Joe Sick Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Read up and memorize. Foxnews and the WSJ obviously have. http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Exclusive_GOP_talking_points_on_Rove_seek_to_discre_0712.html Exclusive: GOP talking points on Rove seek to discredit Wilson RAW STORY has obtained an exclusive copy of Republican talking points on Bush adviser Karl Rove's leaking the name of a CIA agent to a reporter, circulated by the Republican National Committee to "D.C. Talkers" in Washington. The document, emblazoned with the words "Special Edition" and dated Tuesday, seeks to discredit claims put forth by Ambassador Joseph Wilson, whose wife was 'outed' as a covert operative by a conservative columnist. After obtaining copies of emails sent from a Time reporter to his editor, Newsweek fingered Rove as a source for the leak which disclosed the agent's identity. The talking points mirror a release by Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman earlier Tuesday, in which he declared the attacks on Rove were spawned by the 'MoveOn' wing of the Democratic Party. MoveOn later accused the White House of a 'cover up.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Please point out any inaccuracies, Joe....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Am I missing something? Is any of this incorrect? And is there a problem with everyone having correct info? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 I like the JW direct statements that are slammed down. Rule#1: You can not tell a reporter (even under double secret probation ) a CIA operatives name. Rule#2: Let the Grand Jury decide if she was really an agent. o.k. i'm done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 lol I wish we'd get the talking points memo on all issues. Maybe it would force some politicians to say something that isn't written for them for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Here's today's editorial from the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB112121058587983903,00.html REVIEW & OUTLOOK Karl Rove, Whistleblower July 13, 2005; Page A14 Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying for Karl Rove's head over his role in exposing a case of CIA nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. On the contrary, we'd say the White House political guru deserves a prize -- perhaps the next iteration of the "Truth-Telling" award that The Nation magazine bestowed upon Mr. Wilson before the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed him as a fraud. For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real "whistleblower" in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He's the one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility. He's the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove. Media chants aside, there's no evidence that Mr. Rove broke any laws in telling reporters that Ms. Plame may have played a role in her husband's selection for a 2002 mission to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking uranium ore in Niger. To be prosecuted under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Mr. Rove would had to have deliberately and maliciously exposed Ms. Plame knowing that she was an undercover agent and using information he'd obtained in an official capacity. But it appears Mr. Rove didn't even know Ms. Plame's name and had only heard about her work at Langley from other journalists. On the "no underlying crime" point, moreover, no less than the New York Times and Washington Post now agree. So do the 36 major news organizations that filed a legal brief in March aimed at keeping Mr. Cooper and the New York Times's Judith Miller out of jail. "While an investigation of the leak was justified, it is far from clear -- at least on the public record -- that a crime took place," the Post noted the other day. Granted the media have come a bit late to this understanding, and then only to protect their own, but the logic of their argument is that Mr. Rove did nothing wrong either. The same can't be said for Mr. Wilson, who first "outed" himself as a CIA consultant in a melodramatic New York Times op-ed in July 2003. At the time he claimed to have thoroughly debunked the Iraq-Niger yellowcake uranium connection that President Bush had mentioned in his now famous "16 words" on the subject in that year's State of the Union address. Mr. Wilson also vehemently denied it when columnist Robert Novak first reported that his wife had played a role in selecting him for the Niger mission. He promptly signed up as adviser to the Kerry campaign and was feted almost everywhere in the media, including repeat appearances on NBC's "Meet the Press" and a photo spread (with Valerie) in Vanity Fair. But his day in the political sun was short-lived. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report last July cited the note that Ms. Plame had sent recommending her husband for the Niger mission. "Interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD [Counterproliferation Division] employee, suggested his name for the trip," said the report. The same bipartisan report also pointed out that the forged documents Mr. Wilson claimed to have discredited hadn't even entered intelligence channels until eight months after his trip. And it said the CIA interpreted the information he provided in his debrief as mildly supportive of the suspicion that Iraq had been seeking uranium in Niger. About the same time, another inquiry headed by Britain's Lord Butler delivered its own verdict on the 16 words: "We conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded." In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know. If there's any scandal at all here, it is that this entire episode has been allowed to waste so much government time and media attention, not to mention inspire a "special counsel" probe. The Bush administration is also guilty on this count, since it went along with the appointment of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in an election year in order to punt the issue down the road. But now Mr. Fitzgerald has become an unguided missile, holding reporters in contempt for not disclosing their sources even as it becomes clearer all the time that no underlying crime was at issue. As for the press corps, rather than calling for Mr. Rove to be fired, they ought to be grateful to him for telling the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 I think these points could be used on just about anything. Its deflecting the focus on what the real questions were. Mehlman's Message-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mehlman spoke about Rove with Wolf Blitzer on CNN yesterday: "The fact is, this is someone who serves our president, serves our country incredibly well. It's incredibly unfortunate that there are other people out there, while he fully cooperates with the investigation, that try to smear him and thereby smear the investigation." Blitzer asked if he'd talked about the matter with White House officials, and Mehlman wouldn't say. "My conversations today have been focused on CAFTA, on judges," Mehlman said, inconclusively. Blitzer gave Mehlman credit for coming on camera: "You had the guts to come out and speak on these sensitive issues, but at the White House, they seem to be putting up this stonewall. They're not answering any questions." And yet here are some of the questions Blitzer asked that Mehlman didn't answer: · "When you say the story was false, is there any evidence Niger was sending uranium, enriched uranium to Iraq?" · "Were you called before a grand jury?" · "Why can't you tell us if you've been asked to testify?" · "Do you believe Judy Miller should be sitting in jail right now?" · "As far as you know, are other White House officials being investigated right now as a potential source for this leak?" