... "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background
Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's nameNewsday 7/22/03:
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."so if Rove was one of Novak's sources, Rove did name names.
"Karl Rove is a liability in the war on terror.posted by ericb at 11:41 AM on July 11, 2005
Rove -- Newsweek’s new article quotes the very emails -- told a Time reporter that Ambassador Joe Wilson’s trip to investigate of the Niger uranium claim was at the behest of Wilson’s CIA wife.
To paraphrase Mr. Rove, liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers; conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared to ruin the career of one of the country’s spies tracking terrorist efforts to gain weapons of mass destruction -- for political gain.
Politics first, counter-terrorism second -- it’s as simple as that.
In his ‘story guidance’ to Matthew Cooper of Time, Rove did more damage to your safety than the most thumb-sucking liberal or guard at Abu Ghraib. He destroyed an intelligence asset like Valerie Plame merely to deflect criticism of a politician. We have all the damned politicians, of every stripe, that we need. The best of them isn’t worth half a Valerie Plame. And if the particular politician for whom Rove was deflecting, President Bush, is more than just all hat and no cattle on terrorism, he needs to banish Rove -- and loudly."
"There are still plenty of questions about Karl Rove's involvement in the Valerie Plame case, and we trust that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will eventually get to the bottom of them. But given what we know today, the very best that anyone can say of Karl Rove is that, on July 11, 2003, he broke the cover of a CIA analyst in order to discredit criticism of the way George W. Bush used intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war.posted by ericb at 6:44 PM on July 11, 2005
That's not partisan hyperbole; incredibly, it is Karl Rove's defense....
It's one thing to orchestrate nasty whispering campaigns about your political opponents when you're working as a private political consultant. There's plenty of evidence that Rove engaged in those kinds of tactics for Bush back in Texas and again for Bush during the South Carolina primary in 2000. We might not like it, but as Bush told John McCain during the 2000 campaign, 'It's politics.' This is different. Rove isn't a private political consultant anymore; he's a federal employee and the president's deputy chief of staff. And outing a CIA agent isn't just political hardball, or 'fair game' as Rove once told Chris Matthews. As Bush himself said of the Plame case last February, 'Leaks of classified information are bad things.' How bad? So bad that Bush's press secretary said back in September 2003 that, 'if anyone in this administration was involved' in the outing of Valerie Plame, that person would 'no longer be in this administration.' ...
Now is a time for action. Karl Rove traded away the identity of a CIA agent and, arguably, some portion of the nation's security in order to discredit one of the president's critics on the question of war. Thus, whatever comes of the criminal investigation that keeps [Bush's press secretary, Scott] McClellan from answering questions, we know at a minimum that Rove has breached the trust of his office and failed to live up to the standards that Bush has set for his own administration. It is time for Rove to go. And if he can't see that yet, it is time for the president to tell him." [Salon - requires free day pass | July 11, 2005]
"The official silence from the White House on Monday was quite disturbing....posted by ericb at 7:18 AM on July 12, 2005
New York Times reporter Judith Miller sits in jail today for refusing to reveal the source of the information she received about Plame.
Meanwhile, Karl Rove continues to roam the White House, wielding great power as well as a security clearance.
There is something terribly wrong with this picture. At a minimum, Rove should be put on leave while the evidence that he may have used top-secret information for political purposes is being sorted out." [San Francisco Chronicle | July 12, 2005]
"In the end, though, what Rove's leak and Novak's column really exposed was the depravity of the administration's deliberate use of a false WMD threat and its willingness to go after anyone willing to tell the truth about it.posted by ericb at 7:21 AM on July 12, 2005
It's ironic that the expertise of this couple should be turned against them by a White House that has demonstrated nothing but incompetence in dealing with the WMD issue. But clearly truth and competence are virtues easily shed by the Bush administration in the pursuit of political advantage, even when this partisan game jeopardizes national security.
This is the most important issue raised by the Plame scandal. It has been unfortunately obscured by the secondary debate in the case: whether reporters should ever reveal their sources. Yet what the emerging Rove scandal demonstrates is the ease with which a wily top White House official can subvert the Bill of Rights' protection of the free press to serve the tawdriest of political ends." [ L.A. Times | July 12, 2005]
"Because of the powerful role Mr. Rove plays in shaping policy and deploying Mr. Bush's political support and machinery throughout the party, few Republicans were willing to discuss his situation on the record. Asked for comment, several Republican senators said on Monday that they did not know enough or did not want to venture an opinion.posted by ericb at 7:26 AM on July 12, 2005
But in private, several prominent Republicans said they were concerned about the possible effects on Mr. Bush and his agenda, in part because Mr. Rove's stature makes him such a tempting target for Democrats.
'Knowing Rove, he's still having eight different policy meetings and sticking to his game plan,' said one veteran Republican strategist in Washington who often works with the White House. 'But this issue now is looming, and as they peel away another layer of the onion, there's a lot of consternation. Rove needs to be on his A game now, not huddled with lawyers and press people.'
A senior Congressional Republican aide said most members of Congress were still waiting to learn more about Mr. Rove's involvement and to assess whether more disclosures about his role were likely.
'The only fear here is where does this go,' the aide said. 'We can't know.' " [New York Times | July 12, 2005]
"The 32-minute pummeling was perhaps the worst McClellan received since he got the job two years ago. His eyes were red and tired. He wiggled his foot nervously behind the lectern and robotically refused to answer no fewer than 35 questions about Rove and the outing of the CIA's Valerie Plame. Twenty-two times McClellan repeated that an 'ongoing' investigation prevented him from explaining the gap between his past statements and the facts....posted by ericb at 7:34 AM on July 12, 2005
The spokesman gave a substantive answer to only one question, saying prosecutors asked the White House in 2003 to stop making public comments on the case. But that only made matters worse, because Bush himself continued to talk about the leaks in 2004. When this inconsistency was pointed out, McClellan clammed up, saying: 'You can keep asking [questions], but you have my response.'
