Fueling the fire...

[theapportioner]

On Drudge:

Lawrence O'Donnel on McLaughlin Group: 'I'm probably gonna get pulled into the grand jury for saying this, but it will be revealed in Cooper's notes that it is Karl Rove who leaked Plame's identity'... Developing...

[KevinTheOmnivore]

But will it really (fuel the proverbial fire that is)?

Ask most people about Wilson, Plame, Novak, and they either have no clue, or no interest. I hate to say it, but I don't know that this story would even sell papers anymore. And if the media forced the issue, the GOP would simply fall back on the "see! the liberal media is at it again!"

:(

[El Blanco]

Meh. Not that I don't care, I am just not sure how accurate the report is.

How many people were Deep Throat for 30 years?

[kellychaos]

But will it really (fuel the proverbial fire that is)?

Ask most people about Wilson, Plame, Novak, and they either have no clue, or no interest. I hate to say it, but I don't know that this story would even sell papers anymore. And if the media forced the issue, the GOP would simply fall back on the "see! the liberal media is at it again!"

:(

While it's true that the media is a commercial business, I don't really buy that the public has no interest. Moreover, I'm inclined to believe that their opinions are made for them before anything went to press, on air, ect. My question is in who makes news a non-issue? Who decides what makes the front or back page and why?

[El Blanco]

*sigh* What a let down. What I'm hearing now, the notes mention Rove speaking to a reporter. It implies Plame was the subject, but thats all it does.

There is nothing to confirm or deny the accusation.

And someone pointed this out to me: A reporter runs with a story exposing a nobody intelligence officer instead of the fact that high ranking Team Bush member sold her out.

Anybody else think that doesn't make sense?

[kellychaos]

If you piss off a high-ranking Bush Team Member, you won't get any interviews with other high-ranking Bush Team Members.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Kelly makes a good point, and the story wasn't just about a nobody intelligence officer, it was actually "hey, prominent ambassador/anti-war activist's wife is working for the CIA, and probably had his trip to Niger arranged by her."

That's a bit different.

[mburbank]

On the non story issue, Republicans control all scheduling of commitees, so if they don't want a congressionbal inquiry there won't be one.

On the story issue, Karl Rove has a LOT of enemies, in the CIA, in the FBI and yes, in the Republican party.

[sspadowsky]

So, assuming the story breaks, and Rove is named in the press as the source, what do you all think will follow?

[Chojin]

A subsequent retraction and sincere apology.

[sspadowsky]

Interesting twist:

Bloomberg News (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aiT472RMPSfU&refer=us)

Time Reporter Agrees to Testify in CIA Leak Probe, AP Reports

July 6 (Bloomberg) -- A Time Inc. reporter agreed to testify in the investigation of the leak of a CIA operative's name to avoid going to jail, the Associated Press reported.

Time correspondent Matthew Cooper agreed to testify after the U.S. Supreme Court last week rejected his argument that reporters are protected by the Constitution's First Amendment free-press guarantee, AP said. A second reporter, Judith Miller of the New York Times, faces a possible jail sentence for refusing to reveal her source.

``I am prepared to testify,'' Cooper told U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan today in Washington, according to AP. ``I will comply.''

Cooper told the judge that today he received ``in somewhat dramatic fashion'' a communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret, AP said.

Time magazine, which also lost a Supreme Court appeal, agreed last week to turn over documents.

(Associated Press, 7-6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, let's assume it was Rove. I suppose they will spin the story in a fashion that gives Rove plausible deniability (i.e., he is somehow involved, but was not the actual source of the leak, or something to that effect)?

I know we're all speculating at this point, but I'm curious to see what everyone here thinks. I think that it was him, and he won't suffer any consequences, even though what he did was far worse than Watergate.

[El Blanco]

If you piss off a high-ranking Bush Team Member, you won't get any interviews with other high-ranking Bush Team Members.

Ya, look how Woodward and Bernstein's career went down the crapper.

[kellychaos]

Because, although there was fairly accurate speculation, they never knew the source 100%. What would have been different had they known it had come from their own camp (which we now know it did) versus those in the other camp? Add to that the fact that the evidence was so damning and evident, there was really no time but to CYOA and look for scape goats. Those at the top remained at the top and the status quo was, at least, temporarily maintained. What would have happened had those that had remained in power (at the time) protested too loudly? In other words W&B were buoyed by the truth and there was nothing the administration could do about it. Nya, nya, nya boo boo!

P.S. How often does this kind of opportunity take place?

[ziggytrix]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/10/AR2005071000758.html

It was Rove. Not some lackey of Rove's, but Rove himself. Wow. I'm shocked. I'll be more shocked if anything comes of it though.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

All I'll say is this-- were it a Democratic administration, let's say the Clinton camp, Republicans would be demanding a resignation and apology from the president, me thinks.

[El Blanco]

You mean like the big trial over the Chinese diplomat that slept in the Lincoln bedroom and came home with some missle blue prints?

If that gets by because its just too complicated and boring for the press to make sexy, this doesn't stand a chance.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I'll bet you bought that Hillary book, too. :rolleyes

This is very "sexy." Karl Rove, whether it be true or not, has been turned into comic book evil genius by the Left. He represents everything dark, sinister, and dishonest about this administration to many people.

In other words, to put it like Kanye, he'd move stacks.

[El Blanco]

I'll bet you bought that Hillary book, too. :rolleyes

No, I don't need to spend $25 to read a bunch of political bitching.

This is very "sexy." Karl Rove, whether it be true or not, has been turned into comic book evil genius by the Left. He represents everything dark, sinister, and dishonest about this administration to many people.

Yes, to people who think Michael Moore makes documentaries. It'll just be more preaching to the choir. You honestly think this will mean more to Joe Blow than "ICBM guidance systems"? Its a fairly convoluted story thats going to get twisted to hell.

In other words, to put it like Kanye, he'd move stacks.

I really wanna make a Big Daddy Kane joke here, but I just can't pull it off. I must be slipping.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You honestly think this will mean more to Joe Blow than "ICBM guidance systems"? Its a fairly convoluted story thats going to get twisted to hell.

Maybe so, but if Joe Blow had to pick between some heady article about ICBM guidance systems, or whether or not the sith lord Karl Rove outed a cia agent, I think the nation of American Idol and Jacko trials is going to go with the latter.

btw, best headline regarding this issue:

"Representative Conyers Insists Karl Rove Be Sent to Gitmo"

:lol

[sspadowsky]

Seems this story has officially grown a pair of legs. Check out today's Washington Post. (www.washingtonpost.com)

[Miss Modular]

Seems this story has officially grown a pair of legs. Check out today's Washington Post. (www.washingtonpost.com)

Now we can only hope that Novak gets arrested...

[sspadowsky]

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/07/14/BL2005071400999.html)

Getting Worried at the White House

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, July 14, 2005; 2:21 PM

President Bush's lackluster refusal to comment yesterday on his political guru's involvement in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame did nothing to ease growing worries at the White House that trouble may be around the corner.

