Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-11-2006, 08:08 PM   #1 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Rove was the leak

Novak has openly admitted that Rove was one of his leakers in the plame case. In light of this what do you think Rove should do? Did Rove break the law by leaking this and did the administration openly lie to the public about it's role in the leak.

In my opinion I think Rove should be fired and possibly prosecuted for misconduct. In addition the administration should be repremanded for directly lieing to the public in many statments that said Rove and the administration in general had nothing to do with the leak. The adminstration used the press to retaliate against someone who critisized them openly. It reaks of dirty politics and since when is it ok for the president to play politics with national security but no one else can?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203051,00.html
Quote:
Robert Novak: Karl Rove Was One of My Sources
Tuesday, July 11, 2006


PHOTOS



Click image to enlarge
WASHINGTON — Columnist Robert Novak said publicly for the first time Tuesday that White House political adviser Karl Rove was a source for his story outing the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

In a column, Novak also says his recollection of his conversation with Rove differs from what the Rove camp has said.

"I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection," Novak wrote. Novak did not elaborate.

A spokesman for Rove's legal team, Mark Corallo, said that Rove did not even know Plame's name at the time he spoke with Novak, that the columnist called Rove, not the other way around, and that Rove simply said he had heard the same information that Novak passed along to him regarding Plame.

"There was not much of a difference" between the recollections of Rove and Novak, said Corallo.

Novak said he is talking now because Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald told the columnist's lawyer that after 2 1/2 years his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to Novak has been concluded.

(Story continues below)

ADVERTISEMENTS
Advertise Here

Triggering the criminal investigation, Novak revealed Plame's CIA employment on July 14, 2003, eight days after her husband, White House critic and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the administration of manipulating prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.

Novak's secret cooperation with prosecutors while maintaining a public silence about his role kept him out of legal danger and had the effect of providing protection for the Bush White House during the 2004 presidential campaign.

The White House denied Rove played any role in the leak of Plame's CIA identity and Novak, with his decision to talk to prosecutors, steered clear of potentially being held in contempt of court and jailed. Novak said he had declined to go public at Fitzgerald's request.

In a syndicated column to be released Wednesday, Novak says he told Fitzgerald in early 2004 that Rove and then-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow had confirmed information about Plame.

Contacted Tuesday night, Harlow declined to comment. But a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the matter denied that Harlow had been a confirming source for Novak on the story. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Harlow repeatedly tried to talk Novak out of running the information about Plame and that Harlow's efforts did not in any way constitute confirming Plame's CIA identity. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because Harlow may end up being a witness in a separate part of Fitzgerald's investigation, the upcoming criminal trial of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, on charges of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI.

In his column, Novak said he also told Fitzgerald about another senior administration official who originally provided him with information about Plame. Novak said he cannot publicly reveal the identity of that source even now.

"I have cooperated in the investigation while trying to protect journalistic privileges under the First Amendment and shield sources who have not revealed themselves," Novak said in his statement. "I have been subpoenaed by and testified to a federal grand jury. Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target were all untrue."

Rove's role in the scandal wasn't revealed until last summer when Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper disclosed that Rove had leaked him the CIA identity of Wilson's wife. Cooper cooperated with prosecutors only after all his legal appeals were exhausted and he faced jail.

While Rove escaped indictment, Libby has been charged with lying about how he learned of the covert CIA officer's identity and what he told reporters about it.
Rekna is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 09:28 PM   #2 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
I would like to see how those supporting open rights for press "uncovering" classified knowledge will justify their desire for Rove to face some sort of punishment.

My stance is equal and non-partisan. If they're guilty take it to the full extent of the law, be it Rove or whoever is leaking the various forms of international monitoring.
Seaver is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 12:41 AM   #3 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaver
I would like to see how those supporting open rights for press "uncovering" classified knowledge will justify their desire for Rove to face some sort of punishment.

My stance is equal and non-partisan. If they're guilty take it to the full extent of the law, be it Rove or whoever is leaking the various forms of international monitoring.
Seaver, I want to understand your perception of these "leaker" issues.
The identity of an employee of the CIA was considered by the CIA to be classified information. Columnist Robert Novak published that "Joe Wilson's wife works for the CIA". He also publicly stated that two "senior administration officials" confirmed to him that "Joe Wilson's wife works for the CIA".

The CIA complained to the DOJ that classified information that had the effect of revealing to the public that Valerie Plame, (Joe Wilson's wife.....worked for the CIA) appeared in Robert Novak's July, 2003 column. The CIA requested that the DOJ investigate to find and identify those who leaked that information to Robert Novak.

11 months later, the POTUS said:
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...040610-36.html
Office of the Press Secretary
June 10, 2004

President Bush Holds Press Conference Following the G8 Summit

............ Q Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --

Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.
Now, please explain how the description of the Novak publishing of classified information, confirmed to him by two "senior administration officials, and the POTUS's June, 2004 pledge, when he was asked what he would do if the identities of people working in his administration who leaked classified information to Novak were uncovered....compares to your <b>"equal and non-partisan"</b> stance. For example, let's run through the documentation of the NY Times publishing the report that discloses "SWIFT" monitoring.

