L'Affaire Plame: Democratic Talking Points

Why is it that even with the facts on their side, the Democrats have not been able to hold the Bush administration accountable for what is possibly the biggest political cover-up since Watergate? Answer: because Democrats have an annoying tendency to get bogged down in pesky “facts” when they should be spending time connecting with people emotionally. In an effort to help them, here is:

The CIA leak: Democratic Talking Points

A CRIME WAS COMMITTED
• The CIA filed a crime report with the US Dept of Justice on July 30, 2003 and then recommended that the FBI undertake a full criminal investigation on September 16th of same year.
• Logic dictates that the investigation would have ended sometime in the last two years had a crime not been committed

THIS IS A COVER UP
• Intentional leak or not, the Bush Administration got caught and are furiously backpedaling, changing stories and deflecting attention
• The are trying to divert attention away from the crime by attacking American patriots who have risked their lives for the past 20 years in the name of National Security, in order to save themselves

THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY
• The leak of Valerie Wilson’s name not only ended her career, but indirectly exposed everyone who worked for Brewster Jennings, the shell company created by the CIA to infiltrate nuclear smuggling operations. They had operatives in Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and other members of the Axis of Evil.
• All of those operatives were instantly compromised.

THIS IS ABOUT IRAQ
• Joe Wilson’s op-ed piece in the NY Times that started L’Affaire Plame was about one thing and one thing only, and it was actually the opening sentence of the article: “Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?”
• The answer, we now know, was YES. THIS IS WHAT REPUBLICANS WERE RESPONDING TO, despite what they may now be suggesting.
• Republicans contend he said Cheney sent him. Read the article for yourself and decide.

THEY SHOT THE MESSENGER
• In an effort to silence Joe Wilson, they began a concerted effort to smear him. Valerie Plame, and our National Security, were unfortunate bystanders.
• According to the LA Times, when asked at one point why he was pursuing the diplomat so aggressively, Rove reportedly responded: "He's a Democrat." This despite the fact that voted for Bush in 2000.

BUSH HAS BROUGHT SHAME AND REMOVED INTEGRITY FROM THE WHITE HOUSE
• When the heat was turned up on Rove recently, Bush changed his pledge to remove anyone from office who was involved in the leak, to a pledge to remove anyone CONVICTED of being involved in the leak. A sad day indeed for ethics in the White House.
• Furthermore, Bush’s administration is FULL of convicted criminals from Iran Contra to the Honduras Death Squads, from Eliot Abrams to John Negroponte to Admiral Poindexter.

DECENT AMERICANS WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS!!
• An NBC/WSJ poll taken between July 8-11 (before the scandal really hit the mainstream media) has only 41% of Americans giving Bush good marks for “honesty”, his lowest ratings yet.

FoxNEWS: Treason should be rewarded

FoxNEWS may have just crossed the line. John Gibson, in his My Word column writes:

"I say give Karl Rove a medal, even if Bush has to fire him.

Why should she have been outed? Well despite her husband's repeated denials, even in the face of a pile of evidence and conclusions from a Senate investigation, it appears all evidence points to Joe Wilson's wife, spy Valerie Plame, as the one who recommended him for the job of going to Niger to discover is Saddam was trying to buy nuke bomb materials."

Conclusion: it is ok to compromise national security in the interest of "setting the record straight" about who authorized an Ambassador to go on a thankless mission to Africa. It is worth giving on up any intelligence this CIA operative would have yielded, in a time of war no less, in order to discredit a diplomat for doing his job. And what about the hundreds of contacts whose lives are now in jeopardy?

Please send an email to John Gibson at myword@foxnews.com. This is truly shocking.

Action Alert: Get Rove Out

Sign the petition.
Pass the word.

Bush and the Timetable Flip Flop

Time capsule. Am I losing my mind. Read these quotes and try to feel like you're not falling into the rabbit hole.

In 1999, George Bush was laying the foundation for his campaign by clumsily attempting a national profile. He criticized then President Bill Clinton's handling of the crisis in Kosovo by telling the Houston Chronicle,

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

He then told reporters

"I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn. If there needs to be a residual force, it is important that over time U.S. troops are withdrawn and our European allies carry the majority of the load."

In the same article, former VP Dan Quayle says

"The Clinton administration squandered substantial resources and, far more importantly, our nation's credibility in the pursuit of matters wholly unrelated to America's vital national security interests. It was a terrible mistake that has established a troubling precedent," Quayle said.

Alan Keyes says

"I see nothing in this possible outcome that justifies the sacrifice of American principles and conscience that the prosecution of this immoral strategy has entailed."

Pat Buchanan says

"The U.S. has seen its superpower status and reputation for decency tarnished by the pounding of a tiny country that never threatened us. ...Is there anyone who would not prefer the Balkans of 10 weeks ago to today?" he asked a gathering of journalists at the National Press Club in Washington Tuesday.

