Are we going to see Vice President Condi Rice . . . real soon?

[MovieMogul]

There now seems to be the possibility that Bush lied to Fitzgerald last year. As you may recall:

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove personally assured President Bush in the early fall of 2003 that he had not disclosed to anyone in the press that Valerie Plame, the wife of an administration critic, was a CIA employee, according to legal sources with firsthand knowledge of the accounts that both Rove and Bush independently provided to federal prosecutors…

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.

This seems to be in direct contradiction with the more recent story:

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.”

So, if both stories are true, than what are the legal implications of Bush having lied to Fitzgerald? Was that interview under oath?

[Squink]

@ArchiveGuy

So, if both stories are true, than what are the legal implications of Bush having lied to Fitzgerald? Was that interview under oath?

Nope.

[BobLibDem]

@John Mace

Is there a blue dress involved? Maybe Libby gave Rove a blow job and lied about it afterwards. Now, that would get the public intersted!

I think you helped me lose weight. I’m not going to eat for a while with that visual.

[What_Exit]

@BrainGlutton

Well, there you go. That’s two different factions. I can imagine the first “losing control” of the party – but not the second. The second faction is the Republican Party.

You’re absolutely correct about them being separate.

I think you’re short changing the republicans saying they all care about the rich at the expense of everyone else. I think there is yet another group.
I’ll call us the Teddy Roosevelt Republicans.
…You would probably be correct in thinking we are an endangered species.

Maybe we could resurrect the Bull Moose Party and appeal to all the moderates and independents.

[BarnOwl]

@Squink

Nope.

But I think it is still regarded as lying to an investigator, and obstruction, as well, both of which are criminal offenses.

[MovieMogul]

@E = mc²

But I think it is still regarded as lying to an investigator, and obstruction, as well, both of which are criminal offenses.

That’s what I’d like to get clarification on. If the interview was not under oath, is the testimony still bindable in some way. Can POTUS get subpoenaed to testify as to why there might be a discrepancy? It would be interesting to see what the sources of both stories are and how they might converge.

[John_Mace]

@vibrotronica

The activity in question was undertaken to silence a critic of the administration who said that the case for war was based on information that can chairtably be called “mistaken” and uncharitably be called “lies.” And the thing is, he was right. There was was no uranium bought from Niger. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And yet, our soldiers are their and they’re getting killed and killing, and we’re spending money on the war like it’s going out of style. Money we don’t have. Money we’re borrowing from the Chinese…

But that wasn’t what I was responding to. It was the “Silence Wilson” = “mire us in war” statement. We were already mired in war when the effort was made to “silence Wilson” (if indeed that was intended). Had this all happened in 2002, then it might make sense. But the Iraq war started in Mar '03, and the “leaks” happened months after that.

[BrainGlutton]

@jrfranchi

I think you’re short changing the republicans saying they all care about the rich at the expense of everyone else. I think there is yet another group.
I’ll call us the Teddy Roosevelt Republicans.

Would that be the same as the “Rockefeller Republicans”?

[What_Exit]

@BrainGlutton

Would that be the same as the “Rockefeller Republicans”?

Close but remember Teddy was a trustbuster, I don’t think that really fits the common definition of a “Rockefeller Republican”. Aren’t they liberal on domestic, strong/Hawkish on Foreign policy and very pro-business?
It’s really a little before my time. I didn’t think there were any major ones left.

I welcome any corrections to knowledge.

[BarnOwl]

FWIW…

“Second Cheney aide cooperating in leak probe, those close to case say”

There seem to be two people in Cheney’s group who have flipped, and are giving evidence: John Hannah (whom you all have heard about, I think), and David Wurmser.

“Wurmser, Cheney’s Middle East advisor and an assistant to then-Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs John Bolton, likely cooperated because he faced criminal charges for his role in leaking Wilson’s name on the orders of higher-ups, the sources said.”

“According to those familiar with the case, Wurmser was in attendance at several meetings of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a little-known cabal of administration hawks that formed in August 2002 to publicize the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Those who say they have reviewed documents obtained in the probe assert that the Vice President was also present at some of the group’s meetings.”

Full story is at

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Second_Cheney_aide_cooperating_in_leak_1019.html

[BrainGlutton]

@jrfranchi

Close but remember Teddy was a trustbuster, I don’t think that really fits the common definition of a “Rockefeller Republican”. Aren’t they liberal on domestic, strong/Hawkish on Foreign policy and very pro-business?

Couldn’t you say all that about TR, despite the trust-busting?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Republican:

In the United States, the term Rockefeller Republican refers to those members of the Republican party who hold moderate views similar to those of the late Nelson Rockefeller, governor of New York from 1959 to 1973 and vice president of the United States under President Gerald Ford in the mid-1970s. In other words, Rockefeller Republicans are quite moderate or liberal in their positions on domestic and social policies, but often conservative about foreign policy. The “Rockefeller Republican” label is also applied to such modern-day politicians as Rhode Island’s Lincoln Chafee, a liberal in both cultural and international respects, but generally “pro-business” in terms of economic policy.

