Centerfield

Excellent post, Abel (but then I'm a notorious Bush apologist, so what do I know).

What I'm going to enjoy watching (and I'll probably have a post soon) is the NY Times and other media outlets contorting themselves to say what a horrible, horrible crime this is. Trouble is, of course, that back when they were fighting to keep their reporters out of jail, all of their editorials were about how this leak probably wasn't even a crime, didn't hurt anybody, etc., etc. Now that they lost the battle (as they should have, in my opinion), I'm almost getting whiplash watching them switch back to the anti-Bush, anti-Rove position, this is just a despicable crime position. They don't want Ms. Miller to be lonely in jail, I guess.

Abel, Abel, Abel...and just when we were getting along so well....Maybe you can find a clear explanation here.

Personally, I find the leaking of a CIA's operative's name to the press--thus blowing her cover, ruining her career, jeopardizing her life along with the lives of many of her covert contacts, as well as imperilling US operations overseas--a heckuva lot more important than mincing words about a consensual affair between two adults, but, hey, that's just me.

A true scandal in today's terms: Any attempt by leftist bloggers, whose world view is a small minority in their own party, to deal with the fact that George W. Bush won the election, or a desperate attempt to prove the failed logic that because all other second term President's have been scandalous, the Bush administration is no different.

Mostly used when one is lacking ideas and is incapable of being a productive part of the debate on public policy.

Examples: The Downing Street Memo, the Rove/Plame affair, etc., etc.

Personally, I find the leaking of a CIA's operative's name to the press--thus blowing her cover, ruining her career, jeopardizing her life along with the lives of many of her covert contacts, as well as imperilling US operations overseas.

That would work, except for one little problem--she's a desk jockey at Langley.

So the assertion is she's a field operative. Ok, I'll look into that Blue Jean.

Blue Jean,

Nice rhetoric, but can you actually answer Abe's question? How is what was actually written in the email amounts to leaking the name of a CIA operative? Furthermore, Jack K's assessment is the most ignorant piece of crap I have read in a really long time.

You are just as bad as the Republican's during Clinton's second term. It is almost as if you want it to be Rove, and you want them to be criminals, just so you can get your digs in over the fact that Kerry lost the election.

As far as I know, Marshall Whitman is no liberal--in fact, he's a Bull Moose Republican-- and he says the same as me.

Please, Karl--stay!

Now, Mathew, as I made clear, I have no desire to see Karl frog marched into court; in fact, I want him to stay as long as he can. After all, arresting Karl won't give Kerry the WH, but having Karl as the W's face for the next eighteen months may give Dems the edge in '06.

Yeah, because that worked for you the last two times around.

This is pretty funny.

A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House now says its official position is not to comment on the case while it is under investigation by a federal special prosecutor, said Mr. Rove had gone about his business as usual on Monday.

Aside from the issue that Rove didn't actually name Plame, here's an important question: Is it possible Rove didn't know Plame didn't work at Langley?

Isn't this the real issue here? Because I don't think anyone doubts that outing an undercover CIA Agent should result in one of the harshest reprimands possible, if not dismissal.

Blue Jean my friend, as you can see at the bottom of this analys by the folks at Powerline, Andrea Mitchell admitted on MSNBC that it was generally known to news people, before all this mess got started, that Valeria Plame was an employee of the CIA. Hardly that covert of an employee, then.

Three Questions:

1) Was Plame still a field agent at the time she was "outed"?

2) Completely tangential to the issue at hand and not to excuse her "outing" at all, but didn't she, by her own admission, "out" herself to Wilson on thier 3rd date? If that's representative of the level of circumspection our undercover operatives use about thier own identity, we're in a world of hurt.

3) How is it inapropriate for the WH to refuse to make public comments about an ongoing investigation?

If at the conclusion of the investigation it's clear that Rove did, in fact, reveal the identity of an undercover agent.... he SHOULD be canned, loose any security clearance he might have had and possibly be charged. But isn't that all putting the cart before the horse a bit. Shouldn't the WH let the special prosecuter finnish his investigation first.... and, I don't know, determine what Rove actualy said about Plame and what he actualy knew about Plame BEFORE they burn him at the stake?

As I've said from the beginning of this flap, the problem is that there probably is no crime here at all. If David Korn of The Nation hadn't pushed the story as a possible "gotcha" point in the heated partisan atmosphere of 2003, and if Joe Wilson hadn't had a book to sell and an agenda to push (which he did on the op/ed page of the NYT) it would have simply faded out. Instead, other news sources jumped on it and set up a chorus, the CIA (as required by law) asked for a DOJ investigation, and a special prosecutor was appointed. Then the media (most notably the NYT) got bit by their own frenzy.

The whole "case" is predicated on Valerie Plame being a "covert agent" of the CIA, and her identity as such being intentionally revealed. Yet the Covert Agent Identity Protection Act probably doesn't apply to Plame at all, as she doesn't appear to fit the definition of "covert agent." Additionally, for a crime to have been committed under the act, the revelation would have had to be derived from classified sources, made by agent name, with intent to expose someone whose identity was actively being concealed by the agency employer.

So if the story as unfolded (as compared to the histrionic claims made along the way) is correct, Rove did not identify Plame by name or as a covert agent, Plame did not meet the definition of "covert agent," the CIA did not take "affirmative measures" to conceal her identity, and the press (Novak) "revealing" her identity did not put her in any clear and present danger. She hadn't been "in the field" in years. She was a desk jockey and taking care of her young twins, and was highly unlikely to ever go "in the field" again. Indeed, Plame's identity was already well-known to the Washington press, and it was the press (Novak) who "outed" her.

The outrage is over the possibility that Plame was "outed" to discredit Wilson. Wilson pretty much discredited himself, and attempting to warn reporters off a goofball story is not the same as a political PR "hit," legal or illegal. It turns out that Novak's story was accurate, despite Wilson's denials and public pique. Wilson got the assignment due to Plame's suggestions that he get it, and even though the Italian reports turned out to be rank forgeries, the "Niger connection" itself (wherein Iraq had made overtures to purchase yellowcake from both Niger and the Congo--and failed) has been substantiated by both American and British intelligence. And Wilson's own Congressional testimony contradicted his public claims of the time.

As near as I can tell the only reason Fitzgerald is still in business is to nail down any possible perjury charges involved in the grand jury testimony, and to firmly establish the lack of a federal "reporter shield" privilege as a side benefit. Did the admin "out" the Plame/Wilson connection to discredit Wilson? Could well be, though if Cooper's email is accurate it looks more like a friendly "warn-off" from a bum story. Were Wilson's public proclamations of "no Niger connection" born out in subsequent investigation? No--both the Senate Intelligence Report and the Butler Report state that the connection was there from previous intel, and that Wilson's own sworn testimony and report tended to support the intel, not discredit it, and that the intel was present and confirmed before the forged Italian intel surfaced. Did Rove scramble for cover and make "misstatements" to the press? Apparently so. Was any crime actually committed? Apparently not, unless there was grand jury perjury. Where is Valerie Plame Wilson now? At last report, still jockeying a desk at Langley when not raising her kids.

We seem to be left with a partisan ex-ambassador, a weaselly White House staffer, a self-besieged press, a continuing debate among the nit-picking and fly-specking committees, and not very much else.

My favorite news story from the period remains this one. Keystone Kops, anyone?

Rove did not identify Plame by name or as a covert agent

Tully,
Unless I missed it, I don't see in the Covert Agent Identity Protection Act where the agent has to be outed by name. It says:

Whoever ... 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...

She can obviously be identified without using her name, and I think Rove's statement clearly points to her.

That said, this point is moot anyways, since it sounds like she wasn't covert at all.

Tully, thanks for that covert op info. I was unaware of these details, and now that I know them, I've changed my mind.

I've previously stated that I thought Novak and any other reporters didn't deserve protection allowing them to create national security breaches. And that both the admin leaker and the cooperating reporter should face appropriate sanctions.

But given that 1)Plame is a paper-pusher in no danger and 2) not legally protected under the terms of the relevant act, I'm ready to wish this would just go away. I was wrong. It's not a big deal, it's much ado about little.