There were no words of support for Karl Rove. No expression of confidence that the White House will come through all this unscathed. Speaking with exceptional restraint about an incident that occurred fully two years ago involving his longtime friend and confidante, Bush said he "will not prejudge the investigation based on media reports."


Jim VandeHei and Carol Leonnig write in The Washington Post: "White House officials acknowledged privately that they are concerned that the investigation will lead to an indictment of someone in the administration later this year."

And there may be good reason.

"Several people familiar with the investigation said they expect [special prosecutor Patrick J.] Fitzgerald to indict, or at least force a plea agreement with, at least one individual for leaking Plame's name to conservative columnist Robert D. Novak in July 2003," VandeHei and Leonnig write.

"A number of legal experts, some of whom are involved in the case, said evidence that has emerged publicly suggests Rove or other administration officials face potential legal threats on at least three fronts.

"The first is the unmasking of CIA official Valerie Plame, the original focus of special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's probe. But legal sources say there are indications the prosecutor is looking at two other areas related to the administration's handling of his investigation. One possible legal vulnerability is perjury, if officials did not testify truthfully to a federal grand jury, and another is obstructing justice, if they tried to coordinate cover stories to obscure facts."

Tom Raum writes for the Associated Press: "The failure by Bush to publicly back Rove left some White House advisers privately wondering whether the president was distancing himself from his longtime adviser."

Ron Fournier writes for the Associated Press: "Republicans are nervously watching the fight over Karl Rove's involvement in a news leak that exposed a CIA officer's identity, fearing that President Bush's chief adviser has become a major political problem. . .

"[S]everal top GOP officials -- including some White House advisers -- said the fight was becoming a distraction to Bush's agenda. The GOP officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid looking disloyal, said the president may face a credibility problem because his spokesman said in September that anybody involved in the leak would be fired."

Ken Herman writes for Cox News Service: "Thirty-two years into a relationship that has endured five campaigns and left its imprint on world history, President Bush demurred from defending longtime top adviser Karl Rove on Wednesday.

"The president who values loyalty above all else is, at least for now, hindered by two of the most feared words in Washington: special prosecutor. . . .

"In the past, Rove has used his political skill and ever-growing roster of connections to get him through scrapes that were relatively minor compared to this one, which could lead to prison time if it is found that he revealed the name of a covert CIA operative or obstructed the leak investigation."

Edward Alden writes in the Financial Times: "When Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, twice offered to resign amid the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, President George W. Bush refused. When Tom DeLay, the House Republican leader, was under a cloud for allegedly taking trips paid for by super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Mr Bush invited him aboard Air Force One.

"So it has been strange this week to watch Mr Bush avoid even the slightest expression of public support for Karl Rove, his political right hand and the man most responsible for the president being president. . . .

"Mr Bush's silence is a sign he could be facing a serious threat to his presidency."

Carolyn Lochhead writes in the San Francisco Chronicle that "no one expects Bush to fire Karl Rove anytime soon, short of a grand jury indictment. . . .

"Czar of White House policy and message, mastermind behind Bush's winning campaigns for the Texas governorship and two presidential terms, architect of the 'new Republican majority,' Rove is nearly as central to Bush's presidency as Bush himself. . . .

"Privately, Republicans concede the controversy hurts and wonder why Bush does not simply say Rove did not break the law and clarify that when he said he'd fire anyone in his administration for revealing classified information, he specifically meant someone who broke the law."

This Reuters photo shows Rove hovering behind Bush during the Cabinet meeting yesterday.

John Roberts reports for CBS News: "It must have been uncomfortable for the deputy chief of staff today, in his usual seat in the Cabinet Room, while the president fielded repeated questions about his actions. . . .

"Perhaps Rove's greatest transgression, though is that he has become a nagging distraction for a White House that is desperately trying to stay on message this summer, anxious to get some part of the president's agenda through, by the August recess."

Political Pressure

Richard W. Stevenson writes in the New York Times: "Democrats tried to keep up the pressure on Mr. Rove. Some, led by Representative Rush Holt of New Jersey, began an uphill effort to force a House vote on a resolution demanding that the administration turn over any documents bearing on disclosure of Ms. Wilson's identity.

"Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee sent a letter to Mr. Bush seeking withdrawal of Mr. Rove's security clearance. Senate Democratic leaders sent their own letter to the White House, calling on the administration to conduct a new investigation into the leak given the disclosure about Mr. Rove."

And MoveOn, a liberal advocacy group, called a protest and picket in front of the White House this afternoon to demand Rove's firing.

Bad Time for a Credibility Crisis

Here's NBC's Tim Russert with Brian Williams last night, describing the results from the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll -- which predates the roiling Rove imbroglio.


Says Russert: "The Bush White House always felt whether you agreed or disagreed with the president on any issue, there was a sense that he was honest and straightforward. The president may be losing some of that trust. Look at these numbers."

Asked if they consider Bush honest and straightforward, 41 percent said yes, 45 percent no. It was 50-36 in January. "That is a net loss of 9 points," Russert says. The cause? Iraq is now considered the top priority, having surged ahead of jobs, Russert said -- and the public sees a gulf between the White House rhetoric and the realities on the ground.

The poll also found Bush's overall job approval rating down to 46, with 49 percent disapproving. It was 47-47 in May, according to this poll.

John Harwood writes in the Wall Street Journal: "A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows how much Mr. Bush's political standing has been weakened as he confronts controversy over a top aide's discussion of a Central Intelligence Agency operative's employment, a Supreme Court vacancy, his Social Security plan and Iraq. Majorities of Americans disapprove of the president's handling of the economy, foreign policy and Iraq. And a plurality rates Mr. Bush negatively on 'being honest and straightforward' for the first time in his presidency.

"Nevertheless, the president continues to benefit from resilient support for the U.S. presence in Iraq even after two years of insurgent attacks. By 57% to 42%, Americans say it is important to maintain the nation's military and economic commitment to Iraq until it can govern and control itself. And by 61% to 34%, they agree with Mr. Bush's assertion, which he recently reiterated in a nationally televised speech, that the war in Iraq is part of the broader war against terrorism."

But take a close look at the poll results .

A majority of those polled disapprove of how Bush is handling the economy, foreign policy -- and Iraq. A plurality -- 49 percent -- agree that "we should set a deadline for withdrawing our troops from Iraq." And asked "If the United States withdraws its troops from Iraq there will be more terrorist attacks in the United States," only 36 percent agree -- compared to 54 percent who disagree.

Finally, it's not just honesty where Bush is taking a hit. Only 50 percent of those polled gave him high ratings for being easygoing and likeable, down from 57 in January; 43 percent gave him high ratings for being smart, down from 50; 40 percent gave him high ratings for being compassionate enough to understand average people, down from 47; and only 29 percent gave him high ratings for being willing to work with people whose viewpoints are different from his own, down from 33.

What Was Cooper Asked?

Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, who for months had refused to disclose private conversations with Rove, testified for more than two hours before Fitzgerald's grand jury yesterday.

Cooper wouldn't say how it went, vowing to tell all in his magazine later. (Online? Soon? Please?)

Editor and Publisher has the complete transcript of his remarks, along with those of his lawyer, Richard Sauber

But Laurie P. Cohen and Anne Marie Squeo write in the Wall Street Journal: "Much of the grand-jury testimony focused on Karl Rove, deputy chief of staff and senior adviser to President Bush, a person who talked to Mr. Cooper said.


"The tenor of the questions suggests that the special prosecutor, who has kept even the most basic details of his investigation under wraps, is interested in finding out exactly what Mr. Rove told Mr. Cooper, and the accuracy of notes Mr. Cooper took on the conversation."

Freeing Judith Miller

Blogger Digby points out that Cooper's lawyer says in those remarks that he felt it would have actually been a breach of confidentiality to contact Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer -- until Luskin was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying, "If Matt Cooper is going to jail to protect a source, it's not Karl he's protecting."

Digby complains: "Rove could have made it clear, though legal channels, during the solid year that Fitzgerald was litigating this, that he didn't expect Cooper to keep his confidence, if that's what he was doing. He obviously knew that there was a battle royale going on between Time magazine and the special prosecutor and he knew that he'd spoken to Cooper. He could have let it be known that if Cooper was going to all this trouble over him, he needn't bother."

But here's what that makes me think: if reporters want to help get New York Times reporter Judith Miller out of jail, let's contact every conceivable person who might have been her source, and ask them (or their lawyers): if for some reason Judy Miller were in jail thinking that she's protecting you, would that be a mistake? Would you tell that to her lawyer?

Let's start with Rove, Cheney Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, deputy national security adviser Elliot Abrams, Cheney national security adviser John Hannah, counselor Dan Bartlett, press secretary Scott McClellan, former press secretary Ari Fleischer -- and every other person's name who has ever even remotely been attached to this story in the past.

What have we got to lose? Is anyone with me, or shall I get going myself.

Yesterday's Grilling

Here's the text of yesterday's briefing , Day Three of the McClellan pinata party.

"I think we've exhausted discussion on this the last couple of days," McClellan said early on, evidently hoping the corps would stop asking him about Rove.

"You haven't even scratched the surface," said one reporter. "It hasn't started," said another.

Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey write in Newsweek.com that the history of what are now clearly inaccurate statements about Rove's involvement "leaves White House aides with only one escape route, short of telling the full story about what Rove said and what Bush knew. That escape route is to fall back on personal charm and goodwill. The only problem is that five years into this administration, and three years after the searing experience of the run-up to war in Iraq, there's not a lot of goodwill left to go around. . . .

"The frustration over McClellan's silence this week has reached fever pitch not just because of the feeling that the White House may have misled the media about Rove's role, but also because reporters have become increasingly fed up with what they see as the White House's stonewalling on other issues, including Iraq, Social Security and, most recently, Bush's search for a Supreme Court nominee. "

Actually, McClellan has at least one more escape route: stay away from the press! He's taking advantage of today's trip to Indiana to hold neither a gaggle nor a briefing today. And tomorrow, Bush is off to North Carolina.

The Curse of Iraq



David Gregory answers questions on NBC.

Q. "Is this a case of the curse of the second-term scandal?"

Gregory: "No, it would be the curse of the first term. This happened in the first term. This is perhaps the curse of a controversial basis for going to war.

"Really what this is about is the case for going into Iraq. The issue is really the debates about the war, the evidence that was used to go to war, and the claims that were made by this administration that proved to be false."

As I wrote in yesterday's column , the heart of the GOP strategy in defense of Karl Rove is attacking the credibility of Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Wilson, Plame's husband, is the person who Rove was trying to discredit when he mentioned Plame in the first place.

But Holly Rosenkrantz and William Roberts write for Bloomberg: "Two-year old assertions by former ambassador Joseph Wilson regarding Iraq and uranium, which lie at the heart of the controversy over who at the White House identified a covert U.S. operative, have held up in the face of attacks by supporters of presidential adviser Karl Rove. . . .

"The main points of Wilson's article have largely been substantiated by a Senate committee as well as U.S. and United Nations weapons inspectors."

Opinion Watch

USA Today editorial: "Bush should decide whether Rove or anyone else in his administration acted unethically and whether he'll countenance it."

New York Post editorial: "[T]he bottom line here is that Karl Rove acted to protect the president against a partisan, blatantly false smear on a matter with grave national security implications. . . . It is simply outrageous that he is cast as the villain in this episode -- while Joseph Wilson, a disgraceful liar, skates."

Richard Cohen in The Washington Post: "The inspired exaggeration of the case against Iraq, the hype about weapons of mass destruction and al Qaeda's links to Hussein, makes everything else pale in comparison. It was to protect those lies, those exaggerations, that incredible train wreck of incompetence, ideologically induced optimism and, of course, contempt for the quaint working of the democratic process, that everything else stems from."

Margaret Carlson via Bloomberg: "Two years ago, he could have come clean, orchestrated his own redemption, saved millions in taxpayers' dollars, and spared everyone a lot of agony. Instead, we've had a two-year investigation to find out what President George W. Bush could have walked across the hall and learned."

Timothy Noah in Slate: "Why aren't the major newspapers running editorials calling for Karl Rove's resignation? The Washington Post is silent. So is the Los Angeles Times. Maybe they're waiting for more information. But what more do they have to know?"

Live Online

I was Live Online yesterday, for an exceptionally lively session.

The Importance of Being Karl

Mark Silva writes in the Chicago Tribune: " 'Rove is not just any White House staffer. He is the man,' said Scott Reed, a Republican consultant with close ties to the White House. 'They haven't named it the "Roval Office" at this point, but that's coming down the pike. At least they should call it the "Rove Garden." ' "

[kellychaos]

On a side note: I hear repeated claims of how this revealing of Valerie Plame's status as a CIA operative has ruined her career. This could be construed as minor in the minds of some of the public. Don't get me wrong, I'm not belittling this point. What I'm saying is, "Couldn't this revelation affect the safety (indeed lives?) of both her and her family?". I think that this point may need to be stressed more in the media.

[sspadowsky]

No, what they need to focus on is the reason Rove spilled her name in the first place, and that was "retribution." The Bush administration was pulling hard to make the case for WMDs to legitimize their bullshit war, and Joe Wilson called them out on it.

In the grand scheme, this is a small part of a much bigger scandal. It's just one of those sub-plots that shows how far those rotten sons of bitches will go to get what they want.

[kahljorn]

I could see her in some foreign country trying to gather information, "Hey, you're that cia agent that was on the news!".



"Privately, Republicans concede the controversy hurts and wonder why Bush does not simply say Rove did not break the law and clarify that when he said he'd fire anyone in his administration for revealing classified information, he specifically meant someone who broke the law."

