Bush whacked Rove on CIA leak (You are not gonna believe this one)

Bush whacked
Rove on CIA leak

BY THOMAS M. DeFRANK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF


WASHINGTON - An angry President Bush rebuked chief political guru Karl Rove two years ago for his role in the Valerie Plame affair, sources told the Daily News.

"He made his displeasure known to Karl," a presidential counselor told The News. "He made his life miserable about this."

Bush has nevertheless remained doggedly loyal to Rove, who friends and even political adversaries acknowledge is the architect of the President's rise from baseball owner to leader of the free world.

As special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald nears a decision, perhaps as early as today, on whether to issue indictments in his two-year probe, Bush has already circled the wagons around Rove, whose departure would be a grievous blow to an already shell-shocked White House staff and a President in deep political trouble.

Asked if he believed indictments were forthcoming, a key Bush official said he did not know, then added: "I'm very concerned it could go very, very badly."

"Karl is fighting for his life," the official added, "but anything he did was done to help George W. Bush. The President knows that and appreciates that."

Other sources confirmed, however, that Bush was initially furious with Rove in 2003 when his deputy chief of staff conceded he had talked to the press about the Plame leak.

snip>

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/357107p-304312c.html

Daily News is who broke the Hannah turned states evidence story.

W00T

remember that ?

It was in NJ, just after an unfruitful campaign visit...(Don't remember the exact timing, though.)

there's a coffee shop here in Portland named after you :)

I hope to hell something comes of all this... wasn't today the day?

or next Monday..
He said he'd go to Washington for this.. Is anyone watching travel plans?

Probably Rove had forgotten all about his testimony earlier in the week, and Bush didn't even know about the Plame leak, anyway.

Right?!



October 15, 2004 – Rove testifies before a federal grand jury for two hours. Fitzgerald assures Rove that he is not a target of the probe. (" Rove Testifies … ” Washington Post, Oct. 2004).

http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html



McGUIRE AIR FORCE BASE, N.J. Oct 18, 2004 — Karl Rove laid himself on the line Monday for his boss, the president of the United States.

That is, he laid himself under the wheels of Air Force One. Reason: Unclear, but it seems to have been an inside joke between Rove and President Bush.

Returning to the aircraft after Bush's foreign policy speech, the two men traded words. As Bush climbed the stairs, his top political adviser set his briefcase down in front of the tires and stretched out on the ground with his back to the wheels.

Rove stood back up moments later; a smiling Bush waved from the plane and they both got aboard....

"It was a humorous moment on the campaign trail," was all Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel would say about Rove's antic.

"this plane's on a down slope rovie... why don't you get on down there and be a wheel block for me. get down there and stop me rolling away..."

it was for being caught, nothing else.

Americans, get ready for another 911. This time, though, the inside job will kill many more.

Interesting.

that deserves to be repeated. :toast:

That tells us how really angry W was... what a bunch of BS

Now that their back is (almost) against the wall, Bush needs to distane himself from Rove. Show that he was the good guy in all of this, has integrity. Rove is the bad one, Bush didn't know, honest and when he found out he was sooooo pissed. What hogwash!

so!!!! :shrug: No way Rove did this and Bush did not know exactly what was happening.
I could sooner believe that Rove would take the knife in the back to protect Bush, and Bush, being the piece of crap that he is, would let Rove do it.

If Bush rebuked Rove in 2003 for Rove's role in outing Plame, that means Bush has known about it since then and has done nothing to correct the matter.

Depending on what Bush told Fitzgerald, he could be in *big* trouble. Much bigger than a little blue lie.

Who'da thunk? I'm shocked... and awed.

For anyone not old enough to remember Watergate, that was one of the catch phrases of that scandal.

At a minimum ....

For reference:


Bush committed another crime today, in plain sight, on National TV

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4130407

"Either way, the president has painted himself into a corner."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4148545

I rather doubt any of Bush's legal eagles (are ya listening Harry) would approve of intentionally leaking what is quoted in the NY Daily News. If the quoted "presidential counselor" has conveyed the truth then whomever it is did Bush dirty, big time.


Peace.

mentioned in the executive order?

This is just UNBELIEVABLE!

... anyone involved and, given the nature of their jobs and where their offices are located, they would have been out, immediately.

Whomever is planting these rumors is definitely not a friend of Bush or any of those being named and I doubt that anyone on Bush's payroll is leaking this stuff "to protect him."


Peace.

Penalities would likely fall under 18 USC 793 and IIPA, in the matter of intentionally disclosing intelligence assets and willfully harboring and protecting those who disclosed the assets.


Peace.

Take this at face value. Bush knew someone who outed a CIA agent. He did nothing about it, thus endangered the agent, the intelligence network, and this country's security.

Outing the agent is a felony, but I believe not reporting a security breach is also a felony. Bush is culpable and a co-conspirator.

that he committed a felony! (Bu$h mad at Rove is BS; Bu$h knew is the truth -- by Bu$h's own spin.)

Bu$h is an incompetent liar -- just as he's incompetent at everything else except stealing elections, starting wars-of-aggression, and shoveling our tax dollars to his rich friends.

An impeachable offense. Off to the Hague. Bye, Chimpy.

Do the Democrats of today have the balls to impeach a President?

What a bunch of hooey! Bush is this thing up to his eyeballs. This is just an attempt to protect him. So obvious, how can anyone fall for this?

but was present during the discussions about how to "get" Joe Wilson.

The man's a vidictive sociopath who hates being crossed (which is one thing Kerry should have known and used to his advantage). Had Kerry been more direct, straightforward and confrontative- like Dean would have been- Bush would have lost his temper for sure- and that would have been the election.

