Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dems Seek Probe on Rove Role in CIA Leak

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 04:15 PM
Original message
Dems Seek Probe on Rove Role in CIA Leak
Dems Seek Probe on Rove Role in CIA Leak
By DAVID ESPO




WASHINGTON - Democrats stirred the pot Thursday in the case of presidential aide Karl Rove and the news leak that unmasked a CIA agent, pushing the issue toward the Senate floor, pressing for a congressional investigation and inviting the operative's husband to the Capitol to accuse the White House of a "smear campaign."

The case is not about Rove, said Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey, who called for a probe that would compel senior administration officials to turn over records relating to the disclosure that Valerie Plame was a CIA officer. "This ... is about holding the executive branch accountable for a breach of national security."

Democratic Leader Harry Reid led the effort to push the issue onto the Senate floor, seeking a quick vote on legislation to strip national security clearances from any official who discloses the identity of a covert agent.

"It is up to the president to decide whether or not he will keep his word to fire whoever is responsible for the leak," said Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley. "It is up to the lawyers to decide what laws were violated. Congress has the right and responsibility to state clearly that anyone who divulges classified information should lose their security clearance."

more: http://www.tristate-media.com/articles/2005/07/14/ap/headlines/d8bbd49g0.txt

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
cssmall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Uhm. . .
I believe if you are in an operative position at any level within the CIA, you are not supposed to be leaked to the public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soothsayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. absolutely! all the spooks I grew up with worked for the "State
Edited on Thu Jul-14-05 04:29 PM by soothsayer
Dept."

My friend thought her NSA dad (in charge of keeping tabs on all the oil reserves around the world) made pennies!

And our spook neighbor (who turned out to have something to do with satellites and the CIA) was supposedly a math teacher at a local school. We bought it, too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. some say she was undercover
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. She WAS undercover.
There would be no "outing" if she weren't--so why bother to "leak" something that is NOT a secret?

Her classmate acknowledged on dailyKOS that she was definitely NOT a desk jockey.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kainah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
6. does anyone know how the vote came out?
Searching for a DU thread on this Senate debate -- which I had to leave in the middle -- and can't find one. Anyone know what happened after the repugs introduced a second degree amendment aimed at silencing Durbin?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kenneth ken Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
7. a little help here, please.
Fitzgerald is already conducting a probe; why, apart from politics, do Dems want to start up a second probe?

Would a Congressional probe have more power to get documents from the WH? It seems to me Fitzgerald is doing fine so far, a bit slow for everyone around here I will grant, but in his own way, he does seem to be making progress and turning up the heat.

Is this a case of Dems jumping on board because they smell blood, or are feeling heat from their constituents?

Would a Congressional investigation turn the whole thing into a media circus, and muddy the waters enough so that all the criminals manage to slip away? - that's my big concern.

TIA


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinkpops Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Partly just trying to keep it in the news. As long as it is hot the press
will keep on digging, more info will leak out. There are those out there who know what happened, and there must be a lot of stuff the prosecutor doesn't know about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grytpype Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. No, not just to keep it in the news.
It's an important point: this is about much more than whether Rove violated the narrowly-drafted criminal law that is gotten all the attention.

Rove seriously impaired national security, and that is an issue all it itself. It needs to be totally exposed and people need to be held accountable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhiteTara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. the watergate congressional probe
ended in nixon's resignation. I believe that this congressional investigation would lead to impeachment, which is why of course the partisan repukes would never let that happen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kenneth ken Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. granted.
My recall of Watergate is fuzzy, so I did a quick Wikipedia read. It seems in that case, the Senate committee was set up first, then the Nixon administration set up Cox as Special Counsel. I'm guessing they thought they could better control and contain the investigation by doing so. Turned out they were wrong, and Nixon initiated the 'Saturday Night Massacre.'

I think in the Plame case, the maladministration also thought they'd be able to control and contain the investigation, and it may have seemed so since it's been a very quiet matter for its duration till lately. But lately, it is starting to seem like the maladministration really wasn't controlling it very well, so I'm not sure I see the need *yet* for a Congressional investigation.

I'm willing to let Fitzgerald continue to the end, see what he does in terms of indictments etc. and then, if need be, do the Congressional probe.

In Watergate, the Senate started investigations/hearings because the Nixon administration wasn't pursuing the problem at all.

So, again, apart from politics, why do Dems want to set up a second probe?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhiteTara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. So we can have a public record?
Or maybe it is just politics. But the politics of treason should be opened up as far as possible.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC