« Flip Flopping | Main | Pros and Cons »

Rove Already Convicted In The Press

Amazing.

WASHINGTON - For the better part of two years, the word coming out of the Bush White House was that presidential adviser Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak of a female CIA officer's identity and that whoever did would be fired.

But Bush spokesman Scott McClellan wouldn't repeat those claims Monday in the face of Rove's own lawyer, Robert Luskin, acknowledging the political operative spoke to Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, one of the reporters who disclosed Valerie Plame's name.

McClellan repeatedly said he couldn't comment because the matter is under investigation. When it was pointed out he had commented previously even though the investigation was ongoing, he responded: "I've really said all I'm going to say on it."

Democrats jumped on the issue, calling for the administration to fire Rove, or at least to yank his security clearance. One Democrat pushed for Republicans to hold a congressional hearing in which Rove would testify.

"The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "I trust they will follow through on this pledge. If these allegations are true, this rises above politics and is about our national security."

Nobody has even been indicted for a crime in this matter yet, much less convicted, yet already the left and the media are framing the debate over the Plame affair as though Rove had undoubtedly broken the law. Its almost as if they're all scrambling to make as much political hay out of these accusations as possible before the grand jury makes its decision and possibly exonerates Rove.

You know what's even more amazing? I bet that if you checked the record you'd find that not many of the people who are Rove's loudest critics now spoke out against Joe Wilson and his fraudulent trip to Niger. I'll bet that not one of the people who are now calling for the removal of Karl Rove's security clearance called for the removal of Valerie Plame's security clearance after her involvement with her husbands smear mission came to light.

You want a matter that is about national security? How about a supposedly undercover CIA operative sending her own husband to Niger to dredge up fake facts in an attempt to smear a sitting President?

Rob Port is the owner and operator of Say Anything.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rove Already Convicted In The Press:

» In Search Of Utopia linked with Does any of this even make sense...

» Macmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense linked with Rove and the "Plame Truth"

» Mark in Mexico linked with Press Briefing by Scott McClellan

» Law Dork linked with Rove is the New Rehnquist

» Danny Carlton (aka Jack Lewis) linked with Around the Blogosphere

» Dispassionate Lib linked with Rove: Unseemly

» tribe.net: wizbangblog.com linked with Re: Impeach Bush

» Wilson Fu Weblog linked with In the Public Interest!

Comments (87)

Yeah, this is a perfect exa... (Below threshold)

Yeah, this is a perfect example of the overwhelming media bias we have in this country.

One Democrat pushed for ... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

One Democrat pushed for Republicans to hold a congressional hearing in which Rove would testify.

Didn't they learn anything from Oliver North?

Honestly, at this point there isn't enough information to know which direction this case is going. I am not so sure it is about the outing of Plame (if it indeed was an outing), but maybe perjury or something else.

Also, Novak cited two sources for his comments, so Rove may not actually be the target (given what has been released so far on his comments to Cooper I don't think the prosecution has a case).

What's so astounding is tha... (Below threshold)

What's so astounding is that this latest "revelation" did not really clear anything up, nor did it give us any new information.

Only terrorists are ... (Below threshold)
B Moe:


Only terrorists are innocent until proven guilty.


the issue is :the Time infr... (Below threshold)
Steve:

the issue is :the Time infromation said it was Rove who told Cooper that Wilson's wife was CIA.regardless if it was a crime or not does not matter.the intend was to hurt wilson, is that the kind of people you what running our Country. If it is then I find this Country is in serious troble.

Wait a second guys. Even if... (Below threshold)
frameone:

Wait a second guys. Even if this latest revelation didn't settle whether Rove committed a crime it exposed discrepancies in the the White House story about what happened.
For the record, McClellan said in 2003 that he spoke with Rove and that Rove said he was not involved in anyway with the leak of Plame's identity as a CIA operative. Now we find out, that Rove WAS involved with the leak and that he was one of Cooper's sources before the Novak column came out. So tell me, why the discrepancy? Taking McClellan at his word, why did Rove lie to the President's spokeperson? Why id Rove reveal his discussion with Cooper to McClellan when asked? Mind you, this isn't some wild conspiracy theory and I'm not judging Rove without proof. On this point there is no getting around the fac tthat McClellan said Rove told him one thing but we now know for a fact that the opposite is true. Would anyone here care to spin this?

and the Republicans never d... (Below threshold)
laughing:

and the Republicans never did anything like this with Clinton, did they? Not the oh-so liberal media, oh no!!!

you can dish it out but you can't take it

Maybe we should just ask Te... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Maybe we should just ask Teddy Boy to explain it all to us. Everyone believes him.

If these allegations ar... (Below threshold)
shark:

If these allegations are true, this rises above politics and is about our national security

When Sandy Berger is perp walked out of his house in handcuffs to serve jail time for HIS REAL violation of national security, then we can talk...

Given past quotes on Rove's... (Below threshold)

Given past quotes on Rove's actions, the White House has boxed itself into a rhetorical corner. And, even worse, I have a feeling Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald isn't just focused on Rove. There's quite a bit that the Federal Prosecutor may be holding back until the grand jury finishes. Since this could be the last case of his career, Fitzgerald is likely to make this a barnburner.

Abe

the intend was to hurt w... (Below threshold)
ATM:

the intend was to hurt wilson

Hurt Wilson? How? By exposing him for the hack he is and raising questions about why an unqualified diplomat was sent to Niger to drink mint tea? And as if Wilson wasn't trying to hurt the Bush administration by lying about Iraq's attempts to make contact with potential uranium suppliers in Africa.

ATM,Where do you g... (Below threshold)
JmaR:

ATM,

Where do you get the idea that Joe Wilson is a hack?

You might want to try gathering some facts. According to Bush 41:

His courage and resourcefulness in confronting Saddam and protecting the Americans under his care elicited the highest praise from his superiors -- including the first President Bush, who called Wilson "a true American hero."

He was also the ambassador to Iraq prior to the start of the Gulf War. Seems to me he has significant merit and value as a diplomat.

Also, Wilson voted Republican for the majority of his life in civil service. Hack he certainly is not. Why is it that conservatives fall for the right wing smear jobs. Every time someone has the courage to come out and blow the whistle on the Bush admins wrongdoings, they get smeared. Apparently the truth can be very dangerous.

I've been quietly reading i... (Below threshold)
BR:

I've been quietly reading in the back of the classroom and started a "little" draft timeline, but it seems there are too many links (10) in it, so it won't post. I'll try it in parts.

Excerpts from draft Timelin... (Below threshold)
BR:

Excerpts from draft Timeline – play-in-progress:

Feb or June 1999 [conflicting dates at JustOneMinute] – Iraqi diplomat (then Ambassador to the Vatican) visits Niger and other African countries. Various western intell agencies suspect he's after uranium for Saddam's renewed WMD program. (Good discussion of this in JustOneMinute's Oct 03 PART I, especially commenter Mark Amerman at October 21, 2003 01:16 AM)

pre-2001 – Joe Wilson becomes vocal opponent of Bush after contributing to Gore.

9/11/01 - Shortly after the WTC/Pentagon attacks, Italy reports the 1999 African visit by Iraqi diplomat stationed in Italy.

pre Feb 02 – WH orders CIA to investigate African/Iraq/uranium data.

Feb 2002 – Wilson's 8-day trip to Niger.

9/18/02 - Rand Beers back to NSC (from State Dept.) as Special Assistant and Senior Director for Combating Terrorism. (Richard Clarke, his friend, also still at NSC until Feb 03. Joe Wilson, of Clinton era NSC, is friends with both Clarke and Beers.)

Late Summer 02 – Events described in Seymour Hersh's article of 10/20/03 re forgery of Niger docs:

"…Another explanation was provided by a former senior C.I.A. officer. He had begun talking to me about the Niger papers in March,[2003] when I first wrote about the forgery, and said, “Somebody deliberately let something false get in there.” He became more forthcoming in subsequent months, eventually saying that a small group of disgruntled retired C.I.A. clandestine operators had banded together in the late summer of last year and drafted the fraudulent documents themselves...."
"The thinking, he said, was that the documents would be endorsed by Iraq hawks at the top of the Bush Administration, who would be unable to resist flaunting them at a press conference or an interagency government meeting. They would then look foolish when intelligence officials pointed out that they were obvious fakes. But the tactic backfired, he said, when the papers won widespread acceptance within the Administration. 'It got out of control.'
"

9/__/02 - Italian j... (Below threshold)
BR:

9/__/02 - Italian journalist Burba – walk-in at US Embassy in Italy, delivers what later turns out to be forged doc(s) – Later exposed as forgeries by ElBaradei's UN staff [unless they were forewarned and only acted as shills], after receiving the doc(s) from the CIA, and announced to the world by ElBaradei on 3/7/03. ("ElBaradei" again as in CIA/UN Al Qaqaa setup)

1/__/03 - Bush's State of the Union speech (doesn't mention "Niger", only generally a country in Africa; cites British source) What input would Clarke and Beers have had with Bush's speech writers re the Niger/Iraq/Yellow Cake info? Interesting that those two (maybe others also) blow soon thereafter from their positions at the NSC.

2/__/03 - Richard Clarke leaves NSC.

3/7/03 - Elbaradei announces "the reports of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic" and "unfounded." (Got this from anti-Bush/Cheney commenter at JustOneMinute – date verified via Google, but quote not verified. Surely 1999 is not "recent transaction." What date was ElBaradei referring to? Is the forged doc(s) available to see on the net?)

3/__/03 – Seymour Hersh's ex-CIA source tells him “Somebody deliberately let something false get in there."

3/14/03 – Rand Beers announces to his wife that he's quitting the NSC, 5 days before Iraq War began – WaPo 6/15/03 article. Can't trust WaPo date. And not known if he left the same day. Could have stayed on longer to turn over duties. [Exact date when he actually left the NSC offices to be found.]

_/__/03 - "Beers left the Bush administration in March 2003, signing on with Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA) as national security adviser for Kerry's 2004 presidential election bid." [Link] [But when exactly in March or later? And when did he first contact the Kerry campaign to "volunteer" as WaPo puts it. Or was he already recruited while still at the WH?]

3/19/03 - Iraq War begins.

3/__/03 - Wilson "r... (Below threshold)
BR:

3/__/03 - Wilson "realizes" Bush was referring to Niger (Why? Who whispered in his ear that Bush's reference to British reports should now be twisted into the Burba docs, or was this part of the time table? What was the trigger event? ElBaradei's "revelation"?)

7/6/03 – Wilson goes public, to discredit Bush's speech re Niger yellow cake. (Why did he wait 3 months? Was this the time during which the Niger doc forgers were setting another trap for the WH using Plame as bait?)

7/14/03 – Novak's first article. (Although, other journalists had written about the Wilson/wife/CIA connection earlier, as noted at JustOneMinute.)

7/16/03 – David Corn article, "A White House Smear" (which leaves out the CIA as source when he quotes Novak's article). (Once a known conservative reporter like Novak took the bait, was Corn the assigned front man to start the furor about the whole alleged WH misconduct re Plame outing? Did Wilson join the chorus when he accused Rove then, or was he the lead singer?)

9/2/03 [and other dates?] – Samuel Berger theft: Clinton's former Natl Sec Advisor head of NSC, commits theft and subsequent destruction of documents from National Archives, related to terrorism matters. Three days before 9/11 Commission report was due, AP reported the existence of the ongoing criminal investigation, prompting Berger’s resignation as John Kerry’s senior foreign policy advisor. Berger pled guilty on 4/1/05. [Link] (Five copies of a 15-pg memo by Richard Clarke, something about incriminating notes in the margin on some copies. Destroyed some, returned some. Do we know if this is all he took? Is this a red herring, to hide theft of other docs, perhaps even more significant?)

[To do list: IF THERE IS A CONNECTION BETWEEN BERGER'S ACTIONS AND THE FORGED NIGER DOCS, COULD WILSON'S INTERVIEW BELOW HAVE BEEN DAMAGE CONTROL?]

9/18/03 – <a href="h... (Below threshold)
BR:

9/18/03Wilson interview by Josh Marshall. Wilson claims here in 03 – that he did not see the forged docs during his briefing for his Niger trip in Feb 02, but was briefed on a Memo of Agreement covering a sale of uranium. (Doesn't say if he saw this Memorandum or if he was verbally told about it. My guess is that the original Italian info of 2001 was real, but the later summer 02 forgeries, given to Burba to deliver as a walk-in (echoes of CBSgate's Lucy Ramirez/Burkett in March 04) were fake bills of sale, etc. supposed to be "newly discovered" attachments to the real Memorandum.)

10/1/03 - Novak's followup article.

10/15/03 - Corn continues to shadow Novak. David Corn article: "I am No Novak", in which Corn fingers an unnamed, but known to him, NSC staffer.

[Now, what was the "French Connection" to the forged Niger docs again? To do list continues, but garden needs watering.]

I'm with frameone on this. ... (Below threshold)
Jesse:

I'm with frameone on this. Setting aside issues of legality, whether "Joe Wilson is a hack", or unrelated issues like Sandy Berger (talk about trying to change the subject!), etc., the fact remains that McClellan stated, flat-out, that Rove was in no way involved. So either Rove lied to McClellan, or McClellan lied to the American people. And Bush had to have known about this lie. Bush also said he'd fire anyone who was involved in the leak.

Don't these count for anything? Or is flip-flopping and dishonesty with the American people only a problem when Dems do it?

What a tempest in a teapot!... (Below threshold)
Bill M:

What a tempest in a teapot!

Let's look at the facts here folks:

Dems accuse the Republicans of outing Palme to hurt Joe Wilson. Evidence: an e-mail from Cooper to someone on his paper (his editor??) saying that he talked to Rove for a couple of minutes, having caught him as he was leaving for vacation, and Rove told him to not place too much credibilty on the Wilson op-ed. Rove points out that neither DCIA nor VP were involved in sending Wilson to Niger, but apparently Wilson's wife, who works at CIA in WMD or something, was involved in the decision to send Wilson. Also points out that despite what Wilson says, there is plenty of other evidence which supports the idea that Saddam was looking for "yellowcake".

So we take Rove warning Time about the accuracy of the Wilson op-ed, given to Cooper in response to COOPER's call to Rove, over a couple of minutes while Rove is getting ready to leave on vacation, and turn it into a "plot" by the Bush Administration to "hurt" Wilson. Yah sure, you betcha!

Sounds like sort of a spur of the moment plot now, doesn't it? Sounds sort of unbelievable, given how "devious" Rove is. Shouldn't there be more to it than that -- setting it off based on an unsolicited call from a reporter. (And everything Rove told Cooper about the trip and the report was true to top it off!) Get real. There is nothing there. Or at least, even if "it" is there, this certainly ain't it to anyone with more intelligence than a rock.

"Rove said he was not invol... (Below threshold)
Josh Davenport:

"Rove said he was not involved in anyway with the leak of Plame's identity as a CIA operative."