You're forgetting that two far rightwing Bushite corporations, Diebold and ES&S, tabulated the votes using SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code.

Bush losing his temper (say, in the debates) might have helped Kerry get the 10% or so margin he needed to overcome the electronic theft that occurred in the east coast time zone (and other Bushite fraud and vote suppression)--because I suspect that the electronic fraud had to be pre-programmed to certain percentage levels--but it's hard to envision a poorer presidential record or a poorer debate performance than Bush's (other than just slugging Kerry or something). Actually, I'm flabbergasted that voters accepted the outcome, although I know why they did: a) the war profiteering corporate news monopolies CHANGED the exit polls (Kerry won) to fit the result of Diebold's and ES&S's secret formulae (Bush won), late on election day, thus depriving the American public of major evidence of election fraud, and b) the Democratic leadership, which is corrupt on the $4 billion electronic voting boondoggle (among other things) failed to object to Bushite corporations tabulating the votes in secret.

What I'm saying is that you may be right, but I tend to doubt it. I think that Bush could have disrobed and gone screaming from the debate forum, and the war profiteering corporate news monopolies would have found a way to "spin" it, and then would have crowed and cooed and drooled and barked and chirped and snarled and giggled madly about his "amazing recovery" by election day.

They all had billions and billions and billions more dollars they wanted to loot from us, and more Arabs and Muslims they wanted to torture and kill, and they wouldn't have let a little episode of presidential "stress" get in the way.

... Diebold can steal 2%-4% of the vote, any more and it would be obvious to the point of being provable. They cheaters cannot risk being caught, for that would be their, and their party's, long term demise.

This fatalism that we "can never win an election as long as there are electronic voting machines" is simply wrong. We just have to win by a bigger margin than a couple percent.

... of electronic vote theft doesn't benefit anyone, most especially the American people.

There is nothing fatalistic about our concerns over private companies counting our votes in secret on software that we are not even allowed to examine. Doing nothing about it is fatalistic -- in fact, it is political suicide for anyone who believes in government whose power is derived from the consent of the governed.

I have posted two threads recently that deal with what you can do to reduce the likelihood that more elections are stolen by electronic vote manipulation. You might want to give them a look-see... and then do something other than console yourself that we can afford a 2-4% theft-related disadvantage in future elections:

"Election reform: get up, stand up, show up, speak up -- or be silenced"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=397208&mesg_id=397208

"Tennessee's Democratic Party 'walks the walk' for election reform"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x397506

... railing at Kerry for missing an opportunity to tackle the issue, so claiming I "dont' care" is stupid.

And, it isn't the fact that I say they can't steal more than a certain percentage of votes that makes it true, it's because it IS TRUE.

If you've studied the Georgia 2002 election (where Georgians voted entirely on Diebold equipment), there was a swing of 10 percentage points or greater between the pre-election polls (a day or two before the election) and the "reported" vote. And Gahanna precinct in Ohio reported around 4,000 votes for Bush in a precinct with only around 600 registered voters. Likewise, some of the more questionable exit poll/"reported" vote discrepencies in 2004 (New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania) all showed discrepencies in the 6+% range.

So what makes you believe that electronic vote theft has a ceiling above which the thieves cannot go. All evidence I have seen is to the contrary. Put up or sit on your hands.

... SCREW the polls. They don't mean shit, except one particular poll, the properly executed, large sample EXIT POLL.

The first time such a poll is at a 10% variance with the stated results, the idea of vote theft will move from the tinfoil arena to the factual arena and they will have killed the golden goose.

These folks are stupid but they are not that stupid. You cannot just steal any number of votes and expect it to fly.

I stand by my analysis.

Alabama electronic Voting results for the last Govenors election..

During the middle of the night the Republican party kicked ALL the poll workers out, the media, etc and sat down and MOVED 6,500 votes from column A to column B - no other numbers in the state changed..

They blamed it on a Computer malfunction, that an electric strike THIRTY MILES AWAY had SOMEHOW caused that many votes to switch in ONE county and no where else..

The Democratic Ex Gov, went to bed thinking he'd won, only to wake up to find that he'd lost to Riley, the REPIG..

and they did it RIGHT there in one room of the Alabama County Courthouse. We interviewed the ex gov for a film we made (still fighting for the film in court) and he was screwed..

He demanded a recount, and of course as is usual in what I consider one of the most corrupt counties in the country, they refused.

In effect, in order to prove fraud they would have to recount the votes, but without evidence of fraud, and since they refused to open the box without evidence of fraud, there was no reason to open the box or count the votes, so there was no way to prove fraud, cute, eh?

Nice legal circular F*CK YOU logic and theft.

He walked away from it, it was rigged, the judges are all corrupt there and hard core right wingers and he knew there was no way to fight it.. I consider that the Template for the rest of the country's voting systems.

I was sentenced in that same building, and it While I was in their jail, my wife was interviewing the Ex Dem Gov about all this - the Judge that sentenced me KNEW I was working on a film about Electronic Voting fraud, and used Family court to put me in the clinker..

I hate that patch of land with a passion and wish I could come back there with three or four Senators, FBI and a Federal Prosecutor along with a Constitutional lawyer from NY or some place where the Big Boys play at law..

2 to 3% will ALWAYS be the rule, no matter HOW many people vote in every state that constitutes a win for the wrong side.

