Leaker in Plame case - Karl Rove?

[Sayhey]

Lawrence O'Donnell claims to know the source for Matt Cooper's information on Valerie Plame's status as a CIA agent. None other than Karl Rove himself. It has been rumored for a long while, but if true could well mean a trial for Rove.

MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case

By E&P Staff

Published: July 01, 2005 11:30 PM ET
NEW YORK Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Tonight, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.

Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's remarks:

"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury, the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.

"And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."

Other panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper. link (http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972839)

[zimv20]

"suggest a perjury rap?" what about treason and a death sentence?

[Thomas Veil]

Indeed. This is the kind of thing which, in the past, has gotten people executed for treason.

Rove has always been my #1 suspect. From what I've read about him, he's mean-spirited, a sociopath and a revenge freak. It would not be unlike him.

[Xtremehkr]

You know Democrats support a womans right to choose though. Besides that, Valerie needed to be exposed, she was asking for it.

[IJ Reilly]

How would O'Donnell be privy to this information, I wonder? If he isn't right, he's going to look quite the fool. If he is right, Rove deserves to be hung by his thumbs. And I'm sure every Republican agrees. Right?

[skunk]

And I'm sure every Republican agrees. Right?Funny, it's gone awfully quiet in here all of a sudden...

[Xtremehkr]

This is coming from many different sources now. The basis for these claims supposedly lays in the documents that have been ordered released.

As the scandals add up, the lies become exposed, and the hypocrisies are exposed, you have to wonder how much more has to be done before people really start questioning why they want to put their faith in these people.

There is no low for this Administration, and yet there are people who believe in and defend them. Religious people as well, who are still under the impression that it is for some kind of greater good.

[Ugg]

The precedent is unfortunate but I can't help but wonder if Time is doing this more out of political motivation. Whatever, if it is Rove, how will he run the country from inside a prison, or worse in front of a firing squad? bushco is all in favor of executing those without redeeming social qualities, n'est ce pas?

[skunk]

bushco is all in favor of executing those without redeeming social qualities, n'est ce pas?Isn't that a recipe for mass suicide at the White House?

[ham_man]

How would O'Donnell be privy to this information, I wonder? If he isn't right, he's going to look quite the fool. If he is right, Rove deserves to be hung by his thumbs. And I'm sure every Republican agrees. Right?
Being a conservative, I respect Carl Rove. However, if he is in any way responsible for this, he should be removed in some way, shape or form from his position...

[stubeeef]

Being a conservative, I respect Carl Rove. However, if he is in any way responsible for this, he should be removed in some way, shape or form from his position...

If you believe lying under oath is a crime then yes he should be treated like a criminal if it is proven he is, Just like clinton should have, I think every democrat would agree, right! I thought so.

[skunk]

If you believe lying under oath is a crime then yes he should be treated like a criminal if it is proven he is, Just like clinton should have, I think every democrat would agree, right! I thought so.Even I, an ignorant foreigner unfamiliar with your arcane language, can tell that you are comparing apples with oranges. Not a productive occupation in any language.

[latergator116]

If you believe lying under oath is a crime then yes he should be treated like a criminal if it is proven he is, Just like clinton should have, I think every democrat would agree, right! I thought so.

I don't think Clinton should have been put under oath in the first place. Instead of answering the question and lying, he should have said "that is none of your business and is not relevent to my presidency," or something similar.

[stubeeef]

Even I, an ignorant foreigner unfamiliar with your arcane language, can tell that you are comparing apples with oranges. Not a productive occupation in any language.

Lying under oath is Lying under oath. When apples lie under oath, they are doing the same as oranges when they lie under oath. No matter your definition of "is".
If you are comparing why they are under oath, than yes these are different reasons. Murder is murder whether for love or money, different reasons with the same real outcome.
If Rove is found guilty, then sentence him. I have no problem with that. I have no support for the illegalities of Nixon nor Clinton.

[skunk]

And Reagan?

[stubeeef]

And Reagan?

Is he an apple or an orange?

Or Carter, or Johnson, or Kennedy, or every single President before and since.

[skunk]

Maybe you don't acknowledge a difference between failing as a man and failing as a President. I do.

[stubeeef]

Wether or not I agree with the political ideas of a party or not, does not close my eyes to the fact that every single administration has done illegitamate crap from time to time. White lies, black lies, boldface lies, whatever. Based on the "man" or the "office" it still happens and will continue to.
Are some more or less worse than others? I don't know, I just know that when our leader, dem or rep, stands up under oath and lies to the nation, it is the wrong thing to do. When they do it to pursue National Interest I can't say it is better either.
If having sex and lying about it, is a failing of the man only, than I beg to differ. As president, it is a misuse of trust (intern and all) and as the Commander and Chief, an infraction of the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice), as well as the civilian problem of perjury.
If lying about arms sales to the central americans is a failing of a president, than fine, atleast it was in that persons view, a benefit to a country and not himself. Still wrong, less selfish, and violates loads of laws as well.
The man being the "apple" (biblical fall) and the president being "oranges", I see the apple as selfish and stupid, the orange being stupid.

[IJ Reilly]

I think we're beginning to see the form damage control will take if Rove is indeed the leaker. We'll hear nonstop references to Clinton's alleged crimes and various other distractions and obfuscations, and little if any outrage coming from the Republican side directed at Rove, and certainly no insistence that he be prosecuted for what is clearly a federal crime. No Republican who wishes to ever attend a party function again will call it an act of treason, though every last one of them would if a Democrat, let alone a Democratic president's chief political advisor in the White House, had done anything even remotely similar.

It's all perfectly predictable, really. Defend the party at all costs.

[miloblithe]

That's a valid point. Lying for your own benefit is clearly something different from lying for the sake of the country. The flip side of that though is if you're wrong about your reasons, you've added perjury to screwing the country over. It also seems hard to believe that the Bush administration was that naive and idealistic to believe that Iraq and Afghanistan would be easily set up in a few years into model democracies. I think you're right. They lied about this going into it because they believed it was in their own best interest: a state of permanent war that they could exploit for their own financial and political gain.

[Xtremehkr]

Clinton?

This is about Karl Rove, who is currently the issue. And whose actions not only include lying but directly and purposefully breaking federal law for political retaliation.

Lets not forget the difference. Rove knew what he was doing and why he did it, assuming it was Rove. Whoever did do it, knew the same.

Clinton broke no federal laws and was his personal life was politicized because his political life was untouchable, though they tried to harm both. The sole reason of putting him under oath was to make a big deal out of the fact that he was under oath. Cause apparently that is what make all the difference, not what he was lying about or anything.

Besides, Clinton lied and nobody died. If you want to bring liars into the issue, our current President trumps all.

So, for once, it would be nice to stay on topic and actually deal with Karl Rove who is the issue here, like it or not. Karl Rove who has been acting with seeming impunity over the past decade or more may have finally gone too far again. Karl Rove is the person who has potentially broken federal law.

Unless you think that nothing should be punished because an example of someone else having done it can be found, it seems like people should be judged individually on the seriousness of what they have done. Or why not just go around killing people, OJ and Robert Blake did it.

[Xtremehkr]

Link. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/)

Newsweek breaks the story. If only the Downing Street Memo had received this much attention.

[mcarvin]

Link. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/)

Newsweek breaks the story. If only the Downing Street Memo had received this much attention.

Plame is to GWB as Watergate was to Nixon - the spark that lit the fire and broke an administration wide open. The Memo should (!) come into play if there's a grand jury or special investigation ordered.

[Xtremehkr]

I was thinking along similar lines, the DSM may have been too much to start with. But this is a good example of how these people operate. Either way, it is becoming apparent that the Administration had a direct role in exposing Plame and knowingly broke the law. Which makes a bold faced liar of GWB, who vowed to go after the leaker, in much the same way OJ is still looking for the real killer it seems.

[mcarvin]

I was thinking along similar lines, the DSM may have been too much to start with. But this is a good example of how these people operate. Either way, it is becoming apparent that the Administration had a direct role in exposing Plame and knowingly broke the law. Which makes a bold faced liar of GWB, who vowed to go after the leaker, in much the same way OJ is still looking for the real killer it seems.

I want to say that Rove's strategies and tactics over his career would eventually backfire on him at some point. And should that ever happen, it ain't gonna be for a stupid little jaywalking offense. I just hope that if there's an independent prosecutor, that that person is tenacious enough to turn over every rock during the investigation.

This has his fingerprints all over it. If the charge is levied against him and he's found guilty, and just one single undercover operative lost a life as a result, he should swing from the rafters. I would not be a fair juror for that case.

[Xtremehkr]

Well, I believe that politics/government are a necessary part of a nation existing as whole. And while there is and has been the abuse of the powers given, in the end people will conclude that there is a need for a body that mediates and balances the needs of society. It is a process that requires infinite adjustment, and while things can go horribly wrong at some points, I am optimistic about it leading to constructive reform. As long as these mistakes are learned from, the outcome will be positive. It's just unfortunate that so many of the same mistakes seem to be repeated, the solution to that is difficult but worth fighting for.

[zimv20]

I just hope that if there's an independent prosecutor, that that person is tenacious enough to turn over every rock during the investigation.

it's patrick fitzgerald, who prior to receiving this case was the lead prosecutor in what's called the 'license for bribe' scandal in illinois. he handed out a number of indictments, including to former IL governor george ryan. my impression is that his investigation was very thorough.

his plame investigation is the reason the Time editor turned over the emails.

[solvs]

Lying under oath is Lying under oath.
This isn't about lying. If true, Rove commited a treasonous act. Clinton's just a sex pervert. BIG difference. But yeah, if James Carville did this, I would feel the same way. I don't expect him to be put to death or anything (we should be more civilized that that, not that Bush was when he was in Texas), but he should at least be fired. If not jail time. Not that I see that happening. He is the Bush administration. They'll probably just find some patsy, and only go through the motions with that if enough people care. Like the DSM, we'll see if anyone does.

Otherwise, we all go back to bitching, and nothing gets done.

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/7700.jpg

[zimv20]

I don't expect him to be put to death or anything (we should be more civilized that that, not that Bush was when he was in Texas)
generally, i'm against capital punishment, though i'll make an exception here and there. in addition to a sentence, rove should be stripped of his citizenship. it'd be interesting to see which, if any, country would take him.

if it ever comes to rove having to make a statement in his defense, i expect he'll say that he didn't know ms plame actually was working for the CIA, therefore dodging the technicality that one has to knowingly out an agent for it to be a crime.

[skunk]

generally, i'm against capital punishment, though i'll make an exception here and there. in addition to a sentence, rove should be stripped of his citizenship. it'd be interesting to see which, if any, country would take him.Is there actually any chance of any of this happening? I didn't think anyone in this crooked Administration would be held accountable for anything.

[zimv20]

Is there actually any chance of any of this happening? I didn't think anyone in this crooked Administration would be held accountable for anything.
during this adminstration, probably not. though there may be a sacrificial patsy.

i should mention that the fitzgerald indictment of george ryan was handed out after ryan left office (which is when most of the investigation took place). 'license for bribe' was a scandal brewing for years and the legal proceedings are ongoing. so perhaps, during a future adminstration, we'll see some justice.

[skunk]

I just noticed: "Location: London"????? Where are you?

<looks over shoulder nervously>

[zimv20]

other shoulder...

i'm on holiday in london, staying with some friends in hackney.

.....

it occurs to me that bush would pardon rove, if convicted. perhaps it behooves the dems to insist on a long, thorough process, the result of which can be indictments handed out after bush has left office.

[mcarvin]

it's patrick fitzgerald, who prior to receiving this case was the lead prosecutor in what's called the 'license for bribe' scandal in illinois. he handed out a number of indictments, including to former IL governor george ryan. my impression is that his investigation was very thorough.

his plame investigation is the reason the Time editor turned over the emails.

I was just reading the TIME article about 10 minutes ago and saw his name mentioned. Not to threadjack, but how pathetic is american media when there's a special investigation into an issue of this order, and people don't even know.

Did anyone not know who Ken Starr was all those years ago? His name led the news every day for years.

[skunk]

i'm on holiday in london, staying with some friends in hackney.Welcome to our little town. Remember, we never tire of talking about the weather and Ken's Congestion Charge. And Sir Bob, of course.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Rove is the presidents #1 it seems, does anyone think that with a republican president and congress anything is going to happen??? I dont. The Law is only for spin, as we have seen many many times with these guys the laws means little when your republican and run the show.

[zimv20]

Welcome to our little town. Remember, we never tire of talking about the weather and Ken's Congestion Charge. And Sir Bob, of course.
thank you. i've also discovered endless suggestions on the best tube/bus combo when i've asked how to get somewhere. as it's my 4th visit, i am kinda getting to know my way around now.

i would really like to move here.

[Thomas Veil]

Is there actually any chance of any of this happening? I didn't think anyone in this crooked Administration would be held accountable for anything.I fully expect that if Rove is indeed the culprit, that they will find some way to stall, obfuscate, and otherwise drag out this affair until the end of Bush's administration...at which time Bush will issue Rove a presidential pardon. (Who knows, perhaps when we find out what happened to those billions of missing dollars intended for Iraq, Cheney and Rumsfeld will need to be pardoned as well.)

[IJ Reilly]

Rove admits talking to Cooper, but he's is still steadfastly denying giving him Valerie Plame, so either it's somebody else in the White House (bad enough), or Rove has lied several times to the investigators (a huge scandal). Place your bets, gentlemen.

[FFTT]

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld deserve to be " outed " for their corruption
and sent to prison for high treason.

They have lied cheated and manipulated the truth every way possible
in order to channel untold billions to the elite industrialists.

Meanwhile 1700 of our troops and countless civilians have perished
along with more than 40,000 serious injuries scaring our brave true patriots
for the rest of their lives.

I can't wait to see Bush and his colleagues drummed out in disgrace
for what they have done to this country.

[zimv20]

point of clarification -- is it possible to pardon someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime? i.e. can bush pre-emptively clear rove of any/all wrongdoing by executive fiat?

[Sayhey]

point of clarification -- is it possible to pardon someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime? i.e. can bush pre-emptively clear rove of any/all wrongdoing by executive fiat?

yes, Gerald Ford did just that when he pardoned Nixon.

[Inspector Lee]

Wether or not I agree with the political ideas of a party or not, does not close my eyes to the fact that every single administration has done illegitamate crap from time to time. White lies, black lies, boldface lies, whatever. Based on the "man" or the "office" it still happens and will continue to.