This incited the normally mild-mannered Richard Stevenson of the New York Times, who retorted: 'We are going to keep asking them.' ....
McClellan tried for relief from Fox News, but Carl Cameron hit him with a tough one. 'Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?'
McClellan wouldn't say, so a mischievous April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks tried to get McClellan to say something -- anything -- about Rove. 'Who is Karl Rove as it relates to this administration?' she asked.
'I think I've responded," McClellan answered.' ....
Finally, a merciful Steve Holland of Reuters called an end to the interrogation. As McClellan turned to depart, CNN's Bob Franken asked if he could have one more question. McClellan paused, but Franken, reconsidering, waved the spokesman off.
'It's not worth it,' he said." [Washington Post | July 12, 2005]
"President Bush, at an Oval Office photo opportunity Tuesday, was asked directly whether he would fire Rove -- in keeping with a pledge in June, 2004, to dismiss any leakers in the case. The president did not respond.posted by ericb at 8:11 AM on July 12, 2005
For the second day, White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to answer questions about Rove." [Associated Press | July 12, 2005]
"As one Republican said to me last night, if this was a Democratic White House we'd have congressional hearings in a second."posted by ericb at 9:29 AM on July 12, 2005
"As Matt Yglesias points out, the extreme parsing of Rove’s comments to Matt Cooper — implying there is a substantive difference between 'Joe Wilson’s wife works for the CIA' and 'Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, works for the CIA' — has become the crux of Rove’s defense.posted by ericb at 10:44 AM on July 12, 2005
Now it’s seeping into the media. Here’s CBS’s Hannah Storm this morning: 'Well, he didn’t leak the name. What he said was that his wife worked for the agency. That may be a distinction without a difference for some, but I think legally that probably is a distinction.'
A quick read of the relevant portion of the law shows that’s almost surely not the case. Section 421 specifically states that disclosing 'any information indentifying [a] covert agent' is illegal:Whoever, 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, shall be fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."[Think Progress | July 12, 2005]
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Don't you think it's more serious than Watergate, when you think about it?posted by ericb at 9:40 PM on July 12, 2005
RNC CHAIRMAN ED GILLESPIE: I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative -- it's abhorrent, and it should be a crime, and it is a crime.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: It'd be worse than Watergate, wouldn't it?
GILLESPIE: It's -- Yeah, I suppose in terms of the real world implications of it. It's not just politics.
This is not a partisan issue. Back in October of 2003, shortly after Robert Novak—over CIA protestations—published Plame’s identity, a group of former CIA agents testified before a Senate Democratic Policy Committee on the outing of their colleague. The agents, Larry Johnson, Michael Grimaldi and Brent Cavan, all of whom are Republicans, pulled no punches in their shared statement:posted by spock at 8:43 AM on July 13, 2005
“We also want to send a clear message to the political ‘operatives’ responsible for ‘outing’ Mrs. Wilson. Such action was treacherous, if not treasonous…Such action has allowed the less attractive aspects of politics to supersede the Government’s responsibility to protect the citizens of this nation and the individuals who serve in difficult, dangerous covert capacities. This has set a sickening precedent. The ‘senior Administration officials’ who did this have warned all U.S. intelligence officers and the intelligence community that any one individual may be compromised if providing information or factual analysis the White House does not like.”
"Republicans mounted an aggressive and coordinated defense of Karl Rove yesterday, contending that the White House's top political adviser did nothing improper or illegal when he discussed a covert CIA official with a reporter....[Washington Post | July 13, 2005]
'The angry left is trying to smear' Rove, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, a Rove protege, said in an interview....
The emerging GOP strategy -- devised by Mehlman and other Rove loyalists outside of the White House -- is to try to undermine those Democrats calling for Rove's ouster, play down Rove's role and wait for President Bush's forthcoming Supreme Court selection to drown out the controversy, according to several high-level Republicans....
Mehlman, who said he talked with Rove several times in recent days, instructed GOP legislators, lobbyists and state officials to accuse Democrats of dirty politics and argue Rove was guilty of nothing more than discouraging a reporter from writing an inaccurate story, according to RNC talking points circulated yesterday.
'Republicans should stop holding back and go on the offense: fire enough bullets the other way until the Supreme Court overtakes events,' said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.)."
"The response of Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, to recent reports in Newsweek, which somehow got hold of reporter Cooper's subpoenaed memos fingering Rove, is highly instructive. Rove had previously insisted that he had never disclosed Valerie Plame's 'name.' Now his lawyer admits that Rove, in trying to discredit former ambassador Joseph Wilson, told Cooper that Wilson's 'wife' was a CIA agent but didn't mention her by name.posted by ericb at 9:38 AM on July 13, 2005
So Rove is playing word games. What he said was literally true -- but a lie, since a reporter given this tip could easily identify Wilson's wife. Whether or not he used her name, Rove was deliberately outing Plame. If he played the same word games before the grand jury, he's in trouble.
The White House spinners also contend that Plame was not really a clandestine and protected CIA agent because she worked at CIA headquarters. This is also nonsense. Plame, a specialist on weapons of mass destruction, was under cover when she undertook sensitive missions. She was not identified as CIA. Blowing her cover harmed her career and put her at risk.