It's happened, and if there was rioting in the streets of Georgia, I missed it. And if you're unwilling to review the evidence (which is certainly not limited to exit polls, but maybe you know that), you're certainly entitled to your uninformed opinion. Just don't try to pass it off as reality-based, 'k?

.... when very few people even suspected that this was going on, and what can happen now that there is widespead suspicion, are two very different things.

I'm talking about future elections here and I still stand by my analysis.

Of course, everything hinges on the cheated politician actually doing something, the primary reason I'm not interested in people like Kerry running for hotly contested positions.

... to insure that reaction (and to reduce the probability of stolen elections) are very different things. Please read the two links I provided you earlier in post #54 and then tell me what YOU are doing to prevent future elections from being stolen (besides "anal-yzing"). Thanks.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

tied to Bob Jones University. I always wonder what role those evangelical churches have in election fraud. So many of them are voting sites. Even at my neighborhood in Seattle. Just wanted to pipe in.

but in 2002 in Georgia's first election using Diebold:

"Barnes lost the governorship to the Republican, Sonny Purdue, 46% to 51%. A swing as much as 16% from the last opinion polls and Cleland lost to Chambliss 46%-53. A last-minute swing of 9 to 12 points, making what you're saying particularly significant."

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/30/1624227

I think everyone here needs to know that this past summer the whole country has gone to electronic voting and although about half the states instituted some kind of paper trail, most of the laws governing it call for small random recounts which are virtually useless in detecting electronic vote stealing.

it's a good and necessary strategy--and the truth--that we could conceivably overcome electronic election fraud by the sheer number of progressive voters. I DO think there is a limit on the fraud as to preprogrammed percentages--or at least there was in 2004--and that, at this point, they may fear exposure of these election theft machines, so they might proceed more cautiously.

Also, I would never, never, NEVER want to discourage people from voting. Never! WE MUST NEVER GIVE UP OUR RIGHT TO VOTE! We must NEVER give in to "it's all rigged" cynicism.

But I don't believe in lying to people--as the Dem leadership has been doing. People need to know the truth. They need to act on it. And they need to VOTE in massive turnouts.

Of course I don't agree to a 2% or 3% fraud! Nor would Depakid and Sendero, I'm sure. No one wants that. But we have to think realistically. For instance, in 2004, when I realized what was happening with electronic voting, I urged people to obtain absentee ballots, as one of the few ways to get a paper record, for comparison with machine results. And that turned out to be very, very useful in analyzing the election results.

We simply don't have time to correct all the fraudulent voting systems in the country, before '06 or even '08. We have to devise additional, temporary, ad hoc strategies--such as www.UScountvotes.org, and their statistical monitoring project; parallel elections; independent exit polls, and so on--and get-out-the-vote efforts that tell people HONESTLY what is going on, and fire them up to overcome it with our numbers.

We have to do both--repair this election system, AND deal with non-transparent elections however we can in the meantime.

... but my view of the evidence from 2004 and before indicates that election thefts have already occurred that exceed Sendero's 2-4% range. (See above post).

But I also agree that we need to keep the Rethuglican implosion going, and accelerate it, so that by 11/06, NO ONE would believe another sweep by the Republi-Nazis in this country. Unfortunately, I am still not sure whether there would be any massive response if it happened, other than folks dropping another Prozac and changing the channel. We have a lot of voting system improvements AND grassroots mobilization to do to overcome both the Rethugs' slippery fingers and the citizenry's somnolescence.

just force them to print out a paper ballot for hand counting. Under no circumstances should these machines TABULATE the vote - just print out a nice, standardized ballot that is then placed in the ballot box by the voter. This way, Diebold et al can keep their proprietary systems secret (I mean, who cares how they crafted up their User Interface) and we get the transparency that we all need. Knowing that Diebold has no problem with spitting out paper receipts at their ATM's, they certainly can't state that they CAN'T do the same with the voting machines. I consider this a win-win approach since we get what we want (transparency) and they can continue to reap profits for their user friendly machines (which do benefit the disadvantaged among us)

My two cents -

Paper trails are always the way to go. It IS, after all, how you catch miscreants.

What he's saying is, first you have to win, no matter how. Second, you have to put everything right, but you can't do that if you can't win.

... or an election system where private companies count our votes in secret using software that we can never examine.

Voter-verified paper ballots, mandatory random manual audits, no wireless capability in our voting machines -- those are the necessary (though not sufficient) conditions to begin to have trustworthy elections again.

Explain.

Glad you're here. Help us GET RID OF THESE PEOPLE!!!

Visualize IMPEACHMENT!!!!

Then go DO something about it.

... prove it.

the margin must be larger so that the fraud becomes more clear. Then people will pour into the streets like they did in Yugoslavia.

Some people don't want to accept that truth. They'd rather wring hands and talk in circles: "we can't win with voting machines and we can't change the voting machines until we win, what ever will we do?" :eyes:

Frankly, I think the magical number of elections that can be "stolen" in a row is 3. It was almost 2, honestly. Nobody was happy with the 2004 outcome because people knew in their guts that something was wrong--even repukes, who are notoriously bad winners, were QUIET where I used to live in southern Indiana, which, as anyone who has lived there knows, is a repuke haven.

.... about numbers here. I pulled a number out of my ass, I'll grant that. It doesn't invalidate my point.

You cannot steal a closely watched election by more than a few points.

I suspect that the same hand-wringers who insist a Dem will never win office again are among the crowd who expect martial law and military coup any day. They are fucking nuts, even republicans have their limits. And every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and the opposite reactions are just beginning to build.

Tampering with the vote was a "Limited Deal" and they knew it. They knew they only had a certain margin they could steal, and then it would be all over for them.