"Would anyone here care to spin this?"

Its unclear if that is true. No spin required.

Working for the CIA, and being an operative are completely different things. It appears Rove "outed" Plame as working for the CIA, nothing more, but we will see.

Hee, yes Bill. It's a tempe... (Below threshold)
BR:

Hee, yes Bill. It's a tempest in a teapot to any rational person. But as to the rocks - when rocks chatter to rocks in the MSM and on the net, they all start vibrating together, and pretty soon they've made a mountain out of a molehill, and the next thing you'll see is an impeachment of Pres. Bush during time of real war - the rocks' end goal. So, for the country's survival, one must expose the rocks, and may as well have fun doing it.

This is starting to sound j... (Below threshold)
Lew Clark:

This is starting to sound just like "Bush Lied" about WMD's. That is, Bush had different intelligence than anyone else in Washington, and every other capital in the world. Everyone else thought Sadam had WMD's but Bush knew that Sadam did not, never did, and couldn't even spell WMD. With this knowledge, he lied and said Sadam did have WMD's so he could go steal Iraqui oil. This has been proven uncategorically untrue beyond the shadow of doubt. Bush's intelligence, like everyone else's said Sadam had WMD's (which he did before we gave him 180 days to get them out of the country) and Bush operated on that intelligence and many other valid reasons to decide to take Sadam out. But the left still pushes "Bush Lied".

Did Rove "out" Vlaerie Plame. Nope! No more than he "outed" George Tenet. I bet, Rove did, at the same general period of time, mention George Tenet was Director of the CIA. But he didn't "out" Tenet. It was common knowledge that Tenet was Director of the CIA. He was not a covert agent and not protected. Plame, at that time, was not a covert agent and not protected. You couldn't "out" her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did Rove lie to McCellan. No! Rove said he had nothing to do with "outing" Plame. If he had said he had nothing to do with "outing" Tenet, he would have not lied either. You can't "out" someone that is not "in"!
But the real crux is, Did someone in the White House expose Plame to punish Wilson? Same answer. No! Roves conversation with Cooper was about not running with the Wilson "Bush lied about yellowcake and Niger" story because it was bunk. In passing Rove shared that Wilson was not sent there by CIA brass but by his wife, A CIA EMPLOYEE. And Wilson's credentials were very suspect.

So what is Fitzgerald looking for, and what is Miller hiding? With no factual proof, per se, I believe Fitzegerald is looking for the name of the individual that cooked up the dirty trick. The person that came up with the idea to float the idea, right before the election, that the White House had retaliated against Wilson by exposing his "double super top secret spy wife". And that when this person(s) was creating this story, they knew it was false, but too politically valuable to let pass. That is why Miller is going to jail. Because Fitzegerald wants to know who was at the meeting when this "false but accurate" scheme was cooked up. Miller is going to jail instead of exposing her "source", because once she exposes her source (and it ain't Rove that she's protecting), the whole thing unravels, and her part in this criminal conspiracy becomes clear.

Hmmm.Well Rove is ... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

Well Rove is the Master of the Sith isn't he?

It just gets funnier each and every time. :)

The only thing as stupid as... (Below threshold)
Jesse:

The only thing as stupid as liberals who are sure Rove committed high treason are the conservatives who are absolutely positive he is innocent. The fact is we know NOTHING about this case. We don't even know what Fitzgerald is investigating, let alone what he knows already, and yet people have arrived at their conclusions already. It's pathetic, really.

In any case, McClellan looked terrible today. Reminded me of the White House spokesmen under Climton, during Monicagate...

Lew Clark: "Plame, at th... (Below threshold)
Patrick Meighan:

Lew Clark: "Plame, at that time, was not a covert agent and not protected. You couldn't "out" her!"

Cite, please?

The CIA, in referring this case to the DoJ, asserted that Plame was, indeed, a covert agent. You dispute the CIA's assertion? I'd like to see some proof, please.

The idea that Saddam Hussei... (Below threshold)
melior:

The idea that Saddam Hussein could have somehow placed an order for thousands of metric tons of yellowcake from Niger, somehow had it delivered (carrier pigeon?), and then built and operated huge refineries to extract the tiny amount of uranium present, all while we were bombing the crap out of Iraq in hundreds of sorties against fixed targets --

Maybe you should pick a topic you know something about, because you're stinking up the place with that noise.

Yeah, the MSM will do what ... (Below threshold)
Ken:

Yeah, the MSM will do what they can with this to dump on the Bush administration, but then as usual, the facts will come out and the MSM will have been kicked in the face again. It seems they have no clue about credibility.

I wonder if the prosecutor knows there is nothing there, but is "maliciously complying" by going with the flow of the MSM that this is an egregious event, with delicious irony that the MSM screamers get to bear the brunt of it?

I didn't see Lew's post bef... (Below threshold)
Ken:

I didn't see Lew's post before I posted.

I think Lew is onto something. This definitely feels like it's going a different direction than "conventional wisdom."

And if Rove didn't sacrific... (Below threshold)
melior:

And if Rove didn't sacrifice Brewster Jennings to smear Wilson... someone did. They were compromised, and not by themselves.

Was it Libby? Cheney? Someone lower down in Bushco and no one above him knew?

Bobby Novak, Judy Miller? Or maybe your money's on one of the real journalists?

A retaliatory AIPAC jab? Some other foreign national?

Wait, don't tell me... your theory is it was Michael Moore, right? That's why the WH has suddenly got a bad case of the "no comments"?

If the New York Times dumps... (Below threshold)

If the New York Times dumps on Rove tomorrow morning, I see that as an admission by them that they have nothing on Rove, and perhaps that Miller is the one who is actually guilty.

The New York Times would be seeking to use their Noise Machine to bury the truth that Newsweek started to leak already.

Rove didn't out Plame, and the New York Times has to bury that fact with calls of resignation, innuendo, and lies.

We all knew it was coming. The press has become completely predictable in their actions.

I'm just curious as to who actually outed Plame. It almost seems to me like David Corn did, to start a scandal when they actually knew that none existed to cover for the fact that Wilson was lying.

Melior says: That's why... (Below threshold)
Carrick Talmadge:

Melior says: That's why the WH has suddenly got a bad case of the "no comments"?

Apparently you missed this part of the briefing: 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.

It seems completely appropriate to me that the White House would comply with this "preference". Naturally, if the White House did not generally comply with this "preference", I would expect you to bitch about that instead.

McClellan didn't distinguis... (Below threshold)
frameone:

McClellan didn't distinguish between whether Rove knew or didn't know whether Plame was covert or not. He went on record as saying that Rove told him that he had nothing to do with the leak period. We now know the opposite was the truth. Rove did have something to do with the leak, indeed, he was one of Cooper's sources for it. Let's not forget also that Cooper cited two White House sources. So it wasn't just Rove, hurring off to vacation, speaking off the cuff. Also, how did Rove know about the details behind Wilson's trip? Who told him about it and when they told him, did they happen to mention Plame's status with the CIA? Since it's clear Rove did find out that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, why didn't he check first whether he should be saying anything about her at all? There are a lot more legitimate questions to ask and we'll see if we ever get answers to them.

Yea. But sometimes folks g... (Below threshold)
joey:

Yea. But sometimes folks get fired. It is now his time to go.

frameone:" Now ... (Below threshold)
Inquiring:

frameone:

" Now we find out, that Rove WAS involved with the leak and that he was one of Cooper's sources before the Novak column came out." (emphasis added)

We found this out?! That is absolutely amazing, I just read the article and it said nothing of the sort beyond wild speculation. Please, oh wise one, show us your source that confirms this.