[What_Exit]

@BrainGlutton

Couldn’t you say all that about TR, despite the trust-busting?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Republican:

Pretty close. I would rather be associated with Teddy though, wouldn’t you?

[Frank]

@BrainGlutton

Couldn’t you say all that about TR, despite the trust-busting?

I think I could make a case (if I wanted to) that trust-busting is pro-business in general, just not pro-big-business.

[What_Exit]

@This Year's Model

I think I could make a case (if I wanted to) that trust-busting is pro-business in general, just not pro-big-business.

I like that, I would say so am I. That sums it up nicely.
Can you imagine what Teddy would have tried to do to the Enron senior officers?

[BarnOwl]

@ArchiveGuy

That’s what I’d like to get clarification on. If the interview was not under oath, is the testimony still bindable in some way. Can POTUS get subpoenaed to testify as to why there might be a discrepancy? It would be interesting to see what the sources of both stories are and how they might converge.

here’s part of the answer. It’s a snippet from an email I get from the American Progress Action Fund. (My bolding.)

"DID BUSH TELL PROSECUTORS ROVE DENIED ANY INVOLVEMENT? National Journal investigative reporter Murray Waas reported on 10/7/05, “In his own interview with prosecutors on June 24, 2004, Bush also testified that Rove assured him he had not disclosed Plame as a CIA employee and had said nothing to the press to discredit Wilson.” Apparently, Rove has been telling a similar story. The AP reported that “Rove told President Bush and others that he never engaged in an effort to disclose a CIA operative’s identity to discredit her husband’s criticism of the administration’s Iraq policy, according to people with knowledge of Rove’s account in the probe.” These accounts, if true, are completely inconsistent with the facts reported in yesterday’s New York Daily News. Although Bush was not under oath, making false statements to a federal agent is still against the law.

[Dishfunctional]

I must have missed the part where someone debunked Victoria Toensing’s claim that Valerie Plame was not a “covert” agent, as defined by the law she said she helped draft. I heard Limbaugh mention that in the car today, and I don’t seem to recall that question ever being resolved. Is that all water under the bridge?

Is it OK to ask that question in this thread?

Is it OK to mention Limbaugh’s name on this board?

[MovieMogul]

Well, I did find this:

Here are some of the facts that will come out when Fitzgerald ends his investigation:[ul]
[li]Valerie Plame was still a non-official cover officer in July 2003 when her identity was revealed by colostomy bag Bob Novak. [/li][li]Valerie Plame had traveled overseas on secret missions using that cover as required under the statute in question.[/li][li]Valerie Plame’s exposure also almost compromised the identity of other non-official cover officers.[/li][li]Valerie Plame did not have the authority to send her husband on the Niger mission and in fact did not make the decision.[/ul][/li]Other mental midgets like Cohen, such as Victoria Toensing, continue to insist that no crime could have been committed because Valerie Plame, “worked at a desk job”. Newsflash for these so-called Washington insiders who have proven they know nothing about the intelligence community–at least 40% of the people working at CIA Headquarters are working undercover. Just because they may physically go to the CIA building in McLean, Virginia everyday does not mean that their relationship with the CIA is acknowledged.

During my four years of sitting at a desk at CIA I was undercover. My position with the CIA was not even known by my own parents. Only my wife was privy to that secret. Many of the undercover folks still working at CIA are at headquarters on a temporary basis. Some travel overseas on temporary assignments that last less than a month. Others await a semi-permanent posting for a two or three year stint overseas.

[Dishfunctional]

@ArchiveGuy

Well, I did find this:

Well, thanks for the link and for your opinions. Unfortunately, the former doesn’t offer the proof I was asking for that Plame was “covert” at the time her name was released by whomever, and the latter only causes me to question your objectivity.

But thanks, anyway.

[squeegee]

@Dishfunctional

Well, thanks for the link and for your opinions. Unfortunately, the former doesn’t offer the proof I was asking for that Plame was “covert” at the time her name was released by whomever, and the latter only causes me to question your objectivity.

But thanks, anyway.

He didn’t offer any opinions. The quoted text was from the link.

But thanks, anyway.

[BarnOwl]

@Dishfunctional

I must have missed the part where someone debunked Victoria Toensing’s claim that Valerie Plame was not a “covert” agent, as defined by the law she said she helped draft.

I was taken aback by that claim, too, and hoped Chris Matthews would explore it. But he didn’t. I can only suspect that Toensing was throwing out a red herring and her contention is misleading.

If it were true, surely someone in the Administration or on Fitzgerald’s staff would have spotted the loophole in Victoria’s Law, and by now, would have taken appropriate action.

Ah but the shit will certainly hit the fan if Toensing is on the money.