WH denies rove outed cia operative

[zimv20]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/US/leak030929.html

included in the story is this statement:

"He wasn't involved," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said of Rove. "The president knows he wasn't involved. … It's simply not true."


something about that strikes me as odd. how can bush be so sure rove wasn't involved? unless bush knows who actually _did_ do it?


Rice said the matter has been referred to the Justice Department and "I think that's the appropriate place. … Let's just see what the Justice Department does."


i'm not holding my breath

[zimv20]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/wilson.cia/index.html


The White House will cooperate with the Justice Department in its initial inquiry into who leaked the classified identity of a CIA operative, but will not launch an internal probe and will not ask for an independent investigation, a spokesman said Monday.


a real leader would be demanding the truth and looking for people to fire.

this pretty much convinces me that the leak came from the top levels of the WH (i suspect rove), probably w/ bush's knowledge and approval.

[Desertrat]

"a real leader would be demanding the truth and looking for people to fire."

I remember when the flap blew up about Sherman Adams and the gift of a vicuna coat. Ike fired him, and Adams' desk was empty by that evening.

Shame that Nixon didn't do the same with the "Plumbers", or Clinton on several of the bad-news deals (FBI files, Travel Office, etc.) and now this stupidity.

Part of the deal for high level staff is that if you commit the sin of getting caught, you immediately resign and take your lumps. It's the downside of perks, power and money. That lets the administration (whatever level; private or public) go on about its business.

'Rat

[toontra]

This story is getting big coverage in the UK on radio and TV tonight.

Pundits are predicting the biggest WH scandal since Watergate, and that it will open the gates to a broader investigation of the whole issue of political manipulation of intelligence leading up to the Iraq war.

Here's hoping!

[zimv20]

from this NY times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/29/politics/29CND-LEAK.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=)


On Sunday, The Washington Post reported that Bush administration officials had contacted a half-dozen Washington reporters in an effort to publicly disclose Ms. Plame's identity, apparently in retaliation for Mr. Wilson's public assertions that President Bush had exaggerated the threat of any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to help justify the war to topple Saddam Hussein.

[mactastic]

Ye gods... if someone that high up in the WH did something like this as retaliation, well that's just about as low as you can go. Jail time would be a good thing to set an example of how important it is that our intel people are not subject to political maneuvers. (Or political manure... take your pick:p )

Someone committed a serious crime here. We need to find out who.

[IJ Reilly]

Well, I don't know about jail time, but I'd be happy to see GW Bush sentenced to spending the next four years in Texas.

[wwworry]

Do you think Tenet will take the fall for this one too?

It is a very serious crime that can put people lives in danger. Not just hers but everyone she had contact with. Outing CIA agents is something spies do. Spying is treason.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by wwworry
Do you think Tenet will take the fall for this one too?


i don't think the public would buy that, since its his agency that's pushing for the investigation.

i think it's gonna be someone who actually works in the WH. the longer bush puts it off, the higher up s/he's gotta be.

[mactastic]

It's funny how this has been floating around now for a while, and all of a sudden it's the news de jour, all over the place. Guess the request from the CIA for an investigation was what gave it "legs".

[zimv20]

Originally posted by mactastic
Guess the request from the CIA for an investigation was what gave it "legs".

'cept that was requested in july.

not sure what the catalyst was. maybe all it took was one editor who was sick of it all. then everyone picked up on it.

[Desertrat]

"...The Washington Post reported that Bush administration officials had contacted a half-dozen Washington reporters in an effort to publicly disclose Ms. Plame's identity..."

That has got to be the absolute dumbest, the most inept thing I've heard of in a large number of decades of watching Beltway dumba.ssedness. Ineffingcredible! "Officials", plural? Contacting a half-dozen reporters? They might as well have gone public on TV!

And for such a petty thing as an act of "revenge"...

Mind-boggling.

'Rat

[mcrain]

What I find absolutely arrogant is the statement that the president knows he wasn't involved... it simply isn't true. This is no more proof than the president knows that he got more votes in Florida or that there are WMDs in Iraq.

Whatever happened to investigation leading to evidence leading to knowledge?

Since when did Jr. become omnicient?

If I hear one person compare this to Clinton getting a BJ and lying about it, I will puke.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by mcrain

Whatever happened to investigation leading to evidence leading to knowledge?


It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. -Arthur Conan Doyle, physician and writer (1859-1930)

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by mcrain
Whatever happened to investigation leading to evidence leading to knowledge?

When you already know, evidence is superfluous. The important task is covering your tracks and dragging your feet.

