Newsday 7/22/03:so if neither of Bob's sources (in reference to this quote) were Rove that means at least three people were involved in leaking the information.
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."
"The Associated Press totally botched a rather significant part of the Rove-Plame story today.posted by ericb at 9:29 AM on July 15, 2005
Basically, AP is now supposedly quoting Wilson as saying his wife was NOT an undercover agent when Rove outed her. Here's what AP wrote today:'But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said.'NO, AP, that's not what Wilson said....What he said was that the day Bob Novak outed his wife she ceased to be an undercover operative. Not that she wasn't an undercover operative on that day, but rather that she sure wasn't undercover anymore once Rove and Novak outed here. Big difference there."
“There's a point that's probably worth raising with our scofflaw Republican friends. All of their arguments now amount to excuses, like those of a small child caught stealing cookies: Joe Wilson's a liar. Plame's covert status wasn't protected well by the CIA. It was just a short phone call. Rove really wanted to speak about welfare reform. Wilson said Cheney sent him to Africa. Plame sent Wilson to Africa. Rove leaked Plame's identity in the interests of good journalism. Wilson went on too many TV shows. On and on and on.posted by ericb at 9:36 AM on July 15, 2005
The salient point is not that each of these claims is false. The point is that they're irrelevant. It's the mid-life version of 'He hit me first!' or 'He called me a name!' or other such foolery.
No presidential advisor should ever disclose the identity of a covert agent at the CIA. That doesn't require elaboration.
If it's done knowingly, it's a felony. Joe Wilson could be the biggest hack in the world. Plame could have cooked the whole trip idea up to damage the president -- as some GOP loopsters are now claiming -- and it wouldn't matter.
Rove (and, though we're not supposed to say it yet, several of his colleagues) did something obviously wrong and reckless. And they probably broke several laws by the time it was all done.
Pretty much every Republican in Washington today works for Karl Rove. So they can't deal with that fact. But fact it is.
And nothing was done amiss? If Rove et al. didn't do anything wrong, why have they spent two years lying about what they did? No law was broken? Then what is Fitzgerald looking at? Why is a grand jury investigating Rove? A prosecutor like Fitzgerald, a Republican appointee, wouldn't be throwing journalists in jail unless he thought he was investigating a serious crime.
What's their answer to that? They have none. Rove runs the Washington Republican party, owns it. So it's anything but hold him accountable.”
“Small observation. The story being spun by Rove’s surrogates this morning is totally inconsistent with the facts.posted by ericb at 9:58 AM on July 15, 2005
On Fox and Friends this morning, former Rove deputy Ken Mehlman said:One article last weekend was an article in Newsweek, which I thought exonerated Karl Rove in many ways. What it said was Karl Rove was not leaking anybody’s name, he didn’t know that name.That’s not true. The Newsweek article recounts a conversation between Rove and Time reporter Matt Cooper on July 11, 2003. According to the New York Times (which Mehlman also claims ‘exonerates’ Rove), Rove had a conversation with Robert Novak on July 8, 2003. Here is what happened during that conversation: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.So, at a minimum, Rove knew Valerie Plame’s name no later than July 8. This is significant because everything we’ve heard from Rove and his surrogates for the last two years about this case has been a lie. And they haven’t stopped.”
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.’
"Today's big story is that Rove supposedly never gave Valerie Plame's name to Novak - but rather that Novak mentioned Plame was CIA and Rove said 'yeah I heard that too,' or something to that effect.posted by ericb at 11:01 AM on July 15, 2005
In fact, here's what Novak said in his first interview that we know of just after he leaked Plame's name in print: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.'Read that again. I didn't dig it out, it was given to me - they gave me the name. That does not jibe with Rove's anonymous buddy telling the NYT that it was Novak who first brought up Plame as CIA and NOT Rove."