It now appears there are competing claims about Plame's position. Was she in the field in 2003? Was she in the field at one time? If so, would the revelation of her name as a CIA agent endanger the cover or lives for those she's worked with in her covert past?

Some interesting things that the press doesn't seem to give a rat's ass about.

1) Novak has already testified to the grand jury. He appears to have sqealed faster than a pig at a county fair. Yet, there seems to be no interest in who his sources were any longer, which makes me wonder what's up.
2) Karl Rove granted Cooper a specific waiver to testify. Judy Miller's source granted her a general waiver, something that apparently wasn't good enough for the New York Times. Miller never wrote her story, thus we don't know if her source was a "senior administration source" or not. Why would Rove not grant the same waiver to both if he was truly the source for both? If Rove had already been "outed," why would Miller choose to go to jail for him?
2) Why did the New York Times focus their story on Karl Rove today? Could it be that they are attempting to divert attention away from who Judith Miller's source was? (See #2 for reasons why it probably isn't Rove) Could it be that the New York Times is protecting someone here? Since Miller has never said that a "senior administration" official was her source, is it possible that this whole thing was a set-up by someone outside the administration and the NYT got caught in the middle? Could it be that if they identified their source we would find out that it was....drum role please....Joe Wilson? Things that make you go "Hmmmmmm."

No one in a rational voice worthy of respect or consideration should argue that Mr. Rove's actions were ok, they were not period.

The main issue is when did the President know. If the president knew before hand then the "I" word comes to mind, if the president knew after the fact and still continued to give Mr. Rove unfettered access to sensitive material then we also have a problem of judgment with our commander in chief, if the president just found out like the rest of us then we should be concerned that Mr. Rove was allowed to the WH the next day.

Bottom line, the issue here is when did the president know and what did he do about it.

Ah yes, SRR, since it appears that Rove can't be had, let's just double up and go for the big guy.

Who says Rove is smart? He's going to let the NYT ride Bush out of town, then spend the rest of his life writing long cranky books that no one buys.

'Tis a true midsummers' dream.

SPR,

With all due respect, at this point we do not even know if Karl Rove learned that "Mr. Wilson's wife works for the CIA" via classified documents. As numerous others have contended, it was widely known in DC circles that Ms. Plame worked for the CIA. What I see here is a rush to judgement simply because of the extreme hatred of one man in this administration. The left believes that if they can take out Karl Rove, they are striking a personal blow at Bush. In this country; however, there is a presumption of innocent until proven guilty--something that many seem to have cast aside. In this case, I haven't seen one thing to date that indicates guilt to me. Yes, it's sleazy politics, but since when did that become a crime.

Humorous side note: I almost laughed up my breakfast this morning watching GMA when I realized the "expert" that Charlie Gibson had chosen to comment on this story. Hearing to "the forehead" (Paul Begala) comment on "wrong vs. right" struck me as freaking hilarious.

Nice straw man, SRR -- that "No one in a rational voice worthy of respect or consideration should argue that Mr. Rove's actions were ok." I think most people would argue, leftloony, wingnut or what have you, that his actions were politically-motivated. But no, according to you there are people out there who think his actions ok, by which you are clearly suggesting such people condone those actions.

Pardon my English in my previous comments. I need to refrain from posting while talking on the phone...lol.

Im not really sure if the story is in the outing of Wilson's wife as it is the months of denials from Rove and the White House that it wasnt Rove who did it.
Added to the fact Bush on 2 seperate days said if it was someone in his administration that did it they would be fired.
I dont believe the "scandal" is it what he did, but how the acted afterwards.

How many times is America going to let this administration step and spit on everybody....How come nobody can realize that this admnistration has crossed so many boundaries and that it is not o.k. then and it is not now. Come on America, wake up and stop sitting down in your comfy secure houses and stand up so that you do not have to be lied to. As an American there is only so many times I can turn the other cheek and I know I am not the only one.

Brewster Jennings.

Google it.

You won't look like such a fool, perhaps, after that.

The reason I said "No one in a rational voice worthy of respect or consideration should argue that Mr. Rove's actions were ok." is because the right is simply a spin machine right now trying to rationilize Roves actions, they were wrong lets get over that.

But I do love how suddenly it was common knowledge that she worked for the CIA. History revision number 8,986 by this administration and the rabidly mindless followers.

And when the right gets real scared about scandal just mention a Clinton era name, like Begala.

I really don't care so much about Rove,we all knew what he is. My concern is how much direction does he get and how much access does he get to carry out his henchman duties.

Bottom line when did the President find out, and what did he do about it? Did he keep his word, will he? Or will we see history revision number 8,987 in the form of a qualified statement about the meaning of the word "gone".

I actually think there's some likelihood that this is a significant scandal, regardless of the legality of Rove's action and regardless of whether he thought or knew he was outing an agent.

I suppose the crux of it all is the contention, repeated by Pat above, that Valerie Plame wasn't really covert, or that her identity wasn't being sheilded. That may be true, but a few things argue against it.

First, there's the fact that Novak used the term "CIA operative" in his column rather than "analyst". That could've been a "slip of the typewriter," as it were, but we don't usually use "operative" to mean "analyst".

Second, we have the fact that the CIA referred this case to the DOJ for prosecution, and, if I remember correctly, they contacted DOJ to press the matter after it languished for some months.

Third, we have the fact that Novak inadvertently revealed a CIA front company -- Brewster, Jennings & Associates -- after digging further into Plame's identity. If you're an analyst, they don't give you a fake company to list as your official employer, which Plame apparently did on her tax forms.

If Plame actually was an agent, it's clear to me, at least, that Rove stepped way over the line here. At a minimum, it looks like he participated in the effort to get information out about her in the days following Novak's column, whether he did so before or not. Chris Matthews says Rove told him that Plame was "fair game".

So you have an advisor to the president who read Novak's column, saw the words "CIA operative", and then participated in an effort to plaster her name all over the place. Whether he knew or thought the word "operative" meant "agent", if he didn't think about such possibilities he wasn't doing his job. It's just a reckless course of action and not something consistent with the interests of this country.

All of the above, I say, is contingent on the notion that Valerie Plame was covert, or at least that she had been in recent years. I know that issue is in dispute. If it turns out to be the case, though, there's no excuse for Rove, regardless of whether he broke the law.

Im not really sure if the story is in the outing of Wilson's wife as it is the months of denials from Rove and the White House that it wasnt Rove who did it. Added to the fact Bush on 2 seperate days said if it was someone in his administration that did it they would be fired.

Once again, let's look at the facts...Rove was repeatedly asked if he leaked Valerie Plame's name. He repeatedly said "no." Up to this point, there is no evidence to prove that he was lying. Bush said that if anyone in his administration had broken "any crimes" they would be let go. The media has utterly failed in their reporting of his previous statements. To date, there is no evidence that the public has seen that a crime has been broken. Whatever happened to the "innocent until proven guilty" concept? Does it also fall prey to this rabid hatred of this President.

If you want to convict Rove of sleazy politics, be my guest. And, yes, you can ask for him to resign if you want to. But the media and many Democrats appear to have already prepared the gallows and the trial hasn't even taken place.

I'm confused. Is this Siberia or America? Perhaps someone call fill me in.

And when the right gets real scared about scandal just mention a Clinton era name, like Begala.

Apparently you did not notice my comments on my original post. It appears to be common practice for spammers to jump on this board and label everyone as "right" and "extremist." If you have never posted on this board before, then don't show your ignorance by attempting to label someone. All you do is show yourself to be "on a mission", so to speak.

Abel, again, excellent points. I would add that the word "covert" has a very specific definition provided in the statute. Even if the reports that her status and identity were widely known are wrong, that does not mean that she was "covert" for purposes of that statute.

Also, of course, we do not know how Karl Rove came to know that she was a CIA employee. If he found out by reading a briefing paper marked "top secret", then he might be in some criminal trouble. If, on the other hand, some one told him that through political or social channels, then he can't have broken the law, period, as the law requires the person breaking it to have obtained the knowledge through officially secret channels.