There is no right or left with these guys, no liberal or conservative. It is "thief" or "non-thief." All the big issues (read: bones) that are thrown to the people like abortion, capital punishment, gay marriage, stem cell research are distractions to facilitate the big money grab that goes on whether the president is/was Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc. While we verbally beat the heck out of each other, the foxes have gotten into the hen-house.

In essence, they all drink from the same trough (the one we aren't allowed to drink from) and it is only their position at the trough that changes over time. Right now, the "democrats" are located a little further down the trough but they are still getting their drink. Hence, their contentness with a lot of the BS that is going on with this admin.

And the media's role? Gauge what will give the highest ratings (read: most $$$) and run with it, jam it into the television minds and switch to something else when it starts to wane. Pure genius.

And Rove holds dual citizenship in Germany. So if he did leak the name and the you-know-what goes down (which it won't), he can always leave the country.

[IJ Reilly]

yes, Gerald Ford did just that when he pardoned Nixon.

You beat me to it. :)

But can you imagine the brouhaha that would ensue if Bush pardoned Rove, or anybody else connected with this incident?

Oh boy. I don't know about you but I'd take up residence under my desk.

[Thomas Veil]

And Rove holds dual citizenship in Germany. So if he did leak the name and the you-know-what goes down (which it won't), he can always leave the country.How appropriate. ;)

(I'm trying to be very subtle here, can you tell? ;) ;) ;) )

[skunk]

You beat me to it. :)

But can you imagine the brouhaha that would ensue if Bush pardoned Rove, or anybody else connected with this incident?A raised eyebrow and a cynical shrug? Does that qualify as a brouhaha?

[IJ Reilly]

A raised eyebrow and a cynical shrug? Does that qualify as a brouhaha?

No, but I think it qualifies as a twitch.

[Xtremehkr]

Link. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/featuredposts.html#a003531)

Lawrence O'Donnell
It's Rove...
I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.

McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis.

Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow.

Let's see how much farther this Administration can bend the laws of the land.

[Sayhey]

You beat me to it. :)

But can you imagine the brouhaha that would ensue if Bush pardoned Rove, or anybody else connected with this incident?

Oh boy. I don't know about you but I'd take up residence under my desk.

Very true, but depending on how high up the decision to out Plame goes it still might be the smartest move Bush could make. It's not likely this Congress will do anything about a preemptive move by Bush. Of course, it then becomes the issue of next year's elections.

[IJ Reilly]

Let's see how much farther this Administration can bend the laws of the land.

O'Donnell posts again this morning on the Rove connection.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/update-on-rove_3584.html

He's certainly sticking to his story even though the Time story he predicted didn't exactly say "it's Rove!"

[IJ Reilly]

Very true, but depending on how high up the decision to out Plame goes it still might be the smartest move Bush could make. It's not likely this Congress will do anything about a preemptive move by Bush. Of course, it then becomes the issue of next year's elections.

Go find your own desk. ;)

Inasmuch as I'd like to see the miscreant rooted out, I'm getting the terrible sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach that no matter how this works out it will be a deeply unpleasant, all-the-air-sucked-out-of-the-room experience.

[Sayhey]

Go find your own desk. ;)

Inasmuch as I'd like to see the miscreant rooted out, I'm getting the terrible sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach that no matter how this works out it will be a deeply unpleasant, all-the-air-sucked-out-of-the-room experience.

If I remember my school day's "under the desk" drills correctly, they were not terribly effective as a shelter against fallout. I think heading for the hills and living in some deep dark cave maybe the only way to avoid the political battles to come. I'll try the Trinity Alps - maybe Bigfoot will share.
;)

[Xtremehkr]

O'Donnell posts again this morning on the Rove connection.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/update-on-rove_3584.html

He's certainly sticking to his story even though the Time story he predicted didn't exactly say "it's Rove!"

Update on Rove
On Friday, I broke the story that the e-mails that Time turned over to the prosecutor that day reveal that Karl Rove is the source Matt Cooper is protecting. That provoked Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin, to interrupt his holiday weekend to do a little defense work with Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times. On Saturday, Luskin decided to reveal that Rove did have at least one conversation with Cooper, but Luskin told the Times he would not “characterize the substance of the conversation.”

Luskin claimed that the prosecutor “asked us not to talk about what Karl has had to say.” This is highly unlikely. Prosecutors have absolutely no control over what witnesses say when they leave the grand jury room. Rove can tell us word-for-word what he said to the grand jury and would if he thought it would help him. And notice that Luskin just did reveal part of Rove’s grand jury testimony, the fact that he had a conversation with Cooper. Rove would not let me get one day of traction on this story if he could stop me. If what I have reported is not true, if Karl Rove is not Matt Cooper’s source, Rove could prove that instantly by telling us what he told the grand jury. Nothing prevents him from doing that, except a good lawyer who is trying to keep him out of jail.

The media, as always lately, are acting in a manner that is overly cautious and sheepish. Even the media outlets that have some measure of respectability left are timid and reluctant to do anything against this administration.

[IJ Reilly]

If I remember my school day's "under the desk" drills correctly, they were not terribly effective as a shelter against fallout. I think heading for the hills and living in some deep dark cave maybe the only way to avoid the political battles to come. I'll try the Trinity Alps - maybe Bigfoot will share.
;)

Correct -- it would be a purely symbolic and ineffectual duck-and-cover exercise, in keeping with the spirit of the way the country is being run today.

[solvs]

The media, as always lately, are acting in a manner that is overly cautious and sheepish. Even the media outlets that have some measure of respectability left are timid and reluctant to do anything against this administration.
Can you blame them? That's what this is all about, they go after your family. This whole thing started because they wanted revenge on her husband. I have been a critic of the media as much as anybody here, but between the corporate giants that own them and wrath of the administration, especially after 9/11, it can be a scary business. Not that I'm defending them, just kinda understanding more now.

To think though, this may be the thing that finally brings him down. Like WaterGate (and this is way worse than Clinton's BJ, which I also criticized), all the bad things they do and it's something like this that people actually care enough to do something about. I think that more and more people are pissed and this is just a straw that may break the camel's back. Though I still have a feeling they'll try to weasel their way out of it this and turn the blame around, if not the patsy thing. Maybe this time it won't work. That whole unAmerican/traitor thing just doesn't cut it when it's coming from and actual traitor.

[Xtremehkr]

Can you blame them? That's what this is all about, they go after your family. This whole thing started because they wanted revenge on her husband. I have been a critic of the media as much as anybody here, but between the corporate giants that own them and wrath of the administration, especially after 9/11, it can be a scary business. Not that I'm defending them, just kinda understanding more now.

To think though, this may be the thing that finally brings him down. Like WaterGate (and this is way worse than Clinton's BJ, which I also criticized), all the bad things they do and it's something like this that people actually care enough to do something about. I think that more and more people are pissed and this is just a straw that may break the camel's back. Though I still have a feeling they'll try to weasel their way out of it this and turn the blame around, if not the patsy thing. Maybe this time it won't work. That whole unAmerican/traitor thing just doesn't cut it when it's coming from and actual traitor.

I know what you mean. But it gets worse.

[Xtremehkr]

Link (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060804_coup_detat.html)

COUP D'ETAT:
The Real Reason Tenet and Pavitt Resigned from the
CIA on June 3rd and 4th

Bush, Cheney Indictments in Plame Case Looming

by
Michael C. Ruppert

additional reporting by
Wayne Madsen from Washington

© Copyright 2004, From The Wilderness Publications, www.fromthewilderness.com. All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web site for non-profit purposes only.

JUNE 8, 2004 1600 PDT (FTW) - Why did DCI George Tenet suddenly resign on June 3rd, only to be followed a day later by James Pavitt, the CIA's Deputy Director of Operations (DDO)?

The real reasons, contrary to the saturation spin being put out by major news outlets, have nothing to do with Tenet's role as taking the fall for alleged 9/11 and Iraqi intelligence "failures" before the upcoming presidential election.

Both resignations, perhaps soon to be followed by resignations from Colin Powell and his deputy Richard Armitage, are about the imminent and extremely messy demise of George W. Bush and his Neocon administration in a coup d'etat being executed by the Central Intelligence Agency. The coup, in the planning for at least two years, has apparently become an urgent priority as a number of deepening crises threaten a global meltdown.

Based upon recent developments, it appears that long-standing plans and preparations leading to indictments and impeachment of Bush, Cheney and even some senior cabinet members have been accelerated, possibly with the intent of removing or replacing the entire Bush regime prior to the Republican National Convention this August.

FTW has been documenting this Watergate-like coup for more than fifteen months and almost everything we will discuss about recent events was predicted by us in the following pages: Please see our stories "The Perfect Storm - Part I" (March 2003); "Blood in the Water" (July 2003); "Beyond Bush - Part I" (July 2003); "Waxman Ties Evidentiary Noose Around Rice and Cheney" (July 2003); and "Beyond Bush - Part II" (October 2003).

There were two things we didn't get right. One was the timing. We predicted the developments taking place now as likely to happen after the November election, not before. Secondly, we did not foresee the sudden resignations of Tenet and Pavitt. Understanding the resignations is the key to understanding a deteriorating world scene and that America is on the precipice of a presidential and constitutional crisis that will ultimately dwarf the removal of Richard Nixon in 1974.

So why did Tenet and Pavitt resign? We'll explain why and we will provide many clues along the way as we make our case.

HIGH CRIMES AND REALLY STUPID MOVES

Shortly after the "surprise" Tenet-Pavitt resignations, current and former senior members of the U.S. intelligence community and the Justice Department told journalist Wayne Madsen, a former Naval intelligence officer, that they were directly connected to the criminal investigation of a 2003 White House leak that openly exposed Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA officer. What received less attention was that the leak also destroyed a long-term CIA proprietary intelligence gathering operation which, as we will see, was of immense importance to US strategic interests at a critical moment.

The leak was a vindictive retaliation for statements, reports and actions taken by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, which had deeply embarrassed the Bush administration and exposed it to possible charges for impeachable offenses, including lying to the American people about an alleged (and totally unfounded) nuclear threat posed by Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Conservative columnist Robert Novak, the beneficiary of the leak, immediately published it on July 14, 2003 and Valerie Plame's career (at least the covert part) instantly ended. The actual damage caused by that leak has never been fully appreciated.

Wilson deeply embarrassed almost every senior member of the Bush junta by proving to the world that they were consciously lying about one of their most important justifications for invading Iraq: namely, their claim to have had certain knowledge, based on "good and reliable" intelligence, that Hussein was on the brink of deploying a nuclear weapon, possibly inside the United States. It was eventually disclosed that the "intelligence" possessed by the administration was a set of poorly forged documents on letterhead from the government of Niger, which described attempts by Iraq to purchase yellowcake uranium for a nuclear weapons program.

It has since been established by Scott Ritter and others that Iraq's nuclear weapons program had been dead in the water and non-functioning since the first Iraq war.

Wilson was secretly dispatched in February 2002, on instructions from Dick Cheney to the CIA, to go to Niger and look for anything that might support the material in the documents. They had already been dismissed as forgeries by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the CIA, and apparently everyone else who had seen them. The CIA cautioned the administration, more than once, against using them. Shortly thereafter, Wilson returned and gave his report stating clearly that the allegations were pure bunk and unsupportable.

In spite of this, unaware of the booby traps laid all around them, the entire power core of the Bush administration jumped on the Niger documents as on a battle horse and charged off into in a massive public relations blitz. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz and others - to varying degrees - insisted, testified, and swore that they knew, and had reliable, credible and verified intelligence that Saddam was about to deploy an actual nuclear device built from the Niger yellowcake.

It was full court media press and they successfully scared the pants off of most Americans who believed that Saddam was going to nuke them any second.

George Bush made the charge and actually cited the documents in his 2003 State-of-the-Union address, even after he had been cautioned by George Tenet not to rely on them. In a major speech at the United Nations, Colin Powell charged that Iraq was on the verge of deploying a nuke and had been trying to acquire uranium. Dick Cheney charged in several speeches that Saddam was capable of nuclear terror. And shortly before the invasion, when asked in a television interview whether there was sufficient proof and advance warning of the Iraqi nuclear threat, a smug and confident Condoleezza Rice quipped, "If we wait for a smoking gun, that smoking gun may be a mushroom cloud over an American city." Rice was lying through her teeth.

By July of 2003, as the Iraqi invasion was proving to be a protracted and ill-conceived debacle, executed in spite of massive resistance from within military, political, diplomatic and economic cadres, there was growing disgust within many government circles about the way the Bush administration was running things. The mention of Wilson's report came in July though his name was not disclosed. It suggested corroborative evidence of criminal, rather than stupid, behavior by the administration. The San Francisco Chronicle reported:

A senior CIA official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the intelligence agency informed the White House on March 9, 2002 - 10 months before Bush's nationally televised speech - that an agency source who had traveled to Niger could not confirm European intelligence reports that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium from the West African country.

Note the reference to an Agency source.

It was inevitable that Wilson would move from no comment, to statements given on condition of anonymity, and finally into the public spotlight. That he did, in a July 6th New York Times Editorial titled "What I Didn't Find in Africa." Soon he was giving interviews everywhere.

On July 14th Novak published the column outing Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. As a result, any criminal investigation of the Plame leak will also go into the Niger documents and any crimes committed which are materially related to Plame's exposure.

Instead of retreating, Wilson advanced. In Septmeber he went public, writing editorials and granting interviews which thoroughly exposed the Bush administration's criminal use of the documents, Cheney's lies about the mission, and all the other lies used to deceive the American people into war.

At the moment he went on the record, Wilson became another legally admissible, corroborative evidentiary source; a witness available for subpoena and deposition, ready to give testimony to the high crimes and misdemeanors he has witnessed.

First Clue: James Pavitt was Valerie Plame's boss. So was George Tenet.

It goes on, and is very interesting. This Administration is without shame, Bush is a real candidate for impeachment.

[Thomas Veil]

An incredible story, if the facts are straight. I'm not familiar with FTW. How reliable are they?

ADDENDUM: Hmm, this is strange... "Fair and balanced" Fox News isn't carrying this story at all (http://www.newshounds.us/2005/07/03/lack_of_rove_coverage_proves_roger_ailes_wrong_again_about_fox_news.php). How odd. :rolleyes:

[Xtremehkr]

An incredible story, if the facts are straight. I'm not familiar with FTW. How reliable are they?