This all recalls two other famous cases where an administration fell afoul of a special prosecutor. Bill Clinton tried to persuade a grand jury and public opinion that oral sex wasn't sex. He nearly lost the presidency, not for his dumb affair with an intern but for lying. Richard Nixon was disgraced, not for the original Watergate break-in but for the coverup. George Bush, who doesn't know much about history, should take notice."
"President Bush said Wednesday he will withhold judgment about top aide Karl Rove's involvement in leaking the identity of a CIA operative until a federal criminal investigation is complete. The lack of an endorsement surprised some Bush advisers who expected the president to speak up....[Associated Press | July 13, 2005]
Bush's statement was a surprise for some White House advisers and senior Republicans who had expected the president to deliver a vote of confidence for Rove, his deputy chief of staff. Two Bush advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity because they did not want to pre-empt the president, said shortly before his remarks that the president intended to signal his support of Rove - without prejudging the merits of the case - during that picture-taking session. Indeed, they said, he was prepared to do so a day earlier but the question was not posed in the question-and-answer session Tuesday."
"Rove has not been asked by senior White House officials whether he did anything illegal or potentially embarrassing to the president and he spent most of the day strategizing on Bush's Supreme Court nomination, aides said.
'No one has asked him what he told the grand jury. No one has deemed it appropriate,' said a senior White House official, who would discuss the Rove case only on the condition of anonymity. 'What you all need to figure out is, does this amount to a crime? That is a legitimate debate.' Still, some aides said they were concerned about the unknown. 'Is it a communications challenge? Sure,' the official said.
Privately, even Rove's staunchest supporters said the situation could explode if federal prosecutors accuse Rove or any other high-level official of committing a crime. William Kristol, a conservative commentator with close White House ties, said it would be hard to imagine a prosecutor conducting an investigation that has landed one reporter in jail and challenged the constitutional rights of the journalism profession without indicting someone. Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald 'is the problem for the White House, and we have no idea what he knows,' Kristol said."
"Here's the bottom line: let’s imagine for a moment that Fitzgerald does not indict Rove. Does this in any way mitigate, excuse, or erase what Rove did? Does it take the onus off President Bush's promise to fire the White House leaker? Of course not. Rove leaked -- and he should be fired. The Turd Blossom Express has reached the end of the line."[The Huffington Post | July 13, 2005]
"If you want to come dressed up in costume as a spy and protest the media will love that," the group wrote [in an e-mail invitation]. "Think: trench coat, sunglasses and a little nametag that says, 'Spy.'"posted by ericb at 10:34 AM on July 13, 2005
There are many ways to identify someone other than by name. And if the court gives the "Ostrich Instruction" (deliberate avoidance of knowledge and actual knowledge are the same thing) to the jury, contrary to what Rove's defenders want us to believe, Rove is in serious trouble with his defense of lack of knowledge.huh.
"Don't get distracted. Don't go on the defense. Don't spend hours explaining how Wilson was the hero, not Rove. Use this as a lab experiment in watching the Right's Noise Machine at work. Use this as a window into their tactics and strategies![Seeing The Forest | July 13, 2005]
Just keep pounding on Rove, what he did, and why this is important. Rove outed a covert CIA agent working on keeping WMD out of the hands of terrorists. This 'rolled up' her network of contacts, possibly getting some killed. And by exposing her he exposed her cover company, possibly causing damage to other agents and networks as well.
Rove did this at a time of war against terrorists. His act exposed all of us to increased danger of attack by those WMDs she was trying to keep away from terrorists."
"And Joe Wilson has no right to complain. And I think people like Tim Russert and the others, who gave this guy such a free ride and all the media, they're the ones to be shot, not Karl Rove. Listen, maybe Karl Rove was not perfect. We live in an imperfect world. And I give him credit for having the guts."posted by ericb at 12:16 PM on July 13, 2005
"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) had these kind words to share last night on Hannity & Colmes:[Think Progress | July 13, 2005]'If you can prove a case against Karl Rove, let the legal system do it, otherwise just shut up, because you’re ruining a guy’s reputation before anything has happened.'This is how far we’ve come. Rove’s defenders are arguing that, as long as Rove hasn’t been convicted of a crime, he shouldn’t be subject to any criticism. Rove lied to the public when he said he had no involvement or knowledge of the leak. His critics aren’t ruining Rove’s reputation. Rove took care of that himself."
FUN WITH SEMANTICSposted by ericb at 2:00 PM on July 13, 2005
"It seems that Karl Rove's defense strategy in the Plame leak case is going to be that he said something like 'Joe Wilson's wife works for the CIA' rather than 'his wife, Valerie Plame, works for the CIA.' I have a hard time imagining that will stand up in court unless the people who drafted the relevant law were really, really dumb, but that's outside my area of competence.
The much more likely legal out is that Rove may not have known that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA in a covert capacity. Maybe somebody else in the office who read the relevant file mentioned to Rove that she worked at the CIA, didn't mention that she was covert, and Rove passed on what he knew to reporters. The contrary evidence is that Bob Novak referred to her as an 'operative,' meaning he somehow knew she was covert. It's possible, however, that someone other than Rove passed that on to him. It's also possible that Novak discovered it independently based on the tip that Plame worked for the CIA."
