CIA "Leak" Update
According to a number of intelligence officers, President Bush should punish Karl Rove over the supposed CIA agent identity leak.
These wankers don't rate, and here's why.
It is a federal crime to reveal the identity of a covert intelligence agent.
In order to be considered a covert agent, by U.S. law, you have to have been on a foreign assignment within the last five years.
At the time the original article "outing" Valerie Plame was published during the Summer of 2003, she and her ambassador husband, Joseph Wilson, had been back in the United States for six years. For those of you who are as bad at math as I am, I've checked the math, and that's one year longer than she needed to be back in the country to not be considered an undercover agent.
Put those last three bulleted items together, and depending on when the information was "leaked" in the first place, it still wouldn't have been illegal according to the letter of the law.
The Justice Department has repeatedly stated that Karl Rove is not a suspect in the leak of Valerie Plame's identity, and you can rest assured that they will have investigated this thoroughly. Don't believe me? Think the president and his goons don't get investigated as tenaciously as anyone else? I have a single name for you: Monica Lewinsky.
Nobody has been able to prove, or really even demonstrate, that A) Karl Rove was responsible for the original leak, or B) that he even knew that Valerie Plame had been a covert agent in the first place. There's something called a "burden of proof" in the American legal system, and nobody has come anywhere close to meeting it on these ridiculous charges against Karl Rove.
Do you think that President Bush's top political advisor is privy to some master list of all the people who have been covert agents for the CIA in the last ten years or currently? And even if he were in possession of such a list, do you think he'd really waste his time trying to find dirt on some lunatic, partisan ambassador whose wife used to be a covert agent? Politically speaking, that's as much of a waste of time as forging the documents that led to Dan Rather's downfall.
And what about Wilson's statements in the article? Well, let's review further.
President Bush's original sixteen words in the 2003 State of the Union Speech were as follows: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
The claims revolved around an investigative trade delegation that the Hussein government sent to Niger. Niger has two exports: goats, and yellow cake uranium. What do you think Saddam Hussein wanted out of this trade delegation? (And yes, there is a right answer to that question.)
Joe Wilson was recommended by his wife, Valerie Plame, a formerly undercover CIA agent who was, at that time, working a desk job. I've discussed previously the dubious accusations made by Wilson, a high profile individual whose supposedly covert wife recommended him for a high profile mission.
Joe Wilson's article claimed that Saddam Hussein did not buy yellow cake uranium from Niger; he also claimed that Saddam Hussein didn't have any illicit materials.
President Bush's statement, and the information from British intelligence, said that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger, not that he had succeeded.
The attempt alone was a violation of international law, vis a vis the many UNSC resolutions against Hussein for his illicit weapons programs. It is also further proof that Saddam was in open breach of international law, and we all know for a fact that the United Nations didn't do jack to hold him accountable.
Remember how I mentioned that Wilson's article claimed that Hussein didn't have illicit materials? Well, guess what the United States government removed from Iraq after the invasion? That's right: tons of stockpiled yellow cake uranium. I can guarantee you that it wasn't intended for use as a palace decoration.
I'll remind you, ladies and gentlemen, that attempting to buy yellow cake uranium in violation of international law isn't tariff evasion or dumping a couple of gallons of hydrochloric acid into a river. It's procuring a substance that is used solely as raw materials for producing nuclear fuel, which Iraq was forbidden by, what's that? You guessed it. International law.
If Karl Rove violated federal laws, he should be prosecuted. If Karl Rove violated federal laws, he should be fired by President Bush. Karl Rove isn't a holy cow for me, or for most Republicans. Losing him as a political advisor would be a lousy development for President Bush; aside from that, there's no good reason to revere Karl Rove.