Unfortunately we still do not know exactly what Rove said to Cooper. To quote that article "One of the e-mails was a note from Cooper to his boss in which he said he had spoken to Rove, who described the wife of former U.S. Ambassador and Bush administration critic Joe Wilson as someone who "apparently works" at the CIA, Newsweek magazine reported." (emphasis added)

What does that say, exactly? Notice the "apparently works" part. For someone who was deep cover an awful lot of people, in and out of the CIA seemed amazingly free in their speculation, and even confirmation, about Plame's employment at the CIA, quite a few who are not Rove clearly breaking the law about her status.

So, did Rove indicate Plame worked for the CIA, even if just through speculation? Yes, it appears he was one of Cooper's sources, and the only one people seem to be concerned about; surprising considering how everyone is talking about subjecting perpetrators to the law they only focus on Rove.

This is in no way confirms that he leaked, broke cover, revealed, etc Plame’s status as a covert agent.

No longer addressing frameone:

Did Rove break the law, or even do something unethical? There is not enough information.

Notice that unethical bit. Speculating, or confirming someone's position, when under the belief it is ok to do so is not unethical. It would be unethical if he purposely speculated in such a way as to bring undo light; this requires a knowledge of his motivations that we do not have (and this only necessarily applies if you are using a Kantian ethical view point, or argue from a Utilitarian stance). From all the information we have it appears that Plame's working for the CIA was highly speculated or known, and how freely even CIA officials have been breaking the law it indicates she was not precisely what they have been claiming anyways (read further down).

For Rove to have broken the law he would have had to knowingly broken her cover, and for him to have violated ethics he would have had to knowingly draw undo attention to her employment status. Both of those are in question.

The only conclusion, the absolutely only question that can be asked in response to these accusations by anyone is, "what is the rest of the evidence?" So far they have provided nothing that indicates he broke the law by knowingly exposing her status, and there has not been any evidence that indicates he violated ethical rules by revealing her status as a CIA employee (unless you consider every person in the world to be unethical when they speculate or truthfully comment upon a person's employment). Saying, "oh, she works at the CIA," is perfectly acceptable if he has reason to believe she works at the CIA as only an analyst without any special security over her cover.

Speaking of Novak’s article:
That is amazingly odd. Novak originally identifies Plame and her CIA status. That Novak first stated her status, and came out with the 'scoop' first does not gel with predictions so far.

Novak on his source for Plame's status: "When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives."

Oh, and should I bother to dig up all the quotes from named, and about unnamed CIA officials who continued to knowingly leak her status after the articles came out, articles which only revealed she worked for the CIA? Ray McGovern was one of those people, who, in Sept 2003 confirmed she was a deep cover agent; it was illegal for McGovern to do that, because if she was 'deep cover' he was violating her cover even further. Wilson, that paragon of virtue, later did the exact same thing, on July 22, to NBC, specifically mentioning her status as being covert, that is, again, highly illegal because he --if she was covert-- he knowingly disclosed her status as such.

Where are the cries of consternation? Those who have been shouting out about finding the perpetrators, and punishing them; however, the only perpetrator they are concerned about is Rove, or someone else close to, or within, Bush's administration.

Then there is the question of whether she really a covert operative or not. This is relevant, because for a deep cover agent it seems that alot of people, including Plame and Wilson, were very willing to break the law and reveal her status at the drop of a hat; it does not matter if they did this after Novak's column, it is still illegal for them to say anything about her status if she is covert.

A major question is when exactly was her status as an undercover agent revealed, if she was in fact truly ever an undercover agent? The funny thing is, if it comes to light that Rove did not knowingly break the law, Wilson, his wife, and many people in the CIA are the ones who will still have to answer for continually revealing her status as a covert agent after a couple articles came out just saying she worked for the CIA.

A good question to ask is when was Plame truly revealed to be a covert agent and not just in the employ of the CIA? Was it before, during, or after the Novak/Cooper articles?

It seems completely appr... (Below threshold)
Jesse:

It seems completely appropriate to me that the White House would comply with this "preference".

Read the rest of the briefing. The reporters point out, repeatedly, that McClellan and others ignored this "preference" when they were saying Rove was not involved. Now that it's clear he was, they clam up. He then tried to say the "preference" was only stated after his last comment; to which a reporter replied that Bush commented on it almost 9 months later.

Face it, they're in serious CYA mode. You have to be in massive denial not to see that.

I only wish the President h... (Below threshold)
Miss Melanie:

I only wish the President had chosen a less offensive nickname for Rove. Millions of parents are now going to have to explain to their 5-year-olds that just because the President says "T*rd Blossom" does not make it okay for anyone else to say.

Hmmmm.My theory:</... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

My theory:

Valerie Plame was the conduit for "senior administration officials" and for "unnamed intelligence sources" to leak information to approved journalists. She did this by telling her husband, who then did the actual leaking. It gives her a level of deniability as in "no I did NOT speak to any reporters". It gives him something to do that'll make him the big man in Washington.

It also explains Miller's odd situation.

Valerie Plame is employed by the CIA. It's probable that they sent around a form letter that each employee was to sign that would absolve Miller of any restraint on testimony. However Wilson isn't covered by this and wouldn't be required to sign it. So Miller is technically still on the hook, unless Wilson gives her permission.

And I don't see Wilson being the type that would be willing to get outed as the guy who outed his wife. That would be a rather ridiculous situation, particularly in light of his "frog-march Rove" nonsense.

Also I don't believe that there was a crime at all, and that the prosecutor well knows it. However it is a perfect cover for an indepth investigation of many serial leakers in Washington. Under no other circumstance could the Bush WH end up requiring journalists to testify under oath. Under no other circumstance could the Bush WH force journalists to divulge secrets.

The best part is that the MSM was the major element that forced the investigation in the first place. And thus afforded the Bush WH the political cover necessary to weed out the leakers.

Ultimately I think the person most responsible for Plame's outing is Wilson and/or Plame.

Going further out on Lew's ... (Below threshold)
Ken:

Going further out on Lew's premise:
The reason for the "no comments" is the same reason a cat doesn't meow at the bird he's about to catch. The trap is about to spring and they don't want to do anything to mess it up.

You have to wonder: Novak started all this, yet he's not being harrassed to testify (I understand he already has), yet no one's been charged with anything based on his presumably knowledgeable testimony about a supposed illegal leak of an agent's identity.

Then: why isn't the investigation over with? Why is a "journalist" who didn't write a story about it sitting in jail until she talks? Obviously, something more behind the curtain that we don't quite understand.

Hmmm.The funny thi... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

The funny thing is that, if Rove escapes unharmed, many liberals I know will go absolutely ape****. A couple of my co-workers are almost to the nail-biting stage wondering if they're finally going to witness Rove's takedown.

The humor potential in all this is massive.

Sorry that this is OT. I d... (Below threshold)
CraigC:

Sorry that this is OT. I don't know how many Don and Mike fans there are out there, but Don's wife Freda was in a car accident yesterday coming back from the Eastern Shore of Maryland, and she died last night at the hospital. Prayers are in order.

"Also, Wilson voted Republi... (Below threshold)
HH:

"Also, Wilson voted Republican for the majority of his life in civil service."

Like "GOP voter" Richard Clarke who voted for John McCain in the primary and Al Gore?

Silly lefties, tricks are f... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

Silly lefties, tricks are for kids!

The Architect has planned all this long ago.