Why? Because Valerie Plame should have been outed by somebody. And nobody else had the cojones to do it, I'm glad Rove did, if he did do it, and he still says he didn't.Fox News' John Gibson's My Word segment on Tuesday 7/12/05
Why should she have been outed? Well, despite her husband's repeated denials, even in the face of a pile of evidence and conclusions from a joint investigation of Congress, (R5) it appears all evidence points to Joe Wilson's wife, spy Valerie Plame, as the one who recommended him for the job of going to Niger to discover if Saddam was trying to buy nuke bomb materials (R3).
Why is this important? Because Wilson was opposed to the war in Iraq, opposed Bush policy, and pointedly and loudly said so.
Consequently, it was of some interest how he got chosen for this sensitive job which people at the time might have thought would be a fulcrum point for a decision about the war.
You wouldn't send a peacenik to see if we should go to war, if we need to go to war, now would you? That's exactly what happened, as they say in the news biz, inquiring minds now want to know how the heck did this happen? Well, it turns out little wifey did it.
She touted husband Joe, her CIA bosses bit, and off Wilson went to completely knock down any notion that Saddam wanted Niger's nuke bomb making stuff, which is called yellow cake. Problem is, the report of the Select Committee on Intelligence says the information showed no such thing. That, in fact, it was still a bit of a mystery and Saddam could well have been trying to buy the nuke bomb material.
So why should Rove get a medal?
Let's just assume that spy Valerie Plame knew her husband's attitudes about the war in Iraq - she was married to him - and sending him off to Niger could be regarded as an attempt to influence national policies. Where I come from, we want to know who that is. We do not want secret spymasters pulling the puppet strings in the background. That is something that should be out in the open and the person doing it should be identified and should own up to it.
So, Rove should get a medal even if he did do what he says he didn't do.
"Joining Democrats Wednesday in calling for Rove to be fired was Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who has criticized the White House over claims that Iraq was pursuing material for a nuclear program.posted by ericb at 4:21 PM on July 13, 2005
He spoke to NBC's Jamie Gangel in an interview to air Thursday morning on NBC’s 'Today' show.
'What these guys are doing — what this thing has been for the past two years — has been a cover-up,' said Wilson. 'A cover-up of the web of lies that underpinned the justification for going to war in Iraq.' ....
...no one disputes that Rove mentioned Plame's work at the CIA in order to cast doubt on her husband's criticism of the administration's pre-war intelligence.
Jeffrey Smith, the CIA's former general counsel and a Democrat, says even if Rove didn't commit a crime, as a senior official he should have checked Plame’s status before speaking about her at all.
'Any time a government official learns and works with the CIA,' explains Smith, 'they learn that they need to take actions to protect the identity of individuals.'" (emphasis added)
"NBC/Wall Street Journal shows Bush disapproval at 49%, approval at 46%. On Nightly News, Tim Russert was hung up on the fact that Bush has lost serious ground on the issue of whether he was honest and straight-forward. That was always one of Bush's strengths. Not anymore. 41% said he is, but 45% said no.posted by ericb at 5:19 PM on July 13, 2005
I'm sure the Karl Rove scandal is helping with that since the WH is hemorraging credibility."
"Let me remind you, the underlying issue in the Karl Rove controversy is not a leak, but a war. And how America was misled into that war.... enough is known to surmise that the leaks of Rove and others deputized by him amounted to an angry act of retaliation against someone who had the temerity to challenge the President of the United States when he was striving to find some plausible reason for invading Iraq.[Daniel Schorr, All Things Considered, NPR | July 13, 2005]
The role of Rove and associates added up to a small incident in very large scandal: the effort to delude America into thinking it faced a threat dire enough to justify a war."
"The White House has painted itself into a corner. More than a year ago, Bush vowed to fire the leaker. Then Scott McClellan, the president's spokesman, repeatedly assured everyone that the leaker was not Rove, on whom the president is so dependent intellectually that he calls Rove "the architect."[New York Times | July 14, 2005]
Until this week, the administration had deflected attention onto journalists by producing documents that officials had been compelled to sign to supposedly waive any promise of confidentiality. Our colleague Judith Miller, unjustly jailed for protecting the identity of confidential sources, was right to view these so-called waivers as meaningless.
Rove could clear all this up quickly. All he has to do is call a press conference and tell everyone what conversations he had and with whom. While we like government officials who are willing to whisper vital information, we like even more government officials who tell the truth in public."
“In a phone discussion early this afternoon, Wilson told The BRAD BLOG in no uncertain terms that ‘the President should fire Rove.’posted by ericb at 8:27 PM on July 13, 2005
He told us that he'd be appearing on NBC's Today Show tomorrow [Thursday, July 14th] morning and would be repeating that call.
As well, he told The BRAD BLOG that he planned to read a letter on air which he received from Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush shortly after an article of his was printed in the San Jose Mercury News, on October 13, 2002, in which Wilson related his concerns about the pitfalls of the approach to Iraq being taken at the time by both the U.N. and the U.S.
In reply to that article, Wilson said that the former President wrote that he had ‘read your article and I agree with a lot of it.’
Additionally, Wilson explained, Bush 41's own National Security Advisor, Brett Scowcroft had contacted him to ask whether he ‘could walk on over to the White House with the letter’ at the time. Which apparently he did.
Wilson also had sent the article to Bush 41's Secretary of State, James Baker.
‘None of them responded saying you’re a Democratic partisan hack and your views suck,’ said Wilson.
The above points are notable, because armed with those RNC talking point, Rush Limbaugh, Fox ‘News’ and Friends have today kicked into overdrive smearing and lying about Wilson, claiming that he was against the Iraq War from the get-go.