ADDENDUM: Hmm, this is strange... "Fair and balanced" Fox News isn't carrying this story at all (http://www.newshounds.us/2005/07/03/lack_of_rove_coverage_proves_roger_ailes_wrong_again_about_fox_news.php). How odd. :rolleyes:

Everything should be considered objectively, but the article is well sourced and the author has been paying very close attention to what has been going on. With slightly less opinion inserted, that is the level of reporting that people should be receiving from the media. It's looks as though these people were worse than I thought they were, by a wide margin.

[3rdpath]

from the beginning wilson blamed rove for the leak.

wilson is a guy who knows how washington works and i'm sure having a wife in the cia helps( helped) get to the facts...but alas, proving what you know is always the hard part.

i hope rove and novak become bunk buddies.

[skunk]

And then there's this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame
Possible illegality of exposure
Under certain circumstances, the exposure of a covert government agent would violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years. The act applies itself to a person who, as a result of having "authorized access to classified information," learns the "identity of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States." The statute also applies to persons who expose the identities of such agents "in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States." [2] The Novak column did describe Plame as an "operative", but did not use the description "covert". Novak has claimed that the CIA made "a very weak request" that he not name Plame publicly. WSJ.com columnist James Taranto suggests that this would indicate the absence of "affirmative measures to conceal" necessary for a violation of the law. [3] The CIA has disputed Novak's claim and indicated that he was told revealing the information could cost agents their lives. Even if Plame was a covert agent and this status was known, prosecution under the statute requires that the person disclosing the information either learned it through authorized access to classified information, or was engaged in a pattern of activities intended maliciously to identify and expose covert agents.
[edit]
Justice Department Investigation

The matter is currently under investigation by the Justice Department and the FBI. Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself from the investigation in December 2003. U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald currently heads the investigation. Because the Justice Department is a part of the executive branch, some critics of the Bush administration contend that the absence of rapid and effective action has been deliberate.
In March 2004, the independent counsel subpoenaed the telephone records from Air Force One.
On April 7, 2005 the Washington Post reported [4] that unnamed sources indicated Fitzgerald was not likely to seek an indictment for the alleged crime of knowingly exposing a covert officer (which prompted the inquiry), although he may possibly charge a government official with perjury for giving conflicting information to prosecutors during the investigation.
[edit]
Novak's response

Novak's initial column identified Plame as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." He has since stated that he believed Plame was merely an analyst at the CIA, not a covert operative—the difference being that analysts are not undercover, so identifying them is not a crime. Critics contend that after decades as a Washington reporter Novak was well aware of the difference and would be unlikely to make such a mistake. Novak has also claimed that Plame's CIA employment was an open secret in Washington, indicating that effective "affirmative measures" to conceal her relationship to the CIA were not being taken. Several ex-CIA operatives who knew Plame have disputed this and indicated that she was at one time a NOC (nonofficial cover) covert operative.
In his October 1, 2003 article "The CIA Leak" Novak states this explanation for the two "senior administration officials" and the "CIA official" referenced in his June 14 article:
"During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.
At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission."
In other interviews Novak confirmed that his sources warned him not to use the name, advice he disregarded. His motivation is suggested by this comment in "The CIA Leak:" "I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment." Just four days before he revealed Plame's name Novak wrote, "Bush's Enemy Within." Therein Novak excoriates the Bush Administration's appointment of Frances Fragos Townsend to an important national security post explaining she could later betray Bush because two of her former superiors were liberal democrats and she had served in the US Attorney's office in Manhattan. According to Novak this office was "notoriously liberal laden."
Wilson had worked in the Clinton Administration. Novak's dismissal of his sources' warnings may have been motivated not by personal feelings about Wilson or the Iraq war but by his peculiar concern that the Bush Administration was hiring Democrats or liberals. In this scenario the interpretation by Wilson and others that the "leak" was designed to hurt Wilson or subvert Wilson's repeated denials that his wife recommended him for his trip would be erroneous. The officials who revealed Plame's name would theoretically have done so without ill intent and with the assumption their warnings would be heeded.
Although there have been many discussions about government and journalistic ethics promulgated by the Valerie Plame matter there has been little or no attention given to possible ethical breaches committed by Novak in foregoing his sources' warnings not to reveal Plame's name.
February 12, 2004 Murray S. Waas for the American Prospect wrote that two "administration officials" spoke to the FBI and challenged Novak's account about not receiving warnings not to publish Plame's name. According to one of the officials, "At best, he is parsing words... At worst, he is lying to his readers and the public. Journalists should not lie, I would think."

[IJ Reilly]

That's right, given the wording in the law, the criminal case might be difficult to prosecute. I expect that if the boney finger is indeed pointed at Rove, that the party will deploy this technical argument by way of obfuscating the basic facts. He would have a much more difficult time escaping perjury and obstruction charges, though.

[3rdpath]

and while i'm ranting about novak:

i don't feel he or any of the other journalists involved qualify for protection re: revealing their sources. they gave up that right when they chose to break the law, ntm, become willing political tools.

if novak had been approached by a source with plame's social security number, account numbers and passwords would he have published them? of course not. he most likely would have turned in the person to the proper authorities or at least ignored the information. but hey, if you can be a tool without being too obvious about it...and hide behind the journalistic code when you're on the spot...why not?

at least now, everyone knows for sure what novak stands for.

[FFTT]

Rove will end up as the patsy here covering for Cheney
and his all too cozy relationship with military industrialists.

We have a clear motive for lying to the American people
when you consider the money changing hands these days.

Both Cheney a Dubya are just lackys for the deep pockets that
insured their election by all means possible.

Colin Powell left the White House LIVID that his good name and dedication to this country were smeared through the mud by these cowboys.

We can see clearly that anyone with the slightest degree of self preserving intelligence is doing all they can now to distance themselves from the next series of events that will follow.

I hope everyone will keep pressure on the media to follow this story.

Our country deserves better leadership and we need to show the world that this corruption WILL NOT BE TOLLERATED any longer.

[FFTT]

My letter to AP News

I find it deeply disturbing that your publication is directly contributing to the cover-up of lies and corruption in the White House.

What ever happened to real investigative reporting and honor among journalists?

What will be your place in history when the American people move to impeach Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for the lies they told to involve us in war?

Why have you not followed the money trail to expose these acts of treason?

I suppose administration at AP News has followed the rest of the corporate owned media afraid to publish the truth if it threatens their advertising income, their job security
or their almighty credit rating.

Where is your loyalty to our country?

What do you tell your children when you go home every day?

This is not a matter of conservative or liberal, red hat, blue hat or otherwise.

Our entire election process is so deeply infested with corruption that no truly honest man or woman would stand a chance against the political machines in place.

The United States of America needs to stand up and show the world this kind of blatant corruption WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!

I do not expect a reply, but hope that you will think about your position on this matter and how your coverage will affect the future of our children, our nation and the world we live in.

[Thomas Veil]

Colin Powell left the White House LIVID that his good name and dedication to this country were smeared through the mud by these cowboys.Perhaps. I know this is a side-issue to the topic at hand, but Powell did an interview on The Daily Show in which he was calmly insistent that he and the White House were working with the best information they had, and that he was not set up by Bush. Now, you and I know that that's BS, but Powell wasn't livid by a long shot. I'm sure he is still playing the "good soldier" in espousing the party line. Either that, or he's so self-deluded that he really believes it.

It's still a shame, because now it's not Bush that's making him look bad, it's himself.

[skunk]

It's still a shame, because now it's not Bush that's making him look bad, it's himself.Well, it wouldn't do much for his reputation to admit to knowingly lying on orders from above either, would it?

[FFTT]

No good soldier puts his men in harms way without just cause.

My gut instinct tells me that Mr. Powell was mislead
and he stepped down when the blood on his hands
was too much to bear.

The difference with people like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld is that they have no concience to tell them right from wrong.

[Sun Baked]

That's right, given the wording in the law, the criminal case might be difficult to prosecute. I expect that if the boney finger is indeed pointed at Rove, that the party will deploy this technical argument by way of obfuscating the basic facts. He would have a much more difficult time escaping perjury and obstruction charges, though.Rove's lawyer has commented, and said that Rove was not the leak and not a target.

You almost have to wonder if they have an alternative fall guy in place.

And I wonder if that person knows they will be tossed to the wolves.

Sort of strange to hear the lawyer also say Rove is in the notes turned over to the special prosecutor by Time magazine ...

Edit: Sounds like they are dancing and going for all sorts of possibilities.

[mcarvin]

Rove's lawyer has commented, and said that Rove was not the leak and not a target.

Not that a lawyer would have a vested interest in keeping his client out of jail or anything.

[Xtremehkr]

Rove is more slippery than Ellsworth Toohey, the fact that so many people are willing to name such a vindictive person does not bode well for him though. Especially given the actions taken by those around him.

[FFTT]

CONSPIRACY

|k?n?spir?s?| noun ( pl. -cies) a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful : a conspiracy to destroy the government. See note at plot . • the action of plotting or conspiring : they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. PHRASES a conspiracy of silence an agreement to say nothing about an issue that should be generally known. ORIGIN late Middle English : from Anglo-Norman French conspiracie, alteration of Old French conspiration, based on Latin conspirare ‘agree, plot’ (see conspire ).

Thesaurus
conspiracy noun 1 a conspiracy to manipulate the results plot, scheme, plan, machination, ploy, trick, ruse, subterfuge; informal racket. See note at plot . 2 conspiracy to commit murder plotting, collusion, intrigue, connivance, machination, collaboration; treason.

TREASON

|?tr?z?n| noun (also high treason) the crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government : they were convicted of treason. • the action of betraying someone or something : doubt is the ultimate treason against faith. • ( petty treason) historical the crime of murdering someone to whom the murderer owed allegiance, such as a master or husband. DERIVATIVES treasonous |?tr?z?n?s| adjective ORIGIN Middle English : from Anglo-Norman French treisoun, from Latin traditio(n-) ‘handing over,’ from the verb tradere.USAGE Formerly, there were two types of crime to which the term treason was applied: petty treason (the crime of murdering one's master) and high treason (the crime of betraying one's country). As a classification of offense, the crime of petty treason was abolished in 1828. In modern use, the term high treason is now often simply called treason.



CORRUPTION

|k??r?p sh ?n| noun 1 dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery : the journalist who wants to expose corruption in high places. • the action of making someone or something morally depraved or the state of being so : the word “addict” conjures up evil and corruption. • archaic decay; putrefaction : the potato turned black and rotten with corruption. 2 the process by which something, typically a word or expression, is changed from its original use or meaning to one that is regarded as erroneous or debased. • the process of causing errors to appear in a computer program or database. ORIGIN Middle English : via Old French from Latin corruptio(n-), from corrumpere ‘mar, bribe, destroy’ (see corrupt ).

Thesaurus
corruption noun 1 political corruption dishonesty, unscrupulousness, double-dealing, fraud, fraudulence, misconduct, crime, criminality, wrongdoing; bribery, venality, extortion, profiteering, payola; informal graft, grift, crookedness, sleaze. antonym honesty. 2 his fall into corruption immorality, depravity, vice, degeneracy, perversion, debauchery, dissoluteness, decadence, wickedness, evil, sin, sinfulness, ungodliness; formal turpitude. antonym morality, purity. 3 these figures have been subject to corruption alteration, bastardization, debasement, adulteration.

[Thomas Veil]

Rove's lawyer has commented, and said that Rove was not the leak and not a target.IMHO, saying that Rove was not the leak simply means that they've settled on their cover-up story, same as always. The cover-up story is what will be offered to the media and the American people.

ADDENDUM: Here's a great opinion piece about the Rove thing: Ted Rall argues that Karl Rove is worse than Osama bin Laden (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20050704/cm_ucru/karlroveworsethanosamabinladen/nc:742). Well, Rove hasn't murdered thousands in cold blood, but he makes an interesting case:

Rove, whose gaping maw recently vomited forth that Democrats didn't care about 9/11, is atypically silent. He did talk to the Time reporter but "never knowingly disclosed classified information," claims his attorney. But there's circumstantial evidence to go along with Time's leaked notes.

Ari Fleischer abruptly resigned as Bush's press secretary on May 16, 2003, about the same time the White House became aware of Ambassador Wilson's plans to go public. (Wilson's article appeared July 6.) Did Fleischer quit because he didn't want to act as spokesman for Rove's plan to betray CIA agent Plame? Another interesting coincidence: Novak published his Plame column on July 14, Fleischer's last day on the job.

If Newsweek's report is accurate, Karl Rove is more morally repugnant and more anti-American than Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden, after all, has no affiliation with, and therefore no presumed loyalty to, the United States. Rove, on the other hand, is a U.S. citizen and, as deputy White House chief of staff, a high-ranking official of the U.S. government sworn to uphold and defend our nation, its laws and its interests. Yet he sold out America just to get even with Joe Wilson.

Osama bin Laden, conversely, is loyal to his cause. He has never exposed an Al Qaeda agent's identity to the media.

"[Knowingly revealing Plame's name and undercover status to the media]...is a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and is punishable by as much as ten years in prison," notes the Washington Post. Unmasking an intelligent agent during a time of war, however, surely rises to giving aid and comfort to America's enemies--treason. Treason is punishable by execution under the United States Code.

How far up the White House food chain does the rot of treason go? "Bush has always known how to keep Rove in his place," wrote Time in 2002 about a "symbiotic relationship" that dates to 1973. This isn't some rogue "plumbers" operation. Rove would never go it alone on a high-stakes action like Valerie Plame. It's a safe bet that other, higher-ranking figures in the Bush cabal--almost certainly

Dick Cheney and possibly Bush himself--signed off before Rove called Novak. For the sake of national security, those involved should be removed from office at once.

Rove and his collaborators should quickly resign and face prosecution for betraying their country, but given their sense of personal entitlement impeachment is probably the best we can hope for. Congress, and all Americans, should place patriotism ahead of party loyalty.

[Mike Teezie]

So where are we with this?

Are any of the news channels reporting it? Newspapers?

ANYTHING?

[FFTT]

The corporate owned media won't touch this until they have to.

I've written several letters to news publications and my congressman.

If I had more time today, I'd work the phones too.

They're trying to bury the Downing Street Memo and they'll sweep this under the table too if we let them.

Moveon.org has a few links, but so do many others.

Don't back down.

[IJ Reilly]

Time Magazine and the Los Angeles Times have both run stories on it, and I've seen a few online. Still, it's pretty underwhelming considering the potential magnitude of the story. You'd think any journalist worth his or her salt would be racing to get to print first. Could it have something to do with the media angle on the story? Probably a lot of unhappiness in scribblerville over the forced disclosure of the sources.

