Ah, but Jay Tea, the New York Times and Pete Yost with AP are engaged in their most intense work yet on the Great-They-Must-Be-Guilty-Because-We-Will-It-So Mind Meld as I write this.

I agree with your introductory premise because, for most important starters (this defies the G-T-M-B-G-B-W-W-I-S Mind Meld intention, I realize), Valerie Plame has never been shown to have NOT been known to anyone else to work at The Agency (have they asked everyone in D.C. yet? No? Didn't think so).

Everyone interested in this needs to read the frickin' actual statemetns that Rove made to reporter/s, as with Libby's known statements also, and then realize that no one was ever named, beyond "(Joe Wilson's) wife" references.

And Joe Wilson is the person who had long before that entered the name of "Valerie Plame" in Who's Who In America -- the identity that his "wife" used as her alternate identity in her agenting. Not such a secret after all. Not even by a mile.

I am predicting no indictments... and also based on absolutely no inside information.

Anyone here think that Hillary had her nasty narly middle finger in the middle of the pie? I would not be too surprised ,if that was the case. It could be that Hellory was wanting algore to win the 2000 eletion so that she would have a clear road to the White House. No proof that any of something like this happening, just gut instinct.

Personally, I think that is just another ploy to damage the Republican Party, so that the Democrats can get back into power. Most of the American people have mostly entirely dismissed this as a another political witch hunt and this will hurt the Dems more than the Repubs.

So disingenuous I can't even stand it. If a Democrat outed an undercover CIA agent for political protection Wizbang wouldn't write about anything else until the person was burned at the stake.

They would be painted as anti-american, anti-defense, pro-terrorism, etc.

If Rove leaked the info he should be fired and there shouldn't be any arguement. Plain and simple.

The repubs took the President to trial for lying about a blowjob. If that is the bar, then your post can't even be remotely taken seriously.

If a Democrat outed an undercover CIA agent for political protection Wizbang wouldn't write about anything else until the person was burned at the stake....

If that is the bar, then your post can't even be remotely taken seriously.

Huh? I didn't see Jay Tea say anything about "Rove should be let off." He merely stated his opinion that he didn't believe that Rove broke any laws. From what is being reported, it seems like the prosecutor may be coming to the same conclusion.

Oops.

Somehow I didn't italicize the second part of Bill K's quote. Sorry if it causes any confusion.

If he leaked the information, where does if he broke the law matter?

That is the basic point. It has never been about the law. It wasn't about the law with Clinton. It wouldn't have been about the law with a democrat doing the same thing.

Sometimes an act, due to intentions, can be lawful but also not representative of what should be done at the highest levels of government.

I don't know why I wrote Steve L there. That last post was mine.

Steve L.

What precise elements would need to be "leaked" to make the leak immoral or unethical? Also, what subjective knowledge must the leaker possess for it to be deemed evil?

Now, tell us the exact elements that were "leaked," and what was the knowledge or state of mind of the leaker?

Also, who was the first "leak," and how did that "leaked" information change the pre-existing state of knowledge about who was Wilson's wife, and what was her occupation?

Please, methodically lay those out for us. I suspect you'll find you, like the rest of us, are missing some information.

BOTH left and right have been throwing nothing but speculation and conjecture throughout the investigation.

Fitgerald knows what he is doing. Until then, everyone should just shut up and wait to hear directly from the source.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/index.html

Mark,

Leaking information that makes a CIA agents identify public when before it was undercover about covers it.

When it is done to protect a political agenda a nice layer of assholeness is added.

Thanks, DUDACKATTACK! Not many have expressed your wisdom.

Bill K:

Your response begs a lot of questions, and it contains some vague and ambiguous elements. So please break it down like I asked.

I've always believed that the severity of this incident is proportional to one's belief in liberal tin foil hat conspiracies.

If you believe that the White House is controlled by some diabolical uber-conspiracy masterminded by Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and maybe a few other shadowy figures, then this story is a goldmine because it "proves" that such a conspiracy exists.

Sans the tinfoil, most everything to do with this story makes believable sense. People have trouble remembering conversations from two years ago because none of them thought that they were talking about anything out of the ordinary. Robert Novak published his column because he thought that the identity and vocation of Valerie Plame were public knowledge. President Bush was upset with Rove because he eschews personal attacks, and felt that dragging Wilson's wife into this ordeal was unnecessary.