<b>Is the Bush administration as "even handed" in it's treatment of the NY Times, as it has been with Lewis "Scooter" Libby and with Karl Rove? Have you ever heard Mr. Bush, or Mr. Cheney, negatively criticize either of the above men, as to their involvment in "confirming" classified information about the employment of "Joe Wilson's wife", to Robert Novak, or to other news reporters?</b>

Please explain how the following "works"....Bush pledged to "fire anyone in my administration", identified by the attorney general as having leaked classified information to Rober Novak, et al. The U.S. attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, investigated the matter, and heard testimony from a number of news reporters that both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby confirmed to them that "Joe Wilson's wife" worked for the CIA. Both men were investigated by and tesitifed before the U.S. attorney. The reporters, Judith Miller, Matt Cooper, Bob Woodward, and finally now, Robert Novak, have all confirmed that Libby and Rove confirmed to them "that "Joe Wilson's wife" worked for the CIA".

Libby was indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald, in Oct., 2005 on five counts of lying to FBI investigators and to Fitzgerald's grand jury. Fitzgerald described his investigation, and Libby's obstruction, as being like a baseball umpire, trying to observe a play in a game, and having "sand thrown in his face", to make it impossible to determine what happened.

Mr. Bush has responded to all of this by keeping Mr. Rove in his white house office, with his security clearance intact. Mr. Libby, after being indicted, was allowed to resign, and it is unclear whether the white house continues to allow him access to classified information.

Seaver, contrast the above description to this discription of events, understand that all of the quotes from the government come from two sites,
the white house and the U.S. treasury websites:

Since 1998, the Washington Post has displayed the following on it's website:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...aden082898.htm
Bin Laden's Finances Are Moving Target
By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 28, 1998; Page A01

.......On one point U.S. officials are certain: They hold out no hope of finding bin Laden assets in the United States. He has advocated a boycott of this country for years. But they are scouring Britain for bin Laden bank accounts used to finance a Saudi dissident organization there, terrorism experts said.

<b>The CIA and agents with Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network also will try to lay tripwires to find out when bin Laden moves funds by plugging into the computerized systems of bank transaction monitoring services – operated by the Federal Reserve and private organizations called SWIFT and CHIPS – that record the billions of dollars coursing through the global banking system daily.</b>

John Moynihan, a former Drug Enforcement Administration investigator, said that unlike most criminal money-laundering, which washes dirty money into clean businesses, "bin Laden is taking clean, legitimately earned funds and turning it toward dirty purposes. Tracking that money will be doubly difficult because it hasn't aroused suspicion before." ........
another story about SWIFT monitoring by the U.S. government has been on
the linked pages for 58 months, now:
Quote:
Reporter Scott Shane's disclosure of the SWIFT monitoring, 5 years ago, was widely distributed, and still appears on at least 47 google links, including on five links that resolve to web pages of five Tribune owned, Fox TV affiliates! &nbsp;<br>
<a href="http://fox59.trb.com/bal-te.money21sep21,0,2732416.story">http://fox59.trb.com/...</a></p><p>
<a href="http://fox17.trb.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.money21sep21,1,3656428.story">http://fox17.trb.com/...</a>
<a href="http://fox43.trb.com/entertainment/foxnetwork/bal-te.money21sep21,0,4288990.story">fox43.trb.com</a>
<a href="http://q13.trb.com/news/bal-te.money21sep21,0,1003427.story">q13.trb.com</a>
<a href="http://fox61.trb.com/bal-te.money21sep21,0,4581212.story?coll=wtic-home-2">fox61.trb.com</a></p><p>
<blockquote><a href="http://fox59.trb.com/bal-te.money21sep21,0,2732416.story">http://fox59.trb.com/...</a><br>
From the Baltimore Sun<br>
Authorities trying to track money back to bin Laden</p><p>
<b>September 21, 2001</b> </p><p>
.......Funding on that scale would not necessarily have required large international bank transfers of the kind often seen in cases involving drug cartels or corrupt regimes. That could limit the ability of <b>the National Security Agency to follow the money through its electronic intercepts of such transactions, which are carried out by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT), headquartered in Belgium........</b></blockquote><br>
******************
the sites of the <a href="http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=shoplocal+bal-te-money21sep21&amp;sm=Yahoo%21+Search&amp;toggle=1&amp;ei=UTF-8&amp;dups=1&amp;xargs=0&amp;pstart=1&amp;fr=FP-tab-web-t&amp;b=21">Orlando Sentinel, Chicago Trib,</a> and at an <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fbal-te.money21sep21%2C1%2C2970618.story+&btnG=Search">LA Times link</a>, too!<br>
<b>Seaver, see if you don't agree that I've established that descriptions of SWIFT monitoring have been dispalyed on web pages of 5 Fox Tv affiliates, and two newspapers that, along with the NY Times, published, on June 22, 2006, reports that described SWIFT monitoring by the US government. The NY Times has no history, that I can locate, of ever posting a description or reference to SWIFT on it's website, before June 22.....</b>

On June 23, we have this documentation that Stuart Levey of the treasury told the public the following:
Quote:
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js4334.htm
June 23, 2006
JS-4334

Statement of Under Secretary Stuart Levey on
the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program
"...SWIFT is the premier messaging service used by banks around the world to issue international transfers, which makes its data exceptionally valuable. <h3>I would note that SWIFT is predominantly used for overseas transfers.....

.....Until today, we have not discussed this program in public for an obvious reason: the value of the program came from the fact that terrorists didn't know it existed.</h3> They may have heard us talking about "following the money," but they didn't know that we were obtaining terrorist-related data from SWIFT. Many may not have even known what SWIFT was.

With today's revelations, this is unfortunately no longer true. This is a grave loss.

<h3>The terrorists we are pursuing are deadly serious and take every precaution to keep their plans and methods to themselves.</h3> We cannot expect to continue disrupting their activities if our most valuable programs are exposed on the front page of our newspapers...."
Seaver, what can we conclude from what Mr. Levey said ?
<b>1.)SWIFT was secret until it was disclosed in newspaper reporting on June 22, and that "The terrorists we are pursuing are deadly serious and take every precaution to keep their plans and methods to themselves.".</b>

A few days later, Tony Snow, the press spokesperson for the POTUS speaks:
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060627-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 27, 2006

Press Briefing by Tony Snow......