Say for example, if 70% of the population supported Kerry, and only 30% supported Bush. There's NO WAY they could have pulled it off. It would have been too difficult. It would be so obvious to Americans what they had done. There would be rioting in the streets.

There would be HUGE push for change, and they would start throwing out Diebold voting machines in the streets, just dumping them.

He is a thin skinned, hardnosed, vindictive, SOB that takes perverse pleasure in others pain. It would have been so easy to have him go nuclear and I agree that Kerry should have called him out more. I recommend 'Bush on the Couch' for a good psych profile. It is scary stuff.

He and kkkarl rove are brothers in arms. Joined at the hip. BOTH of them having gone to Dirty Tricks School, studying personally at the knee of the dreaded republi-CON Dark Lord lee atwater. They've been at this kind of thing for at least a couple of DECADES. This goes WAY back to the 80's. It's the kind of thing bush would have SAVORED. NOT excoriated his longtime partner-in-crime for doing. This is bullshit. Total bullshit. FAR more likely bush either got wind of it, or spurred him on, or gave him one of those "coded" winks or some such signal that they would understand between each other after so many years "working" and screwing people together. Or he was in on it from the moment he perceived that Joseph Wilson presented a problem to their grand power-grabbing, war-mongering scheme. No WAY is he aggrieved or otherwise outraged by the "mis-steps" of his longtime thug-brother. He probably would have been tickled by it. Might even have sent rove a bottle of expensive champagne to congratulate him for such a devious maneuver. It's only now, that they've gotten caught - AND gotten caught at something SERIOUSLY criminal that this shit is being dished out to the public.

Yeah, he was "outraged" at this, alright. Took ol' karlly-boy straight out to the woodshed. Yeah. SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURE. And I'm Imelda Marcos.

I guarantee you - he IS pissed now. But what he's pissed about is not that his old friend betrayed him or played too fast and loose. He's pissed that they've been found out, and that the jig may be up, particularly now when he's on the ropes as is. He's pissed that they somehow slipped up and got caught. And that there may, for perhaps the very first time in his life, be consequences he can't get around. THAT'S why he's indignant. Probably just seething at kkkarl for botching this so they DID get caught. This cover wasn't supposed to be blown. They were supposed to get away with this, too, just like they have with every other dirty trick and scummy stunt they've ever pulled that they never had to pay for. Remember, after all, kkkarl rove's formidable reputation has been made, over the course of MANY years and MANY campaigns and MANY destroyed reputations and careers, for pulling this stuff and NEVER LEAVING ANY FINGERPRINTS. This time that evidently didn't work out so well. THAT'S why bush is pissed at him.

in debates, either. Gephardt did it easily in the Iowa debate.

How on earth has anyone come to the conclusion that Dean was such a great debater he could make Bush angry and get him to explode?

Dean already showed his reaction to the media's distortions of his own behavior by toning himself down, which was just sad to see, even as one who supported another.

Revising the strengths and weaknesses of any of the Dem primary candidates isn't exactly helpful and especially not accurate.

that way it's all out in the open for the American public to witness. The other way, we never really learn from their mistakes ...if that's even possible ...

It means he knew. And that means he's been complicit in covering up Rove's involvement.

I read this to my husband just a few minutes ago. He was aghast. He said the same thing. "It's ALL there! bush knew. He LIED. And he LIED AGAIN AND AGAIN!"

(snip)

But the President felt Rove and other members of the White House damage-control team did a clumsy job in their campaign to discredit Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, the ex-diplomat who criticized Bush's claim that Saddam Hussen tried to buy weapons-grade uranium in Niger.
A second well-placed source said some recently published reports implying Rove had deceived Bush about his involvement in the Wilson counterattack were incorrect and were leaked by White House aides trying to protect the President.
"Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and others as believing that they handled it in a ham-handed and bush-league way," the source said.

(snip)

Holy Cow!

I can't believe the excruciatingly delicious wording here - about it being handled in "a ham-handed and bUSH-LEAGUE way" - Oh. My. God.

:rofl:

GAWD I hope the other outlets are picking up on this one. YO, OLBERMANN!!!

Video will be available at CrooksAndLiars later, I'm sure, but here's a snapshot of the lead-in...

at stake for infiltrates to have access to top secret information
and exposing thousands of top agents, risking their own lives and their families lives.

You would think that this administration were KGB officers with the sole purpose to literally destroy this country!!!

Until is becomes inevitable that the truth will come out, no acknowledgement of wrongdoing will occur. Now that it seems inevitable all these reports abotu Bush punishing Rove are appearing, this is simple distancing and evasion of culpability.

it's maybe evasion, but that doesn't matter, either. What matters is that, if this happened two years ago, Bush KNEW - doesn't matter how he felt about it, he KNEW. THAT cannot be evaded, and "punishing" Rove doesn't make his boss any less culpable.

they have to TRY to do, not that it will be successfull.... I can't wait til Fitzmas!!!!!

Bush Knew, Bush Knew, Bush Knew Bush Knew, Bush Knew, Bush Knew Bush Knew, Bush Knew, Bush Knew Bush Knew, Bush Knew, Bush Knew Bush Knew, Bush Knew, Bush Knew Bush Knew, Bush Knew, Bush Knew Bush Knew, Bush Knew, Bush Knew

Yeah, we really can't say that one enough, can we?

the article is saying Bush actually KNEW about Rove's involvement TWO years ago and they have a source to confirm that?

Maybe I'm reading this the wrong way but if I'm not this is a damning revelation. Better go make some coffee for breakfast to jump start my brain.