If fact, Wilson, who was in charge of the Embassy in Iraq during the first Gulf War under Bush 41 (he was the last American to speak personally with Saddam Hussein before the war begain, and was responsible for taking care of some 125 Americans who had sought refuge in the American Embassy there when they were not allowed by Saddam to leave the country just prior to the war), says that it was ‘a full eight months’ after he was sent by the CIA to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium there, ‘before I had said anything publicly about what America should consider in regard to a war with Iraq.’
‘My real concern was always WMD,’ he told us, ‘not Regime Change.’”
"This from the AP ...[Talking Points Memo | July 13, 2005]Rove ‘was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise,’ said Mehlman. Cooper's e-mail says that Rove warned him away from the idea that Wilson's trip had been authorized by CIA Director George Tenet or Vice President Dick Cheney.The argument, as elaborated by others, is that Rove was warning Cooper off Wilson's phoney story because it was about to be debunked by a soon-to-be-released statement by George Tenet.
A great argument. Only Wilson never said that. He said that the CIA, following up on a query from the vice president, sent him on a fact-finding mission to Niger.
Here's his account from his New York Times column ...In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.Whatever else you can say about Wilson, no one has ever disputed these points. He never said that Cheney or Tenet authorized his trip. A vice-president would never 'authorize' such a trip. Nor would there be any need for the DCI to 'authorize' it. The whole thing is a dodge and a distraction. It's irrelevant to the question that was under discussion.
After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.
It's just yet another attempt to whip up a phoney cover story after the fact. Or, in other words, more scofflaw Republicanism.
Late Update: RawStory has just published a copy of RNC anti-Wilson talking points. Item three says that ‘The False Premise [which Rove was trying to knock down] Was Joe Wilson's Allegation That The Vice President Sent Him To Niger.’ This is such a ridiculous up-is-down lie you'll want to keep an eye out for gullible reporters who parrot it. Clear as day it's a lie. But if they think if they repeat it often enough people won't check."
"Why did Karl Rove leak the covert identy of a CIA agent to a reporter? Here’s what his lawyer wants you to believe:[Think Progress | July 11, 2005]
Robert Luskin, attorney for Karl Rove: 'This was not an effort to encourage Time to disclose her identity. What he was doing was discouraging Time from perpetuating some statements that had been made publicly and weren’t true.'
But before getting sucked into that spin, it’s important to remember what a senior administration official told the Washington Post shortly after the leak investigation began.
'A senior administration official said that before Novak’s column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson’s wife… ‘Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge,’ the senior official said of the alleged leak.'"
“Mehlman's farrago of lies and distortions may be a fair representation of Rove's fears. Is it ‘the fact’ that Rove didn't leak classified information? Plame's identity of course was classified. That is why the CIA referred the matter to the Department of Justice for investigation. But is Mehlman disclosing yet another Rove worry? The prosecutor can indict under any statute, including simply leaking classified information. Is Rove afraid of being indicted under that law, not just the one that makes it a crime to identify Plame? Mehlman raises a further Rove anxiety. No, Rove didn't ‘reveal the name.’ But the law doesn't cite that as a felony; it only specifies revealing the ‘identity’ as a crime. It says nothing about a ‘name.’ Rove revealed ‘Joe Wilson's wife.’ That qualifies as an ‘identity.’ By the way, Plame did not go by the name of Plame, but Wilson -- in other words, Mrs. Wilson, or ‘Joe Wilson's wife.’ Rove seemed to know that much -- her identity.”[Salon - requires free day pass | July 13, 2005]
"It's always amusing when the RNC says jump, to see how high the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page will elevate. This morning's lead editorial, typed right from RNC talking points, rushes to Karl Rove's defense. Turns out he was not acting as a partisan when spreading classified gossip about Joseph Wilson's wife. Instead, he was a hero for speaking the truth, the real 'whistleblower' in this saga. It's a classic example of the Journal leaping on demand."[Eric Boehlert, The Huffington Post | July 13, 2005]
“House Democrats tomorrow [Thursday, July 14] morning will introduce a formal resolution of inquiry demanding that the Bush administration turn over information and documents relating to Karl Rove and the Valerie Plame affair, according to congressional sources.[ Murray Haas | July 13, 2005]
Among the members who will be calling for the inquiry are such prominent Democrats Representatives as Henry Waxman, the ranking minority member of the House Government Reform Committee; Tom Lantos, of California; Leonard Boswell, of Iowa; Chris Van Hollen, of Maryland; and Silvestre Reyes, of Texas.
The resolution effort was spearheaded by Rep. Rush Holt, of New Jersey, who is a senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
Most importantly, according to one key congressional source, the effort ‘has the blessing of the Democratic leadership.’ House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi has signed on to support the effort, sources said.
The resolution of inquiry will seek documents related to the Plame matter from the State, Defense, and Justice Departments, as well as other executive branch agencies. A spokesman for the White House did not return a telephone call tonight seeking comment.”
"Bloomberg News raised eyebrows today with this vague mention of former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer:[Think Progress | July 13, 2005]People familiar with the inquiry say Fitzgerald also is reviewing testimony by former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, though it is not clear whether the prosecutor is focusing on him or seeking information about higher-ups. Fleischer last night refused to comment.This actually isn’t the first time Fleischer has been mentioned in connection to Plamegate — a Los Angeles Times report from last October noted that Fleischer has denied he was one of the leakers.