"Q I guess what I'm asking is -- and I'm sorry for not being specific enough <b>-- but is there the belief that even though terrorists had clearly been tipped off</b> from the very beginning by the President that there was going to be an aggressive attempt to get as much financial information as possible, <b>that they did not know about the SWIFT Bank?</b>

<h3>MR. SNOW: I am absolutely sure they didn't know about SWIFT.</h3> There are -- when you have key government officials around the world saying, we didn't know about it -- there may have been a lot of activity, but it is a program that was not well-known, including among people who have pretty high positions in the banking industry. So, yes, this is not the sort of thing that everybody knew."...
In the same press briefing, Mr. Snow also answered the following, SWIFT related questions:
Quote:
...Q Tony, regarding the disclosure last week of the SWIFT monitoring program, I understand the theoretical argument that this impedes the ability to conduct intelligence, but does the White House know for a fact that it's demonstrably changed and lessened the ability --

MR. SNOW: We took this up yesterday, which is, you're not going to be able to assess definitively within a day. But I think what you're likely to have is negative confirmation in the sense people change their behavior.......
......So we really don't have any basis right now for knowing exactly how it's influenced things, but I think it is safe to say that once you provide a piece of intelligence, people on the inside act on it.

....Q One quick follow-up. Two weeks after 9/11, or approximately two weeks after 9/11, the President announced that the U.S., through the Treasury Department, was going to be reaching out to banks all over the world and trying to freeze terrorist assets, and also get all information they can. And if the banks did not comply, the U.S. would stop doing business with those banks. So is it not -- I mean, wasn't the message sent right then and there that --

MR. SNOW: No, there's a difference -- <b>there's a difference between the theoretical constrict, which is we're going to choke off financing, and talking about sources and methods, or ways in which you do it. There's a real difference, because the terrorists -- ......</b>
Okay Seaver? Please observe, that, even though Mr. Snow and Mr. Levey made it quite clear, in public statements, that "SWIFT" was not known to the "terrorists", before the reporting of the U.S. government's monitoring of it, that very week, and even though reproters of the LA Times and the NY Timee
investigated and reported on SWIFT independently, on or about June 22, and
even though the Washington Post also reported on SWIFT's existence at that time....and....considering that, in the opinion of Levey and Snow, any reporting about the SWIFT monitoring would diminish it's effectiveness, because, as Mr. Levey stated, <b>"The terrorists we are pursuing are deadly serious and take every precaution to keep their plans and methods to themselves. We cannot expect to continue disrupting their activities if our most valuable programs are exposed on the front page of our newspapers .." </b> and Mr. Snow reiterated, <b>"there's a difference between the theoretical constrict, which is we're going to choke off financing, and talking about sources and methods, or ways in which you do it. There's a real difference, because the terrorists -- ......"</b>, why....Seaver....would you suppose that Mr. Cheney stated the following....not about the Washington Post, which displayed an impressive description of "CIA and Treasury agents, plugging into the computerized systems....of SWIFT"....on it's website for 8 fucking years....and not about the LA Times, which posted a description of NSA using SWIFT to try to track Bin Laden's financial activity, and left that report up on it's website for the last 58 months, or.....even about the 5 Fox TV affiliates who display the same report about SWIFT....or about the Baltimore Sun, where the 2001 SWIFT article originated, or about the Orlando Sentinel, or even about the Chicago Tribune, which all displayed the description of SWIFT, for the last 58 months!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060627-8.html
For Immediate Release
June 27, 2006

Remarks by the Vice President at a Luncheon for Congressional Candidate Adrian Smith
Midtown Holiday Inn Convention Center Grand Island
Grand Island, Nebraska

....... <b>The New York Times</b> has now twice -- two separate occasions -- disclosed programs both times they had been asked not to publish those stories by senior administration officials. They went ahead anyway. The leaks to <b>The New York Times</b> and the publishing of those leaks is very damaging. The ability to intercept al Qaeda communications and to track their sources of financing are essential if we're going to successfully prosecute the global war on terror. Our capabilities in these areas help explain why we have been so successful in preventing further attacks like 9/11. <b>The New York Times has now made it more difficult for us to prevent attacks in the future. Publishing this highly classified information about our sources and methods for collecting intelligence will enable the terrorists to look for ways to defeat our efforts.</b> These kinds of stories also adversely affect our relationships with people who work with us against the terrorists. In the future, they will be less likely to cooperate if they think the United States is incapable of keeping a secret.

What is doubly disturbing for me is that not only have they gone forward with these stories, but they've been rewarded for it, for example, in the case of the terrorist surveillance program, by being awarded the Pulitzer Prize for outstanding journalism. I think that is a disgrace.
Seaver, I've taken the time to become an expert on what happened in the Valerie Plame leak investigation. I've tried to do the same thing with regard to the administration's attack on the New York Times.

I don't know what to think, Seaver. I am certain that you don't, either.
I suspect, from what you post, that you haven't realized it yet.