That is what it says. I think they are changing their stratergery.

:evilgrin:

They don't (think they) need no stinkin' strategery!!! LOL

this latest news from a NYC rag that I have very little respect for.

do plenty of fluff but they have plenty of legit news.

I'm sure you are aware of the difference between the News and the Post, 0007, but many on the board have confused them, sometimes even in subject lines. I just wanted to make the point: the NY Daily News is a tabloid, but far from the National Enquirer, is not owned by Murdoch, and does not exist to propagandize for the Right. Tabloid-sized papers are popular in NYC because they are easily read while commuting on subways and buses.

reading a small paper while commuting.

but it was meant for a wider audience. (I lived in that great city many years, and still miss it. Everyone should live there a while.)

Again, sorry!

The best place I've ever lived. Wish I never left. I lived on 34th & 6th ave.

as a journalist. I trust Olbermann's judgment.

that is itself a blow to national security.

Go ahead, suckers--use this one!

I hope he likes clearing brush in a chain gang.

into thinking they nothing of this.

The order had to come from the top.

but it's OK because ". . . anything he did was done to help George W. Bush. The President knows that and appreciates that."

Ah for the days when we had Presidents who understood the value of the nation's greater good and worked to protect that and not just their own ass. . .

Some idiot thinks this CLEARS George. It indicts him.

I really need to get some sleep.

Didn't W say he'll fire all those responsible? "Fire" not "whack"

That anyone could say, with no further comment, that he did it to help Dubya. And no one bats an eye. :eyes:

the President is sooooo popular and beloved that if Rove committed treason to protect him, then not only will Bush forgive him, but so will the majority of Americans. :sarcasm:

You're right, truth2power, that called for a strong follow-up question, e.g. "So if his staffers commit a felony with the intent of "helping" him, then the President is OK with that?" :wtf:

"... the President knows that and appreciates that". Spoken like a Scotty special.

told to reporters! Who is this 'presidential counselor' talking to the Daily News?

Whats happening here, does this seem strange to anybody else that this kind of information is being told to newspapers? The most secretive, protective WH letting this information out,- ???

If this is real there's been a profound shift in the contiuum so to speak.

Hannah being a top administration aide that had turned states evidence in the Plame case. So they have some kind of a source.

:D

And on edit, as I'm reminded downthread, it was Raw Story, I think, that named Hannah.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=55213

RAWSTORY Breaks the Name of a White House Official Who is Cooperating with Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald

10/18/2005 2:38:00 PM

To: National Desk, Political Reporter

Contact: Ilene Proctor, 310-271-5857, for VelvetRevolution.us

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 /U.S. Newswire/ -- VelvetRevolution.us affiliate RAWSTORY, for the second time in a week, has broken a major story about the Valerie Plame investigation, beating out all the mainstream media.

Last week, RawStory.com was the first to report that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald was actively investigating the role of Vice President Dick Cheney in the outing of Valerie Plame as head of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG). And today, RawStory is the first to report that a highly placed White House Official is cooperating with Fitzgerald. "Individuals familiar with Fitzgerald's case tell Raw Story that John Hannah, a senior national security aide on loan to Vice President Dick Cheney from the offices of then-Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, John Bolton, was named as a target of Fitzgerald's probe. They say he was told in recent weeks that he could face imminent indictment for his role in leaking Plame-Wilson's name to reporters unless he cooperated with the investigation."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheney_aide_cooperating_with_CIA_outing_1018.html .

...more...

... in September 2003:


And in June 2004:

-Make7

"we may never know who the leaker was". Back when Ashcroft was in charge of the investigation and they thought they had it bagged.

...if he was upset with Karl Rove for his involvement in 2003 and he stated in 2004 that he would fire anyone involved, why does Karl Rove still have a job in 2005?

It's almost like he's not being honest about the whole thing for some reason. :)

-Make7

I think he was counting on his interpretation of the first amendment to protect Rove et al from treason charges.

on edit:
If I remember correctly, when he said it, it was almost like he was ordering the press NOT to reveal their sources.

Bush and Rove?

wrestling match for the control of the planet...costumes and all. After which they would all be taken to jail of course.

Cheney's name has come up amid indications Fitzgerald may be edging closer to a blockbuster conspiracy charge - with help from a secret snitch.

"They have got a senior cooperating witness - someone who is giving them all of that," a source who has been questioned in the leak probe told the Daily News yesterday. http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/356858p-304125c.html

who was it that identified the cooperating witness then, I forgot.

been rumored since last year.

Bushco (sans Rove) trying to out stratergize Rove.

Or has Dr. StrangeRove decided his best strategy now is to smear himself and become the target around whom the godly and forgiving Bush circles the wagons of loyalty and hope... and eventually a gracious pardon?

I'm sure.

If this was on O Lielly at least we'd know we were in the no spin zone.

a puppet does not rebuke its puppeteer

Did he lie about knowing about Rove then?

I remember Cheney and Shrub making a big deal about the "under oath" thing with Fitzgerald. They ended up having private conversations with Fitzgerald without taking an oath.

Yet, even if Fitzgerald can't get Shrub and Cheney for perjury, I think obstruction of justice (if they lied to him ) and conspiracy charges are still game.

It's what Martha Stewart was convicted of. The law, which lawyers usually call 1001, for the section of the federal code that contains it, prohibits lying to any federal agent, even by a person who is not under oath and even by a person who has committed no other crime.

Just FYI.

He most definitely refused to testify under oath to the 9/11 commission, he refused to let the proceedings be taken down by a stenographer (court reporter), and he refused to testify without Cheney being there with him.