I thought giving information to people without a security clearance for it was illegal..? That's like someone going, "Hey, the password to the vault/wmds/cookie jar is 34425426462". lol, that makes no sense.
Can they say stuff like that and people will believe it? It's horrible.
"Yea, I'll fire anyone who reveals classified information! If they're breaking the law! Thank god revealing classified information isn't illegal, I won't have to fire anyone. I just lied."

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I think Sspad hit it right on the head. You can't focus on the gravity of a CIA "agent" being outed, b/c from what I gather, she was basically like a research assistant at the agency.

However, that doesn't change the fact that this was political pay back. Rove has a history of this. And his defense that he never stated her name is pretty weak. Cuz it would take a genius to figure out who you're talking about when you say "it was Wilson's wife who woeks at the agency." Yeah, no harm no foul there. :rolleyes

The GOP talking points on this consist of 1. Rove was actually correcting Cooper on what would've been an inaccurate story, and 2. Wilson was discredited by the Senate, etc. etc.

On the first point, they may be right, but it was still wrong. I understand what Novak's context may have been, but it was still wrong, and it was still dirty politics. On the second point, if you re-read the intelligence committees findings, they never say that there was yellow cake in Niger, they simply say that Wilson was wrong for publicly denouncing what was perhaps a logical conclusion "based on available intelligence." Not quite the same thing.

[sspadowsky]

Int'l Herald-Tribune (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/18/america/rove.php)

Rove CIA leak source, reporter says
By Brian Knowlton International Herald Tribune

MONDAY, JULY 18, 2005
WASHINGTON A Time magazine reporter said Sunday that he had first learned from Karl Rove, the powerful White House adviser, that the wife of a critic of the administration's Iraq war policy was a CIA officer.

It was the most direct statement by the reporter, Matthew Cooper, linking Rove to the revelation in mid-2003 of the identity of Valerie Plame. It remains less clear, as the overall story unfolds in tough partisan tones, whether Rove knew then that she was covert and whether he operated with any intent to reveal that fact.

The revelation of Plame's CIA link surfaced after her husband, the former ambassador Joseph Wilson, questioned administration arguments about Iraqi weapons programs. It was reported first in July 2003 by the columnist Robert Novak.

Cooper, in an article posted Sunday on Time's Internet site, said Rove did not mention Plame by name in a phone discussion days before the Novak article, but told Cooper that information soon to be declassified would undermine Wilson's credibility.

''So did Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert?'' Cooper wrote. ''No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove said that she worked at the 'agency' on 'WMD'? Yes.''

Cooper said on NBC that Rove ended their conversation by saying, ''I've already said too much.''

With the administration facing a sudden storm of tough questions about how Plame's name emerged, a top Republican Party official lashed out.

Ken Mehlman, the Republican national chairman, blasted Democrats' calls for Rove to resign, be fired or stripped of his security clearance as ''outrageous'' and ''a smear.'' He said on NBC-TV that recent reports exonerated Rove; he said Rove might have learned about Plame from reporters, not the other way around.

Mehlman criticized Democrats for castigating Rove while an inquiry is under way and said they owed him an apology. That inquiry, headed by the special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, is expected to conclude in October.

The story is of increasing concern to an administration that has built many of its most important political successes on Rove's advice.

President George W. Bush made a point Thursday of having Rove at his side as he strode to his Marine One helicopter, something the president usually does alone. Bush fondly refers to Rove as ''the architect'' — the man who designed his election victories.

The Plame story has preoccupied political Washington, unfolding even as polls depict declining public trust in Bush, in part because of arguments over the war in Iraq.

"This story is absolutely killing the president,'' Representative Jane Harman of California, ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, said on Fox-TV. ''It's reminding people that the WMD intelligence was bad.''

''I'm not calling Karl Rove a traitor,'' she said, ''but I'm saying that doing this was a very, very bad thing and Karl Rove knew better.''

Harman said Rove could have known about Plame's CIA position only from classified sources, and she joined those who have called for him to be stripped of his security clearance for now.

Wilson came under attack after contending in 2003 that the administration had exaggerated the Iraqi weapons threat as it sought to build support for war. He claimed again Sunday that his wife's CIA link was divulged in revenge.

Fitzgerald is investigating whether federal laws were broken by the unveiling of a CIA officer's identity. The most pertinent law sets a high bar for conviction, requiring foreknowledge that the officer was covert, and an organized effort to reveal the identity.

Fitzpatrick is said to be investigating whether anyone have violated other laws by lying to, or misleading, the grand jury looking at the matter.

Rove was among several officials to testify before the grand jury, and Cooper testified recently, after his source waived his confidentiality pledge. The New York Times reporter Judith Miller is in jail for refusing to testify. She investigated the matter, but wrote nothing.


WASHINGTON A Time magazine reporter said Sunday that he had first learned from Karl Rove, the powerful White House adviser, that the wife of a critic of the administration's Iraq war policy was a CIA officer.

It was the most direct statement by the reporter, Matthew Cooper, linking Rove to the revelation in mid-2003 of the identity of Valerie Plame. It remains less clear, as the overall story unfolds in tough partisan tones, whether Rove knew then that she was covert and whether he operated with any intent to reveal that fact.

The revelation of Plame's CIA link surfaced after her husband, the former ambassador Joseph Wilson, questioned administration arguments about Iraqi weapons programs. It was reported first in July 2003 by the columnist Robert Novak.

Cooper, in an article posted Sunday on Time's Internet site, said Rove did not mention Plame by name in a phone discussion days before the Novak article, but told Cooper that information soon to be declassified would undermine Wilson's credibility.

''So did Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert?'' Cooper wrote. ''No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove said that she worked at the 'agency' on 'WMD'? Yes.''

Cooper said on NBC that Rove ended their conversation by saying, ''I've already said too much.''

With the administration facing a sudden storm of tough questions about how Plame's name emerged, a top Republican Party official lashed out.

Ken Mehlman, the Republican national chairman, blasted Democrats' calls for Rove to resign, be fired or stripped of his security clearance as ''outrageous'' and ''a smear.'' He said on NBC-TV that recent reports exonerated Rove; he said Rove might have learned about Plame from reporters, not the other way around.

Mehlman criticized Democrats for castigating Rove while an inquiry is under way and said they owed him an apology. That inquiry, headed by the special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, is expected to conclude in October.

The story is of increasing concern to an administration that has built many of its most important political successes on Rove's advice.

President George W. Bush made a point Thursday of having Rove at his side as he strode to his Marine One helicopter, something the president usually does alone. Bush fondly refers to Rove as ''the architect'' — the man who designed his election victories.

The Plame story has preoccupied political Washington, unfolding even as polls depict declining public trust in Bush, in part because of arguments over the war in Iraq.

"This story is absolutely killing the president,'' Representative Jane Harman of California, ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, said on Fox-TV. ''It's reminding people that the WMD intelligence was bad.''

''I'm not calling Karl Rove a traitor,'' she said, ''but I'm saying that doing this was a very, very bad thing and Karl Rove knew better.''