He comes out unscathed, and lefties develop tumors from all the inward seething... not unlike terrorists... Oh, I'm sorry, I think they're being called "misguided criminals" as of late.

Anyway, time for you whining Bush-haters to swap out your headline pretty soon, once this latest salvo goes nowhere. Maybe try to stir up Gitmo again, since that worked so well for ya. :)

SOTG

Note that the AP also quote... (Below threshold)
Vanshalar:

Note that the AP also quotes Harry Reid, who tries to stuff words in Bush's mouth (read the original transcript at Captain's Quarters) regarding firing people involved in the thing. Correction from Reid? Nope. Correction from AP? Nope. Correction from the White House? Sure don't see that anywhere in the article either.

So again you see AP trying to help stuff words in Bush's mouth to frame the debate -- Rove's guilty already.

There's an insightful comme... (Below threshold)
BR:

There's an insightful commenter Kim at JustOneMinute who has been saying the Fitzgerald investigation may be looking into much more than "who outed Plame"; may actually be looking at the Niger forgeries matter and Joe Wilson perjury. (I presume he means perjury to the Senate Committee, unless Wilson also appeared before the grand jury.)

When did Wilson first see the forged Niger docs and when did he know they were forgeries?

Something really fishy here. According to this 5/6/03 article by Nick Kristof, Wilson already knew the Niger docs were forgeries in Feb 2002. But Italian journalist Burba walked into the US Embassy in Italy with those forgeries much later: Sept. 2002. And ElBaradei publicly exposed them as forgeries on 3/7/03. But a year and a half after Wilson's Niger trip, on 9/18/03 in an interview by Josh Marshall, Wilson claims he did not see the forged docs during his briefing for his Niger trip in Feb 02. So how on earth could he have described them in detail in Feb 2002?

Kristof excerpt:"<... (Below threshold)
BR:

Kristof excerpt:

"… that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger so it could build nuclear weapons. As Seymour Hersh noted in The New Yorker, the claims were based on documents that had been forged so amateurishly that they should never have been taken seriously. I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade…. The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted — except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway. 'It's disingenuous for the State Department people to say they were bamboozled because they knew about this for a year,' one insider said."

See 7/10/05 post by <a href... (Below threshold)
BR:

See 7/10/05 post by JustOneMinute:

From Walter Pincus, June 12, 2003:

"After returning to the United States, the envoy reported to the CIA that the uranium-purchase story was false, the sources said. Among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong,' the former U.S. government official said."

9/18/03 Interview by Josh M... (Below threshold)
BR:

9/18/03 Interview by Josh Marshall of TalkingPointsMemo:

"TPM: And, just to be clear, at this time, you hadn't seen these documents that turned out to be forgeries?

WILSON: No, I hadn't. I had just been briefed on a memorandum of agreement covering the sale. Now, my understanding is that there are all sorts of other documents that have since come to light and Andrea Mitchell showed me some documents which I had not seen and frankly, I did not have my glasses, so I didn't even get a chance to read them, and I have not seen them since."

Reading the comments on thi... (Below threshold)
JmaR:

Reading the comments on this thread is high comedy, I haven't experienced spins like this since waking up from a hard night of drinking many moons ago.

No integrity all hypocrisy. You people have no shame.

I'm belly laughing.....bahahahaha

Although it may appear that... (Below threshold)
ted:

Although it may appear that we are stuck with another four years with the shrub as President, that is not necessarily so. We can still impeach him. There are five charges taken together which should meet the burden of high crimes and misdemeanors. If they can impeach a President over lying in a deposition about getting a blowjob we should be able to do it for Chimpy McChimp’s real lies.

WMD in Iraq

It’s easy to be misled by the fact that former President Bill Clinton, Former VP Al Gore, Senators Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Robert Byrd, and Tom Daschle, as well as Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman all openly stated their belief that Saddam had WMD after having access to all the available intelligence data. Obviously Hillary’s Oct 8 2002 statement:

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”

was made out of her sincere belief that Saddam posed a threat to America, but as Commander in Chief Monkey Boy had a duty to look at that information and discern the truth.

We also cannot be misled that every major intelligence service in the world, including the French, German and Russians believed Saddam had WMD. Again it was his responsibility to know despite what the “experts” were telling him.

Finally although some warheads containing Sarin Nerve Gas and Mustard Gas were found and the precursor chemicals and equipment to rapidly restart a Biological and Chemical Warfare program were located, as reported in the Dulfer report to Congress, this simply isn’t enough.

Bush Lied People Died

The Murder of 100,000 Iraqi’s

Again if you don’t pay attention it is easy to be distracted.

The October 2004 issue of the Lancet, a British medical journal, published the results of a John Hopkins study that showed that 100,000 Iraqi civilians (95% CI 8,000 – 194,000) had been killed by military action since the March 2003 invasion.

The weed’s supporters will first claim that the study has such a low confidence index (95% CI 8,000 – 194,000), meaning the author’s are 95% certain that somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000 civilians were killed, as to be useless.

The next line of attack will be at the actual numbers themselves. It will be pointed out that the Iraqi Ministry of Health places the figures for that time period at about 4,000 casualties and Iraqi Body count at 14,000 to 18,000.

None of this matters - The Lancet reported 100,000 killed. If the study was flawed who cares as long as we can get our point across.

Bush Lied People Died

Claiming Iraq was responsible for 9/11

As shown in Michael Moore’s excellent documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11” Condoleezza Rice specifically said,

“There is a tie between what Iraq and what happened on 9/11”.

I don’t know how it can be any plainer. Of course Republican apologists will try and claim the quote was out of context and give the full quote:

"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York."

But there it is and even more emphatically.

Bushie’s will then point to the Chimp in Chief’s September 2003 statement:

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks."

This is simply plausible deniability in action.

Bush Lied People Died

Saddam didn’t have any ties to Terrorism


Apologists will try to point to the presence of Abdul Rahman Yassin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing, Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland, Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan who is now believed to be leading Al-Qaeda's forces in Iraq, as proof as Saddam’s ties to terrorism. They will also attempt to point out the bounty paid by the Iraqi government to the families of Plaestinian suicide bombers as further proof. All we have to do is point to the 9/11 report for the truth as shown in this exchange between Ronald Reagan Jr. and Christopher Hitchens:

RR: Christopher, I'm not sure that I buy the idea that these attacks are a sign that we're actually winning the war on terror. I mean, how many more victories like this do we really want to endure?
CH: Well, it depends on how you think it started, sir. I mean, these movements had taken over Afghanistan, had very nearly taken over Algeria, in a extremely bloody war which actually was eventually won by Algerian society. They had sent death squads to try and kill my friend Salman Rushdie, for the offense of writing a novel in England. They had sent death squads to Austria and Germany, the Iranians had, for example, to try and kill Kurdish Muslim leaders there. If you make the mistake that I thought I heard you making just before we came on the air, of attributing rationality or a motive to this, and to say that it's about anything but itself, you make a great mistake, and you end up where you ended up, saying that the cause of terrorism is fighting against it, the root cause, I mean. Now, you even said, extraordinarily to me, that there was no terrorist problem in Iraq before 2003. Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal?
RR: Well, I'm following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, which...
CH: Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it?
RR: No, actually, I didn't say that, Christopher.
CH: At this stage, after what happened in London yesterday?
RR: What I did say, though, was that Iraq was not a center of terrorism before we went in there, but it might be now.
CH: How can you know so little about...
RR: You can make the claim that you just made about any other country in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia.
CH: Absolutely nonsense.
RR: So do you think we ought to invade Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers from 9/11 came from, following your logic, Christopher?
CH: Uh, no. Excuse me. The hijackers may have been Saudi and Yemeni, but they were not envoys of the Saudi Arabian government, even when you said the worst...
RR: Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either.
CH: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?
RR: I guess because I listen to the 9/11 Commission, and read their report, and they said that Saddam Hussein was not exporting terror. I suppose that's how, Christopher.
CH: Well, then they were wrong, weren't they?
RR: No, maybe they just needed to listen to you, Christopher.
CH; Well, I'm not sure that they actually did say that. What they did say was they didn't know of any actual operational connection...
RR: That's right. No substantive operational connection.
CH: ...which was the Iraqi Baath Party and...excuse me...and Al Qaeda. A direct operational connection. Now, that's because they don't know. They don't say there isn't one. They say they couldn't find one. But I just gave you the number, I would have thought, rather suggestive examples.
Bush Lied People Died

