Report Shows Rove May Have Lied to FBI, A Felony

[Webruary]

Report Shows Rove May Have Lied to FBI, A Felony (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1443842/posts)

<SMALL>Scoop ^ (http://www.freerepublic.com/^http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0507/S00227.htm) | 7/15/05 | Jason Leopold</SMALL>


Looks like Karl Rove did break the law, the same federal law that got Martha Stewart sentenced to six months in prison. It now appears that Rove, President Bush’s chief of staff, may have lied to the FBI in October 2003—a federal crime—when he was questioned by federal agents investigating who was responsible for leaking information about a covert CIA operative to the media.


During questioning by the FBI about his role in the Plame affair, Rove told federal agents that he only started sharing information about Plame with reporters and White House officials for the first time after conservative columnist Robert Novak identified her covert CIA status in his column on July 14, 2003. But Rove wasn’t truthful with the FBI, what with the recent disclosure of Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper’s emails, which reveal Rove as the source for Cooper’s own July 2003 story identifying Plame as a CIA operative, and show that Rove spoke to Cooper nearly a week before Novak’s column was published and, according to previously published news reports, spoke to a half-dozen other reporters about Plame as early as June 2003.

“It was, Karl Rove said, Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on WMD [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized (Wilson’s) trip," Cooper’s July 11, 2003, email to his editor, obtained by Newsweek, says:

“Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.)

"The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: 'not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger ... '" During the same week that Rove spoke to Time's Matt Cooper about Wilson, so did Scooter Libby and Libby went on the record for Cooper's July 17, 2003 story.

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE REST

[DesertFox]

Ah, yes, more "Rove lied. Bush lied. Republicans lied. Everybody lied. Liars."

One would think the Left would get bored with the same childish game day in and day out. They've gotten so lazy that they don't even change the word of the day, or the charge of the month, or the subject of the hour.

[uncommon1]

No, Clinton lied and our men died. We have the facts on our side. Name one lie that Bush has told while in office. Just one. Anybody up to the challenge?

[DesertFox]

I think he lied about what time it was when he choked on that pretzel. He lyingly said it was 2:00 and, IIRC, it was 2:00:12. Damn liar, anyhow.

:rolleyes:

[Warlady]

I love the title. "Report Shows Rove MAY have lied to FBI, a felony" When are we going to start holding these reporters accountable for their slander? Karl Rove should sue the crap out of him. Of course he's in Canada so it may be difficult to file criminal charges.

[cerberus]

No, Clinton lied and our men died. We have the facts on our side. Name one lie that Bush has told while in office. Just one. Anybody up to the challenge?

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." GWB

<CERBERUS cover! takes and ducks>[cerberus ducks and takes cover for the ensuing sh*t storm] :laugh:

[aaron11]

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." GWB

<CERBERUS ducks and takes cover!>[cerberus ducks and takes cover for the ensuing sh*t storm] :laugh:

Leave it to a lefty to blame the CIA'S failure on Bush...

The Department of Energy told the Senate Intelligence Committee that “the vast majority of scientists and nuclear experts at the DOE did not agree with the CIA’s analysis” that the aluminum tubes were intended to be components for nuclear centrifuges.
Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessment on Iraq,” Select Committee of Intelligence: United States Senate, 7 July 2004, p. 94.
http://www.foreignpolicyleadershipcouncil.com/exec/content/108-181-183-index.htm


Don't you guys get tired of opening the door into your face?

[Warlady]

cerberus if I were you I would be really ashamed of being wrong all the time. I mean Clinton violated every law known to mankind but you guys are attacking GW for revealing the exact same intelligence that Clinton based his reasons for bombing Baghdad during his impeachment proceedings. Do you recall when Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which was signed into law by Bill Clinton? Do you recall all of the Democrats calling for us to go to war with Iraq during the Clinton administration due to the threat of WMD? Can you say two faced lying SOBs from the left? I can. "Two faced lying SOBs from the left". Now see? That wasn't that difficult. And even though we didn't find WMD's in Iraq it doesn't mean they weren't there while we were dicking around with the UN. Saddam had every opportunity to move them to Syria in the 6 months leading up to the war. Saddam knew we were coming. And even if he didn't have them then all the reports showed that he had the capability and intention to restart his WMD programs. One thing is certain now. Saddam is no longer a threat. His evil spawn are no longer a threat. We will never again have to worry about Saddam Hussein attacking anyone ever again. If that bothers you then I pity you.

[cerberus]

Leave it to a lefty to blame the CIA'S failure on Bush...

The Department of Energy told the Senate Intelligence Committee that “the vast majority of scientists and nuclear experts at the DOE did not agree with the CIA’s analysis” that the aluminum tubes were intended to be components for nuclear centrifuges.
Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessment on Iraq,” Select Committee of Intelligence: United States Senate, 7 July 2004, p. 94.
http://www.foreignpolicyleadershipcouncil.com/exec/content/108-181-183-index.htm


Don't you guys get tired of opening the door into your face?