But we know he has been interviewed by the FBI in relation to the leak. And it’s worth noting that Fleischer was among the very first Bush officials to go on the record criticizing Wilson. From March ‘04 :In the subpoenaed July 12 [2003] transcript of a briefing in Nigeria, then-press secretary Ari Fleischer called Wilson a 'lower-level official' and said Wilson had made flawed and incomplete statements. Fleischer did not return calls Friday.So what about Fleischer piqued the Special Prosecutor’s interest? Details are still uncertain, but news reports suggest one theory for what might have occurred. In the days after Wilson’s NYT column was published but before Novak’s article appeared, Ari Fleischer was among the White House officials aboard Air Force One on a presidential trip to Africa, where he might have had access to the classified State Department document brought aboard by Secretary of State Colin Powell that likely tipped administration officials off to Plame’s true identity."
The man, identified by an Italian news agency as Rocco Martino, was the subject of a Telegraph article earlier this month in which he was referred to by his intelligence codename, "Giacomo".So, Wilson debunks bogus information ultimately supplied by the French (!) in an attempt on their part to "setup" Britain and the U.S. The Bush administration finds the information too good to pass up (despite Wilson's report that it's all BS) and runs with it and when Wilson goes public with the fact that the info is bogus, they attack Wilson and his wife.
His admission to investigating magistrates in Rome on Friday apparently confirms suggestions that - by commissioning "Giacomo" to procure and circulate documents - France was responsible for some of the information later used by Britain and the United States to promote the case for war with Iraq.
Italian diplomats have claimed that, by disseminating bogus documents stating that Iraq was trying to buy low-grade "yellowcake" uranium from Niger, France was trying to "set up" Britain and America in the hope that when the mistake was revealed it would undermine the case for war, which it wanted to prevent.
"Joseph Wilson attacked Bush on his perceived strength...Bush claims to be a straight talker, so Wilson said: Prove it. Going after Bush on his perceived strength, that's so Rovian.[AMERICAblog | July 14, 2005]'I think the president should call in his senior advisers and say, "Enough is enough, I want you to step forward and cooperate,"' he said.
'The president has said repeatedly, "I am a man of my word,"' Wilson added. 'He should stand up and prove that his word is his bond and fire Karl Rove.'"
"Sportscasters love to say that a good offense is the best defense. But, as we’re seeing, in politics, an offensive offense can be a lousy defense. I mean, if Karl Rove’s future -- both political and legal -- depends on the offensive that the White House and its smear machine are frantically mounting, then ol’ Karl is in even bigger trouble than we thought. Their method seems to be a shock-and-awe operation where they bombard us with any and every defense they can, hoping that something sticks. So far, nothing has.posted by ericb at 7:54 AM on July 14, 2005
The attack on Rove’s critics and the renewed assault on Joe Wilson are also comically accompanied by calls for civility. You know when Republican start issuing calls for people to 'cool the rhetoric' and 'focus on the business of the people,' that they’re in full panic mode. And they’re right to be. Try as they might, they just can’t come up with a plausible defense that takes the stink away from what everyone -- including all non-self-deluded Republicans -- knows Turd Blossom was really doing…" [more]
When the Italian report on Niger uranium surfaced, Vice President Cheney's office contacted the CIA's counter-proliferation office to look into it. Such a request is called a "tasker." It was hardly the first query the task force had received from the White House, and such requests were not made through the CIA director's office, but directly. Plame's colleagues asked her if she would invite her husband out to CIA headquarters at Langley, Va., for a meeting with them, to assess the question.posted by jperkins at 8:28 AM on July 14, 2005
It was unsurprising that the CIA would seek out Wilson. He had already performed one secret mission to Niger for the agency, in 1999, and was trusted. Wilson had also had a distinguished and storied career as a Foreign Service officer. He served as acting ambassador in Iraq during the Gulf War and was hailed by the first President Bush as a "hero." Wilson was an important part of the team and highly regarded by Secretary of State James Baker and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. Wilson was also an Africa specialist. He had been a diplomat in Niger, ambassador to Gabon and senior director for Africa on the National Security Council during the Clinton administration. (I first encountered Wilson then, and we have since become friends.) No other professional had such an ideal background for this CIA mission.
Plame's superiors asked her to cable the field in Africa for routine approval of an investigation of the Niger claim. At Langley, Wilson met with about a dozen officers to discuss the situation. Plame was not at the meeting. Afterward, Wilson informed his wife that he would be traveling to Niger for about 10 days. She was not particularly enthusiastic, having recently given birth to twins, but she understood the importance of the mission. She had no authority to commission him. She was simply not the responsible senior officer. Nor, if she had been, could she have done so unilaterally. There was nothing of value to be gained personally from the mission by either Joe or Valerie Wilson. He undertook the trip out of a long-ingrained sense of government service.
CIA officers debriefed Wilson the night of his return at his home. His wife greeted the other operatives, but excused herself. She later read a copy of his debriefing report, but she made no changes in it. The next they spoke of Niger uranium was when they heard President Bush's mention of it in his 2003 State of the Union address.
Attributing Wilson's trip to his wife's supposed authority became the predicate for a smear campaign against his credibility. Seven months after the appointment of the special counsel, in July 2004, the Republican-dominated Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued its report on flawed intelligence leading to the Iraq war. The blame for failure was squarely put on the CIA for "groupthink." (The Republicans quashed a promised second report on political pressure on the intelligence process.) The three-page addendum by the ranking Republicans followed the now well-worn attack lines: "The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee."