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
du7st Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 This is quite funny. The talking points says.... both the senate select committee on intelligence and the CIA found assessments Wilson made in his report were wrong What exactly was wrong with it? He was the only one that got it right! From his report... the article I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place. You know things are bad when the Republicans are deflecting critism by showing yet again how they mislead the public with their scare tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted July 13, 2005 Author Share Posted July 13, 2005 Just saying that on Monday, all you heard were "no comments." Then, suddenly, on Tuesday, everyone comes out swinging, once they are told what to say. If trying to keep our people who work on WMDs safe, as well as their contacts, is "partisan politics" then count me in. Please find me the link where Iraq DID try to get yellowcake from Niger. Dick Cheney also claimed that he never met John Edwards, where there are pictures and video of them being at prayer breakfasts and a ceremony for Liddy Dole. Why should we take him at his word now? Republicans are usually better at attacking than playing defense. Nice spin to try to blame this all on Wilson, like it is his fault. The talking points just show how indefensible their position is. I also find it hilarious how the WSJ opinion piece goes by the talking points almost word for word, even in the same order! s the outing of an undercover agent during a time of war acceptable to "discourage" a negative story acceptable, now? Is that the Republican position? Not that Rove didn't do it, but that it was OK to do it in the course of shaping news reports? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 "Please find me the link where Iraq DID try to get yellowcake from Niger. " I promise to do so when you (or anyone on the left) can provide me a link where Bush said this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 What I find interesting is that when arriving in office, for the first time in history, all the attorneys in the Justice Department were fired (by Bill) Anthony Pellicano, who has already been convicted in relation to an intimidation case(of a reporter) and faces further charges and yet when the media wrote stories about him, they NEVER mentioned he worked in the White House for Hillary. This is a man who said in a magazine article how expert he was with a knife and he could "shred your face." Travel Office employees were not only fired for the sake of political cronyism but there was an attempt to destroy and prosecute them(until vindicated and cleared) This was a vicious attack on innocent people, all to 'justify' firing all of them. 7 judges appointed by Bill became the "magnificent 7"(later 8) held closed meetings and would have sensitive cases shunted to them so that no political fall-out would be endured by the WH. And not to mention the firing of William Sessions, the first FBI Director fired by a President who later spoke about the illegal and unethical use of FBI files by the White House (namely Hillary) to dig up dirt on their political opponents. Interesting how somehow these were stories yet NOT stories compared to Rove's 'leak' and how the same people screaming now were nowhere to be found when these things happened(to say nothing of campaign contribution issues, China, etc) It's not that I'm saying one president should 'get away' with something because another did. I'm saying that one doesn't nearly rise to the level of the other and I'd like to know why when someone hiccups in this administration someone is there pretending to care about ethics(See DeLay and Pelosi's backing off of investigating other Senators) when all it is an attempt to chip away at their political enemy in the WH. Didn't Sandy Berger stuff classified documents in his clothes and steal them? Don't we remember who he worked for and that Hillary used info during some speech or session that she normally would not have had yet? Hello.....?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by Joe Sick Just saying that on Monday, all you heard were "no comments." Then, suddenly, on Tuesday, everyone comes out swinging, once they are told what to say. If trying to keep our people who work on WMDs safe, as well as their contacts, is "partisan politics" then count me in. Please find me the link where Iraq DID try to get yellowcake from Niger. Dick Cheney also claimed that he never met John Edwards, where there are pictures and video of them being at prayer breakfasts and a ceremony for Liddy Dole. Why should we take him at his word now? Republicans are usually better at attacking than playing defense. Nice spin to try to blame this all on Wilson, like it is his fault. The talking points just show how indefensible their position is. I also find it hilarious how the WSJ opinion piece goes by the talking points almost word for word, even in the same order! s the outing of an undercover agent during a time of war acceptable to "discourage" a negative story acceptable, now? Is that the Republican position? Not that Rove didn't do it, but that it was OK to do it in the course of shaping news reports? How someone could be wrong is beyond me........:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin Didn't Sandy Berger stuff classified documents in his clothes and steal them? Don't we remember who he worked for and that Hillary used info during some speech or session that she normally would not have had yet? Hello.....?? Click......Bang........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