"The special prosecutor probing the outing of a CIA spy is looking beyond who leaked Valerie Plame's identity, seeking whether White House aides tried to cover their tracks after her name went public, sources told the Daily News.[New York Daily News | July 15, 2005]
Along with Bush political guru Karl Rove, the grand jury is investigating what role, if any, ex-White House mouthpiece Ari Fleischer may have played in the revelation that the former covert operative Plame was married to former Ambassador Joe Wilson.
‘Ari's name keeps popping up,’ said one source familiar with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's probe.
Another source close to the probe added there is renewed interest in Fleischer, ‘based on Fitzgerald's questions.’
….Another person of interest in the case is Vice President Cheney's chief of staff Lewis (Scooter) Libby, who was described as ‘totally obsessed with Wilson,’ the sources said."
"The Mikes McCurry and Isikoff lately have said in public what's been annoying journalists in private all over town for months: For all the trouble we're going through to make Scott McClellan quiver like last night's Jell-o, the investigation at the center of the Rove-Plame-Cooper-Miller-Novak shitstorm had better deliver a smoking gun or at the very least some anal-oral contact. We would think the act of talking to Novak would qualify on that last point, but you are free to disagree. We asked Wonkette's own Fred Becker -- who has a side interest in grand jury investigations -- what he makes of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.posted by ericb at 12:16 PM on July 15, 2005My Dearest Wonktilda,
One thing I know is that Ken Starr will be really happy if Fitzgerald goes through all this--interviewing the president, putting journalists in jail-- and then doesn't have dick. Ken Starr had dick, semen, the whole shebang. Well, not the shebang, depending on your definition of 'bang.'
The mythmakers say Fitzgerald's really good and thorough but prosecutorial discretion is also part of being good. So does he have that trick in his hat or is he just a guy with a hard on and a subpoena? Time for someone to write a story that says not since Babe Ruth pointed at the fence has a person set himself up for a put up or shut up moment. Of course, the pressure has become so great that when Fitzgerald does deliver something into the slow summer news period, the media is going to go ape shit over pretty much anything.
Btw, Daily Show had excellent excellent Jonathan Klein mocking the other night. He is a vastly silly man in competitive undershorts.
That's all I have to say on the matter at the moment. For all of the fuss I remain,
Your irritated scribbler,
Fred
"Billmon laments the digression:posted by ericb at 1:18 PM on July 15, 2005The GOP noise machine appears to be having some success with its smear Joe Wilson campaign -- if only because so many lefties are now talking about that and not about how many White House officials are going to be indicted along with Karl Rove.But the popularity of Daniel Schorr's essay (text or audio), saying that the Rove leak is part of a larger scandal of deception leading up to the war, makes me think that liberals are not being tricked into talking about Wilson, but rather are going there willingly with an eye on taking the next step of initiating a pubic discussion about how the case for war was made. A case, they often argue, that was woefully under-scrutinized by the media and public at large when it was initially made."
posted by spock at 1:36 PM on July 15, 2005
"Next weekend, eight other members will join me in holding a series of town hall meetings to commemorate the third anniversary of the Downing Street Minutes. We are beginning to see the pieces fit together, and I believe these hearings will illustrate how Rove-gate fits into the larger narrative of the Iraq war deception."posted by ericb at 2:14 PM on July 15, 2005
"As the Valerie Plame case becomes increasingly the Karl Rove case, and as the rising water of it begins to lap closer to President Bush, there are several truths about this matter that are worth keeping in mind.posted by ericb at 2:31 PM on July 15, 20051. In the very beginning Mr. Bush said that it was unlikely that the leaker would ever be found. There is every reason to believe that he would then have taken steps to make that true.In any case, Watergate should serve as an educative experience for any president.
2. It is now clear that presidential adviser Karl Rove did discuss Valerie Plame with reporters, however those discussions are now being described or construed. Mr. Bush said he would fire anyone in the White House who did that.
3. The concept of nailing someone (Valerie Plame, the CIA agent) for what her spouse may have done is unforgivably retrograde in 2005. (Ms. Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, is the former ambassador who said that President Bush's State of the Union claim that Iraq had bought uranium was false.)