[Roger1]

If you believe lying under oath is a crime then yes he should be treated like a criminal if it is proven he is, Just like clinton should have, I think every democrat would agree, right! I thought so.

This Democrat thinks Clinton should have been removed from office. But Ken Star (for some odd reason) couldn't get him on much.

[IJ Reilly]

Yeah, he only had six years and $40 million to work with and no limits on what he could investigate. I mean, what can you expect?

[mcarvin]

Time Magazine and the Los Angeles Times have both run stories on it, and I've seen a few online. Still, it's pretty underwhelming considering the potential magnitude of the story. You'd think any journalist worth his or her salt would be racing to get to print first. Could it have something to do with the media angle on the story? Probably a lot of unhappiness in scribblerville over the forced disclosure of the sources.

Begs a great question then - what's more important? The story or the relevant principles behind the story? Good arguments can be had on each side.

[solvs]

People care, but not enough. These days people just don't want to think about it. Like I said somewhere else, if this was James Carville, I'd still be pissed. How can people still defend this guy? Novak should have gone to jail a long time ago as well. How dare he try to hide behind the First Amendment for this. For such moral people, there sure are a lot of crooks and hypocrites running the Republican party/media lately. If Al Franken did something like this, they'd have his head on a silver platter.

[stubeeef]

I guess the media might be waiting to see the results of the released info instead of blind speculation. Rabid-Rather is probably still on their mind, or the calls during the 2000 election. Could it be they may be waiting to see more facts, instead of foaming at the mouth.
I see news stories about this atleast twice a day, the supreme court nominee is also big news on about all day.
I am impressed that most of the media has been waiting to launch based on facts, and less Rumor. But like I said, I see stories and discussions about this every day, so don't understand about how it is being buried. IMHO.

[Thomas Veil]

People care, but not enough. These days people just don't want to think about it. Like I said somewhere else, if this was James Carville, I'd still be pissed. How can people still defend this guy? Novak should have gone to jail a long time ago as well. How dare he try to hide behind the First Amendment for this. For such moral people, there sure are a lot of crooks and hypocrites running the Republican party/media lately. If Al Franken did something like this, they'd have his head on a silver platter.Well put. This was a criminal act with potentially deadly consequences -- and can arguably called treason. I'd be pissed at anybody from any side who did this.

And as far as the Starr investigation goes...the answers are here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312273193/qid=1120661761/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_ur_2/002-8559016-9224866?v=glance&s=books&n=507846).

[IJ Reilly]

The criminality aspect remains to be seen (the language of the law is complicated), but I think the legalistic dimensions of this story are secondary. If no other thing, this is an abuse of power by a White House official intended as revenge against someone who revealed an administration deception scheme used to take public opinion to war. It's a dirty trick of Nixonian proportions, and of very much the same, slimy character. So I wonder: how is the press doing the right thing by "standing off" on this story until they "know more?" Based strictly on the facts available today, shouldn't they be investigating, instead of waiting for the story to come to them?

[Sayhey]

Based strictly on the facts available today, shouldn't they be investigating, instead of waiting for the story to come to them?

How much do you want to bet that if a reporter pursues this story too vigorously they will be cut off from any access to White House briefings? This White House has taken the "management" of the Press to a very different level. As the Plame story shows, retaliation is now the name of the game.

[stubeeef]

It is being investigated, there is a prosecutor, things are happening, more facts will be coming forward.

[IJ Reilly]

It is being investigated, there is a prosecutor, things are happening, more facts will be coming forward.

This implication here is that the press ought to be collectively drumming their fingers on table-tops waiting for the government to tell them what they should report. Perhaps this is a new media model which is unfamiliar to me.

[skunk]

Perhaps this is a new media model which is unfamiliar to me.Hardly new. Tried and tested.

[stubeeef]

If the people involved aren't talking to the press, the press is not talking to the prosecutor (reporters themselves) what is left to be drummed up? The players are known, they are all talking to their lawyers and/or the government. What new revelations there are, will be hard fought to be found, not laying around to be reported. When the reporters themselves aren't talking, things get stuck awhile.
Of course there is always vigilante justice, kangaroo courts, rumor and libel.

[FFTT]

NPR had an interview on this morning covering the Rove involvement
and covered reluctance of the mainstream corporate owned media to cover it.

www.drshow.org

[IJ Reilly]

If the people involved aren't talking to the press, the press is not talking to the prosecutor (reporters themselves) what is left to be drummed up? The players are known, they are all talking to their lawyers and/or the government. What new revelations there are, will be hard fought to be found, not laying around to be reported. When the reporters themselves aren't talking, things get stuck awhile.
Of course there is always vigilante justice, kangaroo courts, rumor and libel.

Oh, what a nice idea -- classify all investigative journalism as vigilante justice, kangaroo courts rumor and liable. That is what you've just done, yes?

Keep in mind, this entire situation was created by government officials leaking information to the press. You can't tell me that now, all of a sudden, everybody is so hunkered down with their lawyers that nobody who knows anything is willing to pass along any information to anyone. Now that's a counterintuitive concept if ever I heard one.

I can see why you might hope for one, but I don't see the public benefit of a lazy, passive and docile media. I can remember times when a proactive press actually made a difference.

[stubeeef]

Judge orders reporter to jail in CIA leak case
5 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A judge on Wednesday sent a New York Times reporter to jail after she said she could not reveal her confidential source to a grand jury investigating the leak of a covert CIA operative's name to the media.

Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan ordered New York Times correspondent Judith Miller to jail immediately and said she must stay there until she agrees to testify or until the end of the grand jury's term in October.

Another case involving Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper was resolved when he told the judge he had just received the "expressed personal consent" of his source to reveal his identity. "Consequently I am prepared to testify," he said.

Miller told the judge she did not want to go to jail but had no choice but to protect her sources.

"If journalists cannot be trusted to keep confidences, then journalists cannot function and there cannot be a free press," she said.

The grand jury investigation by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, a Justice Department prosecutor, seeks to determine who in the Bush administration leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame in 2003 to the media and whether any laws were violated.

Plame's name was leaked, her diplomat husband charged, because of his criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war.Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050706/ts_nm/media_leak_dc;_ylt=AqCxXwiUR_1iA6c3gxdCfVNZ.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

[miloblithe]

Jail until October doesn't sound like a particularly heavy penalty. That's 3 months?

Cooper's testimony should be interesting though.

[IJ Reilly]

To put in the FWIW file: This is the same Judith Miller who was happily passing off as journalism numerous unsubstantiated claims about Iraq fed to her by administration sources in 2002 and 2003. I wonder if she thinks spending a few months in the cooler will cleanse her dubious record as a reporter. One column I read called this the "Martha Stewart effect."

[Lyle]

Cooper's testimony should be interesting though.Indeed. If Cooper's source has given his "expressed personal consent" to have his identity revealed, I wonder if that means that his source is different than Judith Miller's? Or maybe she also got permission, but still refuses to give up her source on principle?

[IJ Reilly]

Judith Miller... principle. I'm having a hard time with that one.

[FFTT]

Miller is a well known Bush administration loyalist and
this 3 month slap on the wrist is nothing if what she knows
could bring down the White House.

I'm sure her loyal service to the "corrupter in chief"
will be well rewarded.

[stubeeef]

Could someone please quote some of the article miller wrote. What she exposed.

[IJ Reilly]

Miller apparently spoke to the White House source but did not write an article about it. This is immaterial to the prosecutor's interest in with whom she spoke, since it is the revelation that is the potentially criminal act, as well as the possibility that the leaker lied to the federal prosecutor and grand jury.

Anyway, the really fascinating development of the last couple of days -- and the one nobody seems to have picked up -- is that Cooper's source has given him permission to testify, but Miller's evidently has not. What does this mean? More than one leaker within the White House?

[mactastic]

What does this mean? More than one leaker within the White House?

Or an outside chance that Miller is being rehabilitated deliberately? Or that Cooper is lying? Who knows. Probably more than one leaker is most likely. Rove quite probably put some layer or layers of protection between himself and the reporters. He is well studied in plausible deniability after all.

[Xtremehkr]

Rove must be ecstatic about these events. Bloggers tend to be one issue organisms, and this is letting Turd Blossom get some breathing room.

[IJ Reilly]

According to a very brief mention on the NewsHour this evening, the New York Times is reporting that the source Matthew Cooper was protecting was in fact Karl Rove. But I have been unable to find any stories confirming this, even on the New York Times web site. If anyone finds such a story, please post it here.

[FFTT]

I Googled "rove" and nothing much new came up.

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000974740

Sadly the tragic events in London
have overshadowed the Rove story this week.

[IJ Reilly]

This is apparently the report referenced on the NewsHour last night:

Cooper on Wednesday agreed to testify in the case, reversing his long-standing refusal after saying that he had been released from his pledge of confidentiality just hours before he expected to be sent to jail for contempt of court. In an interview with The Washington Post on Wednesday, Luskin denied that Cooper had received a call from Rove releasing him from his confidentiality pledge. Yesterday, however, Luskin declined to comment on a New York Times report that the release came as a result of negotiations involving Rove's and Cooper's attorneys, nor would he speculate that Cooper was released from his pledge in some other fashion than a direct conversation with Rove. "I'm not going to comment any further," Luskin said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/07/AR2005070702215_pf.html

What a muddle of countervailing, ambiguous and contradictory claims, denials, and refusals to comment.

[mactastic]

Perhaps Rove's defense depends on what the meaning of 'leaked' is.

[solvs]

Rove quite probably put some layer or layers of protection between himself and the reporters. He is well studied in plausible deniability after all.
And so we'll get a patsy or 2. Rove is pretty powerful, and fear runs rampant nowadays. Fear and laziness. Glad Judy got a jail sentence, but it's less than Martha got. Of course, this is just for contempt of court, so if she does actually get convicted, it could get much worse. Not that she won't be richly rewarded for her loyalty, but they could also cut her out since she got caught.

But the damage is done. Even in the unlikely event Bush and Rove had nothing to do with this, it's still a smoking gun. Of all the things that could bring them down, it all comes down to spite. Next up, Robert Novak.

[zimv20]

Glad Judy got a jail sentence, but it's less than Martha got.
and it doesn't even compare to the treatment vanessa leggett (http://library.findlaw.com/2003/Jun/25/132831.html) got.

[Sayhey]

From David Corn over at The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/david-corn/explosive-new-rove-revela_3933.html).
Explosive New Rove Revelation Coming Soon?
Time to get ready for the Karl Rove frog-march?

I don't usually log on Saturday evenings. But I've received information too good not to share immediately. It was only yesterday that I was bemoaning the probability that -- after a week of apparent Rove-related revelations--it might be a while before any more news emerged about the Plame/CIA leak. Yet tonight I received this as-solid-as-it-gets tip: on Sunday Newsweek is posting a story that nails Rove. The newsmagazine has obtained documentary evidence that Rove was indeed a key source for Time magazine's Matt Cooper and that Rove--prior to the publication of the Bob Novak column that first publicly disclosed Valerie Wilson/Plame as a CIA official -- told Cooper that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife apparently worked at the CIA and was involved in Joseph Wilson's now-controversial trip to Niger.

To be clear, this new evidence does not necessarily mean slammer-time for Rove. Under the relevant law, it's only a crime for a government official to identify a covert intelligence official if the government official knows the intelligence officer is under cover, and this documentary evidence, I'm told, does not address this particular point. But this new evidence does show that Rove -- despite his lawyers claim that Rove "did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA" -- did reveal to Cooper in a deep-background conversation that Wilson's wife was in the CIA. No wonder special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald pursued Cooper so fiercely. And Fitzgerald must have been delighted when Time magazine -- over Cooper's objection--surrendered Cooper's emails and notes, which, according to a previous Newsweek posting by Michael Isikoff, named Rove as Cooper's source. In court on Wednesday, Fitzgerald said that following his receipt of Cooper's emails and notes "it is clear to us we need [Cooper's] testimony perhaps more so than in the past." This was a clue that Fitzgerald had scored big when he obtained the Cooper material.

This new evidence could place Rove in serious political, if not legal, jeopardy (or, at least it should). If what I am told is true, this is proof that the Bush White House was using any information it could gather on Joseph Wilson -- even classified information related to national security -- to pursue a vendetta against Wilson, a White House critic. Even if it turns out Rove did not break the law regarding the naming of intelligence officials, this new disclosure could prove Rove guilty of leaking a national security secret to a reporter for political ends. What would George W. Bush do about that?...

[mactastic]

What would Bush do about it? Nothing. IOIYAR.

[Thomas Veil]

Well, the "explosiveness" of this information remains to be seen. Here's a quote from the current (Sunday) Newsweek article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/):
Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." From this all you can tell is that Rove and/or his lawyer are liars...and that was already taken for granted. There's still no hard evidence that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover agent. (More's the pity.)

What we need is some proof that Rove did know she was an undercover agent prior to talking to Cooper. Otherwise, Rove probably has enough weasel room to get himself off the hook on that point.

Corn does mention later in his article:But what did Rove tell Fitzgerald and the grand jury about this conversation with Cooper? And -- here's the big question -- does Rove's account jibe with the new documentary evidence that Newsweek is scheduled to disclose? If it does not, Fitzgerald would have a good start on a perjury charge against Rove. That is another line of inquiry that potentially could get Rove nailed.

And for good measure, again from Corn's story:(By the way, Novak cited two unnamed Bush administration officials when he published the Plame/CIA leak.)So...who else was involved?

[mactastic]

I can hear it already... Lying about a hummer in the Oval Office is MUCH worse than lying about national security. Clinton should have been handed his hat, but Rove should be rewarded. Perhaps a Medal of Freedom would be appropriate?

[skunk]

IOIYAR.?

[IJ Reilly]

I predict the obfuscatory political defense will go something like this:

(1) Rove did not break the federal law (insert highly technical, mind-numbing legal reasoning here).

(2) Sure Rove spoke to Matt Cooper, but Cooper called him and all Rove did was take the call and verify Cooper's question about Plame on background. If Cooper testifies otherwise, it's simply that their recollections of the conversation differ.

(3) Generic attack on the Democrats.

This will give the true believers something to grasp onto for comfort, and short of an indictment may even make the situation murky enough to keep it on the back pages where it's dwelled for two years now, until it disappears completely. Not to forget, Rove is the party's master political strategist and he didn't get his reputation for nothing. You can bet he will try to thread this needle any way he can, and has all the talking points lined up and ready for dissemination to the usual places in the media.