The bottom line is that you can't "leak" something that isn't a secret; even if indictments are handed down, it seems that the government will have a difficult time proving a conspiracy or proving that the White House knowingly blew the cover of a "secret agent."

well, the dems did out a under cover spy, or agent, and john kerry did it, in committee. hte stupid idiot. but repubs don't scream for special prosecution as the dems always do. for some reason. repubs rely on the voters to out the bad pols.

and slick willy didn't get impeached for a blowjob. he perjuried himself. that's against the law, and impeachable.

Seems obvious to me, but apparently not to a few above, that this case went From CIA to the DoJ. They handed it off to Fitzgerald. Two fed Judges signed off on Fitzgerald imprisoning Miller. Now why would any of this take place if there wasn't pretty solid evidence somewhere that a crime had been commited? I'd say you've got to be a right-wing tinfoil hat wearer to think that this is all just hot air.

Seems obvious to me, but apparently not to a few above. This case went From somwhere in the CIA to the DoJ. Then DoJ looke dinto it and handed it off to Fitzgerald. Then two different Fed Judges reviewed it and signed off on Fitzgerald imprisoning Miller. Now why would any of this take place if there wasn't pretty solid evidence somewhere that a crime had been commited? I'd say you've got to be a right-wing tinfoil hat wearer to think that this is all just hot air.

Sorry about the sloppy posting.

Woop woop:

First, Fitzgerald didn't imprison Miller. The judge did when she was found in contempt of court.

Second, the process you described is the same process that occurs every time a grand jury determines no crime has been committed.

By your reasoning, the very existence of every investigation or indictment or criminal prosecution means the potential defendant must be guilty. That doesn't reflect reality, or our social and legal policy.

I'm a liberal democrat and this is how I see it. I believe that Rove, Libby, Hannah and others tried to impugn Wilson's statements by implying he was sent on his fact finding trip as a boodoggle set up nepotistically (is that a word) by his wife. They also argued that contrary to Wilson's statements Cheney hadn't sent him on the mission. In my opinion Wilson had never made this claim, but they (Rove et al.) had to work with what they had and it wasn't much. Rove and Libby had to niggle at the edges of Wilson's report because its substance, i.e. that there was no solid evidence of recent attempts to get yellowcake and the documents were fraudulent, was largely correct. I find it difficult to believe that Rove or Libby knew that she was undercover. They play hard ball (even to my mind dirty) but I think that they would draw the line at outing an undercover agent. They probably found out about Plame's position at the CIA either directly from the memo that Powell had requested, or from someone who read it. However, this doesn't explain why Novak used the word 'operative'. This has a very specific meaning and he is savy enough to appreciate that. I suspect that Rove and Libby realized that the political fallout from the leak was potentially damaging so they tried to cover it up. This is what the indictments will be primarily about: the cover up, not the original act. Prosecutors do not like being lied to. Will these indictiments (if they happen) make me happy? Yes. Rove's weapon of choice has always been attack politics. Conservatives are seeing this modus operandi on the Miers nomination and they don't like it. I'm an idealist. I prefer to argue the issues. I know that many conservatives feel the same way. Unfortunately Bush would have difficulty enacting much of his agenda if he had to stick to the facts. On the other hand, I will be concerned if Rove is gone because he may the only person in the White House who knows his ass from a hole in the ground. Sorry for the long post.

I have absolutely zero inside knowledge about the circumstances; this is all just wild speculation.

Same here, except for the speculation part. I've tried to refrain from commenting on this case until some solid info comes out. The only thing I know for sure in all of this is Fitzgerald is a straight shooter. He has been here in Chicago, and I'm sure whatever he finds will be legit (even on the off-chance that BR's crazy CIA theory turns out to be true).

Gee Whiz: I know Karly Rove really really well and he would never tell a lie or do anything naughty. He is "just swell" and all we ace White House Press reporters just love him to death. very truly yours, Jeffy "Scoop"Gannon, Talon Faux News
p.s. I approve thisa message, Mary Carrey, GOP porn Queen

Regardless of the outcome of this inquiry, one fact is clear: President Bush has no ethics.