4. ‘Outing’ a CIA agent is clearly a national security affair. The Bush administration allegedly regards national security very seriously. Mr. Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush, was head of the CIA in 1976-77, so there is reason to believe the current president takes the CIA seriously.
5. As a matter of national security, this is neither a Republican nor a Democratic issue. Former Clinton security adviser Samuel R. ‘Sandy’ Berger was nailed for having pilfered classified documents and thus eliminated from presidential candidate John Kerry's prospective list of candidates for secretary of state.
6. Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has not yet sung. He is supposed to be a tough prosecutor. That may mean that, however much slippin' and slidin' Karl Rove has in mind, Mr. Fitzgerald may have too much integrity to get rolled by the likes of him.
7. This isn't Watergate, however much Democrats may be licking their chops at the thought of Bush having to choose between loyalty to his friend and a long drubbing on the subject.
Given that Mr. Bush definitely has other things to do with his time -- starting with the Iraq war -- this is probably the time to just take a deep breath and fire Karl Rove now, before this goes any further. [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette | July 15, 2005]
"The latest lie being floated by Karl Rove and the GOP machine is that 'Rove claims he learned about Plame being CIA from other journalists and not from government sources.' Of course, the Republicans think that this will exonerate their new hero.posted by ericb at 3:41 PM on July 15, 2005
It will not. As a matter of fact, it only goes to show this White House as being WORSE on National Security.
If it were true, that a senior White House aide heard from a journalist about a person who was CIA, then wouldn't the following steps have taken place?1. Rove should have immediately informed the reporter or reporters that discussing the identity of a CIA agent may be illegal.NONE of the above four actions took place. Had Rove actually heard Plame's name from the media, this is EXACTLY what Rove should have done."
2. Rove should have then called George Tenet and inquired about whether or not the agent was undercover.
3. Upon learning the undercover status of said agent, Rove should have then told Tenet to quickly alert the agent and inform them that their cover had been blown.
4. Rove should have then turned over the names of the reporters to the CIA for investigation.
"This was amazing. At 6:13 pm [Friday, July 15, 2005] if you TiVo, check out Lou Dobbs.posted by ericb at 3:48 PM on July 15, 2005....'testimony suggests that President Bush's political advisor may not have been the original source of the Valerie Plame leak. Rove testified that he first learned about Plame from columnist Robert Novak. Dana Bash reports" Then a whispered voice says on air! "THAT's BULLSHIT"'WOW, someone at CNN knows the truth."
I now had the identity of a covert CIA agent (who was using her maiden name as part of her cover as an energy-industry analyst working for a firm called Brewster Jennings & Associates, now known to be a CIA front company).posted by Aster at 4:35 PM on July 15, 2005
It took me less than a half-hour to identify her.
[...]
And I now possess all this information simply because I know (from Karl Rove, via Matt Cooper) that Joseph Wilson's wife "apparently works at the agency on WMD issues."
"...the published leak of "the name 'Valerie Plame' ... conveyed an intent to damage her covert work....it stemmed from sheer antipathy towards the CIA:posted by ericb at 12:27 PM on July 16, 2005Having learned (by accident or through research) that Valerie Wilson used her maiden name when she worked overseas as a covert operative, Libby (or whoever) decides to pass her information along that way. It doesn't really add to the damage caused by the leak -- interested foreign parties could probably have figured it out for themselves, given the tipoff that Joseph Wilson was married to a CIA agent -- but it just serves as a raised middle finger to the CIA, a way to taunt them while pursuing the White House's political ends.....Given th[e] hard proof that Valerie Wilson was working under her married name (and presumably had been for a few years), it's hard to imagine an innocent reason for forcing her maiden name into the press reports....whoever gave the name 'Plame' to Robert Novak and Matt Cooper had to know that it was the name Valerie Wilson used in her undercover work for the CIA -- meaning that they were intentionally exposing a covert CIA operative."
« Older A (Picturesque) Walk Through Durham Township... | How should science be taught i... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by trinarian at 10:32 PM on July 14, 2005