I also believe that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney know exactly what they are saying and doing, and that none of it is worthy of your support, or praise.
host is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 07:01 AM   #4 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver to me there is a big differenece between the two situations. First in this case I am calling for action against th e leakers. In the monitoring program the administration is calling for action against the reporters. Second in this case there was no good reason for the public to know this information in the monitoring program it is my view that the public should have known the information because the president was potentially acting illegally beyond his power and WITHOUT congressional oversight. He didn't tell congress what he was doing even though he was required to by law. He took an oath to uphold the laws and the constitution of this nation and he has done neither.
Rekna is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 07:47 AM   #5 (permalink)
Addict
 
guyy's Avatar
 
Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin
This is a somewhat complicated isssue. On one hand, the whole idea of state secrets (including secret operations and secret agents) runs counter to democratic principles. How can the people decide on something that they don't even know about. On that basis, I'm inclined to say that a bad law ought not to be enforced, even if I would enjoy the irony of a Bush admin official prosecuted under a state secrets act.

However, these things don't happen in a vacuum. The Plame affair was part of the coverup for the botched campaign to find a pretext for the Iraq war. The consequence of war always includes death and sending civilians and soldiers to their graves for phony reasons is absolutely unpardonable. What the Plame leakers did ought to be seen in this light. The only question is whether prosecuting them for revealing a secret agent's name is sufficient punishment. I tend to think not, but it might be a start.
guyy is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 08:04 AM   #6 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaver
I would like to see how those supporting open rights for press "uncovering" classified knowledge will justify their desire for Rove to face some sort of punishment.

My stance is equal and non-partisan. If they're guilty take it to the full extent of the law, be it Rove or whoever is leaking the various forms of international monitoring.

As I have posted before, the press should not be tried but the leaks who put people in harm's way and break security laws should be, but the press should not have to "give up and finger sources".

Rove should be tried and punished to the fullest extent of the law.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 08:04 AM   #7 (permalink)
Devoted
 
Redlemon's Avatar
 
Donor
Location: New England
I hate the bastard, but nonetheless, Rove was not "the leak". He was a source that confirmed the information that was leaked to Novak.
__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.
Redlemon is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 08:20 AM   #8 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
and the debate has been successfully diverted from the relation of this whole thing to the fradulent case for war the bushpeople were then floating and onto the relatively trivial matter of rove's exact role in a leak--so the issue becomes the leak itself and the context fades away. like guy said a couple posts ago.

this is what happens when you simply repeat the ways conservative types frame debates. you repeat the frame, they win.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 08:21 AM   #9 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
*what Seaver said

Last edited by powerclown; 07-12-2006 at 09:29 AM..
powerclown is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 08:39 AM   #10 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
Curious how the NYT et al lather themselves into hysterics over Plame and how the government supposedly exposed her covert status (through the press, needless to say), and heralded her anti-war husband a hero, yet have no trouble pursuing and publishing a seemingly endless stream of government secrets directly involving the security of the country.
Even more curious that you ignore the spectacle of the white house press secretary, and the under secretary of the U.S. Treasury, blatantly telling bold faced lies....not half truths.....brazen lies...to the entire world. Who do you think, instructed them both to do that?
Quote:
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js4334.htm
June 23, 2006
JS-4334

Statement of Under Secretary Stuart Levey on
the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program
"...SWIFT is the premier messaging service used by banks around the world to issue international transfers, which makes its data exceptionally valuable. <h3>I would note that SWIFT is predominantly used for overseas transfers.....

.....Until today, we have not discussed this program in public for an obvious reason: the value of the program came from the fact that terrorists didn't know it existed.</h3> They may have heard us talking about "following the money," but they didn't know that we were obtaining terrorist-related data from SWIFT. Many may not have even known what SWIFT was.

With today's revelations, this is unfortunately no longer true. This is a grave loss.

<h3>The terrorists we are pursuing are deadly serious and take every precaution to keep their plans and methods to themselves.</h3> We cannot expect to continue disrupting their activities if our most valuable programs are exposed on the front page of our newspapers...."
What can we conclude from what Mr. Levey said ?
<b>1.)SWIFT was secret until it was disclosed in newspaper reporting on June 22, and that "The terrorists we are pursuing are deadly serious and take every precaution to keep their plans and methods to themselves.".</b>

A few days later, Tony Snow, the press spokesperson for the POTUS speaks:
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060627-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 27, 2006

Press Briefing by Tony Snow......

"Q I guess what I'm asking is -- and I'm sorry for not being specific enough <b>-- but is there the belief that even though terrorists had clearly been tipped off</b> from the very beginning by the President that there was going to be an aggressive attempt to get as much financial information as possible, <b>that they did not know about the SWIFT Bank?</b>

<h3>MR. SNOW: I am absolutely sure they didn't know about SWIFT.</h3> There are -- when you have key government officials around the world saying, we didn't know about it -- there may have been a lot of activity, but it is a program that was not well-known, including among people who have pretty high positions in the banking industry. So, yes, this is not the sort of thing that everybody knew."...
But....you "know what you "know".....and what you "know", includes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
Curious how the NYT et al.....yet have no trouble pursuing and publishing a seemingly endless stream of government secrets directly involving the security of the country.
but.....not this.....noooooo, not this:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...aden082898.htm
Bin Laden's Finances Are Moving Target

By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 28, 1998; Page A01

.......The CIA and agents with Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network also will try to lay tripwires to find out when bin Laden moves funds by plugging into the computerized systems of bank transaction monitoring services – operated by the Federal Reserve and private organizations called SWIFT and CHIPS – that record the billions of dollars coursing through the global banking system daily. ..