Iraqi Ties to Al-Qaeda
This is the easiest lie to prove. The shrub claimed that Al-Qaeda and Iraq were establishing a relationship, but as this excerpt from the 9/11 commission staff finding 15 shows no operational relationship existed:

Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein’s secular regime. Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.

It couldn’t be clearer. Bin-Ladin was willing to work with Iraq, but there was no relationship. Whether that relationship would have been established after 9/11 we will never know because of out illegal attack on Iraq.

Bushies will try and counter with this statement by 9/11 commissioner Lee Hamilton:

"The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between Al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein government. We don't disagree with that. What we have said is what the governor (Commission Chairman Thomas Kean) just said, we don't have any evidence of a cooperative, or a corroborative, relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these Al Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States."

This is of course a smoke screen.

Bush Lied People Died

In a later post I will discuss how the Downing Street Memo can also be used in this effort.

"Although it may appear tha... (Below threshold)
Toby928:

"Although it may appear that we are stuck with another four years with the shrub as President, that is not necessarily so."

All hail President Cheney!

This post is satire right, Ted?

Tob

No. It is a well laid out ... (Below threshold)
ted:

No. It is a well laid out case for the impeachment of the President. If any of you apologists disagree point out where so I can buttress my claims.

"No. It is a well laid out ... (Below threshold)
Toby928:

"No. It is a well laid out case for the impeachment of the President."

Will you soon lay out the charges? While impeachment is a political act rather than a legal on, its unlikely to happen without a charge of illegality.

Tob

Oh, you had me going! And ... (Below threshold)
Toby928:

Oh, you had me going! And I've messed up by stepping all over your satire. I should be quicker on the uptake and kept my mouth shut. Sorry. This gives it away:

"None of this matters - The Lancet reported 100,000 killed. If the study was flawed who cares as long as we can get our point across.

Bush Lied People Died

Claiming Iraq was responsible for 9/11

As shown in Michael Moore’s excellent documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11” Condoleezza Rice specifically said,"

Well done, Ted.

Tob

No problem. I have been wo... (Below threshold)
ted:

No problem. I have been working on this for awhile and it seemed to fit this thread.

It really IS good. The nua... (Below threshold)
Toby928:

It really IS good. The nuance is perfect. Have you cross-posted it at any of the LL sites? It will set them off I'm sure.

Tob

If you do cross-post, let u... (Below threshold)
Toby928:

If you do cross-post, let us know where so we can lurk.

Tob

I have posted it on the Sea... (Below threshold)
ted:

I have posted it on the Seattle Tribe at tribe.net, no real response yet. I am looking for a place to put it on a couple of other sites.

Actually anyone who wants t... (Below threshold)
ted:

Actually anyone who wants to, post my piece anywhere you want. I am so tired of people like frameone I want to gum up the works on their sites for awhile.

RobSend me what you ... (Below threshold)
mark blahut:

Rob
Send me what you smoke - Your heading starts with
AMAZING -- The only thing amazing is your stupidity!
Come on silly dude - They lied - they are liers
And rove will go down - Please wake up - You are starting to sound dumber everyday .

Can you blame the media for... (Below threshold)
WB Gail:

Can you blame the media for being pissed after they were lied to repeatedly by the White Hosue press secretary? Bush promised to fire anyone who leaked classified information, I thought Bush was a man of his word? I must have missed the firing on fox News this morning.

Rove will go to prison and he will be the first member of this cabal of liars to go down.

By the way, whoever writes this joke Blog is a pathetic apologist. A true patriot would care that our attempts to recruit future operatives and confidential sources will be hurt by Roves talking crap to every reporter in town.

"Rove will go to prison and... (Below threshold)
Toby928:

"Rove will go to prison and he will be the first member of this cabal of liars to go down."

Or maybe not, WB. Time (not the magazine) will tell. Possess yourself with patience. This story is not being covered up. The facts will out soon, I believe.

Tob

Not crowing now prevents eating crow later.

Rove's own lawyer confirmed... (Below threshold)

Rove's own lawyer confirmed that Rove told Time that the wife of administration critic and former Ambassador Joseph Wilson was with the CIA. Whether or not it's criminal, it's certainly ethically questionable and should be investigated by the press the same as Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky affair.

"Whether or not it's crimin... (Below threshold)
Toby928:

"Whether or not it's criminal, it's certainly ethically questionable and should be investigated by the press the same as Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky affair."

Absolutely. If Rove's a skunk, he should be put out the door. Based on what I've actually read, there doesn't seem to be any legal or even unethical behaviour involved, just hard-ball politics, **but** in the media environment that we've had for decades, Republicans should know that they must be purer that Caesar's wife. If the leaked info is accurate (who knows?) then Rove should have been getting his explanation out many months ago, indeed, as soon as news of the so-called outing broke.

Tob

Inquiring -- Give ... (Below threshold)
frameone:

Inquiring --

Give me a break. It's clear that this thread devolved quickly into a childish sing along -- "La La La I'm not listening" -- but you take the cake for willful disregard.

Rove told Cooper that Wilson's wife "apparently worked" for the CIA. You take this and spin it to suggest that this means Rove was only specualting on her employment and that a lot of people knew anyway so no big deal.

Even given that, McClellan still told the American people that Rove and others had nothing to do with the incident at all.

From the AP:

"Oct. 10, 2003

Q: Earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?
A: I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands."

But here's where the Rove defense slips into the Clintonian. From the same press briefing continuing on:

"Q: So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?
A: They assured me that they were not involved in this.
Q: They were not involved in what?
A: The leaking of classified information."

So the whole defense here rests on the word "knowingly." Rove suggested Plame apparently worked at the CIA but did not know or did not say whether she was working there covertly. Case closed. This is Rove's defense?

This is no defense at all. First, let's take the "apparently" thing. It's like Rove saying that he never used Plame's name. So what. Suggesting that "Wilson's wife" may work for the CIA accomplishes the same thing as saying "Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame" does. It was no secret who Wilson was married to. Her employment at the CIA was classified. It's the same thing to point a reporter to "Wilson's wife" and then suggest that she "apparently" works for the CIA. To suggest that she works at the CIA to a reporter accomplishes the same thing as saying she DOES work at the CIA because it draws attention to her and either that reporter or some other reporter will eventually confirm her status. Which, of course, was exaclty the point of talking to Cooper in the first place. Rove KNEW she worked for the CIA but didn't want to get caught telling anybody he did so he used his langauge carefully, legalistically, knowing full well that he would still accomplish his goal: outing Plame as an employee of the CIA.

But let's turn to the "knowingly" side of it. Did Rove know she was a covert agent? Putting aside the legal issues here, does it matter?