Incidentally, the White House just pledged to "fully cooperate" with the investigation, which I believe was step two in my previously posted four-step scheme for the American people not learning the truth before the next election.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by zimv20
It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. -Arthur Conan Doyle, physician and writer (1859-1930)

Well, Holmes, the reporter in question had a giddy tobacco induced high with a mustard stain on his lapel, obviously from the low-life haunts of Camden Yards. The paper he used in his story preparation is only available in the immediate vacinity of 1600 Pennsylavnia Avenue -- therefore it was Karl Rove with the well place knife in the back, in the Rose Garden, along with Col. Mustard ... oops, I mean Robert Novak! :D

Sorry, zim, I'm just too big a fan of Doyle's most famous detective. We could use a few independant sleuths on this case.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Well, Holmes, the reporter in question had a giddy tobacco induced high with a mustard stain on his lapel, obviously from the low-life haunts of Camden Yards. The paper he used in his story preparation is only available in the immediate vacinity of 1600 Pennsylavnia Avenue -- therefore it was Karl Rove with the well place knife in the back, in the Rose Garden, along with Col. Mustard ... oops, I mean Robert Novak!.

you've forgotten one important aspect of the case, my dear sayhey -- only ONE of the bowls of porridge was fully consumed.

therefore i surmise it was bush AND rove, with the knife, in the rose garden.

[IJ Reilly]

"Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." -- AC Doyle

[Backtothemac]

Man, this is the most bogus story.

1st. She wasn't an operative, she was an analyst. Huge difference. You cannot out an analyst at all.

2nd. Her husband said months before this happended that wanted to see Carl Rove taken out of the white house in hand cuffs.

3rd. He said at a speech in Washington state recently that he was wrong to say Rove was the person behind the leak, because he had not evidence that he was involved, or had knowledge of it, then in the next breath said he at least had knowledge of it.

4th. Robert Novack, the author of the article said "no one at the White house called me and leaded the info."

So, it is much to do about nothing, ESPECIALLY since she wasn't an operative.

[IJ Reilly]

How does that shoe feel on the other foot? A bit tight?

[Taft]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
1st. She wasn't an operative, she was an analyst. Huge difference. You cannot out an analyst at all.
...
So, it is much to do about nothing, ESPECIALLY since she wasn't an operative.

Interesting. So why are the FBI and Justice Department investigating this? If "Mrs. Wilson's" position in the CIA wasn't classified, you'd think that the FBI would be able to figure that out pretty quickly, wouldn't you?

Contrary to your assertion, the Justice Department and the FBI think there is a reason to investigate the leak. This implies there was something wrong with leaking the information in the first place. At the very least, it indicates they think the manner in which it was released is suspect.

Your argument doesn't stand against these facts.


4th. Robert Novack, the author of the article said "no one at the White house called me and leaded the info."

Thats interesting. It seems that everyone else says that Novak did receive this information from senior white house officials.

From the column where Novak "outed" "Mrs. Wilson" (townhall.com (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml)):

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

From the AP story (salon.com (http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/09/29/cia_leak/index.html)):

Novak said on CNN that his report was based on conversations with two senior administration officials while he was looking into Wilson's trip to Africa to investigate the uranium story. The officials told Novak that Wilson's wife had suggested the mission for her husband, the columnist said.

He said the CIA confirmed her role and "asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else."

They didn't call Novak, but they certainly leaked the information. Novak didn't believe the agent's identity was classified, but he is hardly the authority, now is he?

I really don't know how you can say nothing illegal happened. The facts, as they are currently known, just don't back you up.

Taft

[michaello]

I feel Robert Novak should reveal his source.

Whether he knew or didn’t know that her information was classified doesn’t matter – ignorance of the law is no excuse. He should have done his research. Screw him. He’s a pawn. The real game is not with him.

He should reveal his source, if for no other reason that he was used like a tool by the person in the Bush administration who fed him the story - and that his source "asked" him "not to reveal her name", as he said on CNN - but, he went ahead and did anyway.

I mean, the guy is a talk show host and a Daily News columnist - it's not like he's a serious journalist who has a reputation to keep up. He's a hack - a TV clown. He's a tool.

I agree with George Bush Sr., that "revealing the name of a source" is a case of treason.

But, we are in different times, when all George Bush Jr. could muster is "Leaks of classified information are bad things."

"Bad things" - the man has the mentality of a five year old and he's running our country.

I feel allowing Ashcroft to head the investigation is like leaving a wolf in charge of taking care of the chickens ... Or like leaving Raymond Burr in charge of taking care of Haley Joel Osmet ... Or, worse yet, leaving John Ashcroft in charge of taking care of Haley Joel Osmet.

... It's not a good idea.

We've got to get rid of these guys. Enough is enough.

We are better than this.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Man, this is the most bogus story.

1st. She wasn't an operative, she was an analyst. Huge difference. You cannot out an analyst at all.

2nd. Her husband said months before this happended that wanted to see Carl Rove taken out of the white house in hand cuffs.

3rd. He said at a speech in Washington state recently that he was wrong to say Rove was the person behind the leak, because he had not evidence that he was involved, or had knowledge of it, then in the next breath said he at least had knowledge of it.

4th. Robert Novack, the author of the article said "no one at the White house called me and leaded the info."

So, it is much to do about nothing, ESPECIALLY since she wasn't an operative.

B2TM, can you tell me the source of #2 and #3? My understanding is that Wilson was not unfriendly to the WH until they started ignoring his reports about the bogus nature of the "Iraq-Niger" connection. Novak may be telling the truth in that the leak my not have come from the WH - it could have come from the Defense Dept. for example and still be high government officals. We will see where this story goes, but I can't see how you can call it bogus at this point.