The CIA subsequently issued a statement, as reported by New York Newsday and CNN, that the Republican senators' conclusion about Plame's role was wholly inaccurate. But the Washington Post's Susan Schmidt reported only the Republican senators' version, writing that Wilson was "specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly," in a memo she wrote. Schmidt quoted a CIA official in the senators' account saying that Plame had "offered up" Wilson's name. Plame's memo, in fact, was written at the express directive of her superiors two days before Wilson was to come to Langley for his meeting to describe his qualifications in a standard protocol to receive "country clearance." Unfortunately, Schmidt's article did not reflect this understanding of routine CIA procedure. The CIA officer who wrote the memo that originally recommended Wilson for the mission -- who was cited anonymously by the senators as the only source who said that Plame was responsible -- was deeply upset at the twisting of his testimony, which was not public, and told Plame he had said no such thing. CIA spokesman Bill Harlow told Wilson that the Republican Senate staff never contacted him for the agency's information on the matter.
Curiously, the only document cited as the basis for Plame's role was a State Department memo that was later debunked by the CIA. The Washington Post, on Dec. 26, 2003, reported: "CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the ... document, the official said, because the agency officer identified as talking about Plame's alleged role in arranging Wilson's trip could not have attended the meeting. 'It has been circulated around,' one official said." Even more curious, one of the outlets where the document was circulated was Talon News Service and its star correspondent, Jeff Gannon (aka Guckert). (Talon was revealed to be a partisan front for a Texas-based operation called GOPUSA and Gannon was exposed as a male prostitute, without previous journalistic credentials yet with easy and unexplained access to the White House.) According to the Post, "the CIA believes that people in the administration continue to release classified information to damage the figures at the center of the controversy."
"Several years ago when (Rove) started getting accolades from political writers as the mastermind behind Bush, the president is known to have bristled.posted by ericb at 8:53 AM on July 14, 2005
He once told a journalist that he did not like his aides getting 'star treatment. So he started calling Rove 'Turd Blossom,' which refers to the so-called cowpie splat made by bovine waste when it hits the ground." [Helen Thomas]
"A number of legal experts, some of whom are involved in the case, said evidence that has emerged publicly suggests Rove or other administration officials face potential legal threats on at least three fronts.posted by ericb at 10:11 AM on July 14, 2005
The first is the unmasking of CIA official Valerie Plame, the original focus of special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's probe. But legal sources say there are indications the prosecutor is looking at two other areas related to the administration's handling of his investigation. One possible legal vulnerability is perjury, if officials did not testify truthfully to a federal grand jury, and another is obstructing justice, if they tried to coordinate cover stories to obscure facts.
Legal experts said the evidence that has emerged in recent days -- including confirmation that Rove and Cooper spoke about Plame's role at the CIA as a way of knocking down a damaging story about the administration's Iraq policy -- does not by itself necessarily indicate a crime was committed. Even so, White House officials acknowledged privately that they are concerned that the investigation will lead to an indictment of someone in the administration later this year."
"Appearing on Fox this morning, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey said the following in regards to his assessment of the growing leak scandal:posted by ericb at 10:18 AM on July 14, 2005We’ve got Karl Rove, who is under this constant attack of political malarkey, who has probably the most documented case of his evidence of anyone in the the whole story. So quite frankly, I think the American people are seeing it for what it is right now. More than anything else it’s a political farce not a matter of national security interests. [Fox News, 7/14/05]VERSUS
Here’s what Dick Armey said about the case back in October 2003 when we had no idea who may have been involved:Now, there was no reason to tell the world about the ambassador’s wife. It was just a short-sighted, self-centered, simple-minded cowardly act of revenge, and who’s paying the cost? The Bush White House…If they ever find [the leakers], they ought to just — they ought to just kick them out of the White House and prosecute them, because…the greater the pretension, the greater the hypocrisy. [CNN, 10/19/03]Indeed, Mr. Armey, hypocrisy is an easily understood story.
"Raw Story: How many people would have known or would have actually had access to the knowledge of your wife’s NOC status outside of the CIA, including the Justice Department, Department of Defense and so forth? What would be the number, for example, of people “in the know?”posted by ericb at 10:29 AM on July 14, 2005
Wilson: I have no idea, but the number would be very restricted. It would be restricted to those who had the appropriate security clearances, have a need to know, and were actually involved in working on issues with her.
Raw Story: What type of clearances would Karl Rove have?
Wilson: I don’t know the type of clearances Rove has, but Scooter in the context of his NSA status, would have very high level clearances."
"Senator Reid will offer the following amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill (On the floor right now) on behalf of Senator Levin:posted by ericb at 10:37 AM on July 14, 2005No federal employee who discloses or has disclosed classified information, including the identity of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, to a person not authorized to receive such information shall be entitled to hold a security clearance for access to such information.A vote is expected today."
"Republicans are nervously watching the fight over Karl Rove's involvement in a news leak that exposed a CIA officer's identity, fearing that President Bush's chief political adviser is creating a credibility problem at the White House.[The Associated Press | July 14, 2005]
....several top GOP officials — including some White House advisers — said the fight was becoming a distraction to Bush's agenda. The GOP officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of Bush's friendship with Rove, said the president may face a credibility problem because his spokesman said in September that anybody involved in the leak would be fired.
These Republicans, all admirers of Rove, said they were surprised and disappointed when Bush stopped short of publicly backing his longtime aide.
Their concerns were reflected in a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll that showed a plurality of voters rate Bush negatively on ‘being honest and straightforward’ for the first time in his presidency. The focus on Rove comes as Bush publicly wrestles with a Supreme Court vacancy and growing voter unease with his policies on Iraq and Social Security.
A survey of Republicans outside Washington revealed similar concerns, though few officials were willing to go on record.
‘I think he should resign,’ said Jim Holt, a GOP state senator from Arkansas who is running for lieutenant governor. He joked, ‘I hope Karl Rove doesn't come gunning for me.’”