Who knew that Plame worked for the CIA and who told Rove? Remember, Condileeza Rice told the press July 9 of 2003:

"But I will tell you that, for instance, on Ambassador Wilson's going out to Niger, I learned of that when I was sitting on whatever TV show it was, because that mission was not known to anybody in the White House. And you should ask the Agency at what level it was known in the Agency."

Remember, this was July 9, five days before the Novak story came out and three days before the date on Cooper's email revealing Rove as his source for Plame's "apparent" job. Are you trying to tell me that the White House wasn't knowingly trying to spin the Niger story back to Wilson, his wife and the CIA? That Rove was just casually repeating harmless scuttlebutt he heard in the hall or by the water cooler? Or that he was just specualting about Plame's employment? Please. There was an orchestrated campaign to expose Wilson's wife as an employee of the CIA. But did they know she was a covert operative?

Look at what Rice says. If we take her on her word, the White House obviously had to do some digging of its own for her to suggest that the CIA was involved in some way. They had to ask around to find out what Wilson's mission was and who had authorized it. In doing this research they must have learned about Plame's job. So don't give me this "apparently" crap. Rove may have said "apparently" but he knew for certain. So did Rice. Only she took the more cautious approach by referring to the agency only. Why? Because she was speaking on record in public. Rove was speaking on double super secret background and he still felt the need to qualify what he was saying. Why? We can specualte all day about why. I'd say it's because he damn well knew the consequences of what he was saying. But even if he didn't, are you telling me that Rove and others at the White House are in the habit of revealing the names of CIA employees without first checking whether they should or not? I'm not even talking about legality here, I'm talking common sense. They "discovered" the CIA was behind Wilson's involvement and then found out that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA but didn't find out or ask about her classification? Stop pulling my chain, man. They knew. And if they didn't they should have. One is a crime, the other is a massive failure of common sense.

In the meantime, yes, let's allow Fitzgerald to complete his investigation and see what he comes up with before we finally condemn Rove. But until then, for goodness sake, can we ease up on the full scale assault on the English language and common sense?

Funny thing this parsing of the language over what Rove knew or didn't. It recalls the way "Sadaam HAS WMDs" became "Sadaam has WMD producing capabilities" which became "Sadaam has the intent to produce WMDs." All of which apparently mean the same thing to the neo-cons: "War was justified." No matter Rove or anyone else did or didn't know or say, you still beleive that attacking Wilson indthe way that they the White House was entirely justified. Great.

Oh my God....Toby you did n... (Below threshold)
JmaR:

Oh my God....Toby you did not just write this:

"Republicans should know that they must be purer that Caesar's wife."

The Bush administration has wreaked havoc on us, our country, the world with complete impunity for almost 5 year now, media cowering every step of the way and we get these kinds of comments. Parallel universe for sure.

LOL, just hardball politics... (Below threshold)
Joe Mama:

LOL, just hardball politics. Is that what you call it Toby928. Hey, maybe you can get a place in Bush's administration.... you would fit in perfectly. But don't forget to bring your orange jumpsuit, they don't provide them..

"LOL, just hardball politic... (Below threshold)
Toby928:

"LOL, just hardball politics. Is that what you call it Toby928." I did call it that JM, or do you not trust your own eyes?

And sure JmaR, I can imagine several scenerios where there was no unethical and certainly no illegal activity in Rove talking to a reporter about Amb Wilson and his trip. Maybe I will lay them out in a future post. Whether any of them are what happened, I don't know. Hence I reccomend patience to the leftward and caution to the rightward when commenting on this topic. Crow is a nasty dish.

Tob

Although, kitten is fine in... (Below threshold)
Toby928:

Although, kitten is fine in a burgundy sauce. ;-)

Tob

[email protected] frameone</p... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

@ frameone

"Look at what Rice says. If we take her on her word, the White House obviously had to do some digging of its own for her to suggest that the CIA was involved in some way."

Wilson wrote about the CIA involvement in his NYT op-ed piece.

"In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

By Wilson, 7/6/2003

You know "frameone", 3 days BEFORE Rice talked about it?

(insert sarcastic comment here)

If Karl Rove knew Valerie P... (Below threshold)
chad:

If Karl Rove knew Valerie Plame was a covert operative and he revealed her identity, that would be both illegal and unethical. Or if he had called up Newsweek and Time and said something on the order of, "Well how can you trust Wilson after all his wife is a crack addict", that would be unethical. So would just dragging her into this entire situation if she were a private citizen, but she isn't. Ms. Plame and her Husband are both Govt. employees who swore to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foriegn and domestic and to obey the orders of the President and those appointed over them. Then Ambassador Wilson abandoned that promise on behalf of partisan politics (from what I have seen Ms. Plame appears realtively clean in that regard). That is the truly enethical behavior. What this all amounts to now is Wilson standing by an excuse when he was called to account and attempting to shift blame.

"If Karl Rove knew Valerie ... (Below threshold)
Toby928:

"If Karl Rove knew Valerie Plame was a covert operative and he revealed her identity, that would be both illegal and unethical."

I concurr Chad. I have not as yet seen any proof that that is what happened so I'm reserving judgment until the SP and the grad jury speak. Or the press comes up with a full account. Snippets do not a story make.

Tob

chad,What on earth... (Below threshold)
JmaR:

chad,

What on earth are you talking about? You are going to spin this into an attack on Joe Wilson? How? Joe Wilson had the courage to speak the truth about the Bush adminstration's lies in their attempt to mislead this country to war. Joe Wilson was a whistleblower because he knew they were full of shit. How do you intend to spin this against Wilson? How was he unethical?

"Joe Wilson had the courage... (Below threshold)
Toby928:

"Joe Wilson had the courage to speak the truth about the Bush adminstration's lies in their attempt to mislead this country to war. Joe Wilson was a whistleblower because he knew they were full of shit."

Which 'lies' are you referring to JmaR?

Tob

toby,The list is s... (Below threshold)
JmaR:

toby,

The list is so long where would I begin.

Uranium from Niger....lie
Imminent threat.......lie (and both Powell and Rice said as much as recently as 2001, if you don't like the source, watch the video: http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
aluminum tubes........lie
45 minutes (although from the UK)....lie
reconstituting nuclear weapons...lie
links with Al Qaeda....lie


...and so on and so forth.

"I say that it would be an ... (Below threshold)
Toby928:

"I say that it would be an excellent idea right now for all to cool their heads and try to work together on this."

Damn, I can't believe how much I'm in agreement with the left end of the dial today. I'm tired of repeating myself and listening to others repeat themselves. If criminality occurred, punishment should follow, if not, not. There is a process in motion which should reveal all and I keep recommending patience. I'll exercise some myself.

I have said all that I can say and will post no more on Rove,Plame, or Wilson unless directly questioned or attacked.

Peace!.

Tob

As bad as the outing of Pla... (Below threshold)
JmaR:

As bad as the outing of Plame was (and it was traitorous) I'm all for waiting to see the results of the invertigation as well, but in the meantime, the more pummeling that Rove and the Bush administration take over it, the better for all of us. defanged Bush does less damage with his remaining time in office.

What really gets my goat was the way that they behaved refgarding the 9/11 investigation. I make no accusations here but can only say that:

The adminstration didn't want to 9/11 commission to be created.

They withheld documents and dragged their feet (according to both R's and D' on the Commission) once they caved to the political pressure and the investigation got under way.

Bush refused to testify under oath (to me this in more incriminating than the Plame situation because of the gravity of what he refused to testify about).

When he finally agreed to be "questioned" it was under the condition that Dick Cheney rode alongside him.