As far as politically, isn't it good for us (the public) to know, in evaluating the credibility of Joseph Wilson, who called the President a liar, that his wife worked hard to send him on the intelligence-gathering trip he took? That his judgment might be suspect because he may have been wanting to help his wife in an internal CIA power struggle? The media constantly defends refusing to obey the law (i.e., refusing to name sources despite lawful court orders to do so) on the basis of the public's right to know, and the need to protect those who disseminate information the public has a right to know from reprisal. If we all agree that whistle-blowers should be protected from reprisal, then why should Rove be retaliated against for revealing true information to the American news media? If he had leaked information unfavorable to the administration, every one of the lefties wanting him fired would now be calling for him to be protected from all repercussions.

Sleazy politics is push polling about inter-racial children and failing to mention that the child is adopted (Rove v McCain, 2000).

What Rove did goes beyond that, period.

No one is suggesting that Rove be sent to Gitmo (although...), instead the question is can we trust hjim in the White House and should the President have trusted him in the White House?

because the right is simply a spin machine right now trying to rationilize Roves actions.

If by suggesting it has not been proven Rove committed a crime, I dare say they're still correct. Whether they're actually condoning Rove's actions is the question, no?

I'm ready to throw the book at Rove as soon as it's shown Plame's position is one that was covert in 2003 or very recently previous to 2003, and that Rove knew this information. You're ready, as Abel said, to prepare the gallows now. Try gettting past the thinking of the Repubs say and do this, or the Dems say this and do that, and maybe some folks here will read your posts with detachment.

As a practical matter, keep in mind Rove will be advising Republicans whether or not he's in the White House. The only thing prevented that will be jail time, which if a crime was committed is the goal here.

Abel, it's your thread.

AR

I see, you earned the right to call me an ignorant spammer, because I called you out on your Begala cheap shot

How about answering the obvious that Rove betrayed a CIA official for cheap political gain, at a time of war.

Is that OK with you?
If not should he lose his job?

Please do not ansdwer that it would be inappropriate to answer while in the midst of an ongoing investigation.

We know what he admitted, that alone is enough to get fired, if you believe otherwise then I have difficulty believing you are a centrist.

SRR,

Is it appropriate for a CIA employee to use her husband as a tool in a political fight between the CIA and the White House about a crucial issue of national security? Is it appropriate for a CIA employee to dismiss reports of a known dictator trying to obtain uranium as "crazy reports", before sending her woefully unqualified husband to have tea with a few Nigerian ministers who (unsurprisingly) denied being willing to sell uranium to Saddam? Is it appropriate for that husband to further a political ideology and infighting with the White House by falsely accusing the President of lying to the nation, without disclosing his personal biases and motivations?

I don't think any of this is appropriate. If you believe otherwise, I have a hard time accepting that you are a centrist.

Novak's original column can be found here. His own commentary on the flap can be found in his October 1, 2003 column.

I regret that I referred to her in my column as an "operative," a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations.

In 2000 Valerie Plame Wilson gave birth to twins. How in-the-field "covert" could she possibly have been over the next 2+ years? In any case, if there is no illegality, we're down to the usual nasty Washington in-fighting and comparitive political demonology. Ugly, to be sure, but commonplace and perpetual.

dontbskared -

Excellent points.

I feel compelled to mention, however, that my house is not particularly comfy, and until I fix the foundation sill, not particularly secure.

I should also say that I am pretty sure that I've been lied to while both sitting and standing.

Rove betrayed a CIA official.

If she was a desk jockey for many years, how does citing her name as an employee of the CIA when she may have sought her own husband for a fact-finding mission for the CIA in which there may have been serious conflict of interest (note use of the word "may" twice, not "is" or "was") constitute a betrayal if no covers were blown or lives endangered? It's the same as saying my father, during the time before he retired, was an FBI Agent. He had access to plenty of sensitive and secret information, but there is nothing illegal in mentioning who he works for if he's not undercover or hasn't been for many years. You are ready to condemn him now: We know what he admitted, that alone is enough to get fired.

Again, I'm ready to throw the book at Rove as long as what I wrote in my last post can be shown. I'd be disgusted if Plame was covert and he knew it.

Even more amusing (to me, anyway) is that what's being so hotly contested is the accusation that Rove provided accurate information to the press. If no crime was committed, what's the beef again? I mean, ya just gotta get a chuckle out of that kinda irony.

According to the story I read (and I can't remember if it was the Times or the WaPost), it would be a big exaggeration to say that Plame's life was in danger. She was working undercover in Europe in a company (that was apparently well known to be CIA) involved in stopping arms proliferation. According to the story I read, her cover, such as it was, had been pretty much blown. It doesn't justify what Rove did (if he did it), but it wasn't like the KGB was going to pick her up and send her to the Gulag.

To some of us, the lie's the thing. It was for me, a Democrat, with Clinton.

It is for me now with Rove.

The blatant lie is still a scandal to some.

Yeah, this might be a wild goose chase, and I am with you, the policies of the current administration are far more alarming than the men and women behind them, but, sorry, gang, and forget the whole "didthebaddeputychiefofstaffdiscloseclassifiedinformation?-GATE" scandal, I am one of the lefty wingnuts who really wants to see something happen with the Downing Street memo. Remember the Downing Street memo? Seems like only yesterday......Amazing how the Right is really really good at consistently being "just legal enough".

That would work, except for one little problem--she's a desk jockey at Langley.

Ohhhhh...so the special prosecutor investigated for two years and convened a Grand Jury for something that could, in no way, be a crime?

You don't think Fitzgerald would have determined that Plame's outing was a crime before he bothered to go through all this?

Why don't you read my comments since, Carla, including the very next one below that.

Abel;

Before any spammers attempt to hijack a thread and label me a "Bush Apologist" or "Right Wing Extremist", please take the time to read through my previous threads. While I will confess an admiration for George W Bush as a person, I've hardly been a fan of many of the policies of this Administration.

As an aside, I have to admit this is all very fun to read.

So Carla, if someone screams for an investigation of something, and just to be on the safe side the government actually investigates it exactly as the screamers demanded, and then the screamers point to the existence of the investigation itself as some kind of affirmation of criminal activity, this means what? Exactly?

Had the DOJ not turned the whole thing over to a special prosecutor, but had simply said "no crime evident" and ignored it, what exactly would you be saying about that right now? Would you be smiling and saying that there was obviously no crime because the DOJ didn't appoint a special prosecutor?

Damned if ya do. Damned if ya don't.

If you read the law as stated, Karl Rove is guilty of divulging information sufficient to identify a C>I>A> operative. By law he broke the law----plain and simple. For this Bush should follow through with his promise to fire the leak.

Mike;

Amazing how the Right is really really good at consistently being "just legal enough".

For those of you purists that say no harm no foul, I say the law is the law---there are no degrees of guilt. You either broke the law or you didn't. The sentence for breaking the law is another story. Unfortunately Bush made his decision before he knew just how close to home the leak actually was----Shades of Watergate.

So Carla, if someone screams for an investigation of something, and just to be on the safe side the government actually investigates it exactly as the screamers demanded, and then the screamers point to the existence of the investigation itself as some kind of affirmation of criminal activity, this means what? Exactly?

Tully:

If there's no possibility that a crime was commited even based on the accusations..the need for a special prosecutor to investigate and convene a Grand Jury is necessary to...shut people up?

The very first thing Fitzgerald would do is investigate whether or not Plame was a covert operative and the illegality (or not) of outing her. If it's not illegal to out her..there's nothing to investigate. He doesn't spend two years messing around with it.

What I had to say about it would be irrelevant. Either a crime was committed or it wasn't. It hardly seems necessary to spend two years on investigating a noncrime.

It hardly seems necessary to spend two years on investigating a noncrime.

Necessary, no; desired, possibly yes.

I may be mistaken, but isn't that exactly what happened with Whitewater? Kent Starr and co. went on for years until they finally unearthed something, in my opinion, completely meaningless to the original objective of their appointment. It's not hard to acknowledge the incentive that these folks have to keep themselves in the spotlight and in the money, regardless of the merit of their work.

I'm not discounting Fitzgerald's findings. But necessity hardly seems a relevant concern.