Harman said Rove could have known about Plame's CIA position only from classified sources, and she joined those who have called for him to be stripped of his security clearance for now.

Wilson came under attack after contending in 2003 that the administration had exaggerated the Iraqi weapons threat as it sought to build support for war. He claimed again Sunday that his wife's CIA link was divulged in revenge.

Fitzgerald is investigating whether federal laws were broken by the unveiling of a CIA officer's identity. The most pertinent law sets a high bar for conviction, requiring foreknowledge that the officer was covert, and an organized effort to reveal the identity.

Fitzpatrick is said to be investigating whether anyone have violated other laws by lying to, or misleading, the grand jury looking at the matter.

Rove was among several officials to testify before the grand jury, and Cooper testified recently, after his source waived his confidentiality pledge. The New York Times reporter Judith Miller is in jail for refusing to testify. She investigated the matter, but wrote nothing.


WASHINGTON A Time magazine reporter said Sunday that he had first learned from Karl Rove, the powerful White House adviser, that the wife of a critic of the administration's Iraq war policy was a CIA officer.

It was the most direct statement by the reporter, Matthew Cooper, linking Rove to the revelation in mid-2003 of the identity of Valerie Plame. It remains less clear, as the overall story unfolds in tough partisan tones, whether Rove knew then that she was covert and whether he operated with any intent to reveal that fact.

The revelation of Plame's CIA link surfaced after her husband, the former ambassador Joseph Wilson, questioned administration arguments about Iraqi weapons programs. It was reported first in July 2003 by the columnist Robert Novak.

Cooper, in an article posted Sunday on Time's Internet site, said Rove did not mention Plame by name in a phone discussion days before the Novak article, but told Cooper that information soon to be declassified would undermine Wilson's credibility.

''So did Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert?'' Cooper wrote. ''No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove said that she worked at the 'agency' on 'WMD'? Yes.''

Cooper said on NBC that Rove ended their conversation by saying, ''I've already said too much.''

With the administration facing a sudden storm of tough questions about how Plame's name emerged, a top Republican Party official lashed out.

Ken Mehlman, the Republican national chairman, blasted Democrats' calls for Rove to resign, be fired or stripped of his security clearance as ''outrageous'' and ''a smear.'' He said on NBC-TV that recent reports exonerated Rove; he said Rove might have learned about Plame from reporters, not the other way around.

Mehlman criticized Democrats for castigating Rove while an inquiry is under way and said they owed him an apology. That inquiry, headed by the special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, is expected to conclude in October.

The story is of increasing concern to an administration that has built many of its most important political successes on Rove's advice.

President George W. Bush made a point Thursday of having Rove at his side as he strode to his Marine One helicopter, something the president usually does alone. Bush fondly refers to Rove as ''the architect'' — the man who designed his election victories.

The Plame story has preoccupied political Washington, unfolding even as polls depict declining public trust in Bush, in part because of arguments over the war in Iraq.

"This story is absolutely killing the president,'' Representative Jane Harman of California, ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, said on Fox-TV. ''It's reminding people that the WMD intelligence was bad.''

''I'm not calling Karl Rove a traitor,'' she said, ''but I'm saying that doing this was a very, very bad thing and Karl Rove knew better.''

Harman said Rove could have known about Plame's CIA position only from classified sources, and she joined those who have called for him to be stripped of his security clearance for now.

Wilson came under attack after contending in 2003 that the administration had exaggerated the Iraqi weapons threat as it sought to build support for war. He claimed again Sunday that his wife's CIA link was divulged in revenge.

Fitzgerald is investigating whether federal laws were broken by the unveiling of a CIA officer's identity. The most pertinent law sets a high bar for conviction, requiring foreknowledge that the officer was covert, and an organized effort to reveal the identity.

Fitzpatrick is said to be investigating whether anyone have violated other laws by lying to, or misleading, the grand jury looking at the matter.

Rove was among several officials to testify before the grand jury, and Cooper testified recently, after his source waived his confidentiality pledge. The New York Times reporter Judith Miller is in jail for refusing to testify. She investigated the matter, but wrote nothing.


WASHINGTON A Time magazine reporter said Sunday that he had first learned from Karl Rove, the powerful White House adviser, that the wife of a critic of the administration's Iraq war policy was a CIA officer.

It was the most direct statement by the reporter, Matthew Cooper, linking Rove to the revelation in mid-2003 of the identity of Valerie Plame. It remains less clear, as the overall story unfolds in tough partisan tones, whether Rove knew then that she was covert and whether he operated with any intent to reveal that fact.

The revelation of Plame's CIA link surfaced after her husband, the former ambassador Joseph Wilson, questioned administration arguments about Iraqi weapons programs. It was reported first in July 2003 by the columnist Robert Novak.

Cooper, in an article posted Sunday on Time's Internet site, said Rove did not mention Plame by name in a phone discussion days before the Novak article, but told Cooper that information soon to be declassified would undermine Wilson's credibility.

''So did Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert?'' Cooper wrote. ''No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove said that she worked at the 'agency' on 'WMD'? Yes.''

Cooper said on NBC that Rove ended their conversation by saying, ''I've already said too much.''

With the administration facing a sudden storm of tough questions about how Plame's name emerged, a top Republican Party official lashed out.

Ken Mehlman, the Republican national chairman, blasted Democrats' calls for Rove to resign, be fired or stripped of his security clearance as ''outrageous'' and ''a smear.'' He said on NBC-TV that recent reports exonerated Rove; he said Rove might have learned about Plame from reporters, not the other way around.

Mehlman criticized Democrats for castigating Rove while an inquiry is under way and said they owed him an apology. That inquiry, headed by the special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, is expected to conclude in October.

The story is of increasing concern to an administration that has built many of its most important political successes on Rove's advice.

President George W. Bush made a point Thursday of having Rove at his side as he strode to his Marine One helicopter, something the president usually does alone. Bush fondly refers to Rove as ''the architect'' — the man who designed his election victories.

The Plame story has preoccupied political Washington, unfolding even as polls depict declining public trust in Bush, in part because of arguments over the war in Iraq.

"This story is absolutely killing the president,'' Representative Jane Harman of California, ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, said on Fox-TV. ''It's reminding people that the WMD intelligence was bad.''

''I'm not calling Karl Rove a traitor,'' she said, ''but I'm saying that doing this was a very, very bad thing and Karl Rove knew better.''

Harman said Rove could have known about Plame's CIA position only from classified sources, and she joined those who have called for him to be stripped of his security clearance for now.

Wilson came under attack after contending in 2003 that the administration had exaggerated the Iraqi weapons threat as it sought to build support for war. He claimed again Sunday that his wife's CIA link was divulged in revenge.

Fitzgerald is investigating whether federal laws were broken by the unveiling of a CIA officer's identity. The most pertinent law sets a high bar for conviction, requiring foreknowledge that the officer was covert, and an organized effort to reveal the identity.