Contrast these positions with the current administration's refusal to issue a timetable, and the general FLIP FLOPPING on illegal wars, undersupported by our allies, against countries that do not threaten us.

Republicans Flip Flop on Plamegate

Now that the man who knows where all the bodies are buried has been implicated in what is certainly an ethical breach, if not outright treason, the Republican spin (read: lying) machine has gone into hyper drive.

The best part is, it is a big, huge FLIP FLOP. They are parsing words, splitting hairs, and trying to create just enough of a smoke screen to hide a balding, fat Special Advisor to the President.

In 2003, then RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie said this to Chris Mathews of Hardball:

Hardball (MSNBC - 9/30/03):

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Don't you think it's more serious than Watergate, when you think about it?

RNC CHAIRMAN ED GILLESPIE: I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative -- it's abhorrent, and it should be a crime, and it is a crime.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: It'd be worse than Watergate, wouldn't it?

GILLESPIE: It's -- Yeah, I suppose in terms of the real world implications of it. It's not just politics.

AHHH, Ed, but it seems it IS just politics. That's what your replacement said today! Current RNC Chairman had only this to say about the whole thing:

It's disappointing that once again, so many Democrat leaders are taking their political cues from the far-left, Moveon wing of the party. The bottom line is Karl Rove was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise and the Democrats are engaging in blatant partisan political attacks.

So was it just politics or not?! And is it now acceptable to compromise national security in an effort to discourage a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise?

Do not let them get away with this, people. Write your newspapers, your Congressmen, and the White House. This man can NOT be trusted with the highest security clearance that W has given him. Karl Rove has got to go.

White House train wreck: the Plame press briefing

Today's White House press briefing was such a total train wreck for the White House that it deserves to be printed here. Perhaps it is because one of their own was sent to jail for doing their job, but the press corps got a spine today, finally, and they got nasty.

WHITE HOUSE PRESS BRIEFING
JULY 11, 2005

May God bless the people of the Balkan region, and the souls of the departed.

And with that, I will be glad to go to your questions. Terry (Terry Moran of ABC News).

ABC News: Does the President stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak of a name of a CIA operative?

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked relating to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point. And as I've previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it. The President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren't going to comment on it while it is ongoing.

Q Excuse me, but I wasn't actually talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the President said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak, to press of information. And I just want to know, is that still his position?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that's why I said that our policy continues to be that we're not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium. The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium. And so that's why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation, or questions related to it.

Q Scott, if I could -- if I could point out, contradictory to that statement, on September 29th, 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one who said, if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation is when the President made his comment that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you've suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, "We're not going to comment on an ongoing investigation"?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. That's something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow. And that's why we're continuing to follow that approach and that policy.

Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.

Q So could I just ask, when did you change your mind to say that it was okay to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it's not?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry's question at the beginning. There came a point when the investigation got underway when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be their -- or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing. I think that's the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.

Q Scott, can I ask you this; did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to an ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than we're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

Q Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this" -- do you stand by that statement?

MR. McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time, as well.

Q Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David (David Gregory of NBC News), I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --

Q Why are you choosing when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MR. McCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish --

Q No, you're not finishing -- you're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke out about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation? Was he involved, or was he not? Because, contrary to what you told the American people, he did, indeed, talk about his wife, didn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: David, there will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

Q Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question. Go ahead, Terry.

Q Well, you're in a bad spot here, Scott, because after the investigation began, after the criminal investigation was underway, you said -- October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby, as I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this." From that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began. Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization Terry, and I think you are well aware of that. We know each other very well, and it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation. And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this, because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point, I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

Q Do you recall when you were asked --

Q Wait, wait -- so you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore, and since then, you haven't?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation, and I'm just not going to respond any further.

Q When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you peg down a date?

MR. McCLELLAN: Back at that time period.

Q Well, then the President commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

Go ahead, Dave.

Q We are going to keep asking them. When did the President learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with the President -- with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife and the decision to send --

MR. McCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.

Q When did the President learn that Karl Rove had --

MR. McCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions, Dick. Go ahead.

Q After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the President's word that anybody who was involved would be let go?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

Q And a follow-up. Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the Deputy Chief of Staff?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.

Q Scott, there's a difference between commenting on an investigation and taking an action --

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Goyal.

Q Can I finish, please?

MR. McCLELLAN: You can come -- I'll come back to you in a minute. Go ahead, Goyal.

AND LATER…

MR. McCLELLAN: Carl, go ahead. I'll come to you, David, in a second.

Q Does the President continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this.

Q So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the President has confidence in his Deputy Chief of Staff?

MR. McCLELLAN: Carl, you're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation. And I would not read anything into it other than I'm simply not going to comment on an ongoing --

Q Has there been -- has there been any change --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- investigation.

Q Has there been any change or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions.

AND LATER STILL….

MR. McCLELLAN: Now I'll go back to David. Go ahead.