Scott;
You took the words right out of my mouth. Special prosecutors have wonder ability to keep plugging away until they find something. Each side's "oxen has been gored" with that law

Bullfeathers, Carla. The length of an SP investigation means nothing. SP investigations can take forever--the Henry Cisneros SP is still on the job, a full decade later. And all his "targets" (including Cisneros) pled out years ago--Cisneros himself received a full pardon from Clinton in 2001, and I don't believe there have been any indictments since 1998 or '99.

You're still pointing at the existence of an investigation (one demanded by the left) as evidence of a crime. It's not--it's an attempt to determine if a crime has been committed. If the SP never gets appointed or closes out quickly, the partisans yell coverup. If the prosecutor does a thorough job and takes a while, they (you!) claim it's evidence that a crime was committed--even though the results of the investigation aren't in.

And SP's have to follow not only the original complaint, but absolutely anything that appears it might be a crime that they uncover during their investigations--including the possibility of perjury. And they have to follow it to definitive resolution, not just drop the investigation if the threads are weak.

Scenario 1: "Look, that might be a crime! We demand an investigation!" No investigation begins. "Look, no investigation! There must be a coverup!"

Scenario 2: "Look, that might be a crime! We demand an investigation!" Investigation begins. "Look, there's an investigation! There must be a crime!"

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

It hardly seems necessary to spend two years on investigating a noncrime.

Necessary, no; desired, possibly yes.

I may be mistaken, but isn't that exactly what happened with Whitewater? Kent Starr and co. went on for years until they finally unearthed something, in my opinion, completely meaningless to the original objective of their appointment. It's not hard to acknowledge the incentive that these folks have to keep themselves in the spotlight and in the money, regardless of the merit of their work.

I'm not discounting Fitzgerald's findings. But necessity hardly seems a relevant concern.

You're forgetting..Starr had to contact the AG to get permission to expand the probe to look for other things. That's how it expanded outside of Whitewater. If this went beyond just the Plame investigation...Fitzgerald would need permission to expand.

If he had nothing here that would be considered a crime in the first place...he'd have no reason to continue on for as long as he has.

So because Fitzgerald is still pursuing the original objective 2 years later and hasn't veered off into something else (yet), there must be a crime somewhere in there and the incentive to keep himself in the spotlight and in the money has now lessened. Count me as skeptical.

To reiterate, Carla, to you and others, I'm ready to have Rove locked up in jail for a long while, especially with his ridiculous attacks on liberals' approaches to terrorism and security. But let's wait for the judgment to come down first and not discount out of hand that Fitzgerald's motives may not be the purest.

Interesting how, as one post did mention, Novak seems to have escaped any and all inquiry. Not to say he has or has not done anything illegal, but seems to me he is the 400lb pink elephant in the room no one is talking about.

I only wonder if "Rovewater" will turn into the same ridiculous spectacle Whitewater was....and can't say I'm not selfishly hoping it does.

The Novak angle is interesting. If there was a crime, is the informer most to blame? the facilitator? Both equally?

Side note: I just got an email from Christie Whitman of It's My Party Too (I'm assuming some of you signed up and got the same). There's an interesting list of national and state supporters so far, some of whom I'm fond of and others not.

------------------------------------

Since our launch in March, we have been assembling an impressive Advisory Board to help build our nationwide grassroots network. We are proud to announce that the following influential leaders have recently joined our Board:

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME)
Former Senator John Danforth
Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
Congressman Christopher Shays (R-CT)
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Congressman Joe Schwarz (R-MI)
Former Governor Jane Swift

They join the rest of our Advisory Board, which consists of:

Congressman Mike Castle (R-DE)
Susan Cullman
Senator Bob Dole
Lewis M. Eisenberg
David Eisehower
Julie Nixon Eisenhower
President Gerald R. Ford
Congressman Michael Huffington
Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker
Congressman Jim Kolbe (R-AZ)
Congressman Amo Houghton
Governor Bill Milliken
Congressman Rob Simmons (R-CT)
Senator Alan Simpson
Candace L. Straight
Governor William Weld

Carla, no argument. We disagree, and repeating our respective opinions at each other advances nothing, so why bother? I will re-offer the bet I offered you at the time, the one you didn't accept. I offer you a $10 wager, even up, that no indictments are returned by the SP or grand jury for any violations of the CIAPA.

Novak made "full disclosure" to the grand jury, presumably with the approval of his sources. Rove handed over a blanket release for ALL journalists ("any person") in relation to any conversations he had with them, back at the start of the probe. Stack those facts up as you will.

Damien? I love a circus! As long as the spectacle isn't actually damaging.

Tully, you need to offer Carla a little better odds since no charges have even been brought yet. Make it your $15 to her $5.

Oh wait, maybe I misread the situation -- no indictments are returned by the SP or grand jury.

The question is not whether Rove committed a crime but rather whether he leaked this information in order to stifle an adminstration critic. If he did then it just proves what many democrats have said all along that his adminstration will do anything to stifle there critics and to keep the truth from the American public. From what I have read the documents on the Nigerian sale of yellow cake were such obvious forgeries that anyone would have known that this information was fake yet the President used it in his state of the Union. When Wilson outed these facts Rove outs his wife. It might not have legs but its morally repugnant.

A question to Carla and others: let's say the President asked Rove to resign. Would you thank Bush for keeping his word about firing those involved in the leak, would you be ambivalent, or would you feel his asking Rove to resign shows he has something to hide?

I ask because I think Bush may not have any incentive to do this politically. In talking with my Democratic mother last week, she said she'd be happy with a Gonzales nomination to the SCOTUS. So then I asked whether she'd give Bush any credit for nominating someone perceived as having "socially liberal" views rather than a faithful conservative, and her answer was something to the effect of "not really."

Aside from the was there a crime or not discussion....I have a question that I could not find addressed in the earlier posts (forgive me if I missed it in the 60 some posts).

Is not there an issue that a top administration official might have breached his security clearance by describing Wilson's wife as a CIA agent? Please give me some insight in this day and age when security is a huge issue in the United States why this should not itself be an issue that a well run administration should in some small way address and deal with (at least suspend ones security clearance). Particularly if it was done for the shallow reason of retaliation (which I for one cant say it was but the facts (the few facts we know regarding timing) are quite suspicious).

I keep feeling like our elected leaders do more politicing that actually running our country.

Nit picking details like Clinton defining what "is" is weak: This just doesn't look right, and there is a criminal investigation pending.

Of course, we shouldn't jump to conclusions. However, this forgotten issue erupted at a time when the President's initiatives were losing traction (bad enough) and when a SCOTUS nomination is on the line (disasterous).

Splitting hairs on teensy details of this issue sounds too much like the obstructionism of Clinton apologists. Obstructionism could derail important conservative agendas at a criticaltime in this presidency.

Perhaps you should ALSO bring into this mix the appointment of Stephen Hadley who was the one that PUSHED the Nigeria-Iraq uranium connection that Ambassador Wilson nixed to begin this WHOLE thing.Wilson gets a "mafia treatment" of blackmail : either go along with OUR policy or we have ways to make you see things OUR way".I believe if you review Amb Wilson talking with Charlie Rose on PBS talk show , he speculated then WHO and WHERE his wife's name was leaked. the Bush administration tried to quiet Wilson and his comments , even going so far as to drag out this "leak investigation" longer than Watergate took; hoping the American people would have a short memory and forget about the leak. I guarantee that if I were to leak ANYTHING that would cause a CIA operative life to be endangered --it wouldnt take as long to find Me --and ID probably be sitting in a holding cell in Guantanamo.