These are facts and when taken together, they infuriate me and should infuriate everyone. I don't know the answers to why all of these things took place, but I'd love to know.

Peace to you as well.

They

Here's a question for all o... (Below threshold)
Jonnybrepublican:

Here's a question for all of you sleuths out there. If Rove is truly the "leaker", why the hell is Miller in jail?

Don't you think they (Miller and the other dillhole) would have already told the world he is the one responsible? Isn't this what the media would love to have? How about the Democrats and the rest of the Lefties? It seems like a very large stretch if everyone needs to argue so hard that he is one who did it.

Not everything is a conspiracy.

Common sense people. Common Sense.

Well I got a few responses ... (Below threshold)
ted:

Well I got a few responses to my impeach bush post over at the Seattle Tribe, but I was found out pretty quickly. It is amazing though that some people were willing to swallow it whole just because I put in Bush Lied People Died and called him names. Shows where their heads at at.

Wow, Toby and Ted, isn't it... (Below threshold)
BR:

Wow, Toby and Ted, isn't it just amazing to see those moonbats fleeing the cave in hysterical consternation :) We must be getting hot, if it upsets them so! Now they're screeching their new-found meme (I prefer the regular English word: theme) "national security" all over the radio too.

Interesting piece by Byron York on 7/12/05 here.

Wouldn't it be yummy if Rove has a tape recording of Cooper's telephone call to him on 7/11/03 (the call Cooper made to Rove to ask about "welfare reform" and then pulled a switch in the last 2 minutes to try and entrap Rove on the Plame matter).

Btw, Cooper's own wife has been "outed" as a Clinton camp Dem. strategist/consultant and her father was recently-deceased former Time Inc. boss Henry Grunwald.

This is not satire.

Matt Cooper's wife is Mandy Grunwald.
Mandy Grunwald is a Democratic media consultant, according to her own article in WashingtonPost.com on 6/8/03.

This is also discussed in Howard Kurtz's 7/7/05 article in WaPo.

Can't believe this is still... (Below threshold)
Bill M:

Can't believe this is still going.

"Regardless for the impetus to the outing of Plame, an illegal act has been done. "

What illegal act, please?

"Outing" Plame?

In order for her to have been "outed", she would have to have been undercover. Based on what has been in the news, she was (and still is) an employee of the CIA. This does not make her an agent, does not give her "undercover" status, nor does it require that her status be protected in any way. At one point in her career, she did operate undercover. However, due to the Aldrich Ames situation, she was recalled as there was the possibility that her "cover" had been blown by Ames. She was returned to Washington and was merrily working away at CIA. If you read the applicable statutes, you will see, if you open your eyes and can comprehend the English language, that her status at CIA does not lend itself to the situations involved as triggering elements for the law. Couple that with the fact that she is not an "agent", is not undercover, and that it was apparently well-known around Washington that she was employed at CIA, and you have the fact that she was not "outed." To refer to her as an "agent" or as being "undercover" is to falsify reality.

Isn't it interesting that Rove is being pilloried for telling the truth to the press about the Wilson op-ed, and Wilson is held up as a paragon of virtue for lying in the op-ed? Makes you kinda wonder about the press now, doesn't it?

And by the way, apparently the lawyers who were involved in drafting the law on this subject have said that, based on what they've seen, no violation of the law has occurred. I'd think they might know a thing or two about that, don't you?

Oh, and the NY Times, in one of it's filings in the case, asked for the contempt citations to be quashed, because no law had been broken...How's that again...no law broken, but Rove broke the law anyway. Sort of the old have your cake and eat it too routine. Ya sure, you betcha!

Hmmmm.1. "Uranium ... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

1. "Uranium from Niger....lie"

Incorrect. Bush's "16 words" were that Iraq **sought** yellowcake from Niger. Something that *Wilson* found evidence of.

2. "Imminent threat.......lie (and both Powell and Rice said as much as recently as 2001, if you don't like the source, watch the video: http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm"

ROFL! Ummm. Sorry but the lips don't synch with the words. Perhaps it's the utterly terrible quality of the video, but the lips do not synch. So I'm supposed to take this as absolute truth?

Plus: Bush never claimed that Iraq was an "Imminent threat". Bush repeatedly stated that Saddamn had to be deposed because WAITING UNTIL THERE WAS AN IMMINENT THREAT was not acceptable.

You should try to get your facts right. God knows it would help if you lefties would get your facts right.

And get a better video or at least chop the damn thing so the lips synch.

3. "aluminum tubes........lie"

Incorrect. The IAEA, which is not actually a credible organization considering it's ridiculous position on Iran, has tried to imply that the aluminum tubes were for rockets and not for gas diffusion. The only problem with that is that Iran purchased a helluva lot of tubes and the assumption, by the IAEA, that Iran knew exactly what kind of tubes to get, and that Iran didn't mess up the order because they didn't know better.

4. "45 minutes (although from the UK)....lie"

That was what Blair was told. If you've got a problem go complain to him and the Labor folks in the UK.

5. "reconstituting nuclear weapons...lie"

Just because they haven't been found doesn't mean that they didn't exist, or that they don't still exist. Due to the nonsense of going to the UN for endless rounds of talks and resolutions, Saddam had months to hide the stuff.

6. "links with Al Qaeda....lie""

Sorry, read the 9/11 Commission report. It'll help. God knows education is never hurtful.

Thank for you playing, good bye.

ed, an absolutely pathetic ... (Below threshold)
JmaR:

ed, an absolutely pathetic response and the sad thing is, I think you know it. It's over for these clowns and you are only standing by the justification for war crimes. That must really suck when you have to look in the mirror.

I love the way that a post ... (Below threshold)
chad:

I love the way that a post that is simply stating facts is "absolutely pathetic".

chad,In order to b... (Below threshold)
JmaR:

chad,

In order to be a fact there has to be some truth to it. Every counterargument that ed made was false. Phony, rightwing talking points that have been debunked. Keep spinning it boys, you'll be out of this hole in no time.

JmaR, where is your proof t... (Below threshold)
Jonnybrepublican:

JmaR, where is your proof that what ed is saying is not true? Before you start spewing "he's wrong, he's wrong", back it up with some facts that can be found. How incredibly juvenile of you.

Whether Rove is guilty or n... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Whether Rove is guilty or not, one has to admit that the stakes are much higher and the scandal much more damning to national security than what a certain intern did with a cigar.

Mike, that is hard one to a... (Below threshold)
Jonnybrepublican:

Mike, that is hard one to agree with. As I look at it, the President of the United States not only lied to his family, but lied to the people that he is to represent to the whole world. What else has he lied about? Trust is one of the most important things to have in somebody. How can you trust somebody, especially somebody who is the leader of the free world, that lies to your face not just once, but many times? This was a big deal.

I was much younger then and I didn't make much of the "scandal". I thought that everyone should just leave him alone. However, learning from a few of my own mistakes that dealt with trust, my perception has changed about President Clinton.

Now, comparing that episode in history to what is happening with the Rove/Plame/Wilson/Press...fiasco (because it is not a scandal), seems illogical. First of all, national security has not been threatened by any of the things being said by anyone. Valerie Plame, as far as we know, was not a covert/undercover CIA for many years. She was even photgraphed in Vanity Fair. Even her Washington neighbors said they knew she was in the CIA.

The only thing that has come out is that Wilson lied about his reportings and still lies everytime he gets on TV or the radio. If anybody should be on trial, it is Wilson. He has endangered all of us by lying about highly important information for a political agenda.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy