| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Senator Schumer, "No ordinary leak" | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 29 2003, 06:02 PM (735 Views) | |
| benetil | Sep 29 2003, 06:02 PM Post #1 |
|
Unregistered
|
I think an independent counsel must be appointed to investigate the leak of secret information - the name of that undercover CIA operative. I have no confidence that the Department of Justice under Attorney General John Ashcroft will conduct a serious investigation into this matter - especially since the "leak" seemingly ties back to either the White House or to senior Bush administration officials (my opinion at this point). Somebody needs to go to jail for this irresponsible, cavalier act! Attorney General John Ashcroft is the guy who said that he and his DOJ would obstruct to the extent that it was legal any action by the congress to obtain information about the Executive branch's activities. Attorney General Ashcroft made this statement in reference to the Vice President's energy policy strategy meetings - but I think that the statement demonstrates the extent to which Attorney General John Ashcroft will go to "shield" the White House from any embarrassing exposure. That's why I don't trust the Attorney General or the DOJ to handle this investigation. 1. Conducting a thorough investigation or 2. Obstructing to the extent that it is legal to do so Both methods are technically legal, but there is an ocean between the two. One approach sets out to discover the truth - the other approach is designed to prevent the truth from ever coming to light. Since the leak of the name of that undercover CIA agent was almost certainly an attempt by someone (someone in the White House, someone in the Bush administration, someone in the CIA - ? - the name wasn't a lucky guess by columnist Robert Novak!) to intimidate and silence a critic of President Bush's Iraq policy (the critic just happens to be the husband of the undercover CIA agent whose name was leaked to the media) - - all the more reason to have a complete and thorough investigation designed to discover the truth and to identify and punish the individual(s) responsible for leaking the name of the undercover CIA operative to the press. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Wichita | Sep 29 2003, 06:24 PM Post #2 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
That's the story I heard this morning. It isn't the same story that I heard later in the day. You might want to check later news reports. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| benetil | Sep 29 2003, 06:46 PM Post #3 |
|
Unregistered
|
Thanks, Wichita. I'm hearing that the Justice Department (Attorney General John Ashcroft's DOJ) is opening an investigation - but I'll double check the sources. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| polarslam | Sep 29 2003, 07:38 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Lieutenant Junior Grade
|
Maybe we can look foward to Karl Rove being hung for Treason? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| benetil | Sep 29 2003, 08:06 PM Post #5 |
|
Unregistered
|
Pretty funny (I hope you're joking ). Whoever leaked the information must be held accountable and punished.I've wondered if maybe Karl Rove could be behind this - a strategy to silence the criticism that was coming from Joe Wilson. I've also wondered if maybe Vice President Cheney orchestrated the leak. I think that Vice President Cheney was a strong proponent of attacking Iraq (vs. the more moderate position of a person like Secretary of State Colin Powell) and that he (Cheney) was behind the push to have the "16 words" in President Bush's speech (State of the Union). John Ashcroft's DOJ should not be the ones to investigate this - a special counsel should be appointed, the sooner the better. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Swidden | Sep 29 2003, 08:19 PM Post #6 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Consider Benetil that the Whitewater investigation went pretty far afield. Now, granted, if there wasn't anything it would have petered out quick. Assuming for a moment that someone high up in the Bush Administration did leak the info, even if they get him do you think it there won't be pressure to push on with a continuous investigation. The way I see it, if Rove (or any official) did do this then he needs to fall on the sword and quick. Of course with the Republican controling Congress its possible that any independent counsel who finds nothing will be accused of not doing their job. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| benetil | Sep 29 2003, 08:47 PM Post #7 |
|
Unregistered
|
You're right, Swidden. I'm not proposing anything like the Whitewater investigation. But I'm sensing that the Bush administration isn't going to voluntarily come forward with the facts. And I don't trust John Ashcroft's DOJ to ascertain any facts. So that's why I think that a special counsel needs to be appointed to investigate this crime. Do I think that some partisan Democrats would like to retaliate by conducting endless investigations of the Bush administration? Yes, I think some would - but I'm hopeful that reasonable judgement will prevail. I competely agree that whoever leaked the information - no scapegoat - the responsible person - needs to step forward and take responsibility. This would be the dignified way of avoiding any protracted investigation. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Wichita | Sep 29 2003, 08:56 PM Post #8 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Actually what I meant was that I saw a report that the information was commonly known for some time in Washington before the report in July. When I intially saw the report, I was incensed. Then I heard that Robet Novak was the reporter involved and took a second look. Novak is no fool and is a great supporter of those in service to the government. Skewer a politician - absolutely, but endanger some one in service (whatever the service) is not the way that Novak operates. There is still more to this story - before I convict someone of high crimes and misdemeanors, I would wait to hear the facts. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| benetil | Sep 29 2003, 09:27 PM Post #9 |