Wilsons wife wasnt known in washington circles till Bush and his administration started a swear campaign about Wilson after the story broke on the uranium. The story according to Roves attorney was that Rove circulated the story about Wilsons wife in the Washington crowd along with other administration officials to discredit Wilsons story. They are now trying to reinvent the timelines by saying that everyone knew. reporters just dont call up the CIA and ask for operatives names, so someone with security clearances in the administration had to actually give the name out, this brings us to who did Novak actually cite as his sources. It would make sense that the investigating attorney here would supeona the reporters involved to testify to collaborate what Novak has told them so far. And why is Miller still refusing to co-operate if what Roves attorney says is true that Rove has given permission to them to identify him as the leak. If I remember correctly in a question asked of Miller why she wouldnt give up the source. she specifically told the judge that to do so would put her in jeapordy, that these were powerful and dangerous people she was protecting. This goes way farther than just Rove supposedly telling a repoter to drop a story from Wilson because it was considered false. Which BTW we now know was true. So how do defend a person who lies about the truth of yellow cake, then gets caught in another lie that he knew nothing and wasnt the leak when asked 2 years ago. Lies upon lies will only get you caught in the end. The price will be hugh for this bunch in the whitehouse, a hell of a lot more than Clintons little problem.

mod,

That is indeed a perfectly legitimate issue. Unresolved is the question of how Rove came by the knowledge that she was an employee of the CIA, and whether, in actual fact, her existence as such was classified. There is not one iota of evidence in the public domain that Rove learned of her position from any classified document or briefing. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, we just don't know right now.

Personally, I'm starting to be convinced that the key is Miller's source. It's entirely possible that someone on the left or in the CIA itself leaked the information to Miller or maybe even Novak in an effort to bolster the credibility of Wilson's NYT editorial denouncing President Bush. But that's pure, unadulterated speculation, of course.

Returning to the facts, we also don't know that Rove was one of Novak's sources. All we know for certain is that Rove was one of Cooper's sources. It is next to impossible that Rove was Miller's source, because it would be simply ridiculous for Miller to insist on going to jail to protect Rove, who has clearly and very unambiguously waived any confidentiality as a source. So there is at least 1 (Novak had two sources) and possibly as many as 3 remaining sources not publicly identified (if Rove was not a source to either Novak or Miller).

I see the wingbots have arrived, full of sound and fury.

I think you are wrong in your "middle of the road" view on this issue. Fact is, Karl Rove "Outted" a CIA member. True, he may not have identified her by name, social security number, Driver's License number, etc., but the fact remains that he divulged confidential information "marking" her as a CIA agent.

Do you realize that no civilian (other than her husband maybe), KNEW THAT SHE WAS A CIA AGENT??? So in Rove telling a reporter, and then that reporter publishing it, her career is OVER as a CIA AGENT and all those years of establishing her cover is to waste. And for what? All because Rove thinks he's the man and laws don't apply to him all due to a vendetta he was filling against someone who SPOKE THE TRUTH about the uranium from Nigeria. So come on...this is definitely a scandal! It is also much more detrimental to the country than a president getting a blowjob in the office and then lying about it...Who's harmed from that? On the other hand, when one of your TOP ADVISORS acts with such incredulity, as Rove has here, he puts the CIA Agent at risk, her family, and this country. Way to go Rove...and way to go you for being simpathetic to this monster.

See, you have to realize that his behavior here is exactly the type of behavior we are used to coming from Rove...Two previous "campaigns of evil" (like my "Dubya" Language) by Rove I can think of are: His helping with a "hush campaign" in the 2000 South Carolina Republican Primary, to discredit John McCain (implying McCain had a black child out of wedlock), as well as Rove "bugging" his own office in Texas and blaming it on the opponent of Rove's candidate...

This guy is bad news and has no right to be involved in Bush's administration ANYMORE! Why can't you see this too?

I'm not certain the facts support this as a definite scandal quite yet.

I will concede this though....... the American people should be embarrased that a top administration official would react to criticism (whether right or wrong, justified or not) with political retaliation that, at the very least, cost taxpayers money and cost a career government employee her career and years of service.

People can split hairs all they like about what is classified, whether its a crime, who knew what when and (the best one cause its completely ridiculous)..."he just said 'wife' and did not use her name".

This American expects more from their government than retaliatory high school type behavior.... and I would think the President probably should too....

mod,

I hesitate to continue dispute with you because you are a breath of rationality to the sudden invasion of idiocy we've had in the last few posts... But...

There is no evidence that this was "retaliation" by the White House against a political enemy. It is by no means a clearly established fact that Saddam never tried to obtain uranium from Nigeria. One particular document turned out to be a forgery, but that was not the only piece of evidence relied on by the British and U.S. intelligence officers who reported the possibility. Joe Wilson's "investigation" pretty much amounted to him going up to Nigerian government officials and asking them "did Saddam seek to buy uranium from your country".

So when the media started jumping on the Joe Wilson car of the "Bush lied" band wagon, I don't see anything smacking of "retaliation" in pointing out that Ambassador Wilson was not a wholely impartial observer. Personally, I find the fact that his wife recommended him for the trip, and that she already considered the report which Wilson was being sent out to investigate "crazy", highly relevant to my evaluation of Wilson's credibility. It was information the public had a right to know. Now, the public's right to know doesn't justify breaking the law, but so far I don't see anything close to proof that Rove broke the law.

Why does it always have to come back to Clinton? When ever any Bush aide is caught or even thought of doing something wrong the Bush Republican’s always bring up Clinton. As if he has not done enough for the Grand Old Party; after all you have Rush and a dozen other clones because of him. The question any American needs to ask themselves when they read this story is “Why was Rove even discussing this with a reporter”. and I would hope the next question one would think of is how did Rove even know this info about this a CIA agent. Common sense tells you he was trying to smear dirt on this agent’s husband for the comments he made to the NY times. As if this is supposed to surprise any one in this country, this man is very good at his job, a job that involves spreading lies or even truths.

So who cares?

Maybe some people still do. Maybe we have the right to call a rat, a rat. Maybe we should hold people accountable for there actions. Maybe this should snowball into something that cannot be so easily covered up. Then maybe some American’s might care to actually pay attention to what politicians do and not just what good pr says they did.

So all you Bush Republican’s and sit back and relax, Rove is not going anywhere. After all if Bush can tell the world for 2 years that Iraq had WMD & helped plan 9/11; then one day tell the same world I never said any such thing, Rove’s little e-mail will blow over.

And by the way I can only recall Clinton lying about screwing one person while in office, last I checked W, has screw us all.

Tired... Please point me to a single place, just once, anywhere in the entire internet or any media report, where President Bush or any member of his administration stated that Iraq or Saddam "helped plan 9/11". Once you find an actual quote (not made up moonbat rantings), then you can come back and talk about "common sense".

PatHMV

Say I give the benefit of the doubt that the administration was trying to rebut the credibility of Wilson and his yellow cake take.

Was it just Rove not being careful in "naming" a CIA agent? Was this connection that Wilson may have been sent by her truly that worthwhile a rebuttal to be wasting administration time with (after all if the connection was solid enough to put it in the President big speech they must have other evidence)?

Its hard for this inquiring mind to see innocent motices...too many coincidences....and if it is innocent, it seems fairly careless for someone entrusted with classified information. Thats my ultimate point.

Finally, why did administration officials vehemently deny Rowe was involved and now they can't talk about it? Why did Carl Rove say he did not know her name?

I keep coming back to this in my posts... the communication on what really happened here is coming out so slow that speculation is rampant (as you can see on these posts). I think the administration's failure to clearly communicate causes half these problems. Plenty of people continue to blame such on the media, but this seems to be another example (i.e. deny earlier in investigation -- can't comment now that Presidents friend and advisor is potentially implicated) where the administration brings it on itself.

PatHMV

Say I give the benefit of the doubt that the administration was trying to rebut the credibility of Wilson and his yellow cake take.

Was it just Rove not being careful in "naming" a CIA agent? Was this connection that Wilson may have been sent by her truly that worthwhile a rebuttal to be wasting administration time with (after all if the connection was solid enough to put it in the President big speech they must have other evidence)?

Finally, why did administration officials vehemently deny Rove was involved and now they can't talk about it? Why did Carl Rove say he did not know her name?

Its hard for this inquiring mind to see innocent motives...too many coincidences....and if it is innocent, it seems fairly careless for someone entrusted with classified information. Thats my ultimate point.

I keep coming back to this in my posts... the communication on what really happened here is coming out so slow that speculation is rampant (as you can see on these posts). I think the administration's failure to clearly communicate causes half these problems. Plenty of people continue to blame such on the media, but this seems to be another example (i.e. deny earlier in investigation -- can't comment now that Presidents friend and advisor is potentially implicated) where the administration brings it on itself.

