Now now children, having an extramarital affairs is far more severe than violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Papa Bush speech at CIA: Remarks By George Bush "Some people think, 'what do we need intelligence for?' My answer to that is we have plenty of enemies. Plenty of enemies abound. Unpredictable leaders willing to export instability or to commit crimes against humanity. Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, narco-trafficking, people killing each other, fundamentalists killing each other in the name of God. These and more. Many more. As our analysts know, as our collectors of intelligence know - these are our enemies. To combat them we need more intelligence, not less. We need more human intelligence. That means we need more protection for the methods we use to gather intelligence and more protection for our sources, particularly our human sources, people that are risking their lives for their country. (Applause) Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors. " ---- We'll see how junior handles "the most insidious of traitors" as papa described them.
Are you referring to that McCarthy woman they fired from the CIA and the Washngton Post reporter she was leaking intell to? Funny how the media all consider her to be an admirable whistle blower. Revealing that CIA nepotism and incompetency sent the unqualified serial liar Joe Wilson on his fool's errand however is a matter of high national security.
How Accurate Was the 'Rove Indicted' Story? By Marc Ash, Mon May 15th, 2006 at 02:04:04 PM EDT :: Bush On Saturday afternoon, we ran a breaking story titled, "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators." We assumed that we were well ahead of the mainstream media and that we would be subsequently questioned. Right on both counts. What everyone is asking right now is how accurate is the story? Has Rove in fact been indicted? The story is accurate, and Karl Rove's attorneys have been served with an indictment. In short, we had two sources close to the Fitzgerald investigation who were explicit about the information that we published, and a former high-ranking state department official who reported communication with a source who had "direct knowledge" of the meeting at Patton Boggs. In both instances, substantial detail was provided and matched. We had confirmation. We ran the story. http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/5/15/131745/161
You must've forgot Scooter Libby, with all thats going on, his bio Lets skip to the end involving Rove: On April 05, 2006, court filings reveal that Libby had testified during the grand jury investigation about information that Vice President Cheney and President Bush had authorized disclosing. These filings are disclosed widely in the press and news media the following day. The original intent of the filing is to restrict Libby's access to further classified information in defence discovery. [7] On April 13, 2006, Libby's lawyers indicated that neither Vice President Cheney nor President Bush ordered him to say anything about Valerie Plame. A court filing by Libby's defense team argues that Valerie Plame was not foremost on the minds of administration officials as they sought to rebut charges made by her husband, Joseph Wilson, that the White House manipulated intelligence to make a case for invasion. The filing indicates that Libby's lawyers don't intend to say he was told to reveal Plame's identity.[8] The papers also said that "Mr. Libby plans to demonstrate that the indictment is wrong when it suggests that he and other government officials viewed Ms. Wilson's role in sending her husband to Africa as important," His lawyers also plan to call to the stand Karl Rove, who remains under investigation. ---------- Rove's been questioned what 5 times already? So who takes the blame for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act? Or is everyone gonna sit around and play the patented Ronald Reagan "I don't recall game?"
Perhaps the answer is that no one violated it in the Plame episode? Or do you think Fitzgerald is covering up for the White House and that Libby was sent out as the fall guy?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of Pulitzers and treason by Patrick Buchanan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: April 25, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2006 Creators Syndicate Inc. Mary McCarthy, special assistant to President Clinton and senior director of intelligence in his White House, has been fired by the CIA. McCarthy allegedly told the Washington Post our NATO allies were secretly letting the CIA operate bases on their soil for the interrogation of terror suspects. Apparently, McCarthy failed several polygraph tests, after which she confessed. If true, she was faithless to her oath, betrayed the trust of her country, damaged America's ties to foreign intelligence agencies and governments, and broke the law. The Justice Department is investigating whether McCarthy violated the Espionage Act. Yet, while she may be headed for criminal prosecution and prison, the Post reporter to whom she leaked intelligence on the secret sites, Dana Priest, just won a Pulitzer Prize for revealing the existence of these sites. Also copping Pulitzers were two reporters for the New York Times who revealed that, since 9-11, U.S. intelligence agencies have been intercepting calls and e-mails between terror suspects and U.S. citizens. President Bush had implored the Times not to publish the story, lest exposure of the spying program alert al-Qaida to U.S. capabilities and operations. For one year, the Times held the story â then, it went with it. While the delay has been criticized by some journalists, most applauded exposing the spying program and the U.S. secret bases, and the Pulitzers that went with their exposure. On ABC's "This Week," Sen. John Kerry, to whose campaign McCarthy made a $2,000 contribution, was his usual ambivalent self when asked whether he approved of what she had done: Of course not. A CIA agent has the obligation to uphold the law, and clearly leaking is against the law, and nobody should leak. I don't like leaking. But if you're leaking to tell the truth, Americans are going to look at that, at least mitigate or think about what are the consequences that you ... put on that person. Obviously they're not going to keep their job, but there are other larger issues here. What "larger issues" there were, Kerry did not say. Pressed by ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Kerry blurted, "I'm glad she told the truth, but she's going to obviously â if she did it, if she did it â suffer the consequences of breaking the law." Kerry was prepared for the question, so he has to be held to account. When he says, "I'm glad she told the truth," one has to ask: What is Kerry talking about? To whom did McCarthy tell the truth? Apparently, to Dana Priest, in exposing the secret program. Is Kerry "glad" she did this? Is he glad she violated her oath and broke the law and exposed the program? To those to whom McCarthy owed loyalty, her superiors at the CIA, she apparently lied in her polygraph examinations, and only after being caught did she confess. Where is the moral heroism in clandestinely violating one's oath, breaking the law, leaking secrets and lying about it? Is this the New Morality? What was the higher cause McCarthy was serving? Journalists are rising to her defense, describing McCarthy as a whistle-blower â i.e., someone who calls the government to account for wrongdoing. But there is no evidence President Bush or U.S. agencies were doing anything criminal by using secret sites provided by NATO allies to interrogate terror suspects plotting to murder Americans. If U.S. officials are engaged in misconduct or atrocities at these bases â i.e., the torture of prisoners â no one has said so. Reportedly, an E.U. investigation of the U.S. secret sites in Europe turned up nothing. What does it say about American journalism that it gives its most prestigious prizes to reporters who acquire and reveal illicitly leaked U.S. secrets, when the result is to damage the U.S. government in a time of war? Both the Times and Post got their Pulitzers for fencing secrets of the U.S. government, criminally leaked by disloyal public servants they continue to protect. Query: If McCarthy deserves firing, disgrace and possibly prison for what she did, does the Post deserve congratulations for collaborating with and covering up her infidelity, deceit and possible criminality? Are journalists above the law? Are they entitled to publish secrets, the leaking of which can put their sources in jail for imperiling the national security? What kind of business has journalism become in 2006? Scooter Libby is to be tried for perjury for allegedly lying to a grand jury investigating whether he leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame, in a White House campaign to discredit war critic Joe Wilson. Larry Franklin of the Pentagon got 12 years for leaking military secrets to the Israeli lobby. McCarthy deserves the same treatment. She should be prosecuted and, if convicted, spend the next decade in prison. Whether this war was a mistake or not, no one has a right to sabotage the war effort. Not even journalists.
Google it and get a third of a million hits. But I guess that's not enough for Z, LOL. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/05/rove_indicted/ http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/12/oreilly-rove/ http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/7/6/125319/6928 http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512140829.asp http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July05/Frank0705.htm Just to grab a few. <IMG SRC=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=1074059>
Let's apply TGregg logic. Number of hits on a Google makes something a fact. So, here is a question: Who is more corrupt, republicans, or democrats? Survey says? <img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=1074067>