Valid argument? I must have missed it just like you must have missed that I actually responded to your argument directly. Scroll back up and read the WHOLE post, not just the part I’ve already appologized for.
Now, if you’d like to drop this (I DID appologize to you and I’m getting a bit pissed now…got more to say on this pit me or go away) and actually respond to what I said thats fine. If you have additional information to back up your position, fine…trot it out and we can discuss it.
-XT
Yup, you did, but it’s my fault for not being more explicit. Try this:
There is no ethical difference between explicitly naming someone and confirming that person’s identity. There is no ethical difference between “her name is Valerie Plame” and “yes, it’s Joe Wilson’s wife.”
Yes andros, and you must have missed this part:
You see, because there IS an ethical difference between saying “her name is Valerie Plame” and “yes, it’s Joe Wilson’s wife.” and saying “I heard that, too.” when Rove was asked by a reporter if he’d “heard that Joseph Wilson’s wife, who worked for the CIA, played a role in Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger.” Taking out my assumption of your position, do you see the difference? Or do you maintain that the two statements you layed out are the same as the one that Rove actually made?
-XT
Rove “confirms the story by saying —.”
I’ll amend:
There is no ethical difference between confirming a story about Joe Wilson’s wife and explicitly naming her.
See, the scenario you present is not precisely accurate. Rove was confirming the story, not merely stating that he’s also heard the same story.
Well, to be honest I thought this WAS the scenario I was presenting, but ok…fair enough. To your mind there is no moral difference between naming someone and simply confirming a story. Does this, to you, constitute treason?
-XT
xtisme, please hear this constructively. I think you are a Bush supporter and a Republican, simply because on just about every single issue I can think of, you espouse the current party line. You, on some issues, eventually concede that these positions are untenable, but only after quite a bit of work. Your original position in this thread is fairly inexcusably delivered with a big red kool-aid mustache, at least for one who is not a partisan. Frankly, you can call yourself whatever you want, but functionally, or for all intents and purposes, you seem to me indistinguishable from a Bush supporting Republican.
As to flying off the handle, it seems like our last exchange involved you flying off the handle at me. I could be wrong, however.
How can you, in the same breath, accuse folks like myself of acting without regard to the facts and then say that asking for a cite is stupid? Frankly, you seem to have very little knowledge about this matter, and have apparently unquestioningly accepted Rove’s lawyers spin that Novak told Rove about the status of an undercover agent. Does that even sound plausible to you?
Here’s another interesting fact: Despite never having once investigated the Plame leak, Pat Roberts has announced that his Senate committee is going to investigate Patrick Fitzgerald! http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/25/191620/049
Asshole.
Ok, I wasn’t certain. Honestly, you appeared to be equivocating on that point.
Well, I said “ethical,” but that’s pretty much correct. The story that Rove did nothing wrong because he did not name names is IMO dishonest. He didn’t name names, true, but he confirmed a story about the person in question which included enough detail to very easily determine her name.
What? No. Whatever gave you that idea?
S’okay. My writing style is…odd. And I’m often mistaken or what I write often doesn’t come out exactly as I meant it too. To be honest I have no dog in this fight at all…I can’t stand Rove and just joined in for the fun of it.
Well, I thought that was what this thread was about. My one weak point in this whole thing is that Rove might have done a lot of things, and certainly appears to have fucked up by saying what he said to a reporter (gods, and this guy is suppose to be some kind of evil genius??), but whatever he did it wasn’t treason…least not as I understand the term.
-XT
I agree. I do agree with rj, however, that he could use some time in a federal PMITA prison. He fucked up royally and IMO illegally, although that’s for the investigation to determine.
I think you’re probably right, but … 10,000 to 1?!? What the hell, I’ll go 10 bucks. I’ll take my $100k payoff in gold bars, thanks.
Interesting. I have encountered several such allegations. Here’s the logic chain: Plame was a covert op and her job was tracking WMDs, particularly terrorist orgs’ attempts to get WMDs. The firm she was working for, which Novak SO NOBLY identified, was a CIA front organization that had several covert ops tracking WMDs, and the firm’s cover was blown, and ALL their ops’ covers were blown. A serious setback for those of us interested in keeping WMDs out of the hands of terrorist – presumably you find this uninteresting, compared with getting revenge on Joe Wilson for speaking the truth about the yellowcake rumor.
Because IOKIARDI?
[/quote]
Read the constitution. Unless he “adhered to the Enemies” of the US, he didn’t commit treason.