Whether or not he refused to take the oath before Patrick Fitzgerald, I haven't heard this before. Did Clinton have to take the oath before testifying in front of Starr?

* Bush: Early Summer, 2004 (did not testify under oath)
* Cheney: Early summer, 2004 (did not testify under oath)

See the entire list at http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2005/10/the_f_list.html

Seems to me that bush and cheney both have a deep aversion to testifying under oath. Hmmm ...

I'm sorry that you had to find the link. I should have included one with my post. Sorry about that!

No problem about finding the link. I should have looked before mouthing off :D

will have to go on alone without his Rove. It really makes you weepy, doesn't it? So sad.

Mem'ries......

He wasn't mad about Rove's involvement is the plan
to discredit the Wilsons. He wasn't mad about Rove's
talking to the press.

He was mad that Rove bungled the job and got caught.
This article names George Bush as an active co-conspirator
in the cover-up if not the original crime.

Echoes of Watergate.
Recommended.

Bush is only upset about Rove's getting caught in a bungled effort to cover up the crimes. Republicans think anything they do is justified, but hate getting caught. Even when they're caught, they scream partisan politics, and try to act like the victims. Psychopaths, all of them.

and this article was supposed to help Bush?

:rofl:

"Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and others as believing that they handled it in a ham-handed and bush-league way," the source said.

destroyed someone's career, just remorse over having done it in a "clumsy way". So Nixonian.

As much as I'd like to see indictments come down, I'd more like to see Fitz ask for an extension, cast a wider net, and really make these a*holes sweat bullets.

This is incoming-indictment spin.

Yesterday it was "Cheney may resign" today it's "What Bush knew about Rove two years ago"

Remember folks, they have mastered the art of public deception...

This little tidbit:

"A second well-placed source said some recently published reports implying Rove had deceived Bush about his involvement in the Wilson counterattack were incorrect and were leaked by White House aides trying to protect the President."

validates DU speculation last week about those same reports, that they were a clumsy CBA (Cover Bush Ass).

This seems to be a desperation move on someone's part.

Is it Rove trying to clear Bush of direct involvement in the leak?

Is someone else trying to take the heat off Bush?


Either way it confirms what most of us believed all along, i.e. that Bush, at the very least, knew damn well who the leaker was and lied to protect them--not just Rove but the whole sorry lot.

Bush not only protected Rove, but after the election, promoted the little worm. That makes him complicit in the coverup.

What did they call Nixon? Wasn't it unindicted co-conspirator?

I'm reading it the same way - someone is trying to distance Bush from the scandal. There must be a great deal of evidence connecting Bush to the whole thing or they wouldn't have admitted his involvement 3 years ago.

This was done by someone who was nasty as hell and none too bright--or so desperate to shut Wilson up that they didn't stop to think about what would happen if this came out. Sound like anyone we know?

Leaking that he was just OUTRAGED that Rove would do this sort of thing strikes me as pretty damn self serving.

they never thought this WOULD come out. They figured their track record would hold steady - that they could do anything they wanted to anybody, for any reason, and they'd NEVER get caught for it. And why wouldn't they think this? I mean, just remember: for a LONG time (TOO long), they never did get caught. EVER. People suspected things, and people whispered things, but nothing ever came of any of it. Nobody would dignify it with a comment or, heaven forbid, some sort of report or something on it. And back then, they still had a lock on the media, and everyone was so dreadfully cowed and intimidated and bullied, they probably had every reason to remain smug. Who gives a shit? Nobody's gonna find out. Do what you need to do. Do whatever you want.

Remember what karen hughes said - "business as usual."

They never anticipated, or planned for, losing their momentum and their "golden" status with the press and much of the American people. They also thought sure Iraq was gonna be a cakewalk. They'd built up years of delusions of their own grandeur and omnipotence that had, up til then, been so fail-safe that they had no reason to believe it wouldn't just always stay that way.

The bigger they are, the harder they fall. And I CAN'T WAIT!!!!

:toast: :party:

My guess is that naming Fitzgerald, a known hardass prosecutor, would keep this from becoming a political issue and carry them through the election.

After they "won" they were on top of the world. Even if Fitzgerald came up with indictments, they figured they could ride it out. They were the masters of the universe and Bush had political capital to spend.

Interesting how things change.

;-)

(to quote Marx)

"Hegel said that all great world historical events and personages appear, so to speak, twice; he forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce." - Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte



http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,323232,00.jpg

He doesn't just know where the bodies are buried, he knows who owns the shovels and dragged in the bodies, including himself and George.

It's everyman for himself in D.C..

My guess is that it's bullshit. This probably never happened. It's just a last minute PR move to salvage Chimpy's tattered image and distance him from Rove. If they are already saying this, chances are they know something big is coming.

We have to hope the Dems take over in 2006.

About the Aspens turning, turning in bunches?

It's been interpreted as meaning that the conservatives have turned on bush and they have all turned. Those are the conservatives that control the party.

If that's true, little boy bush will be left out to dry in the wind.

Also, there are many congressional republicans who are scared to death that the actions of their party will give democrats the chance to unseat them.

I think it possible that the coalition that put Bush in power is falling or has fallen apart. That really bodes ill for the administration.

And I can't think of more deserving people.

Also, there are many congressional republicans who are scared to death that the actions of their party will give democrats the chance to unseat them.
If they even get to FACE the Democrat. If the GOP split continues, it might give rise to an army of hungry Repub "rebels" ready and willing to market themselves as "sensible moderates" in contrast to the incumbents' pro-Bush "extremism."