Fitzpatrick is said to be investigating whether anyone have violated other laws by lying to, or misleading, the grand jury looking at the matter.

Rove was among several officials to testify before the grand jury, and Cooper testified recently, after his source waived his confidentiality pledge. The New York Times reporter Judith Miller is in jail for refusing to testify. She investigated the matter, but wrote nothing

[ziggytrix]

You can't focus on the gravity of a CIA "agent" being outed, b/c from what I gather, she was basically like a research assistant at the agency.

That is disputed by everyone who isn't in (goose)step with Republican talking points.

Novak indicated that he had used the term "operative" loosely, and had not intended it to identify Plame as an undercover agent. Novak's initial column identified Plame as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." He has since claimed that he believed Plame was merely an analyst at the CIA, not a covert operative —the difference being that analysts are not undercover, so identifying them is not a crime. Critics of Novak's defence argue that after decades as a Washington reporter, Novak was well aware of the difference and would be unlikely to make such a mistake. A search of the Lexis Nexis database for the terms "CIA operative" and "agency operative" showed Novak had correctly used the terms to describe covert CIA employees, every single time they appear in his articles, including the Plame article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame



A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340

[KevinTheOmnivore]

That is disputed by everyone who isn't in (goose)step with Republican talking points.

Riiight. It's a good thing we only get the MoveOn talking points here. :rolleyes

I believe her former boss at the CIA even verified this. She supposedly was doing some intelligence gathering that had her fronting as a made-up corporation, which was essentially a phone line she answered as a front.

My point was that we shouldn't focus on whether or not outing her would cause a world war or get her family executed. That's not the point. The point is that the CIA called for this investigation, feeling that a law may have been broken (regardless of whether or not the breaking of that law put her or her family in immediate danger).

Rove has testified five times over two years, I believe. He has supposedly given all journalists etc. involved the green light to say whatever they wish. I think we should be fair and let the investigation takes its course before we publicly execute the man.

EDIT: On the point about what her role may have been at the CIA when Novak's op-ed came out, Wilson had this to say four days ago to Wolf Blitzer of CNN:

BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.

What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you?

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/wbr.01.html
--

[KevinTheOmnivore]

""This story is absolutely killing the president,'' Representative Jane Harman of California, ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, said on Fox-TV. ''It's reminding people that the WMD intelligence was bad.''"

AND WE GOTTA GET BUSH, OMG, HE'S EVIL!!!1!

Loo, is the point of this whole thing to make sure that justice is served and criminals are punished, or is it a way to attack Bush and get ready for 2006.....?

And can Joe Wilson, I dunno, not hold joint-press conferences with Chuck Schumer until after the investigation? We don't particularly need a reminder that the intelligence was bad, the Senate intelligence committee sort of confirmed that. They also sort of confirmed that Wilson wasn't totally on par in his NY Times editorial attacking the "16 words," or however many it was.

Why is this about WMDs in Iraq? Can somebody refresh me on this? Why are the MoveOn.org-types still trying to win a battle they lost eight months ago?

[ziggytrix]

OK, nevermind Kevin. Rove is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. How DARE I have voice an opinion about the man or the slimeball (illegal?) tactics he employees. Oh shit, I just did it again. :(

Also, I have nothing to do with this moveon.org BS. Call me an NPR parrot if you must, but at least pigeonhole me in the right fuckin box.

[sspadowsky]

To me, whether the act was illegal or not is irrelevant. The intent was malicious, and that's all that counts in my book. Rove is guilty of at least that, because character assassination and career ruination are that rotten motherfucker's bread and butter.

I just want to see karma catch up to that man for all the awful shit he has done to people over the years.

[ziggytrix]

Why is this about WMDs in Iraq? Can somebody refresh me on this?

Are you being sarcastic, or are you intentionally forgetting that this all came as a direct result of somebody's (:rolleyes) character assassination of Wilson for speaking up about the Nigerian yellowcake rubbish?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Also, I have nothing to do with this moveon.org BS. Call me an NPR parrot if you must, but at least pigeonhole me in the right fuckin box.

Right, the line must've been drawn at the Republican "goose stepping" comment. Forgive me.

Are you being sarcastic, or are you intentionally forgetting that this all came as a direct result of somebody's () character assassination of Wilson for speaking up about the Nigerian yellowcake rubbish?

So wait, you're saying that this simply re-affirms the fact that the Bush administration was wrong about WMDs??? WELL WE ALREADY KNEW THAT! And more importantly, we already had a referendum on that, it happened last Nov. 2.

This was a smear campaign against Wilson, but saying nasty things about someone isn't illegal. Violating the law by publicizing classified information, now THAT'S more relevant. The Senate intelligence committee, the same one that said our intelligence gathering was sloppy, also said that any assumptions made by Bush over Niger were reasonale. They also dismissed Joe Wilson's now infamous NY Times editorial, because the accusations he makes couldn't be totally verified by fact.

Do I believe Saddam bought viable yellow cake for weapons purposes? No. Do I think Joe Wilson could've been 100% sure of this? No.

I just think it would be good to wait and see what happens, because if the media shoves this down everyone's throats, and Rove gets off, it'll make the Democrats look retarded. Not only that, if this investigation brings no clear hammer down on Rove (the investigation is not focused solely on him), but Rove is pressured to resign anyway, he then will become yet another one of these conservative martyrs that we'll have thrown in our faces for years to come, like Justice Bork.

[ziggytrix]

Right, the line must've been drawn at the Republican "goose stepping" comment. Forgive me.

So I can't make a Republican Nazi JOKE without you getting a bug up your ass? WTF is with you these days?


So wait, you're saying that this simply re-affirms the fact that the Bush administration was wrong about WMDs???

Nope. That's NOT what I said. I said that's why the tired WMD bullshit is still relevant, because it is the impetus for the smear campaign. It's not even the heart of the issue - tangential at worst, but still topical. Again, what's with the bug up your ass?


I just think it would be good to wait and see what happens, because if the media shoves this down everyone's throats, and Rove gets off, it'll make the Democrats look retarded. Not only that, if this investigation brings no clear hammer down on Rove (the investigation is not focused solely on him), but Rove is pressured to resign anyway, he then will become yet another one of these conservative martyrs that we'll have thrown in our faces for years to come, like Justice Bork.

Oh, geeze, I'm sorry. OK Buddy, I won't say another WORD about it til it's over. Can't have Blanco (or whomever is representing the Republican Mocker these days) throwing this back in my face later on. I just couldn't bear it! And while I'm at it, I'll call up FOX and CNN to ask them to stop talking about it, even though at least half the country is following the story.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Right, the line must've been drawn at the Republican "goose stepping" comment. Forgive me.

So I can't make a Republican Nazi JOKE without you getting a bug up your ass? WTF is with you these days?

You said "That is disputed by everyone who isn't in (goose)step with Republican talking points." That was factually inaccurate, let alone tasteless, so I called you on it. Isn't that how internet message boards work?