[/quote]
He’s got to GLUE HIMSELF to Osama bin Laden to commit treason? That’s what I call setting the bar high, Lemur!
Because the enemies of America would NEVER think of reading U.S. publications to find out stuff about us. A bit of a lapse on their part, since Megatrends author John Naisbitt got his start developing intelligence data for the Allies from Nazi newspapers.
[/quote]
Publishing or leaking secret information isn’t treason. It may violate other laws, it may be grounds to revoke someone’s security clearance, it may be grounds to kick someone out of government service forever, it may be grounds for disgrace and ignomy, it may mark the leaker as a petty vindictive asshole who would compromise the safety of the US for partisan advantage (or it might mark the leaker as a brave steadfast whistleblower) (bonus points of you can identify which category I believe Karl Rove should be place in). But it isn’t and shouldn’t be treason.
[/quote]
Sure, because helping our enemies identify and perhaps kill our covert ops and their contacts is actually a minor infraction, akin to jaywalking. Or getting a blowjob from an intern. Hardly worth bothering about. Why they even have laws about such things, I don’t know…
Several laws, all with a treasonous disregard for the security of the United States.
I’ll bet most people who break such laws are dealt with … how shall I put this? … covertly.
It’s soundbite simple, friend Mace.
SOUNDBITE:
Deliberately blowing the cover of a covert CIA op is treason. Karl Rove did that. Karl Rove committed treason.
/SOUNDBITE
That’s all we have to say, once we get to arguing about who did what on which timeline, and did they actually use Plame’s real name, we’re in la-la land. The Dems have a simple, powerful message about Rove and all they have to do is repeat it for it to work.
The Republicans are pretty good at that. And WE have the advantage of not lying our asses off when we speak.
You keep thinking, EC, that’s what you’re good at.
In the meantime, how’s about that little wager I proposed. 10,000 to 1 odds ain’t good enough for you?
**squeege **is in for $10:
How about you?
He’d basically have to declare allegiance to a country that we had declared war against and then give them the information with the direct intention of hurting the US. That’s generally the standard for “adhering to the enemies” that’s neccesary.
As Cramer v US says:
[QUOTE=xtisme
You see, because there IS an ethical difference between saying “her name is Valerie Plame” and “yes, it’s Joe Wilson’s wife.” and saying “I heard that, too.” when Rove was asked by a reporter if he’d “heard that Joseph Wilson’s wife, who worked for the CIA, played a role in Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger.” Taking out my assumption of your position, do you see the difference? Or do you maintain that the two statements you layed out are the same as the one that Rove actually made?
-XT[/QUOTE]
On what basis do you believe this bullshit? None of the reporters involved have confirmed it, and it makes no sense on the face of it, givn the fact that * no reporters has the security clearance to have obtained that info to give it to Rove. *
You are trotting out Rove’s ridiculous lies as though they are irrefutable proof! Good lord…
And I’ll take an extra “e” with my winnings, thanks very much. 
I’m expecting I won’t win this bet, but it’s worth it to see someone wager 10000:1 when we’re still in early discovery on a probable conspiracy involving national security.
What is the termination of the bet, i.e., when would I lose and pay you? Jan 1, 2009 with Rove uncharged seems like a fair termination. Agreed?
On the “squeegee wins” side, unlikely as that seems, what specific charges would you agree are “treason” ?
That date sounds fine.
I don’t know know what you mean by “charges”, other than treason. He’d have to be charged with treason. Isn’t that what we’re talking about?
Well, did you actually read the link I cited? They have cites in there as well for everything they put in. Er…what do YOU have?
No…I trotted out an article from Factchecker.org which basically didn’t make any call at all but just listed a timeline of events (and they did cite the timeline…which is more than I’ve seen from you). I never said it was irrefutable proof. Refute away. So far all I see from you is a lot of hand waving and foaming at the mouth from you…well, that and a few insults tossed my way of course. If you have some evidence then trot it out Stoid.
-XT
Well, I’m a bit of a beginner at this. I assume there’s a federal “treason” statute that would suffice? Does an indictment under the Espionage Act of 1917 count? Honestly, I’m not playing games, I’m just not sure how to define the terms of what counts as a “treason” indictment.
I don’t think you’re playing games. I’ll start a GQ thread and see how one goes about being charged with treason. As we all know, Aaron Burr was charged with treason in 1807, but I’m not sure if there was a treason statute, or if you can be charged with a violation of the constitution. It will be interesting to find out.
In the meantime, maybe one of our resident lawyers will stubble on this and answer it for us…