"Project Missing Dickposted by ericb at 11:03 AM on July 14, 2005
It seems now in this most current variation of reality, one surpassing anything even Baudrillard could have imagined, criminal activity is simply up for interpretation. The rule of law is but a passé little concept meant for small minds and the unenlightened masses.
As always, in this reality, when the most criminal offenses occur at the highest level of government, our resident Dick goes missing.
Downing Street Minutes? $8.8 Billion missing from Iraq? Faux war?
I am Cheney’s medulla oblongata
Given this administration’s love for partial-truth-abortions (PTA, oddly enough) -- the most notable of course is the Rathergate scenario -- it is interesting to find Rove front and center and Cheney all covert-like.
A quick walk through a simple PTA procedure is as follows: discredit the carrier and/or mechanism of delivery while simultaneously aborting all discussion of the actual subject of what is being delivered, regardless of fact.
So in watching the mechanism, and seeing Rove, over-visibly pimped about town as the criminal de jour (not that this is untrue, just the de jour part), is it so un-reasonable to ask where the actual subject is?
After all, Rove may have had his sticky fingers inside all sorts of files, but it is highly doubtful that he would have the ability to know the status of a CIA NOC. It is also highly unlikely that “Bush’s brain” would have and/or command any real ability outside of “fixing” lessons and creating “talking” lies. Well, we really should include the wire-tapping of his own office too (a man of many trades).
Rove is, in short, capable of many things as his Nixon- protégé resume shows, but he is not remotely in any way more than a front-end leaker in this case.
I am Cheney’s Cold Sweat
How then, did Rove both acquire and validate the status of a NOC asset, a high level officer at that? Did he ring up Ollie North at his uber-journalistic headquarters at Fox news to inquire? Or maybe he Googled around until the NOC came knocking?
No, I think that Mr. Rove, was supplied the information in order to fulfill his job, namely, to deliver the “package” via the front end.
Dick, however, paid a great many visits to the CIA, sent Joe Wilson abroad, and used his office and his Scooter to source this very same story. In fact, Veep even had the forged uranium yellowcake documents.
I Am Larisa's Complete Lack of Surprise
Let’s all sit around the camp fire and toast some nuggets of possibility. Granted, this is a theory and may be entirely and absolutely a ridiculous attempt at logic on my part (and the part of others). But let us proceed anyway, just for poops and giggles, as it were.
Who is Fredrick Fleitz?
Anyone?
Well, Freddy is a CIA asset on “loan” to John Bolton.
On loan for what you ask?
Good question! It seems that Fred, and he even says so in his own words, served at least one purpose: acting as “…liaison… for the agency and Mr. Bolton.”
Okay, but what is Fred on loan from in the CIA: typing, running errands, what? Mr. Fleitz, it appears, is, on loan from the CIA’s Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control Center (WINPAC).
Oops, would that put Fred anywhere near looking into uranium yellowcake, WMD, and maybe, a high level CIA NOC?
Considering I am not the only one under the influence of this thing called logic and that others have written far more extensively about this Fred to Bolton to Dick trifecta, or given the most recent Rove circumstances, quadrifecta, let me simply provide you with a few pieces for your reading pleasure:Washington NotesI am Rove’s Wasted Life
Ray McGovern
So why is the MSM press busy scurrying around Rove, all honest-like, and not asking the more important questions about the far more egregious leak and the reason for that leak?
If the DSM (collectively) validated a 'fixing' of intelligence around a policy to create a war and if Joe Wilson put a wrench in that 'fix,' what would someone like Bolton do on the behest of his master? Anyone?"
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.posted by five fresh fish at 11:47 AM on July 14, 2005
A Primer for the Karl Rove / Valerie Plame Scandalposted by ericb at 1:49 PM on July 14, 2005
Clearing The Cobwebs
"The hallmarks of a Rove smear job are always the same: leak, lie, defame, obfuscate, and deny. He did it when he began a whisper campaign about Gov. Ann Richards' sexuality. He did it when he used surrogates in South Carolina to suggest that Sen. John McCain was mentally unstable and may have fathered a black child out of wedlock and he did it in the last election when he used the Swift Boat Veterans as a front group to proffer lies about John Kerry's time in Vietnam."posted by ericb at 1:52 PM on July 14, 2005
Senate Democrats tried to add to Republican discomfort over the presidential adviser Karl Rove today as they called for legislation to deny security clearances to officials who unmask undercover agents.According to TPM, Republicans have countered:
The Democrats hoped to attach the measure to a spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security. Should the maneuver succeed, and Republicans then resist the overall bill, Democrats could portray them as trying to block legislation vital to national security.
"Any federal officeholder who makes reference to a classified Federal Bureau of Investigation report on the floor of the United States Senate, or any federal officeholder that makes a statement based on a FBI agent's comments which is used as propaganda by terrorist organizations thereby putting our servicemen and women at risk, shall not be permitted access to such information or to hold a security clearance for access to such information."Senator Durbin's office phone number is (202) 224-2152. Call and offer support and I'm going to ask that they let the amendments stand as they are. The Republicans amendment will be seen as the bullshit partisanism that it is and the Democrat's amendment will be seen as a sane measure (passed at no small expense to them) to protect our undercover operatives from being revealed as a means of policital payback.
In other words, the law is targeted at Sen. Durbin, making it against the law to say what he said a month ago.
« Older Woman Jailed for Child Abuse... | Is Civilization Decaying?... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by spiderwire at 10:54 PM on July 9, 2005