal pornography laws and protecting gun owner's rights were good. Karl Rove, Bush's trusted political adviser, had handled Ashcroft's political campaigns and Majority Leader of the Senate Trent Lott, R-Miss., favored his nomination."
From http://atrios.blogspot.com/
Julian Borger Names Karl Rove
"Several of the journalists are saying privately 'yes it was Karl Rove who I talked to.'"
Guardian audio report here. (about 1:20 in)
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2003_09_2...94896909629277
Web Version:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/0,12271,759893,00.html
B-Y-E-K-A-R-L
In regards to your editied post........the most damning evidence is his speech about why we should go to war.
Now I suppose you're going to say " What if he was given false info? "
You realize that everything he said in the State of the Union was true don't you? Do you even know what it was that he said in the State of the Union that was so hotly debated?
He said that British Intelligence believes that Iraq was seeking to purchase "yellow cake" from Niger.
That was true. British Intelligence believed it. Whether Iraq was actually seeking to purchase it or not is irrelevant to the veracity of this statement.
If person A tells me that Person B ran a stop sign at 3:00 this afternoon, and I later say to Person C "person A says that Person B ran a stop sign," that's a truthful statement. Even if I KNOW that Person B didn't run the stop sign, who cares, all I'm doing is commenting that someone else has said he did, I'm not saying he did.
Was it irresponsible to use this statement, even though true, if there was significant evidence that underminded the British claim? Probably, but it was still truthful. The ONLY way he lied is if the British DID NOT BELIEVE IT. They have confirmed that they did.
But at any rate, this has nothing to do with the topic, so I'm sorry I so far digress.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
You realize that everything he said in the State of the Union was true don't you? Do you even know what it was that he said in the State of the Union that was so hotly debated?
He said that British Intelligence believes that Iraq was seeking to purchase "yellow cake" from Niger.
He didn't say anything about yellow cake or Niger. This is the precise quote: "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.''
Someone in the WH endangered his wife's life. I give him much leeway
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILSON: It's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(LAUGHTER)
ZAHN: You're laughing. Are you backing off this? And if so, why?
WILSON: Well, first of all, just to put it in context, it was in response to a question about the investigation. And what's left out of that is my saying that I intended to cooperate with the investigation, because, after all, one would like to see results, Karl Rove being the name that one puts to the White House political operation.
In fact, the chain of command from the CIA goes right up to the White House and to the president of the United States. In fact, the outing of my wife was obviously a political or communications move. The head of the political operation is Karl Rove. If I've tempered anything, it has been that I've dropped the frog-marching him out of the White House in handcuffs from my stock speech in this matter.
ZAHN: So what does that mean? Is he off the hook? Are you still saying this goes all the way to the top levels of the White House?
WILSON: No, on the contrary, I don't have any specific information. I would hope that an investigation would yield the information as to who was responsible for the precise leak.
What I do have are any number of journalist sources, none of whom I have any reason not to believe, who have said that the White House was pushing this story after the leak, after the Novak article, and including Karl Rove.
ZAHN: "The Washington Post" reported over the weekend that at least six Washington correspondents were fed this same information. Why?
here's what the media soundbite "frog" phrase left out.In another article he goes on to mention what was left out of the soundbite. i don't have the link but it ends something like "and i would like the end result to be justice served" or something like that.
"the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.''
thanks for the clarity. it doesn't change my point
Novak's White House sources aren't the only potentially prosecutable leakers. The identity of an undercover operative such as Plame would not automatically be something in circulation at the White House. Somebody at the CIA would have had to tell the White House that Plame was Wilson's wife and that she was undercover. Any aggressive Justice dragnet is as likely to collect CIA employees as it is White House officials.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
He mentioned it on pauyla zahn last night. He basicallly said that he has "tempered" his stock speech so that he leaves out the "frog march" out of the white house phrase.
Someone in the WH endangered his wife's life...
You don't know that. All you know is someone probably broke the law.
Anyone?
I don't know exactly how many CIA agents could have been killed because of this leak.
I don't know exactly how many contacts could have been killed because of this leak.
I don't know exactly how many americans could have been put in danger because of this leak.
Joe Wilson said it best in the paula zahn interview:
We've always thought about this in the context of what is compromised in terms of national security. What operations? What agents? What networks that have been put into place during her career.That was the focus of our thinking. I will tell you that increasingly people are asking that question.
I'm afraid i disagree when you say "All you know is someone probably broke the law." We know her cover was blown. I think this whole thing goes a little futher then a "broken law".