[mcrain]

Can anyone imagine how big a stink there would have been if Clinton would have refused an independent counsel when they had NO evidence, only a witch hunt.

[Backtothemac]

Wait mcrain, no one is refusing the special counsel. Also, she was not an operative. Being an analyst is different from being an opperative.

As for #2, and #3, I found it on Fox news the other day, can't find the link. Watch hanity and colmbs tonight. They discuss it.

Taft, IF there was any leak on an operative, throw their ass in jail. But she isn't an operative, therefore, she isn't protected by the law that Reagan helped pass.

As for Novack, he said in an interview on TV that the White House did not contact him, but that a senior official said that she was an agent. So, yea, I see your point on that and conceed it, except it isn't illegal to discuss the identy of an anaylist.

Oh, and mcrain, there is HUGE difference between someone in an admistration commiting a leak, and the President himself commiting perjury before a federal judge ;)

Taft, as for motivation, it is political. The democrats see a weakened presidency, and they are going for it.

[mcrain]

Hmm, which is worse, outing someone who is an agent as revenge, or saying someone is an agent, and exposing them to possible capture and torture, when you know they aren't an agent for revenge?

Either way, it's bad. One is seriously illegal, and the other is tantamount to attempted murder.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by mcrain
Hmm, which is worse, outing someone who is an agent as revenge, or saying someone is an agent, and exposing them to possible capture and torture, when you know they aren't an agent for revenge?

Either way, it's bad. One is seriously illegal, and the other is tantamount to attempted murder.

Yes, but she isn't an operative. People don't kidnap people that work in that part of the CIA.

Bigger picture. IF she is an operative, then who ever leaked it needs to fry.

IF she is indeed not an operative, then this is all political positioning, and BS>

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Wait mcrain, no one is refusing the special counsel. Also, she was not an operative. Being an analyst is different from being an opperative.

As for #2, and #3, I found it on Fox news the other day, can't find the link. Watch hanity and colmbs tonight. They discuss it.

Taft, IF there was any leak on an operative, throw their ass in jail. But she isn't an operative, therefore, she isn't protected by the law that Reagan helped pass.

As for Novack, he said in an interview on TV that the White House did not contact him, but that a senior official said that she was an agent. So, yea, I see your point on that and conceed it, except it isn't illegal to discuss the identy of an anaylist.

You are just plain wrong on every count. I'd suggest you read this interview the NewsHour ran just this evening, paying special attention to the words of Larry Johnson (quoted here in part):

LARRY JOHNSON: Let's be very clear about what happened. This is not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.

So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people who innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just an analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's out them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.

[...]

LARRY JOHNSON: I say this as a registered Republican. I'm on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear of an individual with no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it. His entire intent was correctly as Ambassador Wilson noted: to intimidate, to suggest that there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy and frankly, what was a false policy of suggesting that there were nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend that it's something else and to get into this parsing of words, I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this.

Full story:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec03/leaks_09-30.html

[Sayhey]

B2TM,

After reading IJ's post I don't think there is any doubt about the analyst/operative debate. The points you are putting out seem like the echo of Republican spin control. Does it make any sense for the head of the CIA to forward this to the Justice Department if they thought this agent wasn't covered under the law in question? Even if your points #2 & #3 are accurate, what does that have to do with whether the law was violated? Lastly, I have to repeat what I said when this story first broke, Novak was one of those that called for Phillip Agee's head when in the 70's he divulged agents names. It is unbelievably hypocritical of him to do the same thing for partisan political purposes. It only shows, to those who still had any doubt, that he is a mouthpiece for the administration masquerading as a journalist.

[mcrain]

Her husband, Joe Wilson is on ABC right now, Nightline I think. He basically (within what he is allowed to say under the law) just said that his wife was an operative, and the reason the CIA contacted him was b/c the VP's office tasked the CIA with finding out more info on the report that Iraq was attempting to purchase Uranium in Niger.

So, BTTM, you're wrong so far on whether she was "just" an analyst.

[mcrain]

Wow, that had to be one of the smartest guys I've ever seen in an interview. No wonder he was an ambassador.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Backtothemac

IF she is indeed not an operative, then this is all political positioning, and BS>

though the evidence seems to point to her being an undercover operative, i'll therorize and see what the unveiling might mean w/ her just as an analyst:

1. at a minimum, novak is guilty of libel, because this will destroy her existing consulting career

2. you must admit that the intent of the leak was to harm her and joseph wilson and was politically motivated. you may find ways to minimize the impact w/ by arguing letter of the law, but the spirit of it was clearly violated in a very mean and vindictive sense.

[Backtothemac]

I can't wait till it comes out who leaked it, so they can go to jail.

According to what I am reading now, she was Ops. If so, throw the book at them, and everyone that knew, as high up the ladder as it goes.

See, mcrain, I always said I would stand by the rule of law in this situation ;)

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
See, mcrain, I always said I would stand by the rule of law in this situation ;)

I always said you were a good guy, even when we disagreed.