Well exactly aaron. The point is that the Adminstration was given ample evidence by the DOE that the tubes were NOT suitable for centrifuge construction. However, Bush chose the intelligence that worked for him. People within government were throwing up all kinds of flags saying "hey, these tubes are no good!" But the Adminstration cherry-picked what it liked, dropped what it didn't and called it substantive, then when reality hit the entire IC got hung out to dry and the Adminstration just threw up its hands and attempted to escape any responsibility.

[DesertFox]

Cerberus, you haven't proven anything but that different folks interpret things in different ways -- which surprises no one with any sense. You've lost all cred with me.

[aaron11]

Cerberus, you haven't proven anything but that different folks interpret things in different ways -- which surprises no one with any sense. You've lost all cred with me.

Precisley...

[cerberus]

cerberus if I were you I would be really ashamed of being wrong all the time. ..said the ocean to the drop of water.

I mean Clinton violated every law known to mankind but you guys are attacking GW for revealing the exact same intelligence that Clinton based his reasons for bombing Baghdad during his impeachment proceedings.
Ummm...Fat Bubba bombed Baghdad ostensibly in retaliation for the expulsion of weapons inspectors.

Do you recall when Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which was signed into law by Bill Clinton? Do you recall all of the Democrats calling for us to go to war with Iraq during the Clinton administration due to the threat of WMD? Can you say two faced lying SOBs from the left?Yes, no, and yes in that order. This is all beside the point however.

And even though we didn't find WMD's in Iraq it doesn't mean they weren't there while we were dicking around with the UN. Uhh...I'm gonna have to go with it kinda does mean that.

Saddam had every opportunity to move them to Syria in the 6 months leading up to the war. Saddam knew we were coming. Complete and utter speculation. There is zero proof for this particular hypothesis.

And even if he didn't have them then all the reports showed that he had the capability and intention to restart his WMD programs. Here we go. Let's shift from "he really really has these very scary weapons so lookout!" to "well...umm...he wanted these weapons and he was bad, so uhhh...that'll do." No sorry. Doesn't fly. No shifting goalposts.

One thing is certain now. Saddam is no longer a threat. His evil spawn are no longer a threat. So what? Besides anthropomorphizing Iraq into Saddam-the-eight-tentacled-monster, the stated reasons for war didn't exist and the evidence was cooked.

We will never again have to worry about Saddam Hussein attacking anyone ever again. If that bothers you then I pity you.
It doesn't bother me at all. Going to war with Iraq per se didn't bother me. I'm all for knocking down ruthless dictators we don't like (although I'd put Kim Jong Il waaaaaaaayyyyyy ahead of Saddam).
What ticked me off so much was the way we went to war, the obfuscation, the deception, the doublespeak and scare-mongering, the denial or reality, the rosy war-scenarios. Every day leading up to the war i had to choke down the line "The President still hasn't decided if we are going to war" which was a total lie; he had decided. The decision was made well in advance but this little BS dance played out every-day for months.
Then we got the "Oooh Iraq is really really close to a nuclear weapon", which we knew to be BS, but it was thrown out there anyway. Then we got the "ummm...Saddam and UBL are in cahoots! It's about 9/11" which was BS, and on and on and on. It felt like the entire Administration was throwing piles of crap at a wall and seeing what would stick.

If GWB had gotten up and said "Howdy America, rest of world; I've decided to invade Iraq because Saddam is an ass. He's not so much a direct threat to us, but he is to his own people and I'm tired of keeping our troops on his doorstep for god-knows-how-long anyway. So we are going in; gonna kick some ass and throw him out. Dunno how long it'll take to make Iraq good after; and its gonna take billions of US dollars and gallons of US solider and Marine blood to do it, but I've made a list of bastards and he's numero uno. Kim Jong Il, Assad, Mugabe, look out 'cause yer on it too. Screw the French if they wanna be in bed with these scumbags. Freedom is coming.....with guns blazing."
THAT I could have gotten behind because it would have been honest, no BS, here's-how-it-is Bush; just like his speech after 9/11 to Congress. I coulda really gotten behind that.....

[cerberus]

Cerberus, you haven't proven anything but that different folks interpret things in different ways -- which surprises no one with any sense. You've lost all cred with me.
The point is that GW and the rest of the adminstration deliberatly chose to edit out those facts or interpretations that did not agree with their aim of going to war. I find that dishonest and damaging to the IC.

[DesertFox]

It obviously hasn't occurred to you that they believed what they saw. Curiously, several other people who saw the same thing also believed it. You're too quick to put down disagreement to motives when it could (and I think is) a matter of how you interpret intel. Bush has advisors. They advised him. He believed them. That isn't dishonest. YOU are dishonest.

[Warlady]

cerberus you are so full of crap. You are a partisan hack. The fact remains that if Clinton had chosen to liberate Iraq you would have been all for it. You totally discount the end result because Bush is the one who went to war. You guys never said a word about Kosovo, Haiti, the Balkans or Clinton's bombings of Iraq on an almost daily basis. Not one word. Your silence was deafening. So stop with your hypocrisy. The end result is that the middle east is finally getting some semblance of peace. I know you don't want to admit it. I'm not going to list all of the positives because you know them. Kadaffi giving up his WMD programs. The Palestinians and Israelis are almost reaching a peaceful agreement. Did that happen under Clinton? Nope. I know all of this ticks you off to no end but reality sucks doesn't it? Democrats suck at national security and that's why Kerry lost by almost 4 MILLION votes. That's why so many Republicans won in 1994, 1996, 2000, 2002 and 2004. I don't feel your pain but I do love reality.