At the same time, Rove shouldn't be forced to resign as a result of some witch hunt, and he shouldn't be forced to resign if they can't prove that he did something illegal. I can understand the argument of the CIA, but let's face it: there are laws governing this kind of thing, and if the law isn't broken, the law isn't broken. A great deal of the specific information in this post came from a half hour segment on the Lars Larson Show, where his guest was a deputy chairperson of the Democratic National Committee. The rhetorical squirming of this particular democratic operative when faced with the facts was ridiculous, and almost entertaining. It was easy to tell that she knew the facts weren't on her side, and she was just short of spouting the classic line that "Bush lied, people died!" The best she could come up with as evidence against Rove was that the Justice Department had conducted an investigation; Lars pointed out that the investigators had said repeatedly that Rove wasn't a suspect, and she kept changing the subject. An investigation does not equate to guilt; an investigation determines whether there is enough evidence to suggest possible guilt. The investigation has made no accusations against Karl Rove, so it's not admissible evidence against him, be it in a court of law or the court of intelligent discourse.
Bottom line? Unless there's some classified or confidential information I don't know about, the Democrats have not come anywhere near a burden of proof in their attempts to politically lynch Karl Rove. The actions of Joe Wilson in particular, and Wilson and his wife in general, simply don't add up if she was a covert operative for the CIA. As far as I can tell (and I have a degree in interpreting facts, putting things in chronological order, and understanding complex documents) the law hasn't been broken, let alone by Karl Rove. There's no case here. In words that would likely be used by Poosh if our roles were reversed:
"These aren't the droids you're looking for."
WASHINGTON — Former U.S. intelligence officers criticized President Bush on Friday for not disciplining Karl Rove in connection with the leak of the name of a CIA officer, saying Bush's lack of action has jeopardized national security.
In a hearing held by Senate and House Democrats examining the implications of exposing Valerie Plame's identity, the former intelligence officers said Bush's silence has hampered efforts to recruit informants to help the United States fight the War on TerrorFederal law forbids government officials from revealing the identity of an undercover intelligence officer.
These wankers don't rate, and here's why.
Do you think that President Bush's top political advisor is privy to some master list of all the people who have been covert agents for the CIA in the last ten years or currently? And even if he were in possession of such a list, do you think he'd really waste his time trying to find dirt on some lunatic, partisan ambassador whose wife used to be a covert agent? Politically speaking, that's as much of a waste of time as forging the documents that led to Dan Rather's downfall.
And what about Wilson's statements in the article? Well, let's review further.
If Karl Rove violated federal laws, he should be prosecuted. If Karl Rove violated federal laws, he should be fired by President Bush. Karl Rove isn't a holy cow for me, or for most Republicans. Losing him as a political advisor would be a lousy development for President Bush; aside from that, there's no good reason to revere Karl Rove.
At the same time, Rove shouldn't be forced to resign as a result of some witch hunt, and he shouldn't be forced to resign if they can't prove that he did something illegal. I can understand the argument of the CIA, but let's face it: there are laws governing this kind of thing, and if the law isn't broken, the law isn't broken. A great deal of the specific information in this post came from a half hour segment on the Lars Larson Show, where his guest was a deputy chairperson of the Democratic National Committee. The rhetorical squirming of this particular democratic operative when faced with the facts was ridiculous, and almost entertaining. It was easy to tell that she knew the facts weren't on her side, and she was just short of spouting the classic line that "Bush lied, people died!" The best she could come up with as evidence against Rove was that the Justice Department had conducted an investigation; Lars pointed out that the investigators had said repeatedly that Rove wasn't a suspect, and she kept changing the subject. An investigation does not equate to guilt; an investigation determines whether there is enough evidence to suggest possible guilt. The investigation has made no accusations against Karl Rove, so it's not admissible evidence against him, be it in a court of law or the court of intelligent discourse.
Bottom line? Unless there's some classified or confidential information I don't know about, the Democrats have not come anywhere near a burden of proof in their attempts to politically lynch Karl Rove. The actions of Joe Wilson in particular, and Wilson and his wife in general, simply don't add up if she was a covert operative for the CIA. As far as I can tell (and I have a degree in interpreting facts, putting things in chronological order, and understanding complex documents) the law hasn't been broken, let alone by Karl Rove. There's no case here. In words that would likely be used by Poosh if our roles were reversed:
"These aren't the droids you're looking for."
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home