du7st Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 "Please find me the link where Iraq DID try to get yellowcake from Niger. " I promise to do so when you (or anyone on the left) can provide me a link where Bush said this. I am not on the left but how about I make a fool of your ignorance anyway? From the 2003 State of the Union Address... Link The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.[/Quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsl2 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by du7st I am not on the left but how about I make a fool of your ignorance anyway? From the 2003 State of the Union Address... Link :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty P For The Pulitzer Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 From what I understand, Wilson said Saddam did not buy any yellow-cake uranium from Africa. Bush said Saddam sought it out. That's different than actually buying it. Wilson never found any proof that Saddam didn't seek out the uranium, just that he didn't buy any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
du7st Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by Fatty P For The Pulitzer From what I understand, Wilson said Saddam did not buy any yellow-cake uranium from Africa. Bush said Saddam sought it out. That's different than actually buying it. Wilson never found any proof that Saddam didn't seek out the uranium, just that he didn't buy any. Taken out of context, you are correct. Let's put some context to this by looking a the preceding paragraphs to the one I attached earlier. From Bush's 2003 state of the union address... The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it. Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them. From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them. [/Quote] Bush scared the crap out of the American public to get the green light to go to war. I remember being wishy-washy on the Iraq war prior to the state of union speech. Once I heard all of this, however, I knew that we had no choice. Of course, we only found out later that Bush was full of it. People used to revolt for this sort of thing. You people that have the nerve to defend it should be ashamed of yourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty P For The Pulitzer Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Hmmm, I'm lost. Where does it say Saddam got all that stuff from Africa? We're not debating Bush's claims that they had WMDs. We're debating Wilson saying Bush was wrong that Saddam bought yellow-cake uranium from Africa, when Bush only said Saddam went looking for it. And if Bush is full of it, so was Clinton because he thought Iraq had all that stuff too. They were getting the same intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 but only one person acted on it.....and that person turned out to be wrong. makes you wonder if the other guy wasn't so confident on the information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty P For The Pulitzer Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by Bufford but only one person acted on it.....and that person turned out to be wrong. makes you wonder if the other guy wasn't so confident on the information. Confident enough to send missiles in there in '98 because he thought they had them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 confident enough to invade while we had another war going on? no. Sending missles there isn't the same as rolling into downtown Baggy-Dad with the idea we're going to find piles and piles of WMD for the evening editions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by Bufford confident enough to invade while we had another war going on? no. Sending missles there isn't the same as rolling into downtown Baggy-Dad with the idea we're going to find piles and piles of WMD for the evening editions. Bush lied people died Well then I am not sure how nobody died when missles hit Baghdad, even though apparently now Clinton was not "so confident" in his own intel, 6 years into his term Maybe if he didn't boondogle the CIA and have 3 DCI's some consistancy could have occured in our intelligence during the 1990s.... so maybe that is why he wasn't so confident in the intel BTW, if it is determined that she was undercover at the time, or if the test for a crime is proven, Rove must go Not changing that position, it'll become a deadly game if our ops are outed for partisan and discrediting reasons, which will have a negative impact on our nations intel (much worse then the new DNI) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 This is hilarious. If Clinton was in power and this happened, pretty much his entire administration would be in jail right now. That said, I am so disgusted by both sides of the aisle right now. When did politics become like sports? No one ever gives an inch and admits that yeah, someone in their party really messed up, or that someone from the other party may have a good point about something. It's a f'in joke and our great country is suffering because of it. Rove isn't going down unless Fitzgerald indicts him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
du7st Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by Fatty P For The Pulitzer Hmmm, I'm lost. Yes I know. Originally posted by Fatty P For The Pulitzer Where does it say Saddam got all that stuff from Africa? We're not debating Bush's claims that they had WMDs. We're debating Wilson saying Bush was wrong that Saddam bought yellow-cake uranium from Africa, when Bush only said Saddam went looking for it.[/b] It is clear as day what Bush was trying to do in that speech. Save your lawyer tricks for someone else - they won't work on me - I'm not a Democrat. Originally posted by Fatty P For The Pulitzer And if Bush is full of it, so was Clinton because he thought Iraq had all that stuff too. They were getting the same intelligence. [/b] You Republican lapdogs can remember to drag Clinton into every discussion but you can never remember to bring any logic or wisdom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by Hooper This is hilarious. If Clinton was in power and this happened, pretty much his entire administration would be in jail right now. That said, I am so disgusted by both sides of the aisle right now. When did politics become like sports? No one ever gives an inch and admits that yeah, someone in their party really messed up, or that someone from the other party may have a good point about something. It's a f'in joke and our great country is suffering because of it. Rove isn't going down unless Fitzgerald indicts him. I don't think anyone has ever given an inch going back to John Adams to be honest. Maybe Lincoln?? In this case, like I said, Rove should be fired if these allegations match what constitutes a crime. Then he should be prosecuted. Protecting our intelligence officers and sources is a very high priority of our national security apparatus and to casually have this happen is a serious serious thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.