[Keith J]

Expulsion of weapons inspectors is enough valid reason to overthrow the government of Iraq. Case closed.

[Apollo5600]

Saddamite Insane is enough reason to overthrow Iraq. Case Closed.

[Trevelyan]

<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com /><st1:country-region w:st=Iraq </st1:country-region></ST1:pshould have been overthrown way back when Bush Sr was in office. Case closed.

[Venus de Smilo]

The author of the article is a completely discredited freelance writer whom even Salon and the NYT and others won't publish. Now THAT is really bad.

[DoctorDoom]

IF the report is true, then Rove must pay the Piper. IF! That will be determined in a court of law IF it comes to that point. Until such time, our law requires an assumption of innocence until proven guilty.

To all appearances, it's more libeRAT muckraking.

[cerberus]

cerberus you are so full of crap. You are a partisan hack. Ironic coming from the queen of partisan hackery. :blush:

The fact remains that if Clinton had chosen to liberate Iraq you would have been all for it. You totally discount the end result because Bush is the one who went to war. You guys never said a word about Kosovo, Haiti, the Balkans or Clinton's bombings of Iraq on an almost daily basis. Not one word. Your silence was deafening. So stop with your hypocrisy. Is this all you ever have? Someone criticizes Bush or the war, and instead of actually dealing with their point you throw out "You love Clinton, therefor you suck". How about actually talking about the current president instead of obsessing about the last one? The issue I brought up was GWB, the lead-up to war and Iraq. Clinton maybe the ultimate red herring to you, but i'm not biting today.

The end result is that the middle east is finally getting some semblance of peace. This remains to be seen. Iraq isn't what I'd call the most peaceful of places and I'm not planning on taking leave on the beaches of either Lebanon or Israel/Gaza anytime soon.

I know you don't want to admit it. I'm not going to list all of the positives because you know them. Kadaffi giving up his WMD programs. The Palestinians and Israelis are almost reaching a peaceful agreement. Did that happen under Clinton? Nope. Yep. "Almost" being the operative word, just like they are "almost" there now and will "almost" be there in 2020. I thought you weren't going to list them all anyway? :smirky:

I know all of this ticks you off to no end but reality sucks doesn't it? No, I already said the lies and dissembling are what ticked me off. I love reality, it lets me see that both parties are full of crap and taking an ideological hard-line is the quickest way to loose your grip on it.

Democrats suck at national security and that's why Kerry lost by almost 4 MILLION votes. That's why so many Republicans won in 1994, 1996, 2000, 2002 and 2004. I thought the Democrats lost because they have no leadership, no coherent domestic platform, pander to unions and minorities and don't have a cogent message (among other things).

I don't feel your pain but I do love reality. If you actually loved reality you would take off the ideological blinders and critically examine the propoganda coming from the Administration instead of immediatly assuming Bush=good, anyone who criticizes Bush=bad. Reality isn't found in the columns of Ann Coulter or the National Review anymore than it's found in the Nation or coming from the lips of Al Franken.

[Kathy29]

Democrats are having a hard time with this one.

1. The law protects naming covert operatives in the field or who have been in the field in the past 5 years. Plame hadn't been in the field since 1998. It's not quite clear either, whether she is or was a clandestine agent or employee. It's not against the law to name employees only clandestine agents.

2. The law requires the naming to be the name. Joe Wilson's wife isn't sufficient a naming to qualify.

It seems to me that Cooper was going to publish another fake story damaging to the white house. Rove stopped him and told him that the story was false. The democrats got caught, this time before they could publish another lie and now they are furious.

[Naturalized-Texan]

The Dims lost in 2002 and 2004 specifically because of their weakness on national security, especially opposition to the War on Terror. Their losses in the other years were partially due to their weaknes on national security, but mainly due to the fact that the Republicans had a positive agenda, while the Dims had either no agenda or a negative one, i.e., an agenda of hate, lies, and character assassination.

[aaron11]

Cerberus, You are full of crap!

First, If someone truly believes what they are saying, Then even if it turns out to be wrong that does not mean they lied...In Bush's case at best! You could say he was mis-informed... Problem for you is that it wasn't just our intelligence agency that believed Saddam had WMD and was trying to acquire more...Nearly every single major intelligence group thought the same and they stand by that still today...The Niger Yellow Cake is a good example...

Second, Their was plenty of evidence found in Iraq to suggest that WarLady's "hypothesis" that Saddam did in fact hide his WMD program and move some of the weapons themselves to Syria...In fact a possible invasion into syria was discussed at the time...

[Pendragon_6]

I read in the weeks leading up to the Iraq invasion that Russian Spetznaz special forces removed all Saddam's WMD's and sent them to the Bekaa Valley in Syria.