Exactly how many Repubs would it take to get an impeachment vote this year, anyway, assuming that none of the Dems "caved?"

:headbang:
rocknation

Once we figured out who fingered whom with regard to Valarie Plame, the prosecutor and the press will then turn their attention to the motive for the crime. And that gets back to the Downing Street Minutes and the forged Niger documents. All of this happened because Joseph Wilson caught the administration in an enormous lie -- one that has caused nearly 2,000 U.S. combat deaths (and counting). When Wilson blew the whistle, this administration (possibly with the President's explicit approval) outed his wife in retaliation. It's not the crime itself that will kill Bush, it's the motivations for the crime.

This is gonna get ugly.

Enjoy.

... Karl who? He's not one of us, is he?

some kind of honesty, sincerity, what?

since before the 2000 election we hear about his famous fits of righteous indignation -- and they are supposed to impart some kind of authenticity -- how?

now we see his that his fits cover for his lying?

bush is fucking out of his mind -- period.

...too late Georgie-Porgie...resign now and get it over with.

LIAR.

TRAITOR

Impeach the Chimp!!

Why is the investigation of this story left to the Daily News (which is not a bad paper at all, but not a major media outlet) and to websites??? Is the rest of our cowardly, coddled press too invested with these people, too cozy from too many D.C. cocktail parties? Too lazy? On Ambien???

shirking responsibility again! pass that freakin' worthless buck!

it's the devils arond Bush - he of course is clean as a whistle. Fuckery - the buck stops with the Commander in Chit!! More lies is par for the course.

bush knew. bush knew. bush knew. I have a bumper sticker of that on my car. I'm liking it more and more every day.

Disinformation given intentionally to the press to make it look like bush is concerned about someone in his administration doing something dishonest. Spin. Spin. Spin.

"A White House spokesman declined to comment, citing the ongoing nature of Fitzgerald's investigation."

:toast:

:toast:

Karl tells HIM what to do and when to do it. Shrub doesn't even take a shit without KKKarl's approval. Oh, wait, that's Condi's job....

and I'm not so sure this article isn't an effort to pull sympathy for Bush.......

Sheesh

Either the Prezteldent had no idea who did it and doesn't seem to have any luck finding out who did it (hard to believe because it was narrowed down to "a few SENIOR WH officials) OR Shrub knew who did it all along and chewed Rove out for it.

So this is either gross incompetence or a coverup by a lying president.
I'd go with the latter.

Sheet!

Why else did Fitzgerald interview *, and * felt the need to hire the driminal defense attorney Sharp for the interview?

In other words, not that it was wrong, but they did a sloppy job and got caught.

....must be the way Brooklynites think....

:toast:

Interesting that "well placed sources" are willing to spill the beans about this...

Yeah right! They say that as if Bush is in control of Rove and we all know that is a crock-of-crap. Rove is in control of Bush, everybody knows this.

be caught admitting it. Is it perhaps a ploy to delay Fitz's finishing up the investigation to give them time for some nefarious deed to really derail it? Either that or Fredo Bush is admitting that Karl had something to do with the leak but not that he knowingly outed an undercover NOC, last line says he was angry that Karl talked to the press, nothing more specific. There is the stupid remark that * appreciates everything Karl has done for him, but if stupidity was actionable His Fraudulency would already be serving at least three consecutive life terms.

So now they're trying to make bush out to be the good guy? Got news for them --- they're just proving that Bush lied about knowing whether or not KKKarl was involved in Plamegate.

:rofl: :applause: :woohoo:

W is the noble leader upset with his bad child. So what. He knew then and should be held accountable. This W wasn't involved and let it be known to Rove is BS. This is the PR effort to distance W from all involved, but W is inherently involved even if Rove did it without discussing with W first.

Of course he's involved. Up to his cocky little smirk. Beyond that, even.

Glad you're here.

Let the IMPEACHMENT begin!!!!

The story is probably correct except for one detail:

Bush didn't get angry.

He probably slapped Turdblossom on the back and gave him a medal.

Anything he did was to help bush? Yeah, this is really helping him }( ..outing a CIA agent..fudgedabout our damn country!

about this!!!!!!!!!!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

"Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and others as believing that they handled it in a ham-handed and bush-league way," the source said.

The obvious joke about "bush-league" aside, I think this is the most damning part of the whole article. This says that A) Bush did indeed know what was going on (as he wasn't misled), and B) APPROVED of exacting revenge on Wilson. The only thing is Bush didn't like the "way it was handled"...

i.e. that it was so sloppy that they got caught.

Fuck 'em.

Then fuck 'em again.

Then impeach him.

:popcorn:

This is the admission that Bush participated in a cover-up.

They are guilty as sin. Bush knows they are guilty as sin. He has known and covered it up for two years. If we know this - Fitzgerald knows this.

Right there my brain shuts down. I can't even think what's going to happen next.

Not a widely read source.
Sources say the bad stuff 'Plame affair'
but, officials say 'concerned' 'could go badly'
Quote of strength, 'made his displeasure known' (as though this handled it)
followed by a however like apology 'doggedly loyal' (ummm, dogs)
Vivid quoting: "fighting for his life" 'furious with Rove'

Gee, 2003, BEFORE ELECTIONS? who'da figured. :smirk:

..nothing worth your six-o'clock news. Move along.. (Argggghhh!)

My guess is that at the time it actually happened, * smirked and said "heheheh, good one, Turdblossom."