In his words and actions, the President has shown that his administration's behavior is limited only by the letter of the law. During his press conference 3 weeks ago, he responded to a question about ethics violations in his administration with, "I expect my people to follow the law."

It's clear that if the President has any ethical standard, it is below the threshhold of our laws, and as such does not figure into his decisionmaking. This is a disturbing quality in our nation's leader. I would hope that our President would act in a way that creates trust and admiration, not disgust.

Why does this matter? Because President Bush used false information to convince America to invade Iraq. Until now I gave the President the benefit of the doubt that he was honestly mistaken about WMD's, but now that he has shown that he has no ethical standard, I must conclude that he may have tricked us into war.

I look forward to a time when I admire the man in office.

Prediction: despite the indictments, President Bush will insist that he will not fire an aide until they have been proven guilty of a crime - hoping his term ends beforehand.

My tinfoil hat theory is that Plame, Wilson and most likely several top Dems tried to set the whole thing up along with the mostly anti-Semitic CIA and State Dept.

They got caught and are now trying to frame the WH for it.

The basic facts are the only person caught repeatedly lying in this whole affair is Wilson.

He claimed in the Times there was no evidence, but later reports showed that he did hear Iraq make inquires.

He said his wife had nothing to do with sending, but memos turn showing she most certainly did.

He said he saw the fake documents....somehow saw them some months before they were availble.

I think Libby and Rove tried to wave off a couple of reporters they were friendly with from following a story that was going to blow up in their face.

I think the Times reporter went to jail, not because of some noble cause, but because she was holding out on Fitzgerald limiting his questioning to Libby only and not to other possible sources. Gee, who else wrote for the Times about this case that would have known about Ms Plame? Perhaps Wilson? Hmmmmmm...face it, she hadn't been undercover for 5 years and Wilson and Plame were widely seen around the social scene in DC....and it was known she worked at the CIA building....she was spoiled goods to begin with and this was Wilson's way of taking a shot at the President and earning some sympathy for his wife at the same time...

Faith+1 is more consistent with everything I've heard than anyone else. We don't have all the facts, but the common thread through everything that's been leaked by both sides so far is that Wilson is the only demonstrated liar, and a repeater, at that.

That sounds too good to be true, and I am eager to hear the outcome of Fitzgerald's investigation. Until then, both sides should probably shut up. Really, the speculation is ridiculous--especially among those who have already hung the White House. And, ya gotta roll your eyes at the pessimists who don't expect indictments, but wanna call ethics fouls.

The irony is that if the law calls something fair game, how can it be deemed unethical? Its not like there aren't laws precisely governing this issue. For example, if there is a law that defines "covert agent" and someone does not meet that definition, how can an ethical or moral violation be derived from that? Aren't people entitled to rely on the law?

OK Moby Andrew, explain to us why the Clinton administration was claiming all during the 90s that Iraq had WMDs. And why Clinton said in 2003 that Iraq had WMDs the day he left office?

Like everyone else, most of what I know about this case is speculation. But there are some facts. First, if a senior White House official who is privy to a lot of sensitive information finds out that someone works at the CIA, he doesn't assume it's OK to tell a reporter because he "didn't know" she was covert. As far as I'm concerned, the default is that you assume it's sensitive information until you've satisfied yourself that it's not. I hardly think it's a defense to say Rove and/or Libby were just being reckless with sensitive information.

Second, we're starting to hear this talking point a lot now: "It's difficult to remember conversations you had two years ago." Yeah, it would be if you had no reason to think about them in the intervening two years. Rove and Libby have had every reason to recreate every conversation they had on this issue since shortly after Novak's column came out and this whole thing started to blow up. It's just disingenuous to use this "two year" ploy.

As far as speculation goes, I have yet to see any evidence that Rove and Cooper had any kind of "friendly" relationship. Libby and Miller were obviously close, but the notion that friendly old Karl Rove, despite his disdain for the press, was just trying to keep Cooper from getting burned on a story makes no sense.