The "bug up my ass" is the fact that the Left needs to revert to Nazi jokes and Karl Rove scandals in order to engage their opponents.


So wait, you're saying that this simply re-affirms the fact that the Bush administration was wrong about WMDs???

Nope. That's NOT what I said. I said that's why the tired WMD bullshit is still relevant, because it is the impetus for the smear campaign. It's not even the heart of the issue - tangential at worst, but still topical. Again, what's with the bug up your ass?

You might wanna keep this in context. According to you, the WMD angle is merely a tangent, but it apparently isn't that way to everyone on the Left (see above quote I was responding to by Rep. Harman of CA).


Oh, geeze, I'm sorry. OK Buddy, I won't say another WORD about it til it's over. Can't have Blanco (or whomever is representing the Republican Mocker these days) throwing this back in my face later on. I just couldn't bear it!

I don't give a fuck about what gets said on a damn message board. I do give a fuck about the war in Iraq (the ACTUAL one going on now), terrorism, the supreme court nominations, social security, and the economy....to name just a few. I care about winning elections, and frankly, I'd rather see Democrats win those elections. I think they're playing this hand the wrong way though, they're building this up with hopes of running on it in '06 and '08, and I think it could backfire. I think we should go after Rove when he is found guilty of a crime, not beforehand. I'd like to see the Democrats engage people on their own ideas, rather than constantly tearing down the Bush administration like sharks at feeding time.


And while I'm at it, I'll call up FOX and CNN to ask them to stop talking about it, even though at least half the country is following the story.

Wait, wait, wait.....can you prove that at least half the country cares about this? And I don't mean cares about it, as in, hey it happens to be what Sean Hannity or Chris Matthews is talking about. Do you think people care to the point that this could change their opinion on the Bush administration, or on the WMD issue?

I have a hard time believing this story means as much to Joe Sixpack as it does to people within the Belt Way.

[ziggytrix]

Checking my source, I see that I should have said 'almost' not 'at least' half. Sorry, misremembered what I heard on the radio.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=250

It HAS changed opinions on the Bush administration among independents, at least, if you trust a Pew poll as an indicator.

Though I should clarify I meant 'cared bout it', as in, it's what's on their favorite media entertainment program.

Curiously enough, the number of people who responded to the Pew poll with 'Rove's guilty' OR 'Rove's innocent' (opposed to 'I don't know yet') was a greater number than respondents who said they were following the story 'very' or 'fairly closely'. So while you and Mr. President are saying "wait and see" most people have already come to their own conclusions.

Scroll down to the news interest index tho, and I think you'll be pleased that few think this story is the most important thing right now, BUT there are quite a few of us out there who are capable of being pissed off by more than one thing at a time.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

BUT there are quite a few of us out there who are capable of being pissed off by more than one thing at a time.

Whatever floats your boat, I guess.....

(btw, Pew, who I actually worked for at one point, tend to lean towards the liberal side).

[kellychaos]

So wait, you're saying that this simply re-affirms the fact that the Bush administration was wrong about WMDs??? WELL WE ALREADY KNEW THAT! And more importantly, we already had a referendum on that, it happened last Nov. 2.

This was a smear campaign against Wilson, but saying nasty things about someone isn't illegal. Violating the law by publicizing classified information, now THAT'S more relevant. The Senate intelligence committee, the same one that said our intelligence gathering was sloppy, also said that any assumptions made by Bush over Niger were reasonale. They also dismissed Joe Wilson's now infamous NY Times editorial, because the accusations he makes couldn't be totally verified by fact.

Do I believe Saddam bought viable yellow cake for weapons purposes? No. Do I think Joe Wilson could've been 100% sure of this? No..

I'm not saying that everything he insinuates is 100% correct or verfiable but, if you read between the lines, he must have been onto something bigger than he could handle (didn't have the resources?). Why else would they have gone after his wife and not the man himself based on the merits of his investigation?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Why else would they have gone after his wife and not the man himself based on the merits of his investigation?

By going after Plame, they in fact were going after Wilson, because Novak outed her in the process of explaining (according to him anyway) that his wife set up the trip, b/c she had CIA connections.

It wasn't so much an attack on his wife, but it was a way to make him look less credible.

[sspadowsky]

OK, I declare this episode of "Crossfire" to be over.

Read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8635385/)
Plame’s identity marked as secret
Memo central to probe of leak spelled out information’s status

By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei
The Washington Post
Updated: 12:21 a.m. ET July 21, 2005

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.

The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.

Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret.

Prosecutors attempting to determine whether senior government officials knowingly leaked Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative to the media are investigating whether White House officials gained access to information about her from the memo, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.

Three key questions
The memo may be important to answering three central questions in the Plame case: Who in the Bush administration knew about Plame's CIA role? Did they know the agency was trying to protect her identity? And, who leaked it to the media?

Almost all of the memo is devoted to describing why State Department intelligence experts did not believe claims that Saddam Hussein had in the recent past sought to purchase uranium from Niger. Only two sentences in the seven-sentence paragraph mention Wilson's wife.

The memo was delivered to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on July 7, 2003, as he headed to Africa for a trip with President Bush aboard Air Force One. Plame was unmasked in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak seven days later.

Wilson has said his wife's identity was revealed to retaliate against him for accusing the Bush administration of "twisting" intelligence to justify the Iraq war. In a July 6 opinion piece in the New York Times, he cited a secret mission he conducted in February 2002 for the CIA, when he determined there was no evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium for a nuclear weapons program in the African nation of Niger.

White House officials discussed Wilson's wife's CIA connection in telling at least two reporters that she helped arrange his trip, according to one of the reporters, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, and a lawyer familiar with the case.

Prosecutors have shown interest in the memo, especially when they were questioning White House officials during the early days of the investigation, people familiar with the probe said.

Karl Rove, President Bush's deputy chief of staff, has testified that he learned Plame's name from Novak a few days before telling another reporter she worked at the CIA and played a role in her husband's mission, according to a lawyer familiar with Rove's account. Rove has also testified that the first time he saw the State Department memo was when "people in the special prosecutor's office" showed it to him, said Robert Luskin, his attorney.

"He had not seen it or heard about it before that time," Luskin said.

Several other administration officials were on the trip to Africa, including senior adviser Dan Bartlett, then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and others. Bartlett's attorney has refused to discuss the case, citing requests by the special counsel. Fleischer could not be reach for comment yesterday.

Rove and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, have been identified as people who discussed Wilson's wife with Cooper. Prosecutors are trying to determine the origin of their knowledge of Plame, including whether it was from the INR memo or from conversations with reporters.

Niger trip discussed
The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that the memo made it clear that information about Wilson's wife was sensitive and should not be shared. Yesterday, sources provided greater detail on the memo to The Post.

The material in the memo was based on notes taken by an INR analyst who attended a Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA where Wilson's intelligence-gathering trip to Niger was discussed.

The memo was drafted June 10, 2003, for Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, who asked to be brought up to date on INR's opposition to the White House view that Hussein was trying to buy uranium in Africa.