[Thomas Veil]

Y'know, the GOP should really consider changing their party symbol to this:

http://users.adelphia.net/~tjveil/images/weasel50%.jpg

[mactastic]

?
It's Ok If You're A Republican... the opposite is true of course for Democrats but that's not what we're talking about here. :p

[solvs]

Y'know, the GOP should really consider changing their party symbol to this:

http://users.adelphia.net/~tjveil/images/weasel50%.jpg
Your image isn't showing up for some reason. Weasel though, that's funny. Well, kinda. It's also sad, cuz it's true. I'm sad now.

If this doesn't bring him down, legality or not, I don't know what will.

[Sun Baked]

And for good measure, again from Corn's story:So...who else was involved?It almost sound like they are tossing Dick Cheney's staff member Scooter to the wolves right now.

Edit: Right now Joe Wilson would like to see him hung from the flag pole of the White House by his balls, should be interesting to see what Fitzgerald comes up with. :o

[Inspector Lee]

Anybody know anything about the Rove-Novak ordeal back in '92 when Rove was working for Bush I and was forced out. Seems like there was a leak to Novak then as well that caused a stir. Houston Chronicle has the article in its archives but I don't want to register.

[mactastic]

Anybody know anything about the Rove-Novak ordeal back in '92 when Rove was working for Bush I and was forced out. Seems like there was a leak to Novak then as well that caused a stir. Houston Chronicle has the article in its archives but I don't want to register.

Use BugMeNot (www.bugmenot.com) to get access, and let us know.

[FFTT]

Bush said he would fire the person that leaked the information
and you'll remember the White House strongly denied Rove had anything to do with any of it.

Me thinks there's a bigger fish to fry here.

Or should I say one of the Three Stooges?

Someone O.K.ed this plan and that may be why Judy isn't talking, yet.

[IJ Reilly]

The Rove defense is proceeding as predicted...

...

The only Republican to issue a statement on the matter Monday was Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee. "It's disappointing that once again, so many Democrat leaders are taking their political cues from the far-left, MoveOn wing of the party," he said, referring to the online advocacy group MoveOn.org. "The bottom line is the Democrats are engaged in blatant partisan political attacks."

...

Luskin, Rove's attorney, declined to confirm or deny the contents of the e-mail.

But Luskin said in an interview Monday that Rove never identified Plame by name and never intended to reveal her identity. He said Wilson's wife came up as an afterthought in a conversation that Cooper had initiated, primarily for a story about welfare reform.

"The fair inference … is that Rove was trying to warn Time … away from perpetuating things that turned out to be false, and not try to encourage him to say anything about Wilson's wife," Luskin said.

Rove "was sharing what he knew but with the specific understanding it would not be disclosed," Luskin added, noting that in the e-mail reported by Newsweek, Cooper wrote that he was speaking to Rove "on double super secret background."

At the same time, Luskin declined to say whether Rove knew that Plame was a covert agent, even if he did not know her name, which analysts said was a crucial factor in determining whether the law was broken.

...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-rove12jul12,0,2520574.story

[mactastic]

Note also the parallel attack on MoveOn. This is a new twist that we'll be seeing more of over the next few weeks, and beyond if it's successful. They are working hard to paint MoveOn.org as some kind of radical leftist group that should taint anyone who accepts their money, since MoveOn has become fairly adept at raising grassroots money and organizational support for candidates.

MoveOn = Bad yet the FRC = Good. Nicely hypocritical.

But back on topic, Rove is on the front page of many papers today, and is getting near-top billing on most news shows and web sites. This story has legs.

[Mike Teezie]

Maybe the past few years with this administration have just made me hyper-cynical, but I'm not getting my hopes up with this.

Anyone in the Bush's Circle of Trust seems untouchable.

[atszyman]

This all makes me wonder if Rove has some information on the administration that he is threatening to make public if he is fired. With the earlier claims that anyone connected with the leak will be fired and now clamming up, it makes me think Rove is threatening the higher-ups with something damaging.

They've already won the second term, Bush cannot be elected again, why do they need Rove anymore unless he is threatening them with something?

Where is Bush's resolve now?

[mactastic]

Rove doesn't need to threaten anyone with anything except a promise to work against anyone who crosses him to make it a very real threat to just about any elected official's continued public employment.

[IJ Reilly]

Rove is Bush's master political strategist. He's in the White House for much more than winning elections. The question of the moment is: Is he also a political Hoodini? I think he'll need to be to get out of this mess.

[Ugg]

Rove is Bush's master political strategist. He's in the White House for much more than winning elections. The question of the moment is: Is he also a political Hoodini? I think he'll need to be to get out of this mess.

Was Hoodini a typo or intentional? Hoodini suits rove to a tee.

I think gw's "stony silence" today was rather telling of his dilemna, anything he says outside of outright firing rove, will be extremely hypocritical. The only way this is going to really go anywhere is if the press keeps up its attack. Here's hoping theyd do!

I almost could feel sorry for McClellan if he wasn't such a self-righteous B***tard.

[atszyman]

Rove doesn't need to threaten anyone with anything except a promise to work against anyone who crosses him to make it a very real threat to just about any elected official's continued public employment.

Rove is Bush's master political strategist. He's in the White House for much more than winning elections. The question of the moment is: Is he also a political Hoodini? I think he'll need to be to get out of this mess.

But Bush is already in office and will remain there until 2008 unless he is forced to resign due to some scandal. Bush cannot run for re-election, Cheney is unelectable. In theory they should be able to fire Rove without much worry, assuming they can keep other potential candidates out of Rove's crosshairs.. Granted, he can try to thwart their political agenda but they've been managing to do that themselves (what happened to SS reform anyway?) and don't need the help of Rove to tank many of their goals. I think Rove may hold some trump card that is preventing them from just throwing him to the wolves, something along the lines of evidence for impeachment, maybe?

Everyone seems to be after more and more power. If Rove were loyal to the President he should be resigning now, which would help quell the story some and after the media coverage dies down they might be able to bring him back on board. Harboring him isn't helping anyone's image and just makes it seem like the cover-up goes deeper than just Rove, which of course may be Rove's trump card...

[mactastic]

When Rove works against you, stories surface suggesting that you are gay, cheating on your drug-addicted wife, and possibly a perpetrator of treasonous actions.

Just ask John McCain. (http://bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=8&topic_id=522)

[atszyman]

When Rove works against you, stories surface suggesting that you are gay, cheating on your drug-addicted wife, and possibly a perpetrator of treasonous actions.

Just ask John McCain. (http://bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=8&topic_id=522)

Ok, that can hurt anyone seeking election, but Bush and Cheney are done after this term. Rove can rally against them personally all he wants, he's not going to change the fact that they are in the WH. It just seems that he must have something that can bring them down if they are willing to try to protect him rather than throw him out on his arse.

Of course the general public seems to forget anything Bush says that is contrary to what he does (no nationbuilding with our troops, consulting with Congress before going to war, etc...) so I guess it could work out.

[zimv20]

just because bush can't run for another term and cheney is possibly doing his final stint in politics doesn't mean rove's career is over. i'd imagine his loyalty to the administration extends as far as he thinks his job is protected, and i'd be shocked if he wasn't telling bush he (rove) will find a way out of the mess.

or, maybe he'll surprise me and resign in order to protect bush.

[miloblithe]

Bush also seems to have a political strategy that is never admit you're wrong. Never ever ever. No way. Rove resigning would be admitting he, and by implication Bush (and by repeated statements Bush) is wrong. I can't believe it would happen. I bet there will be a final showdown that gets burried in legal obfuscation wherein Rove is not quite provably guilty enough to convict. The administration will repeatedly cheer the clearing of his name until the slack-jawed yokels believe that this was nothing but a left-wing witch hunt to begin with.

I sure do love this country's politics.

[atszyman]

just because bush can't run for another term and cheney is possibly doing his final stint in politics doesn't mean rove's career is over. i'd imagine his loyalty to the administration extends as far as he thinks his job is protected, and i'd be shocked if he wasn't telling bush he (rove) will find a way out of the mess.

or, maybe he'll surprise me and resign in order to protect bush.

I realize that Rove may very well have a career after this mess is sorted out. But there is little doubt that he was involved now and with the administration's past promises to fire anyone involved (one link (http://www.freep.com/news/nw/rove12e_20050712.htm)). It would seem to be in their best interest to follow through and allow Rove to handle it outside of the WH for the time being. If he is successful in his defense then they might be able to quietly get him a job in the administration again. Their stonewalling and reluctance to comment keeps me thinking that Rove has some dirt on the administration that they would not want him to release. Bush could give some speech about how bad it was and how he is keeping his promises (pandering to the public) while Rove can lie low until the fracas blows over. Something keeps me coming back to the idea that he has more than just his standard tricks should the administration fire him without his consent.

[wild conspiracy theory]
This could be Cheney's grand plan. Get Rove in hot water, force W to fire him, let Rove take down W, viola... President Cheney...*shudder*
[/wild conspiracy theory]

Now I'm gonna have nightmares for a month...:(

[mactastic]

Ok, that can hurt anyone seeking election, but Bush and Cheney are done after this term. Rove can rally against them personally all he wants, he's not going to change the fact that they are in the WH. It just seems that he must have something that can bring them down if they are willing to try to protect him rather than throw him out on his arse.

Of course the general public seems to forget anything Bush says that is contrary to what he does (no nationbuilding with our troops, consulting with Congress before going to war, etc...) so I guess it could work out.

I think you answered your own question... BushCo is out after this term. Therefore they have no incentive to fire Rove for any reason. Other GOPers with an election to lose won't call for his firing if they fear Rove's dirty trick will be turned on them.

If anything, the great possibility exists that Bush will pardon Rove if it looks like it might go far enough to hurt the party. Bush's dad did something similar with the Iran-Contra guys. If so it'll make Clinton's pardon of Mark Rich pale in comparison with such a brazen abuse of presidential power.

[IJ Reilly]

Was Hoodini a typo or intentional? Hoodini suits rove to a tee.

Ha-ha. While I'd like to claim it was intended as a pun, I have to admit it was a typo. A Freudian typo, if such a thing exists. ;)

[IJ Reilly]

But Bush is already in office and will remain there until 2008 unless he is forced to resign due to some scandal. Bush cannot run for re-election, Cheney is unelectable. In theory they should be able to fire Rove without much worry, assuming they can keep other potential candidates out of Rove's crosshairs.

Rove advises Bush on political matters other than elections. If that wasn't the case, he wouldn't have been talking to the likes of Cooper and Miller about the likes of Plame. When Bush flew back to Washington to intervene in the Schiavo situation, you have to know it was the Hand of Rove at work. Assuming he survives, the upcoming fight over Supreme Court nominations is bound to have his fingerprints all over it.

I'm not unhappy to see Bush dithering over this one. He's got to decide whether it's smarter to cut his losses and take the hit or play the loyalty game to the hilt and hope against hope that Rove can wriggle out. Given the way he's stood by Rumsfeld when any other president would have shown him the door ages ago, I'm betting on stubborn loyalty, and weeks if not months of political damage.

[Dont Hurt Me]

A few folks seem to have forgotton the Republicans pull all the strings of govt, does anyone really think anything will happen to Rove ? Their spin machine sold us WMDS and thats why we are in Iraq that same spin machine wont have any problems spinning this into nothingness.

[Xtremehkr]

For the sake of the nation, something had better happen. Roves actions are treasonous. It is becoming big news, AM Newstalk radio spent the entire day talking about how it is not a big deal.

Woot! Matthew Cooper testifies tomorrow.

[IJ Reilly]

The official GOP Rove talking points. (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Exclusive_GOP_talking_points_on_Rove_seek_to_discre_0712.html)

[Sun Baked]

Oh well...

Should be interesting to see what Matthew Cooper has to say.

[Thomas Veil]

Rove "was sharing what he knew but with the specific understanding it would not be disclosed," Luskin added, noting that in the e-mail reported by Newsweek, Cooper wrote that he was speaking to Rove "on double super secret background."O-kay......are they suggesting that Cooper betrayed the confidential information that Rove shared with him?? And how does Robert Novak fit into this??

Plus, I've heard of "off-the-record", "not for attribution" and "deep background", but are they serious about "double super secret background"? Is that from National Lampoon or something?

At the same time, Luskin declined to say whether Rove knew that Plame was a covert agent...Hmm...this is just like Luskin's denial that Rove had anything to do with it. And as someone else already pointed out, if Rove really didn't know she was an undercover agent, why not just say so?

This all makes me wonder if Rove has some information on the administration that he is threatening to make public if he is fired.Boy, if he did, and he used it, that'd make this doubly suh-weet!

Not holding my breath, though.

And it may be true, as IJ maintains, that Rove will find a way to worm out of this, I sincerely hope not. With most thugs, dictators and other societal parasites, there comes a time when their runaway hubris causes them to take things just one step too far. Hopefully this is that "one step too far" for Rove and Bush.

Anyway, I'm cautiously encouraged by the coverage the media has given this issue since Sunday. I've already seen it on several TV stations and in several papers.

[Xtremehkr]

I am beginning to use this Administration and its actions as a standard by which to gauge the health of our Democracy.

I am most interested in seeing how the laws of the land are applied according to political affiliation, and the repercussions that are faced according to the crimes committed.

The Clinton Administration was scandal ridden, even though very few accusations were ever proven to be true. Despite that, a Democratic President faced impeachment for lying about an extra marital affair.

On the other hand, we have an Administration that is constantly associated with scandalous situations and yet manages to avoid facing any real repercussions. Up to this point at least, Rove may face some problems but has the luxury of being able to afford some very high priced representation.

Given the enormity of the criminal evidence mounting against this Administration, and the surprisingly weak outcry, I am not all that optimistic about the strength of our Democracy. The same rules do not seem to be evenly applied when it comes to political affiliation.

Maybe it comes down to the fact that Democrats are less willing to support what they see as being corrupt public officials, despite what the real facts often suggest.

Republicans seem more willing to support their representation no matter what lows they stoop to. This discrepancy in objective judgement of political leadership creates an inequality when it comes to holding the elected leadership responsible for their actions.

A Democracy would suggest that there is objective treatment of all politicians, regardless of affiliation. That is made harder though, when the supporters of one side are willing to play 'winner takes all, despite the means' politics.

In the end this will lead to ruthless contentiousness on both sides, regardless of the laws that are in place. And that makes me wonder about how good our own Democracy is. In some circumstances, playing fair is just not enough, especially when it comes to nation that pays so little attention. On both sides.