Last edited by host; 07-12-2006 at 08:49 AM..
host is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 08:52 AM   #11 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
Thread title: Rove was the leak. Can we at least try to discuss that and not send every thread veering off into sweeping generalizations and indictments?
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
ubertuber is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 09:25 AM   #12 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ubertuber
Thread title: Rove was the leak. Can we at least try to discuss that and not send every thread veering off into sweeping generalizations and indictments?
I've put in too much time, getting to, "knowing what I know", to let these comments pass unanswered:
Quote:
"I would like to see how those supporting open rights for press "uncovering" classified knowledge will justify their desire for Rove to face some sort of punishment."
&

Quote:
"Curious how the NYT et al lather themselves into hysterics.......yet have no trouble pursuing and publishing a seemingly endless stream of government secrets directly involving the security of the country."
Those "statements" are....I'll leave it up to others to decide what they are.
I take the high road, I present the facts, taking pains to post them, unfiltered, right from the official government pages where accusations against
the press, for disclosing "secrets", were made by officials authorized to speak for the U.S. administration. I then post two news articles, one that is 8 years old, and the other that is 5 years old...both of which describe the specifics of the "secret program". I didn't just put that information here, I detailed it on the other recent "NY Times" thread, too.

This forum is dead....very little new activity. Recent posts are not easily missed. We've descended into a status quo, where one POV simply makes statements like the ones above, and the other carefully documents that the opposite has the higher probability of being accurate...closer to the truth....and why. No amount of effort in this regard, influences those who make statements, like the two examples above, to.....you decide.

powerclown, a suggestion, this is a link to a place that displays information that you, or anyone else, is permitted to edit. The catch is that your edit must be verifiable, and from sources of known, reliable reputation, and your edit must have a POV that is neutral. If you don't agree with this, change it.
The difference between "there" and here, though, is that "there" they'll require you to back up your statements:
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson
Career

Wilson was a member of the U.S. Diplomatic Service from 1976 through 1998. From 1988 to 1991, he was the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq. He was hailed as "truly inspiring" and "courageous" by George H. W. Bush after sheltering more than one hundred Americans at the embassy, despite Saddam Hussein's threats to execute anyone who refused to hand over foreigners. As a result, in 1990, he also became the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein (Wilson, 2003). When Saddam sent a note to Wilson (along with other embassy heads in Iraq) threatening to execute anyone sheltering foreigners in Iraq, Wilson publicly repudiated the dictator by appearing at a press conference wearing a homemade noose around his neck and saying "If the choice is to allow American citizens to be taken hostage or to be executed, I will bring my own fucking rope." Saddam offered a public apology for the diplomatic note.

Wilson later served as U.S. ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe under President George H. W. Bush and helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton.....
powerclown, note that "the press" wasn't the first entity to, in your words,
"herald[ed] her anti-war husband a hero". Apparently, the the POTUS's father, a former POTUS, was the first to do that. If you don't agree with that, c'mon over and edit it out...replace it with your version.

....but you'll have to do it on a playing field that, unlike here, requires you to support what you change or add, with neutral, verifiable information:
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...erfect_article
is well-documented; i.e., all facts are cited from reputable sources, preferably sources that are accessible and up-to-date.
host is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 09:35 AM   #13 (permalink)
Crazy
 
magictoy's Avatar
 
Points are awarded for honesty in each of these posts:


Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLemon
I hate the bastard, but nonetheless, Rove was not "the leak". He was a source that confirmed the information that was leaked to Novak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
Curious how the NYT et al lather themselves into hysterics over Plame and how the government supposedly exposed her covert status (through the press, needless to say), and heralded her anti-war husband a hero, yet have no trouble pursuing and publishing a seemingly endless stream of government secrets directly involving the security of the country.
This quote from the OP interests me greatly:

Quote:
Novak's secret cooperation with prosecutors while maintaining a public silence about his role kept him out of legal danger and had the effect of providing protection for the Bush White House during the 2004 presidential campaign.
Since Plame's identity was already known all over the world, and since other countries will now be more reluctant to help us in our fight against terrorism, my decision on which offense was more significant is clear.

It's also clear to me that the Post and the Times have much greater concern about their circulation than the safety of Americans, or the fight against terrorism.

Last edited by magictoy; 07-12-2006 at 09:39 AM..
magictoy is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 10:03 AM   #14 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by magictoy
Points are awarded for honesty in each of these posts:

This quote from the OP interests me greatly:

Since Plame's identity was already known all over the world, and since other countries will now be more reluctant to help us in our fight against terrorism, my decision on which offense was more significant is clear.

It's also clear to me that the Post and the Times have much greater concern about their circulation than the safety of Americans, or the fight against terrorism.
Can you please direct us to where we can examine support or documentation that,
Quote:
Since Plame's identity was already known all over the world
,
and from what date that was a reliable (accurate) statment to make?

It's curious that you posted no opinion on the documented revelation that Tony Snow, and Treasury undersecretary Levey told obvious lies about whether or not the U.S. government's monitoring of "SWIFT" was a secret.
They both firmly stated:
Quote:
.....the fact that terrorists didn't know it existed. They may have heard us talking about "following the money," but they didn't know that we were obtaining terrorist-related data from SWIFT. Many may not have even known what SWIFT was.
&
Quote:
MR. SNOW: I am absolutely sure they didn't know about SWIFT.
magictoy, vs. your statement,
Quote:
........It's also clear to me that the Post and the Times have much greater concern about their circulation than the safety of Americans, or the fight against terrorism.
Please explain what is "clear" to you....an example of what "the Post and the Times" did, that concerns you more than the reality of Mr. Snow and Mr. Levey, lying and misleading the world. Who were they authorized to speak for, when they made those untrue statements?
host is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 10:34 AM   #15 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
again, the leak in itself is not that interesting if it gets separated from context. personally, i think that what host is doing in this thread is quite interesting (as it often is) and that one way to look at the difference between his posts, and the logic that runs through them, and responses has to do with the question of frame of reference.