|
Unregistered
|
You're right, Wichita - this isn't a brand new story. The CIA apparently requested that DOJ look into the leak of the undercover CIA operative's name back a couple of months ago. I'm not sure - but it doesn't sound like DOJ had done very much in the way of investigating until CIA Director George Tenet sent a more formal request this month. Just like you, I am very aware of Robert Novak's credentials - he's a top notch reporter/columnist - and calling him seasoned would be understating the facts. I don't necessarily agree with his (Novak's) decision to publish details about the identiy of Ms. Plame (basically same reasons are you mention - safety of the agent and those she worked with). I don't blame the press (Novak) at all in this situation. A free and independent press is one of the most important components in our free and democratic society - I think it is reasonable to question how independent Robert Novak is in this situation. It was wrong for anyone to leak information about the undercover CIA operative's identity. The facts need to come out and the responsible person needs to be held accoutable. The sooner the facts come out, the better. And the facts can come out the easy way or the hard way. If the Bush administration tries to quell a legitimate investigation (or if partisan Democrats sense that the Bush administration is obstructing) then I think that we'll hear more and more calls for a special counsel to head up an investigation. In this case, I think that public opinion falls decidely on the side of protecting the identity of the undercover CIA operative. We cannot risk a situation where the Executive branch of government would use the identity of CIA operatives as a political weapon. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Wichita | Sep 29 2003, 09:41 PM Post #10 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
No, I meant the fact she worked for the CIA was commonly known in Washington before it was published in the newspaper. The public thinks of CIA agents as exotic and dangerous - some are simply accountants or facilities managers. BTW, Wilson himself has said that he doesn't believe that Rove was responsible. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| polarslam | Sep 29 2003, 09:50 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Lieutenant Junior Grade
|
Not at all. I would be most amused to see Mr. Rove's bloated corpse swinging from the gallows, even more so if his boss was swinging with him. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| benetil | Sep 29 2003, 09:57 PM Post #12 |
|
Unregistered
|
Mercy . I felt bad about hoping the guilty person would be sentenced to 10 years in prison!
|
| | Quote | ^ | |
| polarslam | Sep 29 2003, 10:34 PM Post #13 |
![]()
Lieutenant Junior Grade
|
Well thats ok. Your just a kind person. But when your delaing with tratiors in the White House like Rove and his Boss than you have to be tough. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| qubed | Sep 30 2003, 12:08 AM Post #14 |
|
Ensign
|
Uh I think there are some problems with the assesment here so far. Wilson said he didn't think that Rove would be foolish enough to be the trigger man or the man to give the direct orders but I didn't hear Wilson say anything that would put him out of the list of potential suspects. The idea that a CIA official's name would be "well known" in Washington is obviously a matter of opinion. Amongst the brass and intellignece committees maybe but its not like the staffers are going to the CIA BBQ Jam every weekend to hang out with the spooks. But it was most certainly not "well known" by the public or foreign agencies. Her outing most certainly puts that person's work in jepordy, the person herself and her family and anyone who has been in contact with her for the last few years. If she is an investigator then her contacts are walking pin cushions by now. Whats worse is the only thing I've come across about her work is that it was investiagation into WMD and terrorism. But the details are of course well protectd, unfortantley her name was not. As to Rove and Novak. Rove was canned by Bush Sr once already for leaking classified information to Novak who seems to have no moral qualms about printing it. Where the hell is Novak's ethic that he is willing to oust a CIA official whether she was a secretary or an investigator. And from what I've read they went through 5 other reporters before Novak. 5 people with a great deal more decency then Novak obviously. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Sep 30 2003, 07:54 AM Post #15 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Before this gets out of hand (and judging by Polarslam's antagonistic comments, it may already have gotten out of hand): Read this: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm (Comments from Bob Novak on the "leak") Read this, too: http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200309291022.asp (Shoots down the whole "leak" bull$h1t!) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



). Whoever leaked the information must be held accountable and punished.
. I felt bad about hoping the guilty person would be sentenced to 10 years in prison!
2:31 PM Jul 11