The whole issue of the Who's Who is also specious. Joe Wilson was well known as an ambassador. He had a wife. Her name was Valerie Wilson, nee Plame. No one is claiming any of this is a secret, so the fact that her name was in Who's Who is totally irrelevant. I don't believe the Who's Who entry mentioned that she worked for the CIA, which is the secret part. And despite the constant repetition that "everyone knew" that she worked at the CIA, I'd like to see where that's been verified. I suspect it's part of that blogging conventional wisdom that clogs up the discourse on these matters. I have read interviews with their neighbors, who to a person say they never knew that Plame worked for the CIA. Someone please substabtiate that everyone knew.

I have also read that you actually can't go to Langley and just watch every CIA employee go in and out of the building. I can't say this is fact, but logically, what kind of intelligence agency would allow all of their employees to be identified in this way? I suspect security around that building might be just a little tighter than that. This strikes me as more conventional wisdom. Someone heard that she had a desk at Langley, (which may be true, but I have yet to see verified) and just assumed that it would be impossible for her to be covert. And you know what happens when we assume. We make an ass out of the Bush administration.

And finally, in the hope springs eternal department, there's this quote from Steve L: "He merely stated his opinion that he didn't believe that Rove broke any laws. From what is being reported, it seems like the prosecutor may be coming to the same conclusion." Being reported where? NewsMax? There may not turn out to be any indictments, but I'm curious what reporting you're seeing that points that way. Senior White House officials have reportedly been telling freinds they expect to be indicted. Yes, it's unsubstatiated, but that kind of reporting doesn't lead me to think there won't be any indictments.

It's also amusing to see the references to liberal moonbat conspiracy theories, then read speculation that this whole thing was a setup by Wilson, who leaked his own wife's name so Bush would look bad. I feel obligated to point out that this comes under the heading of "pulled it out of your ass." And Faith1, "He claimed in the Times there was no evidence, but later reports showed that he did hear Iraq make inquires." Wrong. He was told by the former Prime Minister of Niger that he expected Iraq to ask for yellowcake when they met with officils from the Niger government, but the subject never came up. How could he "hear Iraq make inquires?" Do you think he was in the room when the Iraqis were discussing this stuff? C'mon, get your head in the game.

OK, I keep going back and seeing more craziness. "President Bush was upset with Rove because he eschews personal attacks" Huh? See, McCain, South Carolina.

If you were to find out from a reporter that someone worked for the CIA, one would probably assume that the person was not covert.

Chris,

"Wrong. He was told by the former Prime Minister of Niger that he expected Iraq to ask for yellowcake when they met with officils from the Niger government, but the subject never came up. How could he "hear Iraq make inquires?""

I suggest you read the report. Page 49, last paragraph. It did come up.

Chris,

'Wrong. He was told by the former Prime Minister of Niger that he expected Iraq to ask for yellowcake when they met with officils from the Niger government, but the subject never came up."

It did come up. See page 49, bottom paragraph. According to Wilson, the former PM clearly told him that in June 1999, an Iraqi delegation sought to purchase yellowcake, but Niger rejected the opportunity.

Chris,

You can, indeed, go out and watch employees drive up to the building in Langley. Was only a few years ago when someone walked up to the line of cars piled up for ID checks and shot three or four of the employees. I live less than an hour from there.

Not everyone that "works at the CIA" is an undercover agent....and it is very naive to think agents use the front door.

I have several friends and neighbors who "work at the CIA". It's no secret they do. I have no clue whether any of them are under-cover agents or not. They openly talk about working for the CIA, but they don't talk about what they do necesarily.

And Chris, no, I did not pull it out of my ass. As someone pointed, try actually reading Wilson's report and comprehending instead of just reading what left-wing websites want you to read. The Nigerian clearly told Wilson that Iraq intended to meet with them to discuss purchasing what the Nigerian said was clearly yellowcake. That's what I meant by "heard Iraq make inquires". Niger refused to meet with them. This was also confirmed by British Intelligence as well (which is what the President said in the SOTU speech). I have my head in the game, you don't. I've actually read the report.

Again, the only person in this whole thing caught repeatedly lying is Wilson. I don't think he leaked his wife's name with the intent of framing the WH. I think he repeatedly and openly acknowledged she worked for the CIA (very likely in a cocktail party my-wife-is-better-than-your-wife braggart way).