PatHMV

Say I give the benefit of the doubt that the administration was trying to rebut the credibility of Wilson and his yellow cake take.

Was it just Rove not being careful in "naming" a CIA agent? Was this connection that Wilson may have been sent by her truly that worthwhile a rebuttal to be wasting administration time with (after all if the connection was solid enough to put it in the President big speech they must have other evidence)?

Finally, why did administration officials vehemently deny Rove was involved and now they can't talk about it? Why did Carl Rove say he did not know her name?

Its hard for this inquiring mind to see innocent motives...too many coincidences....and if it is innocent, it seems fairly careless for someone entrusted with classified information. Thats my ultimate point.

I keep coming back to this in my posts... the communication on what really happened here is coming out so slow that speculation is rampant (as you can see on these posts). I think the administration's failure to clearly communicate causes half these problems. Plenty of people continue to blame such on the media, but this seems to be another example (i.e. deny earlier in investigation -- can't comment now that Presidents friend and advisor is potentially implicated) where the administration brings it on itself.

Sorry for all the posts. When the site is slow I get carried away because I think its not posting. Plus Im using a mac right now and because Im not familiar I think I double and triple click instead of just once.

Rove's defense? He didn't mention Valerie Plame by name. He just put up a thirty foot neon sign pointing to her identity to anyone with a basic knowledge of Google. What a weasle.

Of course we're all hearing the talking points. "Everyone knew she was an operative." If that was so, why was it news to insiders like Novak. Here's how Plame's identity may have become common knowledge to the beltway mafia. Rove told a few reporters about her role in the CIA. Assuming there are any journalistic standards left, one or more of the reporters could have made a few phone calls to try to corroborate the story. Pretty soon it IS common knowledge, but only because someone decided to make the leak in the first place.

Here's another spin. "She wasn't really under cover. She was a "desk jockey" at Langley". Oh really? According to whom? FOX News? The Weekly Standard? I have no idea what her status was, but apparently she was in charge of a project to stop WMD proliferation. Sounds like pretty high-level sensitive stuff to me. But what do I know? The White House is running away from this story pretty hard, so I'm assuming that like just about everything coming out of the right wing these days, this spin is just more bs propaganda.

It's pretty obvious what happened. Wilson dared to speak the truth and was punished through his wife. These Republicans these days will really stoop to anything.

cost a career government employee her career and years of service.

Please provide links and evidence. I'd be interested in reading it. Thanks.

Why does it always have to come back to Clinton? When ever any Bush aide is caught or even thought of doing something wrong the Bush Republican’s always bring up Clinton.

Funny, if you're referring to my post above, I voted in the Democratic primary last year then wrote in a Democrat last Fall.

I have no idea what her status was, but apparently she was in charge of a project to stop WMD proliferation. Sounds like pretty high-level sensitive stuff to me.

And you think you need to be covert for that? My Dad led the case to indict Whitey Bulger in Boston in the mid 1990s. Does Bill Weld, for ex., saying simply "John Gamel is in the FBI" impede his investigation? No. All of the evidence and intelligence accumulated doesn't die if my father's life is threatened, and he has no problem continuing to work as long as he's not undercover in the future (which he wasn't, and which Plame wasn't).

It's pretty obvious what happened. Wilson dared to speak the truth and was punished through his wife.

Why don't you read some of the posts above.

And to be clear, as it relates to: All of the evidence and intelligence accumulated doesn't die if my father's life is threatened My father's life would never have been in jeopardy by such an "outing" as the media describes that which occured for Valerie Plame.

That Plame is \ was a “paper pusher” is hardly “proof” that she was not undercover. I would imagine that the CIA has any number of low level employees who are positioned as such in order to feed misinformation to targets or gather intelligence posing as a “disgruntled employee”. It really doesn’t take much of an imagination to figure that out. The assumption is that everyone who works for the CIA is exactly as they appear [guess you all would be an easy mark].

The fact is that no one on this board knows what Plames role was \ is in the CIA and those who are talking as if they do are taking out of their backside. Sure it’s fun to speculate, it’s even more fun to speculate when it confirms personal biases, but until someone in the CIA can answer that question definitively it’s still an open question. Further, if the answer is that she did have a role that was of a nature different then her common knowledge position, the act of confirming or denying that publicly could very well be detrimental to current operations.

Rumor has it that the reason the other reporter choose to go to jail was that she actually outed Plame. Rove spoke in very general terms but Miller apparently named names. As far as scandals go this one is pretty run of the mill and nothing will come of it in the end. I’d put money on it. If anyone gets indicted it will be Miller and/or her source.

I would imagine that the CIA has any number of low level employees who are positioned as such in order to feed misinformation to targets or gather intelligence posing as a “disgruntled employee”.

And so do the Depts. of State, Defense, Homeland Security, FBI etc. etc. etc., any employee of any agency who hold sensitive information. Oh, but because she works at the CIA (and may even have passed through the gate at CIA headquarters 5 times a week for 48 of the 52 weeks in 2002 or 2003), Rove has blown her cover.

If she was a handler, field officer or the other covert operative, and Rove knew this, and then it seems to me Rove should be indicted. Are you not willing to wait for that indictment, Rick? That's all "Bush Republicans" like me (lol) want -- justice sought and applied.

or the other covert operative=another covert operative

After reading the posts, it seems there are several issues. Was she covered under the Covert Identity Act? Did Rove or the person at the CIA who gave him the information about her know she could possibly be covered? Did Rove keep the President in the dark and let him make his statements about firing the source of the leaks? Was the President aware of what went on and qualified his statements by saying "if a crime has been committed?"
To those who say that Rove just happened to come across the fact that Plame worked for the CIA while checking facts about a story do not give him the credit he has worked so hard to achieve - a very thorough and vindictive political spinmeister. Even if her name just happened to fall into his lap, does anyone believe he didn't find out everything he could about her. As far as naming her, is actually saying Valarie Plame any different than saying Ambassador Wilson's wife?
The White House wants the investigation to run its course without commenting. If I understand political speak that translates into the longer this takes the less people will be interested in it.
I think this should be something the House and Senate should take up immediately since there many important questions that need to be answered - primarily - is Rove guilty of a crime.

I'm very happy to see this issue addressed from a Centrist POV. I'd like to turn your attention to a guest blog item on Josh Marshall's TPMCafe (Talking Points Memo) that has a statement from Larry Johnson, who worked with and knew Plame, and can shed some light on her role in the Agency: http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340 .

If a law was broken as Larry Johnson suggests, we need to indict this criminal. Whether it's Karl Rove, Judith Miller, her source, whoever, let's find the truth.

If that's too "Republican" for some people and not "centrist" enough, then I fear to know what centrism really is on the issue of crime.

My, seems like we have gotten a bit carried away, doesn't it? Funny how all of these new names show up whenever someone links back to a thread on this sight...lol. A couple of comments if you will...

Do you realize that no civilian (other than her husband maybe), KNEW THAT SHE WAS A CIA AGENT???

I'm not sure how you came by this information--perhaps you have confidential sources--but if you are going to make blanket statements, please back them up with facts.

Now on to Judith Miller. I shared some of my questions about Ms. Miller yesterday and my suspicions that Karl Rove could not be her leak--all the evidence just appears to be contrary to that possiblity. At the time, I wondered if Joe Wilson could have been a source. The Washgington Post recently speculated that a reporter could have actually outed Ms. Plame to Karl Rove and not the other way around. You've got to remember that during this time you've got Joe Wilson running around saying that the Vice President had sent him on this secret mission--something that was proven to be a bold faced lie. In actuality, his trip was authorized by someone within the CIA, perhaps his wife. (Talk about conflict of interest, but I digress.) Judith Miller had recently done a piece of WMD's and had cited confidential sources within the CIA. As we now know, Valerie Plame worked on WMD's within the CIA. Perhaps Ms. Miller was quite aware of whoe Valerie Plame was? Maybe she's the one who leaked Ms. Plame's identity to Karl Rove? Maybe that's why she has chosen to go to jail, perhaps hoping that if the truth ever comes out and she is found to be in violation of a crime she could benefit from time already served. Does anyone think for one minute that the New York Times would send a reporter to jail to protect someone within the Bush Administration? That's been the sticking point for me...