advancing arguments that challenge frames of reference has never been easy in here. folk seem too often content to recycle how infotainment is packaged for them and then move to develop their own positions within the limits set by that packaging. they seem reluctant to consider how information is packaged. they want to trust information presented: they want to trust the administration.

for a long time, i posted here with the idea that you could engender debate about frames of reference and the information shaped by them. i gradually figured out that this kind of discussion very difficult to engender. i started to get bored with it, and with the forum as a whole, and so have distanced myself from all this. i am pleased that host perserveres. it is part of the reason i still hang around here.

this thread is not primarily about the technicalities to do with the leak and the role karl rove played in either leaking or confirming. the debate is not a pseudo-legal one aimed at trying rove in public. the leak was part of a tactic devised by the bush administration to discredit a critic of its (obviously false) case for invading iraq. it is about the cavalier attitude of this administration toward even the most superficial dimensions of a democracy. it is about an administration that feels itself authorized to lie to the public, to avoid legal constraints etc etc etc. it is about an illegitimate, unjustified war that has cost thousands of lives. and it is about the simple fact that this administration has not been and seemingly will not be held to account for the war in iraq. that last point is, to me, simply mind-boggling.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 06:04 PM   #16 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Host, I know I dont do this much, but I bow to you. You're right.
Seaver is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 06:32 PM   #17 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
Nice......
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
ubertuber is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 07:33 PM   #18 (permalink)
Somnabulist
 
guy44's Avatar
 
Location: corner of No and Where
I have to say, with regards to leaks:

There are two kinds of leaks: good ones, and bad ones. Good ones often are divulged by so-called "whistleblowers," because the source is revealing secret wrong-doing by the government. These leaks one essential defense against government overreach. Notice, also, that there are virtually no examples of important, legal government programs essential to national security being leaked to and written about by the press. This is because the press gives great deference to every administration regarding national security, and ensure that they are not actually doing harm to a benevolent program, often by coversing off the record with an adminstration official.

Bad ones can take many forms. One form, that the Bush administration used frequently, is a "leak" from a top official who is releasing select or misleading information to advance a government position. However, this is not to say that one of these leaks is necessarily awful, as they happen all the time (trial balloons, interagency bickering, etc.). Of course, these can be terrible, if they are truly misleading on topics of paramount importance (i.e. how the Bush administration leaked only cherry-picked evidence regarding Saddam's WMDs and al Qaeda connections, and not the important qualifiers, to shills like Judith Miller).

The worst kind of leak is a government official truly violating national security in order to score a political point. Such is the case with Valerie Plame, who as everyone knows was an undercover CIA operative whose identity was revealed by Rove and Libby at the behest of Cheney for no other reason than to "get back" at her husband, Joe Wilson, for alerting everyone to the truth that the Bush administration was making up evidence about Iraq's purchase of yellowcake uranium. Even the CIA requested they not reveal her name. This leak served no national security purpose, revealed no untoward program or action by the government, and did literally nothing to improve anything but the Bush administration's political position - which would be alright, except that it revealed an undercover CIA operative's identity!

So I would ask those who try and make this an issue about "all" leaks to understand that it is by no means hypocritical to praise those who reveal secret government programs of dubious legality while simultaneously attacking those who would endanger national security for naught but political points by leaking the name of a CIA operative.
__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"
guy44 is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 11:41 AM   #19 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaver
Host, I know I dont do this much, but I bow to you. You're right.
Thank you, Seaver. Please consider where we are, and our abilities, here, vs.
in prior times. Our great grandfathers gathered in saloons, or parlors, or on the trolley, and, like us, today, they discussed politics. They spoke off the cuff, they read what was reported in their newspapers, and later, heard what was broadcast on the radio. When the USS Maine exploded in Havana harbor, the incident planted the seeds for the expression, "Remember the Maine". People "knew what they knew". In a political discussion, there was not opportunity for anyone, in near "real time" to use a resource...like....the internet, to put something like the following reports, together.

We have this gift...this opportunity. Let us use it...all of us...in as many of our posts as possible. Formerly, something like the following could only be assembled, years later, by scholars using libraries, if it happened at all:

Last night, Robert Novak was caught in a signifigant lie....I'll highlight it in bold. Consider what some Americans are "fed" by "news" outlets, such as foxnews and wizbang. Consider what MSNBC, Murray Waas, and Bloomberg all reported, independently. Consider the comments of foxnews "legal consultant" and former judge, Napolitano.

Seaver, I want to take you at your word. I welcome your comments and analysis of what I've put in this post:
Quote:
http://wizbangblog.com/2006/07/13/no...son-to-him.php
July 13, 2006
Novak Says No One In Administration Ever Said Anything Critical Of Wilson To Him

The Robert Novak revelations in the Plame matter have been covered here at Wizbang quite comprehensively already (see here, here, here, here and here), but a few additional pieces of information Novak revealed in his Fox News interviews yesterday should be noted. In fact, if the story were not already cast in stone in so many media outlets, the Novak statements would be heralded as blockbuster revelations that shed new light on the entire story.

In interviews on Special Report with Brit Hume and Hannity & Colmes, Novak added some additional information to the column that was published on Tuesday. He disclosed the following:
The discussions with his original source, who has not yet been named, and with Karl Rove, were initiated by Novak and were discussions pertaining generally to the Niger uranium story, not the specific issue of who sent Wilson on the mission.

Novak says he did not believe the information regarding Plame from the original source was a conscious leak.