At this point, I am more than a little disappointed. Because it seems that the outcome of important decisions are based upon the ability of politicians to sell a policy whether or not it is beneficial to a nation as a whole or not.

In a situation like this though, where everybody should be interested in finding out who has violated the laws of the land, it is still coming down to partisan politics. Despite the fact that there may have been real damage done to the nation as a whole.

I am not optimistic about the health of our Democracy when only one side is held accountable, whether what they do is good or bad.

Until the law of the land is evenly applied to all politicians, and supported by most voters, I am a little pessimistic about the health of our own Democracy. And more reluctant to support the expansion of a system that is so lopsided.

[atszyman]

Well Slate has started their Rove Death Watch (http://slate.msn.com/id/2122507/). Of course they were wrong about O'Neil and Rumsfeld, but it could be interesting.

[Thomas Veil]

The Clinton Administration was scandal ridden, even though very few accusations were ever proven to be true. Despite that, a Democratic President faced impeachment for lying about an extra marital affair.

On the other hand, we have an Administration that is constantly associated with scandalous situations and yet manages to avoid facing any real repercussions.Indeed, this is the Ultimate Double Standard. The final results of the Clinton "scandals" were that the Clintons were financially shafted in the Whitewater affair (instead of shafting others); the "murders" of Vince Foster and others were nothing more than Republican wishful thinking and character assassination; and the only true "scandal", the Clinton perjury charge, is one that Clinton had to be maneuvered into and which -- had he been willing to chance it -- would probably have been thrown out on the basis of entrapment.

As opposed to the very real scandals of this administration: the lies that began the war; sent 1500+ Americans and many more Iraqis to their deaths; set up Bush's cronies in the oil business in the Middle East; caused billions of dollars meant for Iraq reconstruction to magically "vanish"; and on and on and hideously on.

[IJ Reilly]

Now, I didn't say Rove would find a way out of this, but that he'd make every effort and he's sure as hell good at this stuff. And look at how the discussion has turned technical already. Did Karl Rove break the law? I don't know, let's ask about a thousand legal experts. And Joe Wilson was wrong, so it doesn't matter what Rove might have said anyway! His wife did recommend him for the Niger expedition! And he supported Kerry! This is precisely the forest-for-the-trees method they will use to confuse as many people as possible about what really happened, why it happened, and what it means.

If Watergate had occurred on Rove's watch, the story would have been all about whether the burglars were really Cuban, why Daniel Eilsberg was seeing a shrink, and how Nixon was the victim of a political conspiracy.

[zimv20]

link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050711-3.html)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go ahead, Terry.

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

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

Q Do you recall when you were asked --

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

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

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

MR. McCLELLAN: Back at that time period.

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

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

there's more, but this highlights some nice hypocrisy on the part of mcclellan. seems the press corps is waking up some. btw, Terry is ABC's Terry Moran. i don't know the other reporters.

finally...
In this election, they will speak endlessly of risk. We will speak of progress. They will make accusations. We will make proposals. They will feed fear. We will appeal to hope. They will offer more lectures, and legalisms, and carefully worded denials. We offer another way, a better way, and a stiff dose of truth.-- Dick Cheney, regarding Gore's campaign, August 2, 2000 link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/08/02/politics/main221310.shtml)

(emphasis mine)

[Thomas Veil]

Y'all will wanna catch the Daily Show reruns today of last night's 11 pm broadcast. They spent most of the show on Rove, and McClellan looked like a complete ass refusing to comment. It might be the first time since Bush was elected that the White House press corps actually resembled a group of vertebrates.

[Mike Teezie]

Wow! Is there anywhere one could view that press briefing?

Sounds like they really nailed McClellan to the wall when he was tried to squirm out of the tough questions.

Bravo!

[mactastic]

Wow! Is there anywhere one could view that press briefing?

Yes, (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Scotty_Rove.mov) there is.

[Mike Teezie]

Yes, (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Scotty_Rove.mov) there is.

Excellent. Thanks mac...

[diamond geezer]

CNN, ABC offered unchallenged legal analysis on Plame leak from Novak's partisan friends

Reporting on White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove's alleged involvement in the leaking of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, CNN and ABC News presented unchallenged legal analysis from Victoria Toensing and Joseph E. DiGenova, respectively, both of whom defended Rove and were identified only as a "legal analyst" and a "former US attorney." Toensing and DiGenova, however, are partisan Republicans and personal friends of CNN host and columnist Robert D. Novak, who originally outed Plame in July 2003.

DiGenova and Toensing are married and are the founding partners of DiGenova & Toensing LLP, a Washington law firm. Toensing was President Reagan's deputy assistant attorney general and chief counsel to former Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ). DiGenova has been described as a "confidant" of independent counsel Kenneth Starr during the Monica Lewinsky investigation [The Baltimore Sun, 9/21/00] and as "a former federal prosecutor now working for House Republicans" [The Washington Post, 2/23/98]. In 1998, Toensing and DiGenova angered House Democrats by repeatedly discussing the Lewinsky investigation in the media while under contract with the House Committee on Education and the Workforce to investigate the Teamsters union [The Washington Post, 2/13/98]. Toensing and DiGenova have a well-documented personal relationship with Novak.

According to her website bio, Toensing was "instrumental in winning passage" of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, under which the intentional disclosure of a covert agent's identity is illegal; she also claimed in a January 12 Washington Post op-ed that she was among those "who drafted and negotiated the scope of" the act. The July 12 broadcast of CNN's American Morning featured a report by CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux, in which Toensing cast Rove's purported comments to Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper as irrelevant under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. CNN provided no opposing view, nor did it identify her partisan roots or her friendship with Novak. Malveaux referred to Toensing as a "legal observer," while the on-screen graphic identified Toensing simply as a "legal analyst."

From the July 12 edition of CNN's American Morning:

MALVEAUX: Some legal observers say Rove's comments to Cooper are irrelevant because they don't meet the high standards set by federal law which make outing a spy a crime.

TOENSING: That statement, that Karl Rove gave the identity of [former ambassador Joseph C.] Wilson's wife, can only be illegal if the CIA was taking affirmative measures to protect her identity, and Karl Rove was aware that the CIA was doing so.

ABC's World News Tonight featured similar commentary from DiGenova, who was identified as a "former US attorney." DiGenova claimed it is "absolutely clear that Mr. Rove is not in any legal jeopardy whatsoever." His commentary not only went unchallenged, but was seemingly bolstered by ABC News correspondent Geoff Morrell.

From the July 10 broadcast of ABC's World News Tonight:

MORRELL: Last week, Rove gave Cooper permission to tell a federal grand jury investigating the leak about their secret conversation. That kept Cooper out of jail, but does it now expose Rove to criminal charges?

DiGENOVA: All the evidence makes it absolutely clear that Mr. Rove is not in any legal jeopardy whatsoever.

MORRELL: Indeed, Newsweek notes that nothing in Cooper's email suggests that Rove used the name of Wilson's wife, or even knew she was a covert operative. What's more, Rove's attorney [Robert Luskin] tells ABC News he has been assured by the special prosecutor [Patrick Fitzgerald] Rove is not a target of the investigation.



link (http://mediamatters.org/items/200507120005)

[zimv20]

from today's press briefing (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050713-7.html)

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, we've been round and round on this for a couple of days now. I don't have anything to add to what I've said the previous two days.

Q That's a different question, and it's not round and round --

MR. McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier.

Q It has nothing to do with the investigation, Scott, and you know it.

MR. McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier today, and the President said he's not --

Q That's a dodge to my question. It has nothing to do with the investigation. Is it appropriate for a senior official to speak about a covert agent in any way, shape, or form without first finding out whether that person is working as a covert officer.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, you're wrong. This is all relating to questions about an ongoing investigation, and I've been through this.

Q If I wanted to ask you about an ongoing investigation, I would ask you about the statute, and I'm not doing that.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think we've exhausted discussion on this the last couple of days.

Q You haven't even scratched the surface.

Q It hasn't started.


Q I'm going to go to another question, somewhat on the same subject, but a different vein. Let's talk about the Wilson family. Is there any regret from this White House about the effects of this leak on this family?

MR. McCLELLAN: We can continue to go round and round on all these --

Q No, no, no, no. This has nothing to do with the investigation. This is about the leak and the effects on this family. I mean, granted there are partisan politics being played, but let's talk about the leak that came from the White House that affected a family.

MR. McCLELLAN: And let me just say again that anything relating to an ongoing investigation, I'm not going to get into discussing. I've said that the past couple of days.

Q This is not -- this is about -- this is a personal -- this is not about the -- I mean about the investigation. This is about the personal business of this family, an American family, a taxpaying family, a family that works for the government of the United States. And the executive branch -- someone in the executive branch let this family down in some kind of way, shape, or form. Is there any regret from the White House that this family was affected by the leak?

MR. McCLELLAN: It doesn't change what I just said.

[IJ Reilly]

MR. McCLELLAN: It doesn't change what I just said.

Of course it doesn't change what you said because you said nothing.

[idea_hamster]

frog'·march (frôg-märch) v.t. 1. march a person against his will by any method 2. carry someone against his will upside down such that each limb is held by one person
:D

[Xtremehkr]

Apart of me thinks, I hope that this isn't the Mother of all dirty Political tricks.

Rove would be the person to do it.

At the same time, I hope justice is served.

Given the number of current Republican operatives who are holdovers from past political scandals (Nixon Administration), I pessimistically think that they are a lot more sophisticated about how they choose to break the law these days.

Same scenario works in other fields where the criminally oriented operate, introduce new laws and they will eventually adapted to those as well. Not to mention the fact that they adapt or influence organizations that stopped or opposed them previously. Cough*media*cough.

[zimv20]

link (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20050714/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_investigation)


Bush Passes on Public Endorsement of Rove

WASHINGTON - President Bush passed up a chance Wednesday to express confidence in senior aide Karl Rove in a political fight over a news leak that exposed a CIA officer's identity. The lack of endorsement surprised some White House officials who had been told Bush would back his embattled friend.

Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, later asserted that Rove had "cooperated fully" in the federal investigation, had done nothing wrong and was prepared to provide additional information to a special prosecutor if needed.

"This is a serious investigation," Bush told reporters after a Cabinet meeting, with Rove sitting just behind him. "And it is very important for people not to prejudge the investigation based on media reports."

(more)

[idea_hamster]

W: "It is very important for people not to prejudge the investigation based on media reports."
I agree -- especially media reports like

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan on Karl Rove: "He wasn't involved.... The president knows he wasn't involved. It's simply not true." (29 September 2003)

[solvs]

It's about time reporters grew some. Maybe this is the real reason "Deep Throat" made himself known. To remind people of how it once was. I was beginning to worry about our dear press corp for awhile there, but it looks like this is the straw the broke the proverbial camel's back.

[Roger1]

I wonder if Bush or Rumsfeld told Rove to leak that persons name?

[mactastic]

It's about time reporters grew some. Maybe this is the real reason "Deep Throat" made himself known.
No, Deep Throat made it pretty clear he was coming out now to try to make a buck.
I wonder if Bush or Rumsfeld told Rove to leak that persons name?
I would guess either Rove or Cheney. But hey, that's what special prosecutors are for. Now, if only we could get an unlimited budget and an unlimited scope of investigation for that prosecutor. And then replace him with a rabid Democrat. I wonder what we'd find....

[zimv20]

wondering what you guys think about bush's involvement. what did bush know and when did he know it? and if he wasn't informed/involved from the get-go, is he actually in control of his own administration?

[idea_hamster]

wondering what you guys think about bush's involvement. what did bush know and when did he know it? and if he wasn't informed/involved from the get-go, is he actually in control of his own administration?
In general, I have always assumed that W's m.o. is to have "trusted" people brief him on the options available for a certain issue and then to make an executive decision. The inner loop (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, etc.) use this to control Bush -- when they present the "available options," they characterize their own preferences as the best option and the alternatives as poor ones.

About the Wilson-retaliation/Plame-outing, I suspect that this was cooked up by Rove. The personal nature of the attack ('Wilson needed his wife to get him the job -- what a wimp') and the no-holds-barred nature of the tactic (Plame was somehow "fair game" once Wilson criticized the administration) has Rove's fingerprints all over it. While I bet Bush liked the idea and couldn't care less about wrecking Plame's career and endangering her life, I don't think he has the mental capacity to develop that kind of stra-tee-gery.

[mactastic]

wondering what you guys think about bush's involvement. what did bush know and when did he know it? and if he wasn't informed/involved from the get-go, is he actually in control of his own administration?
I'm guessing Bush 'didn't know'. As in "Hey chief, I'll take care of the Wilson problem. How? It's better that you don't know." Rove knows all about plausible deniability.

There will be no proof whatsoever that Bush knew, even though all he had to do was ask. Either Karl would have told him or he would have lied to him. But I am willing to bet Bush relys on the 'well I never thought to ask him about it' excuse.

Marge: Why all the black?
Homer: (Defensive) Why all the pearls? Why all the hair? Why anything?
Lisa: You look a little nervous, Dad..
Homer: (Childishly) No, YOU look a little nervous, Lisa!
Bart: You're up to something, aren't ya?
Homer: (Standing up) No! I'm just going out to commit certain deeds.
(From outside the room, still within earshot) Suckers.

[IJ Reilly]

I'm guessing Bush 'didn't know'. As in "Hey chief, I'll take care of the Wilson problem. How? It's better that you don't know." Rove knows all about plausible deniability.

There will be no proof whatsoever that Bush knew, even though all he had to do was ask. Either Karl would have told him or he would have lied to him. But I am willing to bet Bush relys on the 'well I never thought to ask him about it' excuse.

It's a distinction without a difference anyway. Rove has been Bush's top political advisor for decades, so what Bush "knew" is besides the point. These men are joined at the hip.

[Sayhey]

I'm guessing Bush 'didn't know'. As in "Hey chief, I'll take care of the Wilson problem. How? It's better that you don't know." Rove knows all about plausible deniability.

There will be no proof whatsoever that Bush knew, even though all he had to do was ask. Either Karl would have told him or he would have lied to him. But I am willing to bet Bush relys on the 'well I never thought to ask him about it' excuse.

More likely, "Won't someone rid me of this troublesome Ambassador?" complete with winks and "Sure, Boss!" (with profound apologies to Henry II.)

What fascinates me in all of this is the attempt to portray Wilson as a tool of the Democrats who was trying to sabotage Bush's invasion. Trouble is that Wilson's politics were much closer to Bush's Dad and his advisors than any Democrats.