It wasn't that he had sex with a woman other than his wife, it was that he lied about it. Hmmmmm.

Guilty without a doubt

The standard of judgement should be the same for this gent is as is for everyone else.
Bush and his team 's track record is almost always bordering on "bending the truth" side...Given this fact, my opinion unless Bush has the courage to do the right thing for the country, no operating agents will place their trusts in the White House --- and that is the gravest consequence for our National Security.

The standard of judgement should be the same for this gent is as is for everyone else.

Pardon my ignorance here, but exactly what is the standard? If the press makes a ruckus you must be guilty? Is that the new standard in the United States? Trial by the press? Perhaps we can amend our constitution to guarantee a trial by "a jury of one's local reporters." That would sure speed up the process. Perhaps we could even broaden the death penalty to include crimes of "grave consquence." That should clean up DC pretty quickly, don't you think?

The Senate Intelligence Committee found the actual memo wherein Plame pimped Wilson for the assignment, which she then approached him about taking (pages 39-40). And it wasn't the first time--he went to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at Plame's suggestion.

Wilson's second Niger visit was over eight months before the forged Italian memos surfaced. They were not the source of the original intel--there were multiple sources for that, of various degrees of reliability. One of those sources was the Nigerian Prime Minister, who indicated that there had been approaches from Iraq and other states about buying yellowcake, which had been rebuffed. CIA staff expressed doubt that sending Wilson would shed any new light.

Wilson was given a "talking points" paper at his briefing, listing questions to ask of Nigerian government officials. The talking points did not "refer to the specific reporting on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal, did not mention names or dates from the reporting, and did not mention that any such deal was being reported in intelligence channels." His CIA briefers did not mention any of the existing intel to Wilson in his briefing, there being no "need to know." IOW, Wilson had no access to any of the other Iraq/Niger intel--unless his wife leaked it to him. (page 41)

Wilson arrived in late Feb 2001, talked to the listed officials, briefed the Ambassador, and filed a report saying that he found the possibility unlikely. (Page 42) He was debriefed by the CIA on his return to the US, and THEY wrote the official report on his mission. Wilson was not identified in that report, which is what eventually reached the White House. The report indicated that according to the source (Wilson) the former Nigerian PM had related being approached by Iraqi officials with vague offers to buy yellowcake in June 1999, but that he had let the matter drop due to sanctions. Also reported in the Wilson debrief (by the former Nigerian Minister for Energy and Mines) was an approach by an Iranian delegation in 1998, interested in purchasing 400 tons of yellowcake. They were rebuffed.

IOW, Wilson's report did contain confirmations of rogue state approaches to Niger seeking uranium, from both Iraq and Iran, directly contrary to his subsequent public statements.

The SIC report goes on to note that Wilson's testimony to the committee differed considerably from his CIA report, and from his public statements. That Wilson's testimony and public statements indicated knowledge of other intel that he had no legitimate access to, and had not been provided to him by the CIA.

In short, Wilson lied, in his public statements or his sworn testimony or his debriefing, or some combination thereof. If his (later) "other intel" knowledge was at all real, there was only one source for it--Plame. The "discredited" intel referred to by Wilson in his public statements was the Italian papers, known to be forged within days of their surfacing, something which did not occur until several months after Wilson went to Niger and filed his report. The underlying intel that prompted the trip apparently came from the Birtish and Nigerian sources and was not controverted by Wilson, the Italian forgeries, or other sources.

Rule of thumb for "poisoned wells" (exposed sources playing CYA in public) is that the earliest pre-exposure intel is likely the most accurate. Wilson exposed himself on the op/ed page of the NYT, making statements directly contradicted by both his debrief report and the reports of the agents who "handled" him for the Niger trip.

Plame was indeed a "desk jockey," a CIA bench analyst in the Non-Proliferation Division (NPD). Among others, Novak and reporter Andrea Mitchell have acknowledged that Plame's employment with the CIA was generally known among the Washington press corps long before the Wilson/Plame flap.

To stir up the controversy even more, apparently the Washington Times is now reporting that Ms. Plame's cover had been compromised LONG before the 2003.

According to the times the Russians had learned of her identity in the mid 1990's from a "Moscow Spy"

They also report that the Cubans had learned it when the CIA inadvertantly included it in material sent to the Swiss Embassy in Havanna which the Cubans intercepted.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040722-115439-4033r.htm

----------
The simple fact of the matter is:

1) No one here works for the CIA and knows what Ms. Plames status was at the time Novak reported it. No one here knows how sensitive her actualy Identity was.

2) No one here knows how Rove learned about her identity nor what he knew or understood about her status when he talked to the reporter.

3) No one here knows who Judith Millers actual source was or how she came by the information about Plame. Judith is sitting in jail rather then testify about it.

These matters all need to be investigated. That's why there is a special prosecuter working on the case. Let him do his job. Hopefully they'll be able to complete thier investigation, get to the bottom of the controversy and make the unclasssified portions of it public. Until then, why don't we all take a chill pill, wait for the FACTS to be made public.... and stop trying to burn people at the stake based on 3rd hand rumors and smoke being blown out peoples kiesters?

Good point Cengel (and great background Tully). The problem is that many within the press corps have smelled burning flesh and are attempting to stoke the flames. In the process, facts seem to be cast aside for speculation, and silence has become tantamount to guilt.

A question to Carla and others: let's say the President asked Rove to resign. Would you thank Bush for keeping his word about firing those involved in the leak, would you be ambivalent, or would you feel his asking Rove to resign shows he has something to hide?

It would be the first time since 9/11 that I would consider Bush a man who possibly has the integrity and fortitude his handlers like to brag about.

Carla, no argument. We disagree, and repeating our respective opinions at each other advances nothing, so why bother? I will re-offer the bet I offered you at the time, the one you didn't accept. I offer you a $10 wager, even up, that no indictments are returned by the SP or grand jury for any violations of the CIAPA.

Okay. I'll take that bet. (I don't think I saw your previous offer, btw) But I dunno how you'll get the money to me cuz I don't give out my IRL information. LOL

Novak made "full disclosure" to the grand jury, presumably with the approval of his sources. Rove handed over a blanket release for ALL journalists ("any person") in relation to any conversations he had with them, back at the start of the probe. Stack those facts up as you will.

In Rove's case the only blanket release he gave was when his lawyer went on TV and said Cooper could talk. From what I've read..Luskin (Rove's lawyer) was surprised when Cooper decided to testify before the Grand Jury. Remember, Cooper initially refused but changed his mind in the middle of last week.

The New York Times ran an editorial today that tends to reinforce the point Carla just made, and which is being disputed by several folks on this thread.

Namely, the notion that Rove wasn't or couldn't have been Judith Miller's source, or, as Tully has stated a couple of times, that Miller and Cooper were both released long ago by Karl Rove from their confidentiality obligations.

Here's what the Times says:

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.

Mr. 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.

Looks like neither Miller nor Cooper considered Rove's earlier release, which was requested by the administration, to be valid. And the Times is clearly calling Rove out quite specifically on this.

Do you think the Times knows who Miller's source is? Seems like he's the one who they believe needs to release Miller from her obligation.

To everybody beating the “fire or string up Rove” drum here: Are you really interested in the outing of agents or just looking for an excuse to go Bush bashing? Name another case of an agent being outed that you are concerned with. Anybody? Anybody at all??? Bueller? Bueller?

By the way the latest buzz around the water cooler is that the Miller’s source is...PLAME! That would throw a monkey wrench into the works. The irony is so tasty that this one has to be true...

Alf,

That was my contention earlier this morning. That theory has come from none other that The Washington Post, a paper hardly known for their Bush sympathies.

William,

As far as the NYT goes. They could very easily serve up Judith Miller's source. I fail to see why what worked for TIME wouldn't work for them unless there's something that they are intent on hiding.

Wow. 100 comments ...

Tully,

Um, looks like we certainly got a Circus on our hands!