The references to Plame came up in the middle of the discussions. Novak was the one that asked why Wilson would have been chosen for the mission.

Not only was nobody pushing Novak the information about Valerie Plame, but Novak says that nobody in the administration ever said anything critical of Wilson to him.

Novak's discussion of Valerie Plame with Rove lasted about 20 seconds and consisted of Novak saying he heard Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and played a role in Wilson getting the mission and Rove replying "Oh, you know that, too?"

<b>These statements stand in stark contrast to the story woven by Joe Wilson and media of an administration desperate and hell bent to do anything and everything to discredit Wilson and to punish him and his wife for daring to speak against the President. That version of the story has been repeated as fact on all three networks and in numerous other outlets. I wonder if even one major media outlet will see fit to correct their earlier reports.</b>

The AP is still Rove-obsessed, but at least in <a href="http://www.examiner.com/a-174729~Novak_Rove_Exchange_Lasted_20_Seconds.html">this piece</a> there are extended quotes from the Novak interview so it is worth reading......
I see nothing in the key points of wizbang's reporting, above, that seems accurate. If you diagree, please state your case, and let's try to have an actual, political discussion on a TFP Politics thread!
Quote:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200607130005
Thu, Jul 13, 2006 1:26pm EST

Napolitano made the false -- and absurd -- claim that Wilson listed Plame's CIA employment in Who's Who entry
Summary: Fox News' Andrew P. Napolitano claimed that former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV "told Who's Who in America to put that his wife was a CIA operative." In fact, Wilson's entry in Who's Who mentioned his wife's name -- Valerie Elise Plame -- but not her occupation.

On the July 12 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends First, Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew P. Napolitano, a former New Jersey superior court judge, claimed falsely -- and absurdly -- that former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV "told Who's Who in America to put that his wife was a CIA operative." In fact, Wilson's entry in Who's Who mentioned his wife's name -- Valerie Elise Plame -- but not her occupation, the disclosure of which gave rise to the appointment of special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald to investigate.

Later, on that day's edition of Fox & Friends, both Fox News host Brit Hume and Fox & Friends co-host E.D. Hill contradicted Napolitano's suggestion; Hume stated that Who's Who "didn't tell him [syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak] where she worked," while Hill said that "of course, it [the entry] didn't say 'CIA agent.' "

From the July 12 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends First:

DOOCY: Robert Novak is speaking out. He's got a column today, and tonight he's going to be speaking to Brit [Hume] and also Hannity & Colmes. And here's what we know. He says that after two and a half years of being investigated by the special prosecutor, Mr. Fitzgerald has made it clear that he, Mr. Ro -- Mr. Novak is in the clear and now he can talk.

NAPOLITANO: And he has indicated that he learned who Valerie Plame was from her husband's listing in Who's Who in America.

DOOCY: Wait a minute. A book that anybody could just check out of the library? That's where her name came from?

NAPOLITANO: Absolutely. And guess who decides what goes in your listing in Who's Who? You do. So therefore, it is Mr. Wilson who told Who's Who to put that his wife was a CIA operative.

From the July 12 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

DOOCY: It's pretty interesting. Apparently, there's a publication where Mr. Novak found the name of Mrs. Wilson.

HUME: Yeah, he found -- he found her name in Who's Who. Of course, that didn't tell him where she worked.

[...]

DOOCY: But we do know some of the information now about some of the sources, and in particular, it's so galling -- you know, so many people have had their panties all bunched up for the last couple of years. Well, how could they possibly know that Valerie Plame was Joe Wilson's wife? Well, as it turns out, Joe Wilson put that information himself in a publication that is called Who's Who in America. You're asked to write your own biography or check things. He put his wife's name in there. That's how R. Novak got her name.

HILL: But it didn't -- but of course it didn't say "CIA agent."

—M.S
Quote:
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0525nj1.htm
CIA LEAK INVESTIGATION
Rove-Novak Call Was Concern To Leak Investigators

By Murray Waas, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, May 25, 2006

On September 29, 2003, three days after it became known that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to investigate who leaked the name of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, columnist Robert Novak telephoned White House senior adviser Karl Rove to assure Rove that he would protect him from being harmed by the investigation, according to people with firsthand knowledge of the federal grand jury testimony of both men.

Suspicious that Rove and Novak might have devised a cover story during that conversation to protect Rove, federal investigators briefed then-Attorney General John Ashcroft on the matter in the early stages of the investigation in fall 2003, according to officials with direct knowledge of those briefings......
Quote:
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlD...liar_40067.asp
(from host: I'll change the link to a hannity/foxnews transcript if it becomes available...)
Thursday, Jul 13

Novak Says Waas Is A Liar

You know about all that great press Murray Waas has received for his scoops on the Libby case? Bob Novak says it's all bunch of lies.

From "Hannity & Colmes":

COLMES: Welcome back to "Hannity & Colmes." We now continue our FOX News exclusive interview with syndicated columnist and FOX News contributor Robert Novak.

Bob, it's been reported that Karl Rove testified to the grand jury that, during his telephone call with you on September 29th, which was three days after it was known that the CIA asked Justice to investigate, that you said words to the effect to Rove, "You're not going to get burned."

Is that accurate? And can you give us context on that, if that was actually said?

NOVAK: That was not said; <h3>that's a total lie. It was reported by one reporter in one not-very-widely-read publication. It was not picked up in the general press.</h3>

And the idea that there was any such under-the-table arrangement between me and Rove, of course, would have created a lot of trouble with the special prosecutor. And there was never any action taken by him on that score.

COLMES: So you're saying "Newsday" was wrong in this report, and Murray Waas, "National Journal," was wrong...