Q There's a difference between commenting publicly on an action and taking action in response to it. Newsweek put out a story, an email saying that Karl Rove passed national security information on to a reporter that outed a CIA officer. Now, are you saying that the President is not taking any action in response to that? Because I presume that the prosecutor did not ask you not to take action, and that if he did, you still would not necessarily abide by that; that the President is free to respond to news reports, regardless of whether there's an investigation or not. So are you saying that he's not going to do anything about this until the investigation is fully over and done with?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think the President has previously spoken to this. This continues to be an ongoing criminal investigation. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. And we're just not going to have more to say on it until that investigation is complete.

Q But you acknowledge that he is free, as President of the United States, to take whatever action he wants to in response to a credible report that a member of his staff leaked information. He is free to take action if he wants to.

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're asking questions relating to an ongoing investigation, and I think I've responded to it.

AND LATER STILL…..

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, April. Go ahead.

Q Scott, what was the President's interaction today with Karl Rove? Did they discuss this current situation? And understanding that Karl Rove was the architect of the President's win for the second term in the Oval Office, how important is Karl Rove to this administration currently?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, this is coming at it from --

Q It has nothing to do with what you just said.

MR. McCLELLAN: This is still coming at the same question relating to reports about an ongoing investigation, and I think I've responded to it.

Q Who is Karl Rove as it relates to this administration?

MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have questions on another topic?

Q No, no, no, no. Who is Karl Rove as it relates to this current administration?

MR. McCLELLAN: I appreciate the question, April. I think I've responded.

AND LATER STILL…

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead.

Q Scott, I think you're barrage today in part because we -- it is now clear that 21 months ago, you were up at this podium saying something that we now know to be demonstratively false. Now, are you concerned that in not setting the record straight today that this could undermine the credibility of the other things you say from the podium?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I'm going to be happy to talk about this at the appropriate time. Dana, you all -- you and everybody in this room, or most people in this room, I should say, know me very well and they know the type of person that I am. And I'm confident in our relationship that we have. But I will be glad to talk about this at the appropriate time, and that's once the investigation is complete. I'm not going to get into commenting based on reports or anything of that nature.

Q Scott, at this point, are we to consider what you've said previously, when you were talking about this, that you're still standing by that, or are those all inoperative at this point?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're still trying to come at this from a different angle, and I've responded to it.

Q Are you standing by what you said previously?

MR. McCLELLAN: You've heard my response. Go ahead.

AND LATER STILL

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Alexis.

Q When the leak investigation is concluded, does the President believe it might be important for his credibility, the credibility of the White House, to release all the information voluntarily that was submitted as part of the investigation, so the American public could see what the -- what transpired inside the White House at the time?

MR. McCLELLAN: This is an investigation being overseen by a special prosecutor. And I think those are questions best directed to the special prosecutor. Again, this is an ongoing matter; I'm just not going to get into commenting on it further at this time. At the appropriate time, when it's complete, then I'll be glad to talk about it at that point.

Q Have you in the White House considered whether that would be optimum to release as much information and make it as open a process --

MR. McCLELLAN: It's the same type of question. You're asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation, and I'm not going to do that.

Q I'm actually talking about the communication strategy, which is a little different.

MR. McCLELLAN: Understood. The President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And that's what he expects people in the White House to do.

Q And he would like to that when it is concluded, cooperate fully with --

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I've already responded. Go ahead.

Q Scott, was it -- who in the investigation made this request of the White House not to comment further about the investigation? Was it Mr. Fitzgerald? Did he make the request of you --

MR. McCLELLAN: I mean, you can ask -- you can direct those questions to the special prosecutors. I think probably more than one individual who's involved in overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. I think we all want to see the prosecutors get to the bottom of this matter. The President wants to see the prosecutors get to the bottom of this matter. And the way to help them do that is to not get into commenting on it while it is ongoing.

Q Was the request made of you, or of whom in the White House?

MR. McCLELLAN: I already responded to these questions.

AND LATER STILL…

MR. McCLELLAN: Bob, go ahead.

Q Yes, in your dealings with the special counsel, have you consulted a personal attorney?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I'm just not going to say anything further. I expressed all I'm going to say on this matter from this podium.

The Straights made me do it

Stephanie Coontz, the author of "Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage", argues in todays NY Times that the gay obsession to be granted marital rights stems from the systematic dismantling of rigid marital codes over the last 200 years BY STRAIGHTS!!

The gay groups charged with leading this fight need to challenge the other side to face up to the realities of modern marriage.

Money quote:

Giving married women an independent legal existence did not destroy heterosexual marriage. And allowing husbands and wives to construct their marriages around reciprocal duties and negotiated roles - where a wife can choose to be the main breadwinner and a husband can stay home with the children- was an immense boon to many couples. But these changes in the definition and practice of marriage opened the door for gay and lesbian couples to argue that they were now equally qualified to participate in it.