The description of Wilson's wife and her role in the Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA was considered "a footnote" in a background paragraph in the memo, according to an official who was aware of the process.

It records that the INR analyst at the meeting opposed Wilson's trip to Niger because the State Department, through other inquiries, already had disproved the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. Attached to the INR memo were the notes taken by the senior INR analyst who attended the 2002 meeting at the CIA.

On July 6, 2003, shortly after Wilson went public on NBC's "Meet the Press" and in The Post and the New York Times discussing his trip to Niger, the INR director at the time, Carl W. Ford Jr., was asked to explain Wilson's statements for Powell, according to sources familiar with the events. He went back and reprinted the June 10 memo but changed the addressee from Grossman to Powell.

Ford last year appeared before the federal grand jury investigating the leak and described the details surrounding the INR memo, the sources said. Yesterday he was on vacation in Arkansas, according to his office.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

OK, I declare this episode of "Crossfire" to be over.

Read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8635385/)
Plame’s identity marked as secret
Memo central to probe of leak spelled out information’s status

By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei
The Washington Post
Updated: 12:21 a.m. ET July 21, 2005

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

According to her own husband, Plame was not on any "clandestine" operation when the Novak piece came out.

Furthermore, if the prosecution can verify what Karl Rove claims, that is if it can be verified that it was in fact Matt Cooper who brought Plame's name to Rove, then it was Cooper who violated the law, not the other way around.

Again, if we're seeing this memo now, then the prosecution saw it a while ago. I'll take his word for it.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Wait, and something else about this article just hit me:

Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.

The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.

Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said.

OK, so first off, the memo flat out tells you everything about her but her address and favorite food. It's also being insinuated by these journalists that Plame must be covert, even though he conceeds that the memo says no such thing. Seems like this episode of Crossfire is just getting started.....

[sspadowsky]

Honestly, I don't expect anything to come of this. Rove would never have given Cooper permission to testify if there was anything in his testimony that would stick to Rove. Besides, now that we have the London bombers and the SCOTUS nominee, this story is already getting kicked further down the news chain. I expect it will be on page 12 of the "home gardening" section by next week.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I honestly think that could be a good thing. If Rove gets exonerated after all of this (which he very well may), then that's it. That's the public victory for Karl Rove, and anything else ever brought up against him in the future will get smothered by stories of Rove the martyr, the angry Left, the liberal media, etc. etc.

[ziggytrix]

I don't follow. If Rove is ever convicted of some other crime he'll be a martyr because he was cleared on this one? And that's good?

[El Blanco]

I believe what he means is that if there is a big stink over that and Rove is exonerated, he becomes a martyr of the Evil Left Wing Media. Most people don't really understand whats going on (even we can't get a decent interpretation of the events). All they see is Karl Rove being accused of some serious stuff. If he is aquitted or the case is dropped etc etc, it looks like a witch hunt.

Anything else he is accused of, no matter how credible, becomes just more petty attacks that the public will view as the act of a small defeated left.

[kellychaos]

Furthermore, if the prosecution can verify what Karl Rove claims, that is if it can be verified that it was in fact Matt Cooper who brought Plame's name to Rove, then it was Cooper who violated the law, not the other way around.

Again, if we're seeing this memo now, then the prosecution saw it a while ago. I'll take his word for it.

If someone leaks it to you and then you leak it to a broader audience, then both of you have leaked information which is illegal. One action does not negate the other and, as government employees, both are well aware of this.

[ziggytrix]

I believe what he means is that if there is a big stink over that and Rove is exonerated, he becomes a martyr of the Evil Left Wing Media. Most people don't really understand whats going on (even we can't get a decent interpretation of the events). All they see is Karl Rove being accused of some serious stuff. If he is aquitted or the case is dropped etc etc, it looks like a witch hunt.

Anything else he is accused of, no matter how credible, becomes just more petty attacks that the public will view as the act of a small defeated left.

And what part of any of that would a self-professed liberal see as "a good thing"? That's what I'm not following.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I don't think that result would be a good thing. I said that if this case just sort of fades away, that could potentially be the good thing.

In other words, what Blanco said.

Furthermore, I find it pretty amusing that you think my lack of an obsessive hatred for Karl Rove should stand as a litmus test of my "self-professed" liberalism. I find that to be pretty telling.

If someone leaks it to you and then you leak it to a broader audience, then both of you have leaked information which is illegal. One action does not negate the other and, as government employees, both are well aware of this.

Rove and co. are trying to argue that Plame's identity was common knowledge within the belt way. This could very well be true, and if that's the case, then Rove was doing Cooper a supposed favor by "correcting" him on what may have been an erronious report on Cooper's part. Rove claims he was correcting Cooper's story, which was going to state that Cheney's office gave the green light to Wilson's trip. The Bush team denies this.

I dunno, Rove very well may be full of shit. If he's guilty of a crime, then I think he'll be punished. That's the whole deal to me.

[ziggytrix]

Furthermore, I find it pretty amusing that you think my lack of an obsessive hatred for Karl Rove should stand as a litmus test of my "self-professed" liberalism. I find that to be pretty telling.


I find it pretty telling that you find it so amusing. :rolleyes If you read what I said, I explained exactly what I thought you were saying, and asked how someone becoming "above the law" because of past witch hunts could be percieved as a good thing. Particularly when said person is a conservative strategist and you have described yourself in the past as a liberal. If you can't see why I'd find that confusing then you are too focused on winning an internet argument, when I'm not even fucking arguing. :rolleyes

You read WAY too much into my statements.


I dunno, Rove very well may be full of shit. If he's guilty of a crime, then I think he'll be punished. That's the whole deal to me.

Rove is almost certainly guilty of a crime, as is a good 3/4 of Washington. The real question is whether he was sloppy enough to get caught and if the crime was big enough to warrant punishment.

[ziggytrix]

I don't think that result would be a good thing. I said that if this case just sort of fades away, that could potentially be the good thing.

Furthermore, I would like to add that I am 100% in agreement with you here. I just didn't understand that that's what you were saying.

and just for good measure :rolleyes

[ItalianStereotype]

this entire "scandal" is intensely boring.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

If you read what I said, I explained exactly what I thought you were saying, and asked how someone becoming "above the law" because of past witch hunts could be percieved as a good thing. Particularly when said person is a conservative strategist and you have described yourself in the past as a liberal. If you can't see why I'd find that confusing then you are too focused on winning an internet argument, when I'm not even fucking arguing. :rolleyes

You read WAY too much into my statements.

No, I don't at all. I think the problem is that you like to cut and run on your statements.

I understand what you were confused about, you mis-read it. I get that. I still say it's pretty funny that a scandal over Karl Rove, being pretty much devoid of any sort of ideological significance, comes down to such "good vs. evil" implications for you. Hence the "HA HA".

[kellychaos]

I find you quite tedious, Kevintheomnivore. :posh

[KevinTheOmnivore]

quite.