I for one, am torn. Not to sound like a Clinton apologist, but... to sound like a Clinton apologist... I feel that this issues is potentially far more important than whether or not a man had an inappropriate relationship with a woman that wasn't his wife. I know that is so completely cliche but... as one of the 1 million and 2 previous posters noted, it was not so much the fact that Rove may or may not have outted an agent, but the way in which this entire situation has been handled that reaks of fish.

Mr. Rove receives much glory for his "Genius" and how every move he makes is shear political brilliance. Lest we not forget but for a few counties in Ohio, we are looking at an incumbent president DURING WAR TIME, who nearly lost to a man who at best is a mediocre politician.

This is to say that the man is no where near infallible. I am willing to not pass judgement untill all the facts are cleared up, but I also must add....that they better be actually cleared up.

With all that is at stake, the spectre of two possible SCOTUS vacancies, upcoming mid-term elections, continuing terrorist threats, this is a much different time than the lameduck tail end of the Clinton years where Monika was the only game in town. Let's all just be sure to treat it as such.

In Rove's case the only blanket release he gave was when his lawyer went on TV and said Cooper could talk.

Sorry, Carla, that's simply not true. Rove did indeed sign a blanket release waiver, sometime prior to August 2004, releasing "any and all" journalists who had spoken with him on the matter from confidentiality. As did several other administration officials. Cooper and Miller refused to accept any blanket waivers as valid releases on the grounds that they were potentially coerced. He started packing for jail. At which point, according to Cooper and his attorney, Rove personally called him, and personally released him from confidentiality. And Cooper showed up at the grand jury, and testified, and didn't go to jail for contempt. What he actually testified to we don't know, but it's a safe bet that the conversation with Rove was involved.

Miller had been using the same justification for refusing to testify to sources. Apparently no one has called her with a personal release.

I'm not worried about needing to send the money to you, Carla. :-) I have a PO Box, and I'm also willing to accept a valid donation receipt in that amount to any number of non-partisan charities in lieu of cash. The wager: I bet $10 even up that Fitzgerald returns zero indictments for violations of the Covert Agent Identity Protection Act. Same bet I offered when Fitzgerald was first appointed as Special Prosecutor almost eighteen months ago.

Wilson's public claims have since been thoroughly discredited by Wilson himself, in both his sworn testimony to the SIC and in the official CIA report. From the only partially-known facts (which are clearly insufficient to establish criminal behavior, IMHO, something I will leave to Fitzgerald and the grand jury) we seem to be arguing over whether Rove released Plame's identity for retaliatory reasons, as compared to warning off Cooper from a bad story. Cooper's email seemingly supports the latter. And I still find it ironic that Rove is being pilloried for supplying the press with accurate information.

I second Cengel's point about waiting for some facts, which I tend to think ties into the fact that their are over 100 posts now.

However, can someone please answer my question about why Rove needed to bring up Plame in the first place. Its hard to swallow the argument that they were trying to discredit Wilson because the media was on their asses regarding the yellow cake reference in the President's speech. If Wilson and the media at the time were really wrong, would not the easy, most effective and least risky way to do that be to provide some further evidence of the truth to the assertion made (if their is any - or is it that it remains highly classified). Discrediting Wilson does not seem to fill the lack of real intelligence hole, it only seems to serve to attack Wilson.

I meant to add: while Miller also refused to accept blanket waivers as valid, we don't know that her civil contempt citation relates to anyone who provided a blanket waiver. She could well be covering another (non-White House) source, or even multiple sources. Only she knows for sure. Even Fitzgerald may have only suspicions. So speculating about who Miller is covering is pointless, given the lack of evidence.

Plame was brought up because Wilson was claiming in public that he was sent to Niger at Cheney's request, implying that Cheney specifically sourced the mission, and him for the mission. Cheney's office did not know of the Wilson/Niger mission--it was actually sourced out by Plame's boss, at Plame's instigation (see the SIC report), which Wilson was denying. The CIA report that reached Cheney did NOT mention who actually went to Niger.

Mod,

Yes, the intelligence about the uranium acquisition attempt is undoubtedly highly classified. Why should the U.S. burn intelligence sources and disclose sources and methods of intelligence gathering just because some former ambassador who is tired of being out of power decides to start lying to the New York Times? His motivation is highly relevant in deciding whether to believe his strong claims that "Bush lied". He was being positioned by the media and the Democrats as some responsible, just doing his job government functionary, trying to blow the whistle on wrong-doing. He's not that, by a long shot. I, for one, am glad the truth came out about him well before his deception became part of the "known facts" which everybody assumes to be true but really aren't.

Interesting thought. Well we will see how this plays out.

Without coming to any conclusions, I still think its somewhat suspicious (particularly the change in the administration's tone regarding answering questions during an investigation)....and I dont see how continuing to discredit ones critics in the end convinces people you are doing a competent job (I think the polls back this statement up). Its defensive not offensive leadership.

Finally, nobody can truly say they are surprised that the media is all over this. There could be no wrongdoing, but if there is, this could blow up into a huge scandal even implicating the President. Even a non-biased media would love this stuff.

Mod,

The pre-existing intel on Iraq's (and Iran's) attempts to obtain yellowcake from Niger remain mostly classified. Especially the intel obtained from other governments. The IC report has redacted nearly all the source info, save to acknowledge that the Brits both supplied intel (which they stand by) and confirmed some of our own.

Once again, Wilson, despite his public claims of 2003, had no valid source for the intel he claimed to have seen and claimed (falsely, we now know) to have discredited. His only known likely source was his wife. Who leaked what, when, to whom? The Italian forgery job was ex post facto.

No white hats. No black hats. Just clowns. The circus came to town.

Where's the outrage over a CIA employee apparently leaking information to her husband? Before we paint this woman as a stellar employee, it's important to recognize that she obviously had a political agenda here, and by including her husband in it, could have disclosed classified information herself. How can she be the heroine?

As far as the change in the Bush Administration's tone, I don't think we can read too much into it. This administration has repeatedly demonstrated that they will not be bullied by a press run amok, and yes, I think the press is totally out of line with the aggressive bullying tactics that they have employed. They continue to tout Wilson's comments on Rove, they put Plame and Wilson on the front cover of magazines, and have not reported all of the facts of this case that are currently known. The White House could very well be letting the press crawl all the way out on this limb, and are just waiting for the chance to give them a little push.

Something tells me; however, that if the press is proven blatantly wrong on this, it will immediately become a non-story.

Abel, are you daring to suggest the possible presence of non-commercial media bias in the Washington press corps?

Let's try to be centrist here. It seems like half the people on this thread think Rove is the devil incarnate and the other half think Wilson is a traitor.

cengel said it best... we need to wait for the facts to come out. Right now no one here knows anything for certain. You may think you know, but you don't. You don't know what Rove's intentions were. You don't know what Plame's status was or who sent Wilson to Niger (unless you yourself are a covert CIA agent, in which case I implore you, don't out yourself here!).

This has become a partisan political battle that has very little, if anything, to do with justice or the truth. Much like the Whitewater and Lewinsky affairs. We can only hope that Fitzgerald is not blinded by the political lights the way some here obviously are.

Nice straw man, SRR -- that "No one in a rational voice worthy of respect or consideration should argue that Mr. Rove's actions were ok." I think most people would argue, leftloony, wingnut or what have you, that his actions were politically-motivated. But no, according to you there are people out there who think his actions ok, by which you are clearly suggesting such people condone those actions.

Actually, Scott, that's not a straw man argument. Many in the right-leaning media (including the WSJ editorial page and John Gibson of Fox, both of whom called for Rove to be awarded a medal) have indeed said that what Rove did was "OK".

Rove, Novak, Wilson, Plame - they are innocent until proven guilty. Anything else is speculative partisan hackery.

Abel, are you daring to suggest the possible presence of non-commercial media bias in the Washington press corps?

Who, me? I hold the 4th branch of our government in utmost respect.

Okay, now that I've picked myself up off the floor... I find it interesting that Democrats have encouraged the press do their job. The press no longer views itself as a reporting vehicle, but as the opposition. They've just forgotten a key fact--they were never elected.

Rove, Novak, Wilson, Plame - they are innocent until proven guilty. Anything else is speculative partisan hackery.

Huzzah!