[idea_hamster]

What fascinates me in all of this is the attempt to portray Wilson as a tool of the Democrats who was trying to sabotage Bush's invasion. Trouble is that Wilson's politics were much closer to Bush's Dad and his advisors than any Democrats.
Well, it seems to me that this is just an logical extension of Bush's "You're with us or against us" mentality that had become evident in other areas policy. I suspect that this type of thinking appeals to them for any number of reasons:

It's simple -- good for the short-attention-span theatre of US politics
It doesn't take a nuanced mind to appreciate
It yields no shortage of witches/scapegoats
It helps to justify Rove's no-rules m.o.
It leaves lots of room for rhetoric and insinuation
others

[IJ Reilly]

An interesting if predictable debate on the NewsHour last night:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec05/rove_7-13.html

It got as close to outright bickering as any segment I've ever seen on this program, which only show how high the political temperature has become on this issue. Also, take a look at how closely the Republican spokesman Ed Rogers cleaves to the GOP talking points I linked to yesterday. Chapter and verse -- and he was even called on it. This suggests to me that the Democrats need talking points of their own, and some discipline to stick with them. Too often this debate diverts to legal technical issues, which is exactly where the Republicans want it to be (confusing, ambiguous). The term "dirty trick" should be deployed every time a Republican brings legal issues, tries to defame Joe Wilson, or blames the entire affair on "partisan politics."

[mactastic]

Agreed. Why is it that Democrats can never seem to stick to the talking points?

Every GOP point can and has been debunked. Memorize, and repeat.

[Sayhey]

There is a very interesting interview with Ambassador Wilson over at The Raw Story (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Interview_Ambassador_Wilson_husband_of_outed_CIA_agent_sees_larger_Administration_ro_0713.html). The parts of the interview about Wilson's contacts with former President Bush and his views leading up to the war are particularly good.

President George H.W. Bush chimes in

Raw Story: I know that after this occurred you had gotten a kind letter from George H. W. Bush expressing his concern and dismay.

Wilson: I got a long hand-written note.

Raw Story: What were his sentiments?

Wilson: He expressed his outrage at what had happened and his understanding of the seriousness of it.

Raw Story: And it was he, the elder Bush, who said of outing CIA assets, was akin to treason and later the current President used that quote as well.

Wilson: Yes, he said “those who betray the trust by exposing the names of our sources" are "the most insidious of traitors.”

Raw Story: Have you spoken or communicated with him since that note?

Wilson: I have not talked to him in quite a while.

Raw Story: Do you think that the former President Bush is really appalled by all of this?

Wilson: What I can tell you on that that is that after I wrote my first article for the San Jose Mercury News, on October 13, 2002, I sent him a courtesy copy because I referred to the first Gulf War. Within days I got a letter back from him saying basically that “I agree with virtually everything in your article.”

Raw Story: But publicly, nothing.

Wilson: In all fairness, when you are an ex-President there are certain things, the protocol requires that you stay out of the current presidency, especially if it is your son.

Raw Story: The question begs to be asked, would no one say choose between your country and your son, given the Downing Street Memos (collectively), and other evidence that points to us going to war under false pretenses, not to mention the political hit on your wife, and others who attempted to clarify the record with regard to Iraq.

Wilson: I cannot really comment on that. I know the role of ex-Presidents, and I have watched both President Clinton and President Bush [senior] in their roles as ex-presidents, and I know even how conflicted some Democrats were in the run up to the Iraq war, and how people were willing to acquiesce to the information provided before the war, so I cannot really say.

In a side note, just because I know my friend IJ enjoys this subject so much, I include Wilson's words on Fascism in the U.S. ;)

Wilson: The good thing about our system is that we are a nation of laws and it is hard to subvert those laws for an extended period of time. The difference between us and say, fascism in either Italy or Spain, is that we have a settled Constitution and a settled history and there have been challenges that have been beaten back. We also have institutions which have withstood the buffeting of the political winds. We have demonstrated that during the Civil War, during the McCarthy era, during Vietnam, and so forth. There is every reason to expect the pendulum to swing back, but it will not swing back on its own. Which is why it is so important for the citizens, the press, and the Congress to begin to speak up more loudly and begin to push the pendulum back.

Those who believe that the pendulum will swing back naturally have forgotten the lessons of the communists in Russia and the lessons of the fascists in Spain. In Russia, it took from 1917 to 1990 (circa) to drive the Communists out of power and in Spain it took from 1936-39 to 1975-76 and Franco's death to drive the fascists out of power. So we may be in for a long ride.

[mactastic]

I think this part of the interview is particularly important:
Raw Story: Do we know the extent of the damage outside of your wife and her projects? Do we know the number of casualties including other assets, abroad or other domestic assets?

Wilson: I think that is unverifiable. I don’t have any information on that and I don’t know nor would I know if the CIA has done an after action review. Just as general proposition, you have to assume that every project or program she was ever involved in has been rolled up. Whether there are casualties is something I don’t know.

The other thing you can assume that even if 150 people read the Novak article when it appeared, 148 of them would have been the heads of intelligence sections at embassies here in Washington and by noon that day they would have faxing her name or telexing her name back to their home offices and running checks on her: whether she had ever been in the country, who she may have been in contact with, etc.

Raw Story: Then Novak runs a second article outing the front company that your wife was using, falsely connecting it to a campaign donation.

Wilson: Right, he runs a second article exposing her front company.
(Emphasis mine)
Absolutely unforgivable. As GHWBush stated, the people who would out our secret agents are the worst kind of scum. Rove will be lucky not to join John Walker Lindh in prison for treason. And Novak as well. Anyone who defends Rove must approve of damaging the national security of the United States, and providing aid and comfort to our enemies. It's that simple. If foreign agents were able to use the information about Wilson's wife to track down her actions and the actions of people she worked with, then the enemy was aided and abetted. :mad:

Just as a baseline, what was the right wing response to allegations that Sandy Berger took secret documents home with him? They wanted his head, with no evidence that he did anything untoward with said documents. Now Rove demostrably has harmed the security of our country and our work on WMD non-proliferation, and the right wing thinks that's hunky dory.

[IJ Reilly]

An excellent interview, which only begs the question: Why is this showing up only on a political web site and not on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC...?

(I won't even ask about Fox. I know why it isn't happening there.)

[Xtremehkr]

Rove may be reaching the point where he just made too many enemies. This story seems to have legs, which considering media choices of late, is surprising.

If it gets half the coverage Natalie Holloway has, it may make a difference.

[solvs]

Now Rove demostrably has harmed the security of our country and our work on WMD non-proliferation, and the right wing thinks that's hunky dory.
They may want to rethink their position. Bad enough people are pissed about the Terry Schiavo thing, privatizing Social Security, not to mention the increasing frustration with the situation in Iraq. Hard for a patriot to justify a treasonous act like this. Even if Wilson was a partisan hack (which he isn't), there is simply no justification for such a thing.

[Sayhey]

It now looks like Rove has been identified as one of the two sources of Robert Novak's original story. So much for his conversation with Matt Cooper being an isolated mistake.

Rove Reportedly Held Phone Talk on C.I.A. Officer
By DAVID JOHNSTON and RICHARD W. STEVENSON
Published: July 15, 2005
WASHINGTON, July 14 - Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified a C.I.A. officer who was undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said.

Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.

After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."

The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Mr. Novak, the person who has been briefed on the matter said.

Six days later, Mr. Novak's syndicated column reported that two senior administration officials had told him that Mr. Wilson's "wife had suggested sending him" to Africa. That column was the first instance in which Ms. Wilson was publicly identified as a C.I.A. operative.

The column provoked angry demands for an investigation into who disclosed Ms. Wilson's name to Mr. Novak. The Justice Department appointed Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a top federal prosecutor in Chicago, to lead the inquiry. Mr. Rove said in an interview with CNN last year that he did not know the C.I.A. officer's name and did not leak it.

The person who provided the information about Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak declined to be identified, citing requests by Mr. Fitzgerald that no one discuss the case. The person discussed the matter in the belief that Mr. Rove was truthful in saying that he had not disclosed Ms. Wilson's identity.

On Oct. 1, 2003, Mr. Novak wrote another column in which he described calling two officials who were his sources for the earlier column. The first source, whose identity has not been revealed, provided the outlines of the story and was described by Mr. Novak as "no partisan gunslinger." Mr. Novak wrote that when he called a second official for confirmation, the source said, "Oh, you know about it."

That second source was Mr. Rove, the person briefed on the matter said. Mr. Rove's account to investigators about what he told Mr. Novak was similar in its message although the White House adviser's recollection of the exact words was slightly different. Asked by investigators how he knew enough to leave Mr. Novak with the impression that his information was accurate, Mr. Rove said he had heard parts of the story from other journalists but had not heard Ms. Wilson's name.

Robert D. Luskin, Mr. Rove's lawyer, said Thursday, "Any pertinent information has been provided to the prosecutor." Mr. Luskin has previously said prosecutors have advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target in the case, which means he is not likely to be charged with a crime.

In a brief conversation on Thursday, Mr. Novak declined to discuss the matter. It is unclear if Mr. Novak has testified to the grand jury, and if he has whether his account is consistent with Mr. Rove's.

The conversation between Mr. Novak and Mr. Rove seemed almost certain to intensify the question about whether one of Mr. Bush's closest political advisers played a role in what appeared to be an effort to undermine Mr. Wilson's credibility after he challenged the veracity of a key point in Mr. Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech, saying Saddam Hussein had sought nuclear fuel in Africa.

The conversation with Mr. Novak took place three days before Mr. Rove spoke with Matthew Cooper, a Time magazine reporter, whose e-mail message about their brief talk reignited the issue. In the message, whose contents were reported by Newsweek this week, Mr. Cooper told his bureau chief that Mr. Rove had talked about Ms. Wilson, although not by name.... NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/politics/15rove.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=8b89b1ab01900c23&ex=1279080000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

[Thomas Veil]

That's actually a little disappointing to those of us who'd like to see Rove gone. It's saying, in essence, that there was an original source who told Novak that Valerie Plame was a CIA operative, Novak went to Rove for confirmation, and Rove confirmed it.

Still looks bad for Rove, but not as bad as if he'd been the one who outed Plame in the first place.

Unless, of course, the original source was someone like, oh, say...Dick Cheney. Then it would look like they were working together to smear Wilson.

And -- purely on a gut feeling, without anything to back it up -- I think that's what probably happened.

(Oooh! Oooh! Another interesting thought. Who used to run the CIA, and still gets CIA briefings, despite no longer being in office? George H. W. Bush.)

[zimv20]

(Oooh! Oooh! Another interesting thought. Who used to run the CIA, and still gets CIA briefings, despite no longer being in office? George H. W. Bush.)
i'd be shocked if bush sr had anything to do with this. i'd like to believe that, as former CIA head, he'd understand the grave danger of exposing an agent and, further, he'd be above doing so.

regarding rove, novak and whoever else, i say bring 'em all up on RICO charges. it's beginning to sound like they've worked out their stories such that no single person did enough to qualify as a crime, even though the sum total equates to treason. so nail 'em all.

[atszyman]

regarding rove, novak and whoever else, i say bring 'em all up on RICO charges. it's beginning to sound like they've worked out their stories such that no single person did enough to qualify as a crime, even though the sum total equates to treason. so nail 'em all.

Isn't that the very definition of a conspiracy?

I really wish the media and Dems would play up the issues that mactatstic highlighted from the Raw Story interview. Not only was Plame outed but her front company and anyone she had ever worked with was now put at risk, which of course could be extended to anyone they had worked with and so on. What is the likelihood that someone that worked directly with Plame in the past or even one degree removed was compromised on an assignment due to this leak? This is much, much bigger than just Plame.

[IJ Reilly]

If the entire case against Rove and the administration is predicated upon a national security issue, then I think Rove (and Bush) will skate on this one, because it can all be reduced to a series of progressively less comprehensible technicalities. In short order, most people will get confused and bored by the story. Unfortunately, this is the direction events are moving right now. If the focus shifts to where I think it rightly belongs -- to a White House willing to abuse power to punish a critic, and to Bush reneging on his unambiguous statement that he'd dismiss anyone connected with it, then the story has real legs.

Remember Watergate: It wasn't the crime, but the coverup that sunk Nixon. The administration is stonewalling big time now. What are they trying to hide, and why? This is the real story.

[FFTT]

http://entomology.unl.edu/images/blowflies/blowflymags1.jpg

Squirm and slither you maggots!

[Sayhey]

That's actually a little disappointing to those of us who'd like to see Rove gone. It's saying, in essence, that there was an original source who told Novak that Valerie Plame was a CIA operative, Novak went to Rove for confirmation, and Rove confirmed it.

This is a new Rove inspired excuse for what he did, but the interesting thing is how the latest excuse contradicts yesterday's talking points. Are we to now believe Rove is just a serial accidental leaker who was fooled by those bad reporters? I think they're trying different scenarios out to see if anyone will believe them. It's not looking good for Rove right now.

[atszyman]

Shouldn't the first response of anyone in the government to a reporter's question/assertion that anyone is a CIA agent be, "No, as far as I am aware, name, does not work for the CIA." rather than, "Oh, you know about that?" At least this should be the response until it has been confirmed that the person in question is not a covert operative.

It seems that for intelligence agencies, it should be routine for everyone in the govt. to deny that anyone works there first so that the status of the employee could be verified as covert or open to prevent exactly the situation that we are now in. It should not be simply illegal to reveal an agent that you know to be covert, it should be illegal to reveal any agent that you don't know to be in open employment of the agency in question. You don't get to defend yourself through ignorance of the law so ignorance of an agent's status should not be a defense.

Of course that's not the way that the law is currently written so unfortunately Rove will probably get off by splitting hairs and saying he didn't know she was covert. This does not change Bush's promise to fire anyone involved or Rove's assertion that he had nothing to do with it.

Did Rove know she was covert? We'll never know for sure, and he'll always claim he didn't.

Should Rove have known better than to confirm the report? Yes, and it's a sure bet that he does know better and should have denied Plame's employment with the CIA rather then respond with "Oh, you know about that?"

Was it done for partison payback? Due to the timing, once again this is almost a sure thing, but proving it will be next to impossible, but I'm holding out hope that this one manages to have a few loose ends that cause the whole thing to unravel.

[katchow]

Did Rove know she was covert? We'll never know for sure, and he'll always claim he didn't.


was she actually covert at the time? can this much be assumed by now? or does it matter?

i'm starting to lose hope that this story is going to go anywhere. the complexity is enough to put the average joe to sleep.