Then when the depth of the fecal matter became clear, THEN he threw a temper tantrum. Not because of Turdblossom, et al's, treasonous actions, but because they were so frickin' inept that they let Novakula attribute the treason in a way that led straight back to them.

THEN * got pissed.

mordantly,
Bright

bush-league hahahahah

This is another attempt at misinformation to exonerate Bush. Still, many people will find it credible given the popular perception that Bush is some kind of dumb monkey... Far, far from the truth.

That just seems to much to hope for, but given this info, isn't it a possibility?

So it begins. Bush DEPLORES the leak.. Bush = good guy. Karl = bad guy.

It is going to be SO interesting to see who will turn on who now. This is not a cage match of mere mortals... money will not motivate any one of these thugs. Every single one of them has enough cash hidden away (offshore for Cheney, Bush, Rove and Libby at least) to live like a king for the rest of their lives, no matter HOW bad the economy gets. So now it's all about prison time, primarily... and then ego.


Oh yeah... sit back and enjoy the show!

cheney had better start wacking bush off. Till now bush has only wacked cheney off.

Jerry brown just wacks himself off. Okay he had to wack bush off at least once or he wouldn't have gotten his last job. Same with lotto lady and condi.

See Ny Times article blaming Card and this clumsy attempt to say "poor karl, he had enough"

have been trying to make the whole thing sound like just tough politics.

As long as it just involved hirelings, it was serious stuff, but if it implicates bush and cheney it's just "Washington Hardball Politics".

I'll bet money Bush didn't just know, he was the prime instigator. Now we see a leak designed to imply that Bush wasn't park of the plot to out a CIA agent and in fact was miffed at Rove for his role in it. I'm not buying a word of it.

...these well placed sources would testify to this under oath? If this is true, and they do testify, then house o' cards come down.I gotta say, though, I'm skeptical of any WH leak. Especially now.

let's all remember that bush has NEVER gone under oath for ANY of these things. ANY of 'em, that I can recall, anyway. Remember the 9/11 commission? He characterized it as a "visit" when a few of them came to his throne room to interview him. It WASN'T on the record, it WASN'T under oath, and in that case, cheney was there with his hand up bush's back just to keep him in line.

I think it's EXTREMELY and GLARINGLY telling that this guy won't go under oath. It's not just because he saw what happened when Clinton testified under oath and got snagged. It's he KNOWS he has things to hide, and doesn't DARE burp or fart under oath. As john ashcroft would have said... if you've done nothing wrong, well, then, what's the problem? You've done nothing wrong? Then you surely have nothing to hide, now, do ya? Well, george???? How 'bout it, then? Go under oath. Be a man for once. What are you afraid of?

that makes him part of the conspiracy!!! He lied about getting rid of him and allowed him to have access to secret documents for two years!!!

see my post (#172). The language seems clear. He didn't oppose the mission, he was angry about the messy way it was handled.

They come from two "well-placed sources" and they are absolutely devastating:



There's much more that strengthens the story: Bush knew, he approved of the "mission" to discredit Wilson, and he was angry only because it wasn't handled well. PLUS, you have those "leaked" stories from WH aides "trying to protect the president" who were falsely claiming that Rove had deceived Bush.

And then you see Bush's priorities all too clearly:



If these statements can be verified, that's the whole game right there. Bush committed treason and has continued to lie about it ever since. His only concern is to protect himself and his useful puppet-master.

It couldn't get any better I tell ya!

:D

It will be amazing to watch this all unfold. Novakula (stolen term from someone else that made me chuckle...thanks) starts the rethug self-implosion.

So quiet on the dem side...I wonder when they will speak out, and what they will say...

Glad you're here. There are more and more cases where I'm seeing some pundit on TV talking about how the Dems are being smart by sitting back and watch the republi-CONS self-immolate. Eventually they'll have to step up to the plate and take a swing, too, but for now, nice to have these schmucks doing our heavy lifting for us, isn't it?


What time is it?

It's time to VISUALIZE IMPEACHMENT, boys and girls!!!!

And then, to go DO something about it.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2005-10-19T231137Z_01_ROB966955_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-LEAK.xml&archived=False

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats asked the White House on Wednesday for details of President George W. Bush's private conversations in 2003 with top political adviser Karl Rove after conflicting reports about whether Bush was aware of any role by Rove in the outing of a covert CIA operative.

more...

8 pm ET, repeats at midnight. Thread on it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5104076
Thread title: MSNBC/Olbermann tonight: the huge Plame leak case news re *’s involvement

I will post video and transcript from the show itself in that thread when they become available.

BEYOND delicious! We set a tape for KO every day, and savor it at night after the kids go to bed. I think we'll be breaking out the Mallomars tonight while we're watching - with the GREATEST glee. I wonder who he's got on as a guest, for this segment? CANNOT wait!!!


:toast: :party: :bounce:

when they are available. And come see the Toles cartoon in the OP! it is NOT TO BE MISSED!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5104076
Thread title: MSNBC/Olbermann tonight: the huge Plame leak case news re *’s involvement

It's only about 16,000 less (735,000+) than the Washington Post (751,000+). Not 'arf bad!!

:argh:

In his own interview with prosecutors on June 24, 2004, Bush testified that Rove assured him he had not disclosed Plame as a CIA employee and had said nothing to the press to discredit Wilson, according to sources familiar with the president's interview.
So if this new story is true--Rove "came clean" to Bush in 2003--and Waas is also right, doesn't that mean that Bush lied to Fitzgerald in June 2004?
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/10/did-bush-lie-to-fitzgerald.html

They were here in Nevada together, hugging and kissing and killing us liberals in 04!!