I think the whole thing started as a setup by Wilson and Plame to boost his career and she used her position on the WMD team to influence his being chosen to go. That part has been proven as fact with the revelation of several memos and emails.

I think he wanted to bash Bush and try to look impartial and non-political, despite his having worked extremly hard in both the Gore and Kerry campaigns. When it started being known that his wife set up the trip for him to go and the outcome was pre-determined the whole "they revealed my wife the spy" just fell in their laps. Except he had been prepping reporters for a big blow out story busting the WH and had most likely told them his info was good because his wife worked on the CIA WMD team.

And again he lied about the forged documents, claiming he saw them months before they existed. Only two paths to go there....he either lied about the forged documents after the fact (and btw, the forged docs were about a second inquiry about Iraq and yellow cake and were never considered serious) or he had privvy information to CIA documents that weren't public knowledge at the time.

Want to guess which CIA office received those forged docs for analysis? Wy by God the same office Ms Plame worked in. Makes ya think. did he lie about seeing the docs or did his wife know about there existence long before it was publicly acknowledged and showed them to him before it was legal to do so? Can't have that revealed.

My real tinfoil hat theory is that his wife got the original faked docs months before it was acknowledged, showed them to Wilson and they hatched a plan to bash the WH and come out looking like whistle blowers. Write a book and cash in since their careers were over and if the WH countered it would look like a partisan attack. With the press so hell bent anti-Bush it wouldn't be hard to get the Times and a few reporters to lean their way. We now know Cheny didn't send Wilson. The whole trip was conceived and planned by Wilson's wife and she pushed to have him sent.

As for Rove/Cooper not liking each other. They don't have to for a mutaully beneficial relationship to exist. I didn't say they were lovers. It's not uncommon for insiders to offer reporters the odd bone of info for a little heads up on what is being investigated--even if they despise them. I think Rove told Cooper and Libby told the other lady to back off or the Times would end up looking like another Jason-type story on their hands. Wilson's story was so badly put together it should have been pretty obvious and it STILL hasn't been investigated thouroughly by the MSM because they are so focused on getting Rove they don't see it.

Lots of speculation, but one thing for sure: It's water UNDER the bridge, not OVER it, unless Rove is thinking of some flood area. Try water OVER the dam is you insist on OVER something.

The last paragraph on Page 49 of the Senate Intelligence Committee report (which I was directed to read by Mark and Faith+1, despite the fact that I've already read it) says that the staff asked the CIA about Iraq trying to buy yellowcake, and they were told that Iraq did make an attempt. That didn't come from Wilson, and my point was in relation to Wilson's veracity. And I have read the report, more than once. I suggest also reading the rebuttal from the Democratic senators, instead of just relying on Pat Roberts covering for the White House. If you read the last paragraph on Page 43, it details Wilson's meeting with the former PM of Niger. The only mention of yellowcake comes from the PM, who says he "assumed" that's what Iraq wanted to talk about. He also makes it clear it was never discussed. Remember, my point was about whether Wilson told the truth, not whether Iraq ever tried to buy yellowcake. Wilson reported what he heard, which was that the Nigerien PM made an assumption. That's all it turned out to be.

As for "it is very naive to think agents use the front door" at the CIA, thank you for making my point. It is assumed by others that it is impossible for Plame to have had a desk there without walking in and out of the front door. And by the way, didn't they change the access to the building after the shooting? And don't you think they're watching the watchers, and have some sense if someone is surveilling the building?

"We now know Cheny didn't send Wilson. The whole trip was conceived and planned by Wilson's wife and she pushed to have him sent." We knew all along that Cheney didn't send Wilson. Try reading his op-ed, instead of what right wing websites want you to think. The right has been beating this dead horse for so long that it's become more of your conventional wisom. But Wilson not only never claimed Cheney sent him, he has explicitly said that he didn't think Cheney knew about his trip in advance. I'd like to see a link to where he said otherwise.

And I don't believe his wife "sent " him. That came from a State Department person who was at the debriefing. The exact quote from the report follows: "An INR analyst's notes indicate that the meeting was 'apparently convened by (the former ambassador's) wife who had the idea to di