NOVAK: Absolutely.

COLMES: ... and these people have purposefully misrepresented you?

NOVAK: I never give motives, but I know that the Murray Waas piece in the "National Journal," which interestingly was not picked up by anybody, was totally wrong and a total lie.
<b>AND HERE IT IS, IN MAY, "PICKED UP BY TWO outlets of the "general press", independently, it would seem; MSNBC & Bloomberg....</b>
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12990356/
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for May 25
Read the transcript to the Thursday 5 pm show
Updated: 1:16 p.m. ET May 26, 2006

....SHUSTER: According to Libby‘s grand jury testimony about Cheney, the vice president saw Joe Wilson‘s op-ed as an attack on his credibility. Prosecutor questioned to Libby, “Was it a topic that was discussed on a daily basis?” Libby: “Yes, sir.”

“And it was discussed on multiple occasions each day, in fact?” “Yes, sir.” And during that time, did the vice president indicate that he was upset that this article was out there which falsely in his view attacked his own credibility?” “Yes, sir.”

“And do you recall what it is that the vice president said?” “I recall that he was very keen to get the truth out. He wanted to get all the facts out about what he had or hadn‘t done, what the facts were or were not. He was very keen about that and said it repeatedly.”

One alleged fact the vice president seemed to zero in on was the idea that nepotism contributed to Joe Wilson‘s findings. On a copy of the Wilson op-ed, Cheney wrote, quote, “did his wife send him on a junket?”

Prosecutors are not asserting that Cheney instructed Libby to leak to reporters and then lie about it to the grand jury. But Patrick Fitzgerald argues that Cheney‘s interactions with Libby were a key part of what motivated Libby to obstruct the investigation.

Fitzgerald indicated that he may call Cheney as a prosecution witness. Cheney‘s testimony would be used to prove that Libby learned Valerie Wilson‘s identity from the vice president and other government officials, not from reporters.

SOL WISENBERG, FMR. DEPUTY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: So if you‘re the prosecutor, you want to be looking at everything, every little thing that could get you to convince a jury this is not the kind of thing that a person would forget.

<b>SHUSTER: Last week, Scooter Libby‘s defense team downplayed the significance of Vice President Cheney‘s notes on the Wilson column by declaring Libby never saw the notes until the FBI showed him a copy. But in the actual grand jury testimony released by Fitzgerald, Libby said of the column, quote, “It‘s possible if it was sitting on his desk that, you know, my eye went across it.”</b>

Documents released earlier in the case indicate Vice President Cheney and Libby talked about the Wilsons on the very day Libby allegedly leaked her identity to two reporters. Is Patrick Fitzgerald trying to build a case against Vice President Cheney?

TURLEY: Well, sometimes prosecutors will not indict someone in the hopes that a former colleague will flip, like Scooter Libby. But I got to tell you, they can wait till the cows come home, but Scooter Libby is not going to flip on Dick Cheney.

SHUSTER: Meanwhile, in the investigation of Karl Rove, <b>sources close to the presidential adviser are now confirming a story first reported in the “National Journal” that Rove, who was a source for columnist Bob Novak, later had a separate conversation with Novak after the investigation began.</b>

Former federal prosecutors are convinced Fitzgerald has explored whether Rove and Novak coordinated their testimony, but today a spokesman for Karl Rove said, quote, “Karl Rove has never urged anyone directly or indirectly to withhold information from the special counsel or to testify falsely. Circulating such speculation now is nothing short of irresponsible.”

(on camera): But the contention is not that Karl Rove urged Bob Novak to withhold information. Rather, it‘s that Rove was assured early in the case that Novak was not going to burn him. Today Robert Novak was unavailable for comment.

As far as the overall investigation, including the Scooter Libby Case, there was also no comment today from an official who has now emerged as a central figure: Vice President Cheney.

I‘m David Shuster for HARDBALL in Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MATTHEWS: Thank you, David Shuster........
Quote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...top_world_news
Novak Told Rove He Wouldn't Identify Him, Person Familiar Says

May 25 (Bloomberg) -- Syndicated columnist Robert Novak assured presidential adviser Karl Rove that he wouldn't identify him to prosecutors investigating the disclosure of a CIA agent's name, a person familiar with the matter said.

Rove told a grand jury that Novak called him shortly after the Central Intelligence Agency asked the Justice Department to investigate who leaked the name of operative Valerie Plame to Novak and other reporters, the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said. Novak revealed Plame's name in a July 14, 2003, column, citing unnamed administration officials.

The National Journal, which reported earlier today on the Sept. 29, 2003, conversation between Rove and Novak, said Justice Department prosecutors were concerned that Rove and Novak may have been working on a cover story to protect Rove. The report, citing people familiar with the grand jury testimony of both men, said then-Attorney General John Ashcroft was briefed on the matter.

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said the White House deputy chief of staff didn't conspire to hide information.....


...The person familiar with Rove's grand jury testimony said Rove told the panel that during his phone call with Novak, Novak told him that he wouldn't hurt Rove before the grand jury. Rove also told the panel that Novak assured him that he would never reveal an unnamed source, the person familiar with Rove's testimony said.

Fitzgerald has said in court filings that evidence in the Libby case suggests ``a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson.''

Last edited by host; 07-13-2006 at 11:49 AM..
host is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 03:35 PM   #20 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaver
Host, I know I dont do this much, but I bow to you. You're right.
I applaud you, sir. It *is* possible to have one opinion, consider additional information, and have an altered opinion.
Elphaba is offline  
 

Tags
leak, rove

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:28 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54