[idea_hamster]

was she actually covert at the time? can this much be assumed by now?
I think that it is beyond comprehension that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald would spend two years investigating this issue if V. Wilson was outside the protection of the only statute that could lead to an indictment.

It's simply lawyering 101: What does the statute say? And does she fall within those parameters?

Now, the Rove rescue squad (1) are not lawyers, and (2) don't read the law until they think they're in trouble. Consequently, two years into the investigation, when Turd Blossom is getting reeled in, they start looking at the rule book -- and come across this bit about who is and isn't "covert". They trot this thing out as a reason why Rove isn't on the hook. Unfortunately, I suspect that Fitzgerald has a two-year-old legal memorandum explaining why they're wrong sitting in his files.

[IJ Reilly]

was she actually covert at the time? can this much be assumed by now? or does it matter?

It doesn't matter. The big story here is the cynical use of privileged information by highly-placed officials in the White House to silence a political critic, and the subsequent efforts to cover it up. Everything else is extraneous, but sadly every thing else is only the aspect of this story that anyone really wants to discuss.

[katchow]

makes sense. 'fraid i slipped a little into the muddied waters.

BTW, does this pic give anyone else a warm and fuzzy feeling?

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/w/d/rove_arrested.jpg

[mactastic]

It doesn't matter. The big story here is the cynical use of privileged information by highly-placed officials in the White House to silence a political critic, and the subsequent efforts to cover it up. Everything else is extraneous, but sadly every thing else is only the aspect of this story that anyone really wants to discuss.
Well really there are two parallel tracks here. One legal, the other political. Fitzgerald shouldn't care about cynical use of anything, he should be concerned with the legal minutae of who said what to whom and who was covered under the appropriate laws as CIA operatives.

Politically, the focus should be on the fact that WH officials were more than willing to use damaging personal information to silence a critic, then lied about it to the public.

In my view, perjury charges would be extremely damning, since all the quote about Clinton's perjury charge can be dragged out and shown to the public. The right will have to explain why they feel exposing not just a CIA operative, but her front company and everyone who 'worked' at that company, as well as anyone she had been in contact with in her NOC capacity overseas. They'll also have to explain, if perjury charges are brought, why perjury was such a big deal a few years ago on matters not relating to national security, but it's no big thing now.

And remind everyone about how worked up the right-wingers were about Sandy Berger's alleged breach of national security. Then ask why that was so important, but this isn't.

[zimv20]

from this july 2003 interview w/ novak (http://foi.missouri.edu/voicesdissent/columnistnames.html):

Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."
i'd be interested to see if novak stands by that statement today.

[Dont Hurt Me]

makes sense. 'fraid i slipped a little into the muddied waters.

BTW, does this pic give anyone else a warm and fuzzy feeling?

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/w/d/rove_arrested.jpg
It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. This guy is a professional slease ball spin master. Nothing more, just like the guy he serves. This administration is a administration of lies & spin. Wake up America! Open your eyes.

[Sayhey]

I think that it is beyond comprehension that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald would spend two years investigating this issue if V. Wilson was outside the protection of the only statute that could lead to an indictment.

It's simply lawyering 101: What does the statute say? And does she fall within those parameters?

Now, the Rove rescue squad (1) are not lawyers, and (2) don't read the law until they think they're in trouble. Consequently, two years into the investigation, when Turd Blossom is getting reeled in, they start looking at the rule book -- and come across this bit about who is and isn't "covert". They trot this thing out as a reason why Rove isn't on the hook. Unfortunately, I suspect that Fitzgerald has a two-year-old legal memorandum explaining why they're wrong sitting in his files.

I don't think the violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is the only thing being investigated. The leaking of any classified information by a government official is a violation of the law, as is perjury before a grand jury and lying to FBI agents. Even if Fitzgerald can't prove all the elements of a violation of the IIPA it doesn't mean folks will walk away from this with no consequences.

[IJ Reilly]

Well really there are two parallel tracks here. One legal, the other political. Fitzgerald shouldn't care about cynical use of anything, he should be concerned with the legal minutae of who said what to whom and who was covered under the appropriate laws as CIA operatives.

Politically, the focus should be on the fact that WH officials were more than willing to use damaging personal information to silence a critic, then lied about it to the public.

In my view, perjury charges would be extremely damning, since all the quote about Clinton's perjury charge can be dragged out and shown to the public. The right will have to explain why they feel exposing not just a CIA operative, but her front company and everyone who 'worked' at that company, as well as anyone she had been in contact with in her NOC capacity overseas. They'll also have to explain, if perjury charges are brought, why perjury was such a big deal a few years ago on matters not relating to national security, but it's no big thing now.

And remind everyone about how worked up the right-wingers were about Sandy Berger's alleged breach of national security. Then ask why that was so important, but this isn't.

More like two diverging tracks, really.

If Rove's lawyers are to be believed, Rove is not the subject of the investigation. Setting aside the question of who is for a moment, Rove at least is apparently taking this to the bank. It's provided him with the comfort level required to give Cooper a pass to testify before the grand jury.

Again, I would not want to pin any hopes on the legal issues ever being clearly resolved. Nobody may ever dangle in court over this. But politically, that's an entirely different matter. The political case, as it stands today, is totally damning IMO, and depends little if at all on the legal questions. The administration wants us to be fixated on the legal questions because (1) it allows them to stonewall, and (2) they can be made ambiguous and unresolvable. Diverting attention away from the real issue is their only hope of making this go away.

[Xtremehkr]

As this story develops it becomes ever more convoluted. Rove claiming that Novak was the source is his information is very clever. Rove, as ever, proves to be the modern day Ellsworth Toohey.

While we are concentrating on Rove though, we aren't paying any attention to Tom Delay. Who must be happy that someone else is taking some heat. Delay is much more culpable for his actions, which makes me wonder. Cause Rove has been inviting media attention lately, not something he has usually done.

Starts to smell more orchestrated (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050715/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_rove_11;_ylt=AvhEUHNbiErZVhudXKIGmn5ZJ_wA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl) than ever.

I put little faith in anything Rove or Novak say, but it is starting to look like Rove covered his tracks pretty well.

Despite all of the latest developments, there is still the question of who started the whole outing process. I hope Fitzgerald was worth being put in charge of this investigation.

Whether or not Fitzgerald is successfully investigating this or not depends on when or if the Elephant echo chamber starts trying to discredit him. As yet, they have not attacked the investigator, which makes me wonder.

[zimv20]

link (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050715.html)


It Appears That Karl Rove Is In Serious Trouble

[...]

There is no solid information that Rove, or anyone else, violated this law designed to protect covert CIA agents. There is, however, evidence suggesting that other laws were violated. In particular, I have in mind the laws invoked by the Bush Justice Department in the relatively minor leak case that it vigorously prosecuted, though it involved information that was not nearly as sensitive as that which Rove provided Matt Cooper (and possibly others).

The Jonathan Randel Leak Prosecution Precedent

I am referring to the prosecution and conviction of Jonathan Randel. Randel was a Drug Enforcement Agency analyst, a PhD in history, working in the Atlanta office of the DEA. Randel was convinced that British Lord Michael Ashcroft (a major contributor to Britain's Conservative Party, as well as American conservative causes) was being ignored by DEA, and its investigation of money laundering. (Lord Ashcroft is based in South Florida and the off-shore tax haven of Belize.)

Randel leaked the fact that Lord Ashcroft's name was in the DEA files, and this fact soon surfaced in the London news media. Ashcroft sued, and learned the source of the information was Randel. Using his clout, soon Ashcroft had the U.S. Attorney in pursuit of Randel for his leak.

By late February 2002, the Department of Justice indicted Randel for his leaking of Lord Ashcroft's name. It was an eighteen count "kitchen sink" indictment; they threw everything they could think of at Randel. Most relevant for Karl Rove's situation, Court One of Randel's indictment alleged a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641. This is a law that prohibits theft (or conversion for one's own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes. But its broad language covers leaks, and it has now been used to cover just such actions.

Randel, faced with a life sentence (actually, 500 years) if convicted on all counts, on the advice of his attorney, pleaded guilty to violating Section 641. On January 9, 2003, Randel was sentenced to a year in a federal prison, followed by three years probation. This sentence prompted the U.S. Attorney to boast that the conviction of Randel made a good example of how the Bush Administration would handle leakers.

The Randel Precedent -- If Followed -- Bodes Ill For Rove

Karl Rove may be able to claim that he did not know he was leaking "classified information" about a "covert agent," but there can be no question he understood that what he was leaking was "sensitive information." The very fact that Matt Cooper called it "double super secret background" information suggests Rove knew of its sensitivity, if he did not know it was classified information (which by definition is sensitive).

United States District Court Judge Richard Story's statement to Jonathan Randel, at the time of sentencing, might have an unpleasant ring for Karl Rove. Judge Story told Randel that he surely must have appreciated the risks in leaking DEA information. "Anything that would affect the security of officers and of the operations of the agency would be of tremendous concern, I think, to any law-abiding citizen in this country," the judge observed. Judge Story concluded this leak of sensitive information was "a very serious crime."

"In my view," he explained, "it is a very serious offense because of the risk that comes with it, and part of that risk is because of the position" that Randel held in the DEA. But the risk posed by the information Rove leaked is multiplied many times over; it occurred at a time when the nation was considering going to war over weapons of mass destruction. And Rove was risking the identity of, in attempting to discredit, a WMD proliferation expert, Valerie Plame Wilson.

Judge Story acknowledged that Randel's leak did not appear to put lives at risk, nor to jeopardize any DEA investigations. But he also pointed out that Randel "could not have completely and fully known that in the position that [he] held." Is not the same true of Rove? Rove had no idea what the specific consequences of giving a reporter the name of a CIA agent (about whom he says he knew nothing) would be--he only knew that he wanted to discredit her (incorrectly) for dispatching her husband to determine if the rumors about Niger uranium were true or false.

Given the nature of Valerie Plame Wilson's work, it is unlikely the public will ever know if Rove's leak caused damage, or even loss of life of one of her contracts abroad, because of Rove's actions. Dose anyone know the dangers and risks that she and her family may face because of this leak?

It was just such a risk that convinced Judge Story that "for any person with the agency to take it upon himself to leak information poses a tremendous risk; and that's what, to me, makes this a particularly serious offense." Cannot the same be said that Rove's leak? It dealt with matters related to national security; if the risk Randel was taking was a "tremendous" risk, surely Rove's leak was monumental.

[...]

[idea_hamster]

I don't think the violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is the only thing being investigated. The leaking of any classified information by a government official is a violation of the law, as is perjury before a grand jury and lying to FBI agents. Even if Fitzgerald can't prove all the elements of a violation of the IIPA it doesn't mean folks will walk away from this with no consequences.
Fair enough -- I don't know whether there are specific limitations on the investigation but I am confident that Fitzgerald has the authority to pursue anyone who obstructed this investigation.

But I still say that the GOP talking point that somehow this is "no biggie" because V. Wilson wasn't "under cover" within the meaning of the statute is probably a loser legally.

Now if you're looking to give the short-attention-span ditto-heads something to copy-paste into their blogs, I suppose it's as good a theory as any.

And if you're trying to confuse/mislead/misdirect the public who are simply trying to understand the issue in order to formulate an educated opinion, well, it's just fine. Just fine, indeed.

[FFTT]

Look what "web sleuth" posted over at the Huffington Post.

Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin's direct telephone number at his firm, Patton Boggs, is 202-457-6190. His e-mail address is rluskin@pattonboggs.com.
Here is Luskin's bio page on the PB website:
http://www.pattonboggs.com/Attorneys/detail.aspx?id=96ea6d2c-0a8f-4cac-9155-620a5fe0dbc4

[FFTT]

THE REAL OUTRAGE IN THE ROVE PLAME AFFAIR
by

Larry C. Johnson

The misinformation being spread in the media about the Plame affair is alarming and damaging to the longterm security interests of the United States. Republicans' talking points are trying to savage Joe Wilson and, by implication, his wife, Valerie Plame as liars. That is the truly big lie.

For starters, Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak. Novak's column was not an isolated attack. It was in fact part of a coordinated, orchestrated smear that we now know includes at least Karl Rove.

Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.

A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.

The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her.

The Republicans now want to hide behind the legalism that "no laws were broken". I don't know if a man made law was broken but an ethical and moral code was breached. For the first time a group of partisan political operatives publically identified a CIA NOC. They have set a precendent that the next group of political hacks may feel free to violate.

They try to hide behind the specious claim that Joe Wilson "lied". Although Joe did not lie let's follow that reasoning to the logical conclusion. Let's use the same standard for the Bush Administration. Here are the facts. Bush's lies have resulted in the deaths of almost 1800 American soldiers and the mutilation of 12,000. Joe Wilson has not killed anyone. He tried to prevent the needless death of Americans and the loss of American prestige in the world.

But don't take my word for it, read the biased Senate intelligence committee report. Even thought it was slanted to try to portray Joe in the worst possible light this fact emerges on page 52 of the report: According to the US Ambassador to Niger (who was commenting on Joe's visit in February 2002), "Ambassador Wilson reached the same conclusion that the Embassy has reached that it was highly unlikely that anything between Iraq and Niger was going on." Joe's findings were consistent with those of the Deputy Commander of the European Command, Major General Fulford.

The Republicans insist on the lie that Val got her husband the job. She did not. She was not a division director, instead she was the equivalent of an Army major. Yes it is true she recommended her husband to do the job that needed to be done but only after fielding a request from her supervisor asking for her husband's bona fides. The decision to send Joe Wilson on this mission was made by her bosses and was in response to a request relayed to the division Valerie worked in by the Presidential daily briefer.

At the end of the day, Joe Wilson was right. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It was the Bush Administration that pushed that lie and because of that lie Americans are dying. Shame on those who continue to slander Joe Wilson while giving Bush and his pack of liars a pass. That's the true outrage.
Larry Johnson

[IJ Reilly]

Where was this published?

I haven't heard or read anything from Johnson in a long time.

[skunk]

That's pretty clear-cut, but can we have a link?

[mactastic]

I ran across Johnson's column at TPM (http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340) a couple days ago. Not sure if they're the original source though.

[zimv20]

link (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1083870,00.html)

anyone have access to the Time article? apparently, cooper claims that rove told him about ms plame, her employer, and what she worked on.

[FFTT]

Sorry forgot to post the link

http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/07/the_real_outrag.html

[Xtremehkr]

The TIME ( http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1083895,00.html) timeline.